Armed Fed Agents and Snipers in Nevada Battle with Local Rancher

Olivine
Since the Bundy clan seem to have such wide spread support, and they keep making claims that they have a legal right to graze the Gold Butte area, have any lawyers stepped up to take their case?

The Bundy crime syndicate has support from the ill informed and the wingnuts. What lawyer would take on such a losing case? Certainly not pro bono. You don't waste your time knowing you will lose. Certainly not on contingency, because they won't get paid. The Bundy family is a bunch of free loaders. So the only way a lawyer would take the case is on retainer, presumably paid from a legal defense fund since the Bundy family wouldn't pay. But the lawyer will risk presenting a frivolous lawsuit since Bundy is so guilty.

reply to post by rockflier


Hey, you want to control something, you start by owning it. You lease, then you are subject to the whims of the landlord. You want something by theft? Be prepared to deal with the law. None of this is very complicated.

The Bundy crime syndicate is using public land. That is my land. They need to get off my lawn.

gariac
reply to post by rockflier

 

Hey, you want to control something, you start by owning it. You lease, then you are subject to the whims of the landlord. You want something by theft? Be prepared to deal with the law. None of this is very complicated.

The Bundy crime syndicate is using public land. That is my land. They need to get off my lawn.

That is not your land, it belongs to all citizens of the United States including Bundy. They can have cattle eat on my portion of the lawn all they want...free of charge. Bundy creates jobs for people using that land, veterinarians, medications, feed, ranch supplies, truckers, fuel, slaughter houses, butchers, meat packaging, store employees and countless others.How much money does that land create otherwise? Oh I forgot, the Reid crime syndicate wants solar energy there instead, that makes it ok to throw him out of there, the heck with the other American jobs, lets give jobs to the Chinese.

govmule

gariac
reply to post by rockflier

 

Hey, you want to control something, you start by owning it. You lease, then you are subject to the whims of the landlord. You want something by theft? Be prepared to deal with the law. None of this is very complicated.

The Bundy crime syndicate is using public land. That is my land. They need to get off my lawn.

That is not your land, it belongs to all citizens of the United States including Bundy. They can have cattle eat on my portion of the lawn all they want...free of charge. Bundy creates jobs for people using that land, veterinarians, medications, feed, ranch supplies, truckers, fuel, slaughter houses, butchers, meat packaging, store employees and countless others.How much money does that land create otherwise? Oh I forgot, the Reid crime syndicate wants solar energy there instead, that makes it ok to throw him out of there, the heck with the other American jobs, lets give jobs to the Chinese.

As an American citizen, I believe we need to listen to the Gipper, who imposed the grazing fees on public land. The Bundy Crime Syndicate is squatting on my property. I want the law to evict these low life's.

I know you support welfare cheats, but I don't.

gariac

I assure you the Bundy crime syndicate would not surrender the cattle to Nevada authorities. A bodily orifice by any other name is a bodily orifice.

Foe the good of the nation, the Bundy crime syndicate needs to be terminated by all means necessary. Now that we know the Bundy family is a posse of jack booted thugs with outside supporters, the feds need to disarm the outside forces. Create a perimeter and tear gas them if needed. We need to limit bodily harm to the actual Bundy family members.

I seem to recollect one of your posts mentioned being asked to leave what you believed was federal land by a rancher? is that correct? if so is that what drives your vitriol? was it the Bundy's ranch or grazing lands?

Seems a majority agree with free ranging cattle and there are legitimate questions about the land in question, be that as it may the Bundy's are no crime syndicate by any stretch of the imagination.

The crime syndicate resides in Washington IMHO, you know the one that makes backdoor corporate deals, generally disdains constitutional rights and use's militarized actions against its citizens, yup, the one that told the people where and how they were going to express their opinion - its no matter you or they disagree, it matters that an attempt was made to limit it period.

That's what evoked the "Wingnut" (very derogatory term on your part btw) response.

Seems the incident with the dump truck and backhoe was justified after todays photos of dead cows were put on the internet, cows that were shot btw - governments response when questioned was to tase and tackle people rather than answer the questions.

