AdamB Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Again, I'm not a legal expert, but I don't think it's as cut and dry as "because they're on my lawn" and "he owes me a million". Oh I know, neither am I. Reading legalese is enough to keep me away from a law text, and I am sure it is not nearly as cut and dry as we are making it on a NFL team's off-topic forum - the entire situation is not as cut and dry as it is being made out to be. However, two separate District Court judges (who I am assuming know more about law than we do) apparently felt there was a strong enough case to issue orders that the cattle were to be removed, which he failed to comply with. It would make sense to me then that the cattle they are confiscating are 1) there illegally and 2) evidence that he was breaking federal law. Now add in the amount he owes in back Federal fees, and I do not blame them for confiscating the cattle, nor does the article say he won't be getting them back once the case is settled. If you park in a "no parking" area while racking up unpaid parking fines for 20 years, would you argue that the government (in this case local) does not have the right to tow your car? Hmmm, seems like another huge waist of tax payer money to me considering the FBI and ATF are sitting around with their thumbs up their butts. Probably because they have more on their plate and thus do not have the manpower to patrol 245 million acres of public land, a lot of it in the middle of nowhere. I am sure you could roll these duties into ATF or FBI, but then you would still have to hire more officers and agents to patrol these areas, thus costing the same tax payer money. Also, BLM agents are going to have training specific to their mission statement that ATF or FBI agents will not have, basically the same reason that in most states the Office of Wildlife Management has its own enforcement officers instead of just having the state police handle it. I would not expect the BLM to be investigating political corruption like the FBI does (trust me, I live in El Paso....political corruption is a cherished way of life here) for the same reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Again, I'm not a legal expert, but I don't think it's as cut and dry as "because they're on my lawn" and "he owes me a million". I certainly don't know, but I'd be willing to bet that BLM, some time over the last 20 years, has gone to court and gotten a judgement. And that a judge has said "Yep, he owes you this money". I suppose it's conceivable that they sent in SWAT without going to a judge, first. But it's not the way I'd bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autoidiodyssey Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Now I appreciate the connotations of that but it seems more like a dictatorship mascarading as democracy. It is moving that way more and more every day. Unfortunately only half the country can see it at any given time depending on if the red team or the blue team is in charge. Red team in charge, red team fans are quiet and blue team fans scream about all the awful things the red team is doing. Blue team takes over and continues or escalates a bunch of the stuff the red team did and the blue team fans shut up and the red team fans freak out. And so it goes, a cycle doomed to continue until the whole thing implodes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted April 12, 2014 Author Share Posted April 12, 2014 I certainly don't know, but I'd be willing to bet that BLM, some time over the last 20 years, has gone to court and gotten a judgement. And that a judge has said "Yep, he owes you this money". I suppose it's conceivable that they sent in SWAT without going to a judge, first. But it's not the way I'd bet. So in order to get him off the public land his family has been using for 130 years, they create a new law and "grazing fees" on public land. Grazing Fees? WTH Oh yeah, and the cows are going to Trample the Turtles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Amazing to me the number of people who seem to believe that using somebody else's land for a long time means you're allowed to use it forever. I think that only works if the land owner is an Indian. (Or Palestenian). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 So in order to get him off the public land his family has been using for 130 years, they create a new law and "grazing fees" on public land. Grazing Fees? WTH Oh yeah, and the cows are going to Trample the Turtles Well, for 110 of 130 years they paid their bill whatever it was. This is really a clear cut case. Grazing fees are the norm for millions and millions of acres of public grazing land in this country. If you don't pay them you are stealing. How do you not get that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEANDWARF Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 How far the Feds will take it: Ruby Ridge, Waco. That's how far. That was what I was thinking. Hope and pray that cooler heads would prevail in this situation Does he have a leg to stand on since it is "public land"? Good question. Guest sense his family been having their cattle graze for generations make him think he can do it without cost. I admire the restraint showed by the Federal rangers in that clip.Me too. Have a feeling these guys are ordinary Joes stuck in the middle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Guy sounds like an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 This is solely about money wrapped in a guise of "freedom". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 This is solely about money wrapped in a guise of "freedom". money is freedom, just as taxes,permits and fees are about control Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted April 12, 2014 Author Share Posted April 12, 2014 You mean, asside from the fact that they're on my lawn? You're right it is your lawn, it's also my lawn and it's also this guy Bundys lawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 You're right it is your lawn, it's also my lawn and it's also this guy Bundys lawn.fine. I'm kicking Bundy off and paving the whole thing over for the worlds largest roller derby rink. Since I unilaterally get to decide what to do with it and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 You're right it is your lawn, it's also my lawn and it's also this guy Bundys lawn. So, your point is that he gets to send his cows there, and I get to eat 'em? