Cliven Bundy, called 'lawless and violent,' to stay in jail

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: WP4YT
I'm confused as to how it's fair and legal to charge someone millions for animals eating grass.

When ranchers want to allow their cattle to feed on government land they have to pay grazing fees. He owes so much because he stopped paying well over a decade ago.

I understand, but... Grass doesn't belong to the government. It grows in nature. They can't charge fees for animals eating it. This is stupid.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

An ankle bracelet doesn't stop him from crafting another armed stand-off when he makes it back to his ranch, does it?

I remember a time when you posted something beyond "government = terrorists" man. Not disputing that things the government does on a daily basis are jacked to hell and back, but I remember when your opinions ran a bit deeper than some variation of this.

Ah well.

originally posted by: WP4YT

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: WP4YT
I'm confused as to how it's fair and legal to charge someone millions for animals eating grass.

When ranchers want to allow their cattle to feed on government land they have to pay grazing fees. He owes so much because he stopped paying well over a decade ago.

I understand, but... Grass doesn't belong to the government. It grows in nature. They can't charge fees for animals eating it. This is stupid.

...would you say that if they were grazing on your land?

originally posted by: WP4YT

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: WP4YT
I'm confused as to how it's fair and legal to charge someone millions for animals eating grass.

When ranchers want to allow their cattle to feed on government land they have to pay grazing fees. He owes so much because he stopped paying well over a decade ago.

I understand, but... Grass doesn't belong to the government. It grows in nature. They can't charge fees for animals eating it. This is stupid.

Go buy some cows, find a nice NON-government fenced yard, put your cows on it, see how long that lasts before you get a bill. Mind boggling...

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: WP4YT

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: WP4YT
I'm confused as to how it's fair and legal to charge someone millions for animals eating grass.

When ranchers want to allow their cattle to feed on government land they have to pay grazing fees. He owes so much because he stopped paying well over a decade ago.

I understand, but... Grass doesn't belong to the government. It grows in nature. They can't charge fees for animals eating it. This is stupid.

...would you say that if they were grazing on your land?

The thing is, the government isn't supposed to own land.

Lavoy Finicum wasn't murdered, he was sacrificed, and Cliven Bundy said this plainly. Both sadly are radical followers of the FLDS cult that has built around the absurd ramblings of W. Cleon Skousen.

The Bundy Gang illegally seized a bird sanctuary closed for the holidays, and this was only the first of a list of sad, radically miscalculated crimes they continued to commit just about every step along the way.

The Federal Government, the State of Oregon and the local Sheriff were far more patient with these ravening extremists than they should have been.

The United States has an established Constitution and rule-of-law that serves to prevent bandits and insurrectionists and law enforcement did absolutely everything possible to keep any bloodshed to a minimum in the apprehension of these erstwhile thugs ... with some success. Only one stubborn fatality, determined to make himself a martyr for Cliven Bundy's Deadbeat Cause.

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: WP4YT

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: WP4YT
I'm confused as to how it's fair and legal to charge someone millions for animals eating grass.

When ranchers want to allow their cattle to feed on government land they have to pay grazing fees. He owes so much because he stopped paying well over a decade ago.

I understand, but... Grass doesn't belong to the government. It grows in nature. They can't charge fees for animals eating it. This is stupid.

...would you say that if they were grazing on your land?

The thing is, the government isn't supposed to own land.

Absolutely and utterly false.

See the US Constitution.

After that, consult the Enabling Acts that created every State west of the Mississippi.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: WP4YT

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: WP4YT
I'm confused as to how it's fair and legal to charge someone millions for animals eating grass.

When ranchers want to allow their cattle to feed on government land they have to pay grazing fees. He owes so much because he stopped paying well over a decade ago.

I understand, but... Grass doesn't belong to the government. It grows in nature. They can't charge fees for animals eating it. This is stupid.

...would you say that if they were grazing on your land?

My land isn't public land.

My Bundy also owns a portion of that "government land" if he pays taxes

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: WP4YT

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: WP4YT
I'm confused as to how it's fair and legal to charge someone millions for animals eating grass.

When ranchers want to allow their cattle to feed on government land they have to pay grazing fees. He owes so much because he stopped paying well over a decade ago.

I understand, but... Grass doesn't belong to the government. It grows in nature. They can't charge fees for animals eating it. This is stupid.

...would you say that if they were grazing on your land?

The thing is, the government isn't supposed to own land.

Absolutely and utterly false.

See the US Constitution.

After that, consult the Enabling Acts that created every State west of the Mississippi.

I didn't say allowed to, I said SUPPOSED to. The states are SUPPOSED to own the land, but through assbackward lawmaking the federal government didn't allow that to happen.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: WP4YT
I'm confused as to how it's fair and legal to charge someone millions for animals eating grass.