Now as far as I can ascertain the court order authorized removal of cattle but in no way authorized injury, death, sale, auction or disposition of the cattle. Law says Bundy had to sign any health documentation and sale papers in order to have any sale of cattle with his brand.

Am I to take away that you believe a law breaker should be punished and yet condone a federal government that in response breaks many, many laws in order to enforce its will? That's what I'm hearing so far................

legal analysis of the Bundy Crime Syndicate

The first, and most obvious broken law, was outright contempt of court. Courts on multiple levels said that Bundy was in direct violation of the law by not paying the grazing fees or removing his livestock from public land. The dispute goes back 20 years, when Bundy stopped paying, because courts must “exercise the least possible power to obtain the desired result.” Simply put, the government wants to resolve such matters as judicially as possible to ensure that incidents, like physical removal of cattle that could result in political extremists facing off government agents with guns, don’t happen.

Protesters who brought guns could be proven to have broken the law. Under federal law, it is illegal to “transport . . . any firearm . . . knowing or having reason to know or intending that the same will be used unlawfully in furtherance of a civil disorder.” Basically, if the federal government can prove that the crazed gunmen traveled with their weapons under the intent of furthering “civil disorder,” which is a violent act by a group of at least three people, that’s a felony charge.

How someone can equate stubbornness against a clear cut law with a battle for freedom is ludicrous. Bundy acted as if the government was going to destroy his home, take his property (which could happen if continues to not pay), or kidnap and interrogate his family. But that wasn’t the case. The were just removing cows.

So if the law works, we take the deeded Bundy property and sell it to get the grazing fees, leaving the Bundy family broke.

SNIP

Sounds like a good plan to me.

gariac

govmule

gariac
reply to post by rockflier

 

Hey, you want to control something, you start by owning it. You lease, then you are subject to the whims of the landlord. You want something by theft? Be prepared to deal with the law. None of this is very complicated.

The Bundy crime syndicate is using public land. That is my land. They need to get off my lawn.

That is not your land, it belongs to all citizens of the United States including Bundy. They can have cattle eat on my portion of the lawn all they want...free of charge. Bundy creates jobs for people using that land, veterinarians, medications, feed, ranch supplies, truckers, fuel, slaughter houses, butchers, meat packaging, store employees and countless others.How much money does that land create otherwise? Oh I forgot, the Reid crime syndicate wants solar energy there instead, that makes it ok to throw him out of there, the heck with the other American jobs, lets give jobs to the Chinese.

As an American citizen, I believe we need to listen to the Gipper, who imposed the grazing fees on public land. The Bundy Crime Syndicate is squatting on my property. I want the law to evict these low life's.

I know you support welfare cheats, but I don't.

Welfare cheats? The last time I checked people on welfare don't need to pay the government, as a matter of fact, they don't pay any income tax to the federal government. I would love to know how much this welfare cheat Bundy has paid in actual taxes, I would guess a lot more than you judging by the size of his herd. The fact is, the BLM priced fees so high out of 53 ranchers he is the only one left, I guess that makes you feel good? In all reality, he has not been given a bill because he never signed the contract with the BLM, they cant bill him until he agrees with the terms, he has issue with the terms and judging by the history of the other ranchers it looks like he made a wise choice. Everyone claims he owes 1.1 million but I have yet to see a link to any bill, do you have one??? I haven't seen the dockets for any of his court cases, I suspect he was thrown out because he refused to sign a contract, or, maybe it was because of an endangered tortoise the BLM euthanizes on a regular basis, at any rate I will try to find the court documents. If what he has done is a crime, why haven't they arrested him? They arrested his cattle though hahaha.

reply to post by gariac


If you care to bother, here is the most recent findings of the federal court;

upload.wikimedia.org...

In this finding, it IS CLEARLY stated that NO CATTLE are allowed in this area due to damage to the property for public use and enjoyment. It also mentions the endangered tortoise. It was indeed the intent of the government to remove all cattle, they were not removed for grazing fees, it doesn't even mention grazing fees or any amount of money. It mentioned damage to the land.

