FBI Investigating Bundy Supporters

a reply to: g146541

number one. Who came in guns hot?

Last week, the I-Team talked with Metro officers who intervened to protect the lives of federal employees from the 400 or so Bundy supporters and armed militia members. Officers told the I-Team they feared for their lives that day because of the assembled firepower, and because many in the crowd had pointed weapons at officers, taunted them, told them they should be ready to die

source

The confiscation was done simply because of trespass violations. No it was not the path of least resistance

Feb. 17, 1994 Final Decision Order to Remove: The federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) informs Cliven Bundy in 1994 that his grazing permit will be revoked, because he has “knowingly, willfully and repeatedly” illegally grazed his cattle on public land. Nov. 4, 1998 Bundy Court Judgment: A 1998 district court order permanently bans Bundy from grazing ... Jan. 21, 2011 Final Decision and Notice to Evaluate Trespass Damages: The BLM reminds Bundy he is in violation of the 1998 court order and several other laws, and that damage from ongoing trespass is being evaluated ...

source

a reply to: AnteBellum

You know the whole ironic and funny thing about this whole situation?
The use of arms in the hands of the people was exactly what the 2nd Amendment was designed for.
It was applied correctly.

And now the Govt is going to investigate it as intimidation to those that oppose this crap and actually stand up for themselves.

originally posted by: ausername
a reply to: Flatfish

They couldn't shoot them all down like they desperately wanted to, too much attention, too many cameras.... Investigation resulting in criminal charges, and making the lives of anyone who was there a living hell is the next best thing..

Who knows maybe some day you'll find a thread here titled:

FBI Investigating ATS Members

I'd just be willing to bet that some ATS members are already being watched by the FBI and rightly so.

When you go into anti-govt. rants and begin promoting and threatening armed revolutions and the like, or pointing weapons at federal agents during a protest, you can pretty much bank on the fact that you will be investigated.

What a bunch of friggin idiots!

a reply to: Flatfish

I agree, because in America no one should ever have the right to rant negatively against their almighty government without consequences.

I mean, how dare anyone assume they are living in a free country that can tolerate free expression.

Seems to me going by the timeline it was federal agents and hired mercenaries that were pointing guns at unarmed protesters during the first days of the Bundy protest. No dispute it was those agents who first resorted to violence either.

The later armed protesters sure seemed to quell the tendency for the federals to resort back to violence further on into the protest.

From photo and video I've seen it looked like the only time I saw arms pointed by protesters was in a defensive nature after the federals and hired mercenaries brandished theirs at protesters.

1st says protesters have a right to free speech and assembly, 2nd says right to bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed.

See nothing in the Constitution says right to unarmed protest only doe's it?

In this case due the heavy handed government it sure seemed prudent for the protesters to exercise their full set of rights.

What some on here claim for the government is that its a-ok for them to use excessive means to enforce their will upon others with arms. - does not matter if one agrees with Bundy or not.

originally posted by: Flatfish

When you go into anti-govt. rants and begin promoting and threatening armed revolutions and the like, or pointing weapons at federal agents during a protest, you can pretty much bank on the fact that you will be investigated.

What a bunch of friggin idiots!

So, being anti-Govt deserves an FBI investigation?

And we are now at the Apex of Govt Agencies acting outside of the Constitution.

originally posted by: ausername
a reply to: Flatfish

I agree, because in America no one should ever have the right to rant negatively against their almighty government without consequences.

I mean, how dare anyone assume they are living in a free country that can tolerate free expression.

I seriously doubt that anyone will be criminally charged for "free expression." On the other hand, when you start pointing loaded weapons at federal agents, you'd have to be some kind of colossal fool to expect that they aren't going to check you out.

Sorry, I had to go out for a bit.

I first want to make my position clear. I'll skip the details since this has been talked about to great length and there are other threads for those issues. If you want to talk about it here, that's fine I'll sit out, that part of this situation does not interest me. I see this for what it's worth.

*Bundy did something wrong, he didn't pay his bills.
*But then the government made some mistakes also, basically the entire way they handled the situation.
[Millions don't pay there taxes each and every year, some with much greater substantial debt then this one individual. In my mind they had some ulterior motives behind their rash actions. If they did this to everyone there would be rioting in the streets by now.]
*A protest occurred and people latched on to Bundy's cause.
*Now those involved are being labeled by politicians and press alike: extremists and political radicals. I even heard the CNN host call Bundy a type of cult leader now also.

In other words this seems to have taken a turn somewhere and now is becoming a 'witch hunt'. I am alarmed by this because we all know from history where that leads. I realize it is no longer the 60's and protesting now is different then it was portrayed back then. I can't help but feel though, this is going down a path that I do not want to continue.
Reason is, what is next?
If the government wants your land or property everyone is guilty of something somewhere. It could be as simple as an easement, wetlands, unpaid tickets, whatever *bang* eminent domain! I feel this is now opening a big door to letting them in with complete impunity.