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 So, your point is that he gets to send his cows there, and I get to eat 'em? Only if you work for the US Government. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 I certainly don't know, but I'd be willing to bet that BLM, some time over the last 20 years, has gone to court and gotten a judgement. And that a judge has said "Yep, he owes you this money". I suppose it's conceivable that they sent in SWAT without going to a judge, first. But it's not the way I'd bet. It's been to court, multiple times and Bundy has lost all of them. He refused, unlike all the other ranchers in the area, to pay the grazing fees. The court ordered him to do so. He refused. The court then ordered his cattle off public land and for him t pay fines for violating the law. He ignored it. The BLM, after multiple years of this, announced they were going to take some of his cattle to pay what he owed. It went to court and the BLM won. Bundy threatened violence if they came for his cattle, and this is the result. This is nothing more than a nut deciding he doesn't have to obey the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted April 13, 2014 Author Share Posted April 13, 2014 It's about the Feds increasing "grazing fees" to the point this guy couldn't operate. Bundy wins, Feds pulled out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 the debt remains Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted April 13, 2014 Author Share Posted April 13, 2014 the debt remains It seems he was paying his fees and the Feds hiked his grazing tax to the point he couldn't afford it, the more I read, the more I think he has a legitimate point. The Feds can do whatever they want with "our" land apparantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted April 13, 2014 Author Share Posted April 13, 2014 There is more to this story. Congrats to The Bundys Nevada ranching family claims victory as U.S. government releases cattlehttp://news.yahoo.com/u-agency-ends-nevada-cattle-roundup-releases-herd-003456278.html;_ylt=A0LEVyg.9klTdgMAUVpXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0Yjkwb3VoBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDM3MF8x BUNKERVILLE, Nevada (Reuters) - U.S. officials ended a stand-off with hundreds of armed protesters in the Nevada desert on Saturday, calling off the government's roundup of cattle it said were illegally grazing on federal land and giving about 300 animals back to the rancher who owned them. The dispute less than 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas between rancher Cliven Bundy and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management had simmered for days. Bundy had stopped paying fees for grazing his cattle on the government land and officials said he had ignored court orders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thekyle1591 Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 Can anybody explain to me exactly why conservatives are defending this guy? How is allowing your cows to graze on land that isn't yours and not paying the fees associated with it ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 It seems he was paying his fees and the Feds hiked his grazing tax to the point he couldn't afford it, the more I read, the more I think he has a legitimate point. The Feds can do whatever they want with "our" land apparantly.Your opinion of "a legitimate point" is "the new rent is so expensive I won't make a profit, therefore I'll just keep using your land, without paying rent"? ----------- Can anybody explain to me exactly why conservatives are defending this guy? How is allowing your cows to graze on land that isn't yours and not paying the fees associated with it ok?Because he owns guns and yells really loud about how evil the government is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 Can anybody explain to me exactly why conservatives are defending this guy? How is allowing your cows to graze on land that isn't yours and not paying the fees associated with it ok? He's rich, white and owns guns and "the government" at this point means Obama. Your opinion of "a legitimate point" is "the new rent is so expensive I won't make a profit, therefore I'll just keep using your land, without paying rent"? For the record, here is an article from when Obama denied a petition to raise grazing fees. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/01/19/19greenwire-obama-admin-denies-petition-to-raise-grazing-f-43764.html "Subsidizing the livestock industry at the cost of species, ecosystems and taxpayers is plainly bad public-lands policy," said Taylor McKinnon, public lands campaigns director for CBD. "Today's choice to continue that policy is both a disappointment and a blight on the Obama administration's environmental record." The GAO report found that if the purpose of the grazing fee were to recover expenditures, BLM and the Forest Service would have to charge $7.64 and $12.26 per "animal unit month," several times higher than the current $1.35. "Given the massive budget shortfalls our country faces, we can no longer afford to subsidize a small group of ranchers to graze public lands at public expense," said Mark Salvo, director of the Sagebrush Sea Campaign for WildEarth Guardians. "As long as grazing is permitted on public lands, it's only fair that public lands ranchers pay for the cost of their activity." Yeah, sounds like this guy was really getting screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 Some call Janet Reno. She would've taken care of this. Send in the drones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 He's rich, white and owns guns and "the government" at this point means Obama. I thought that was why the Liberals weren't supporting him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 I thought that was why the Liberals weren't supporting him No, he's just a thief, that's reason enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.