The court also stated Bundy had 45 days to remove them or the BLM could "impound" them. It did not state they could kill them or sell them, they did kill some and they tried to sell them but nobody wanted cattle rustled illegally by the BLM. The BLM also destroyed some of the improvements Bundy made to the land, the court order did not allow that either. It seems once again the Gestapo have over stepped their bounds.

On another note, the US government had three attorneys on the case, Bundy represented himself, I suppose the government knew he couldn't afford the fees so they thought he would just give up. That's how they operate, overspend your opponent, just like in an election.

It is CLEARLY obvious that after over 135 years of cattle on that land the government all of the sudden decided it was a vacation area for the public and not a cattle grazing area. I call BS, they want the land for some type of development.

govmule
reply to post by gariac

 

If you care to bother, here is the most recent findings of the federal court;

upload.wikimedia.org...

In this finding, it IS CLEARLY stated that NO CATTLE are allowed in this area due to damage to the property for public use and enjoyment. It also mentions the endangered tortoise. It was indeed the intent of the government to remove all cattle, they were not removed for grazing fees, it doesn't even mention grazing fees or any amount of money. It mentioned damage to the land.

The court also stated Bundy had 45 days to remove them or the BLM could "impound" them. It did not state they could kill them or sell them, they did kill some and they tried to sell them but nobody wanted cattle rustled illegally by the BLM. The BLM also destroyed some of the improvements Bundy made to the land, the court order did not allow that either. It seems once again the Gestapo have over stepped their bounds.

On another note, the US government had three attorneys on the case, Bundy represented himself, I suppose the government knew he couldn't afford the fees so they thought he would just give up. That's how they operate, overspend your opponent, just like in an election.

It is CLEARLY obvious that after over 135 years of cattle on that land the government all of the sudden decided it was a vacation area for the public and not a cattle grazing area. I call BS, they want the land for some type of development.

edit on 16-4-2014 by govmule because: (no reason given)

There is some land that could be grazed and some that can not, i.e. the cattle are into an Overton area.

But Bundy is a bigger arsehole than I thought. Seriously, he claimed cattle with his brand in the trespass area are not his. That reminds me of Austin Powers and his pen is pump. Powers denies that it is his, even when presented with a sale receipt in his name.

It would be ironic if the Bundy Crime Syndicate destroyed the habitat to the point where it is now only useful for a solar project. Land banks (land held for future appreciation) often run cattle on them to to prevent endangered species from taking hold.

gariac

govmule
reply to post by gariac

 

If you care to bother, here is the most recent findings of the federal court;

upload.wikimedia.org...

In this finding, it IS CLEARLY stated that NO CATTLE are allowed in this area due to damage to the property for public use and enjoyment. It also mentions the endangered tortoise. It was indeed the intent of the government to remove all cattle, they were not removed for grazing fees, it doesn't even mention grazing fees or any amount of money. It mentioned damage to the land.

The court also stated Bundy had 45 days to remove them or the BLM could "impound" them. It did not state they could kill them or sell them, they did kill some and they tried to sell them but nobody wanted cattle rustled illegally by the BLM. The BLM also destroyed some of the improvements Bundy made to the land, the court order did not allow that either. It seems once again the Gestapo have over stepped their bounds.

On another note, the US government had three attorneys on the case, Bundy represented himself, I suppose the government knew he couldn't afford the fees so they thought he would just give up. That's how they operate, overspend your opponent, just like in an election.

It is CLEARLY obvious that after over 135 years of cattle on that land the government all of the sudden decided it was a vacation area for the public and not a cattle grazing area. I call BS, they want the land for some type of development.

edit on 16-4-2014 by govmule because: (no reason given)

There is some land that could be grazed and some that can not, i.e. the cattle are into an Overton area.

But Bundy is a bigger arsehole than I thought. Seriously, he claimed cattle with his brand in the trespass area are not his. That reminds me of Austin Powers and his pen is pump. Powers denies that it is his, even when presented with a sale receipt in his name.

It would be ironic if the Bundy Crime Syndicate destroyed the habitat to the point where it is now only useful for a solar project. Land banks (land held for future appreciation) often run cattle on them to to prevent endangered species from taking hold.