I for one don't want to wait, until it's too late, to find out.

At what point will we stop being so divided and stand up for one another and remind our government of its place? reply to: stirling

originally posted by: Phoenix
Seems to me going by the timeline it was federal agents and hired mercenaries that were pointing guns at unarmed protesters during the first days of the Bundy protest. No dispute it was those agents who first resorted to violence either.

Actually, I think it was Cliven Bundy and his wife who first threatened the feds.

When faced with the imminent action by the feds to enforce the court's rulings and possible confiscation of their cattle on federal land, I think they said something to the effect that; "They both had their guns and they were not afraid to use them to protect what's theirs."

So, who threatened who first?

I support Cliven Bundy 100% in both his statements and his devotion to the United States Constitution.

Unfortunately, the African-American community hasn't made much use with their freedom. Mr. Bundy is correct to say they would be "better off' as slaves, but then again, so would 90% of the people in this country. I am not a racist; I hate all races equally.

But the problem with the African-American community is that they have let MLK's dream die out. That's a sad reflection on their part. There was a skit on a comedy show that went like this: A black guy said that the whole reason blacks wanted the right to vote was so that they could have the right NOT to vote. In other words, whether African-Americans are slaves or not doesn't really change what they do with their lives.

But I am against slavery, and I do not feel that anyone should be slaves. I am simply supporting Mr. Bundy in his First Amendment rights, and the truth he spoke.

I would rather see the African-Americans have the American Revolution and Civil War they never had a chance to have (because of racism). But that's for a topic different thread.

In regards to the stand-off, the American Tyranny strikes again! At least with Britain, the Law was the King's Law. But the Law is Our Constitution and not even that stops the government.

Oh, the joys of "freedom"!

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Phoenix
Seems to me going by the timeline it was federal agents and hired mercenaries that were pointing guns at unarmed protesters during the first days of the Bundy protest. No dispute it was those agents who first resorted to violence either.

Actually, I think it was Cliven Bundy and his wife who first threatened the feds.

When faced with the imminent action by the feds to enforce the court's rulings and possible confiscation of their cattle on federal land, I think they said something to the effect that; "They both had their guns and they were not afraid to use them to protect what's theirs."

So, who threatened who first?

I think he wrote some words that could be taken that way in his letter to the Sheriff demanding help but did he actually do so - I think not!

It was provably the feds that first resorted to violence.

Now what we've got here with the news of the FBI investigating is what's called "official oppression" and a naked attempt to punish the protesters in any possible way - next we'll hear of IRS audits right?

This carried to far will backfire badly on the feds IMHO.

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

Read the title again. This about the supporters, not Bundy himself. Unless you somehow believe all the protestors owe grazing fees, in which case please elaborate.

When you have militia member going around threatening people at gunpoint and telling them they are lucky that they don't get shot in the back then expect for people to get investigated. Had they just shown up and not acted like thugs then there would be no need to check anyone out. As usual you have bad apples that will give the government a reason to harass people.

Hooded Gunmen Threaten BLM Worker On Utah Highway After Bundy 'Incites' Militia Supporters

The Utah Highway Patrol is investigating reports that a federal worker driving a U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) vehicle was threatened with a handgun on Tuesday after anti-government rancher Cliven Bundy was recently accused of inciting militia members. BLM Fillmore Field Office supervisor Eric Reid informed the The Salt Lake Tribune that a federal wrangler was driving on I-15 on Tuesday when he encountered a dark blue Dodge 1500 extended-cab pickup truck with two men who "told him he was No. 1 with that certain gesture." Within minutes the truck returned, but this time the men were wearing hoods and holding up a sign that read, "You need to die."

a reply to: buster2010

WOW.

That sounds like "accelerated" and aggravated *He said She said*.

a reply to: xuenchen

I have to agree, the amount of *BS* the media is flinging around in this case, all right after Bundy was labeled a racist has pushed any and all limits of reasonable understanding.
Though some of these stories can and may be true, the media is not taking the time to disseminate between fact or fiction anymore. 'They' for whatever reason decided he was guilty, executed the character assassination and now they are going after the flock, mopping up.

Smells like, all too familiar tactics to me, to just be coincidence.

originally posted by: buster2010
When you have militia member going around threatening people at gunpoint and telling them they are lucky that they don't get shot in the back then expect for people to get investigated. Had they just shown up and not acted like thugs then there would be no need to check anyone out. As usual you have bad apples that will give the government a reason to harass people.