When ranchers want to allow their cattle to feed on government land they have to pay grazing fees. He owes so much because he stopped paying well over a decade ago.

Millions in fees is ludicrous though, since for that kind of cash you could have your cattle living the good life eating Alfalfa 3 times a day instead of the usual morning and evening feeding times.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Sublimecraft

An ankle bracelet doesn't stop him from crafting another armed stand-off when he makes it back to his ranch, does it?

I remember a time when you posted something beyond "government = terrorists" man. Not disputing that things the government does on a daily basis are jacked to hell and back, but I remember when your opinions ran a bit deeper than some variation of this. Ah well.

The Judges concern that he won't show up for further court dates can be addressed with the bracelet because then law enforcement will know where he is, but lets not kid ourselves, it's not that a bracelet won't work, it's more likely that even without a bracelet the law enforcement agents will know exactly where he is at all times and are more concerned about him crafting an armed standoff and gathering like-minded individuals to his cause - as you and others have presumed and eluded to.

As to my posting history - you need to understand that when it comes to my opinion about my perception of government wrong doing, I have remained very consistent since May 2012 when posting about that specific subject in the relevant forums. I think you may be confusing my posting history here - I've always been very aggressive toward government accountability and adherence to the law - and that goes for citizens as well. So if you refer to my posting history on this subject alone, I've called for legal recourse inlieu of shooting someone dead - Finicum should have been bought to trial - not murdered and no amount of "but he was going for his gun" will change my mind because he was surrounded by LEO who could have immobilized him without killing him.

Let Cliven Bundy stand trial and his fate be determined by a jury.

a reply to: WP4YT

If the government (by the people, for the people) can't own land....why can you own land? Who makes the determination who can "own" this or that patch of dirt?

Can anyone really "own" parts of the Earth anyway?

a reply to: Vector99

Okay ... what is your legal reasoning for "SUPPOSED to" then?

PS: An "Enabling" Act doesn't have to do with "allowing" anyone to do anything ... it creates the framework for a Territory (whic is a POSSESSION of the US GOVERNMENT) to become a formal State, like for example, the Oregon Admission Act (1859) which clearly outlines the existence of US owned land within the State.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The Property Clause and Northwest Ordinance are both limited in power and scope. Once a state is formed and accepted in the union, the federal government no longer has control over land within the state’s borders. From this moment, such land is considered property of the sovereign state. The continental United States is now formed of fifty independent, sovereign states. No “unclaimed” lands are technically in existence. Therefore, the Property Clause no longer applies within the realm of federal control over these states.

source

a reply to: Sublimecraft
Bracelets are easily cut off if one does not worry about consequences. Cliven, in jail is safer for all concerned including Cliven.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Gryphon66

The Property Clause and Northwest Ordinance are both limited in power and scope. Once a state is formed and accepted in the union, the federal government no longer has control over land within the state’s borders. From this moment, such land is considered property of the sovereign state. The continental United States is now formed of fifty independent, sovereign states. No “unclaimed” lands are technically in existence. Therefore, the Property Clause no longer applies within the realm of federal control over these states.

source

Ah. Interestingly, I have cited the US Constitution, acts of the Oregon Legislature and Federal law not opinions from amateur "journalists."

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Gryphon66

The Property Clause and Northwest Ordinance are both limited in power and scope. Once a state is formed and accepted in the union, the federal government no longer has control over land within the state’s borders. From this moment, such land is considered property of the sovereign state. The continental United States is now formed of fifty independent, sovereign states. No “unclaimed” lands are technically in existence. Therefore, the Property Clause no longer applies within the realm of federal control over these states.

source

Ah. Interestingly, I have cited the US Constitution, acts of the Oregon Legislature and Federal law not opinions from amateur "journalists."

So did that "opinion" piece, another interpretation, citing actual court rulings on the subject.

a reply to: Vector99

Not talking about interpretations but about facts ... About English words that anyone can read and understand.

The Constitution. Oregon law. Federal law.

Why don't you post the Court rulings that state that the United States cannot own land?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Vector99



The Constitution.

You mean this thing?

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Building

Yes, indeed. Washington DC (created out of land designated by Virginia and Maryland to the purpose of the National Capital) is indeed a Federal Enclave (just as are many US Military Bases within the United States) that is under the exclusive jurisdiction (to exercise exclusive Leglislation in all cases) of the United States.

Now, would you like to provide support for your claim that any document or court decision made anywhere at any time states that the United States cannot own property ... because there are multiple examples (provided as well as easily accessible) that state the absolute OPPOSITE to your claim.