So your contention is, you prefer that no cattle graze on BLM land anywhere? If that's what you actually want just say so. There is a reason that Bundy has not been arrested, that's because the federal government cannot do it without a case eventually going to the SCOTUS in which case the BLM would lose. Not to mention all the corruption that would be revealed so I doubt Reid really wants that, probably some republicans also. The BLM is walking a very fine legal line to remove Bundy's cattle by claiming jurisdiction under the New trespass laws, it is a weak case, Bundy only lost because he represented himself in court. Bundy has legal right to that land under "prescriptive easement" laws, check it out.

govmule

gariac

govmule
reply to post by gariac

 

If you care to bother, here is the most recent findings of the federal court;

upload.wikimedia.org...

In this finding, it IS CLEARLY stated that NO CATTLE are allowed in this area due to damage to the property for public use and enjoyment. It also mentions the endangered tortoise. It was indeed the intent of the government to remove all cattle, they were not removed for grazing fees, it doesn't even mention grazing fees or any amount of money. It mentioned damage to the land.

The court also stated Bundy had 45 days to remove them or the BLM could "impound" them. It did not state they could kill them or sell them, they did kill some and they tried to sell them but nobody wanted cattle rustled illegally by the BLM. The BLM also destroyed some of the improvements Bundy made to the land, the court order did not allow that either. It seems once again the Gestapo have over stepped their bounds.

On another note, the US government had three attorneys on the case, Bundy represented himself, I suppose the government knew he couldn't afford the fees so they thought he would just give up. That's how they operate, overspend your opponent, just like in an election.

It is CLEARLY obvious that after over 135 years of cattle on that land the government all of the sudden decided it was a vacation area for the public and not a cattle grazing area. I call BS, they want the land for some type of development.

edit on 16-4-2014 by govmule because: (no reason given)

There is some land that could be grazed and some that can not, i.e. the cattle are into an Overton area.

But Bundy is a bigger arsehole than I thought. Seriously, he claimed cattle with his brand in the trespass area are not his. That reminds me of Austin Powers and his pen is pump. Powers denies that it is his, even when presented with a sale receipt in his name.

It would be ironic if the Bundy Crime Syndicate destroyed the habitat to the point where it is now only useful for a solar project. Land banks (land held for future appreciation) often run cattle on them to to prevent endangered species from taking hold.

So your contention is, you prefer that no cattle graze on BLM land anywhere? If that's what you actually want just say so. There is a reason that Bundy has not been arrested, that's because the federal government cannot do it without a case eventually going to the SCOTUS in which case the BLM would lose. Not to mention all the corruption that would be revealed so I doubt Reid really wants that, probably some republicans also. The BLM is walking a very fine legal line to remove Bundy's cattle by claiming jurisdiction under the New trespass laws, it is a weak case, Bundy only lost because he represented himself in court. Bundy has legal right to that land under "prescriptive easement" laws, check it out.

Why do you make up such bull #? When did I say there should be no grazing on BLM property?

You think I don't know what a prescriptive easement is? Geez. Good luck with that one. The feds made their opinion clear 20 years ago.

Where do you get this nonsense? Of course the feds can arrest the Bundy Crime Syndicate. This has nothing to do with SCOTUS.

No lawyer can save Bundy. He is guilty. The courts have already ruled.

I know this will be difficult for you, but attempt to think logically. If Bundy had a case, he would go to court and get a stay. But he has no case, hence he resorted to mob rule and intimidation. Then again, that is how criminals behave.

REMOVED

Is it possible Bundy has prescriptive rights as previously posed?

BLM: We are Worried Cliven Bundy Might Have Prescriptive Rights & He Might Use that Defense in Court

BLM Worried

originally posted by: rockflier
Is it possible Bundy has prescriptive rights as previously posed?

BLM: We are Worried Cliven Bundy Might Have Prescriptive Rights & He Might Use that Defense in Court

BLM Worried

Good luck with that one since prescriptive easement won't apply on federal land, and there is no dispute that it is federal land. I do encourage people who support the Bundy to send him money for his legal defense. Take out a second on your house if you have to. Sell your car. Sell your guns. Give it all to Bundy.

prescriptive easement not in federal law

Can a prescriptive easement across government land be obtained?