Hooded Gunmen Threaten BLM Worker On Utah Highway After Bundy 'Incites' Militia Supporters

The Utah Highway Patrol is investigating reports that a federal worker driving a U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) vehicle was threatened with a handgun on Tuesday after anti-government rancher Cliven Bundy was recently accused of inciting militia members. BLM Fillmore Field Office supervisor Eric Reid informed the The Salt Lake Tribune that a federal wrangler was driving on I-15 on Tuesday when he encountered a dark blue Dodge 1500 extended-cab pickup truck with two men who "told him he was No. 1 with that certain gesture." Within minutes the truck returned, but this time the men were wearing hoods and holding up a sign that read, "You need to die."

I love how you present a story about a single indecent, that has yet to be verified, that happened after the Fed Govt showed up with SWAT teams, PMCs and other department agencies as to why the Govt came out in the first place.


Seems your example, when applying a timeline, doesn't give weight as to why the Fed Govt decided on armed force for this situation.

But, I am sure you will give a wonderful excuse as to why the Govt you love, was justified in doing so.

a reply to: macman

Seems your example, when applying a timeline, doesn't give weight as to why the Fed Govt decided on armed force for this situation.

If you have read anything about this situation then you would know that Bundy threatened violence against the BLM before they even showed up. This is from Sept. 23, 2013.
Lone rancher is prepared to fight feds for land

[T]he rancher insists his cattle aren't going anywhere. He acknowledges that he keeps firearms at his ranch and has vowed to "do whatever it takes" to defend his animals from seizure. "I've got to protect my property," Bundy said as Arden steered several cattle inside an elongated pen. "If people come to monkey with what's mine, I'll call the county sheriff. If that don't work, I'll gather my friends and kids and we'll try to stop it. I abide by all state laws. But I abide by almost zero federal laws."Bundy's wife Carol told the Sun that she owns a shotgun and is prepared to use it: Carol Bundy said her husband is not a violent man, just a person who will protect what he owns. For that matter, so is she. "I've got a shotgun," she said. "It's loaded and I know how to use it. We're ready to do what we have to do, but we'd rather win this in the court of public opinion." [Las Vegas Sun, 9/23/13]

So he shouldn't have threatened violence then whine because they show up armed. Maybe you should have done a little checking on your deadbeat hero before running to support him.

a reply to: buster2010

He is a deadbeat, somewhat of a racist and definitely no hero of mine but does that justify the actions our government took in this case?

If you agree the governments actions should be based on the individual like in this case, YOU are bigoted or biased!
If you agree the governments actions should be based on previous situations, such as the dozens of actors this has happened to, then YOU can't agree with the above statement!

Tax prosecutions are rare: 1,423 federal indictments last year; 235 million tax returns were filed, the IRS reports. Tax collectors rely mostly on automation: garnishing wages, seizing bank accounts and filing tax liens on property.

"We're doing all we can," says Kathy Petronchak, IRS commissioner for small business collections. She says the IRS is collecting more money with fewer employees than a decade ago.

The IRS collected $32 billion in back taxes and penalties in 2007, up from $21 billion in 1998. "We use our resources as efficiently as possible," Petronchak says.

Today, houses are seldom seized. The IRS sold country singer Willie Nelson's home and possessions in 1991 to help settle a $16.7 million tax bill. But a 1998 law, designed to curb abuses, made it harder for the IRS to seize property.

Property ownership can be hard to prove, too. People in tax trouble often transfer assets to relatives and trusts.

Even if the transfers can be challenged, the process is expensive and time-consuming.

Big Names Owe Big Time on Taxes

Here is just one example from a few years ago, if you give me some time I can dig up how the IRS usually goes about collecting on a debt. And no, it usually doesn't involve killing animals and sending in marshals even when threatened. Normally they use the courts that WAS where their power used to be. They have been extremely more aggressive recently and that is not a change for the better.

As a sub note - this whole thing is starting to look more like a domestic terrorism issue, then a back tax problem.
Has our government really become that skittish with these issues? I just can't believe it to be true, do they really see tax evaders as domestic terrorists now?

a reply to: AnteBellum

He is a deadbeat, somewhat of a racist and definitely no hero of mine but does that justify the actions our government took in this case?

What action was that? Following a court order to remove his cows? To be armed when they had already been threatened with violence? If a person threatened you with violence would you just say oh well or would you be ready to defend yourself?

If you agree the governments actions should be based on the individual like in this case, YOU are bigoted or biased!

I am neither I'm just not stupid enough to fall for the hype like a lot of people have fallen for. Bundy had years to get his cattle off public lands but refused to do so. So he has no one to blame but himself because had he followed the court order none of this would have happened.

It would help if you knew what you were talking about this has nothing to do with taxes it has to do with grazing fees. He stopped paying them 20 years ago and he has lost twice in court and was ordered to take his cattle off public land by the court. The man doesn't have a leg to stand on because he is in the wrong here.