No, it is not possible to obtain a prescriptive easement against land held by local, state and federal government. The courts have long held that “time does not run against the King.” See also Civil Code Section 1007.

Regarding take the cattle for payment, the person who wrote that blog is really confused how the court system works. [What a surprise.] You need to win a judgment. Bundy then has to state his assets to the court. At that point, he could simply pay the court in cash. If he can't pay, then the feds will take his land. Taking the cattle is really messy because the next step for Bundy would be a court challenge. That means the feds would have to hold the cattle. Far better to put a lien on the Bundy deeded property, which would prevent him from selling it.

The feds do take assets other than land, but they don't like it. For instance the aircraft bone yards are full of aircraft that are being held in court cases. Same goes for cars. A lien on the deeded property is far simpler.

The feds have been far to kind to Bundy. Bankrupt him now.

Analysis of the Bundy grazing

Sounds good to me.

a reply to: gariac

You know, I was asking a question, not making a statement. Geesh, chill out.You certainly have a way with words and making people take to the other side of your views. Have a fine day.

a reply to: govmule

I am just curious. Why do you so vehemently support the central government? Do you believe it is their right to "own" almost all of that State? Why don't they own almost all of every state and tell people how to live and work within them? Why don't the own a majority of the original 13 States or much of the east coast? Why do they only "own" most of the midwestern and western states? What benefit do "We" derive from their ownership? I continually see people chiming in about how this is "our" land and so on and so forth. Nonsense. What benefit do I derive from my "ownership" of this property?

You see, there is no such thing as the government owning the "people's" land. Well, unless you live in a communist state.

The benefit I do see from his grazing is that he feeds his cattle which then get butchered and I get to buy steaks. By restricting or fining or imposing fees on these area, that apparently I "own" since it is "public" land and we all own it, only serves to raise the cost of my buying steak. I like steak. I don't like expensive steak.

So, since I apparently "own" this land I say it is OK for him to graze on it. It is my land and I say so.

Phhhhttttt

a reply to: Bakatono

Bundy cattle is a blip on the scene of cattle growing. Eliminating his ranch won't make a bit of difference in the scheme of things.

Letting ranchers go wild rather than be managed means we risk turning the land into a dust bowl by overgrazing. Now that would effect the price of cattle, though even wiping out all of Nevada cattle wouldn't be that dramatic.

USDA stats

The US slaughters 32 million head of cattle a year. Pretend Bundy had a thousand head. That is 1e3/32e6, or roughly 0.003% of the US harvest.

While we're at it, lets look at Bundy's business. His cattle are pretty awful. Lets say they are worth $1500 a head, not the $2500 a head he claims. Figure about a third of the herd is harvested per year. [You wipe out all the cattle, you have no way to breed new ones, not that Bundy does any quality breeding.] Lets call is 300 head sold per year. That is a gross of $450k per year. Clearly Bundy could have afforded to pay his fees. But he has an agenda. He bet the ranch and lost.

Bundy lives off of welfare. The US economy doesn't need his cattle. Rather than thank the powers that be that he gets a sweet gift from the government, he decided to piss on the feds instead.

a reply to: gariac

I think the proverbial "first shot" was by the BLM when they reduced the cattle permitting in 1993.

That's when Bundy became "Doctor NO".

He saw it all coming.

He did not want to be a sacrificial lamb.

The environmentalists demand "mitigation" for land damage.

Why can't they "mitigate" the human and business damage they cause ?

a reply to: gariac

And yet you fail to answer my question? Was it too hard?

We can play "what if" games all day. Sure, this one rancher isn't significant in the face of overall beef prices, but in aggregate it is significant.

Care to answer the question? What exactly do you love so much about "government owned land"? What benefit do you derive from it?

Let us not also forget that the State of NV can regulate the land, as is done in the East, to prevent overgrazing.

What do you have against NV? What do you have against State's Rights? Are you a Communist?