• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing

CRUE CAB said:
Wow, a million dollars worth of grass? Yea, real criminal there. Pfffffft
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter, he owes, he lost in court every time. He is no patriot, just a deadbeat.
 
Apparently since there are a bunch of ignorant uneducated people in this thread I need to say this again.

The Homestead act of 1862 proves that the Federal Government legally owned the State of Nevada long before the Bundy's came to Nevada. The Homestead Act, enacted during the Civil War in 1862, provided that any adult citizen, or intended citizen, who had never borne arms against the U.S. government could claim 160 acres of surveyed government land.

Welcome to OurDocuments.gov

Todays Bundy's are are traitors to their own family and to this country like all secessionists and militia freaks. If the BUndy's want to raise range land cattle they should cowboy up and buy the acreage they need to do such a thing. Or they should move to an area that has Federal/public land that they can pay graving fees for the PRIVILEGE of grazing animals on. There exists plenty of land to do so. But the fact is that desert range land sucks 160 acres in more suited environment would plenty for their cattle operations. But they wont do that since that have made it abundantly clear that their issue is a political issue and the cattle are the means to their ends that they are exploiting. ANd they are not the first to use such tactics. Locally a rancher tried the same exact thing and failed. They claimed like the Bundy's a "private "possessory" property right that entitles them to use of the water and range for the purpose of raising livestock."

Conclusion


Plaintiffs do not now hold and have never held a vested private property right to graze cattle on federal public lands. At the time plaintiffs' predecessors began ranching, grazing on the public domain was a privilege tacitly permitted by the government by an implied license. This license was revocable at the government's pleasure and conferred no right in plaintiffs or their predecessors to graze a specific allotment of land.
It is not disputed that the Diamond Bar and Laney allotments are located on national forest lands, where grazing is by permit only. Nor is it contested that plaintiffs grazed cattle on these allotments without a permit. Therefore, the district court acted properly in enjoining plaintiffs from further unauthorized grazing, in assessing unauthorized use fees, in directing removal of plaintiffs' cattle, and in finding plaintiffs in trespass of federal lands.
AFFIRMED FindLaw | Cases and Codes
 
humbolt said:
I haven't disputed the nature or veracity of the debt. I have merely pointed out the selective nature of enforcement, and documented it. Since none have addressed that, I assume it's because none can.
Click to expand...

This was not only about collecting a debt owed from past infractions. Bundy was actively and presently breaking the law in defiance of court orders and Federal law.
How would you feel if your family had been respectfully paying the grazing fees and watched as a freeloader grazed his cattle next to yours without paying a penny, FOR 21 YEARS?
 
Buck Ewer said:
Bundy was continuing to violate court orders and violate the law in defiance of litigation against him.
Law breakers who are caught in the act are generally stopped by law enforcement.
Click to expand...
Really - were they there to serve a search warrant? Were they there to arrest him for non payment? What purpose other than a threat was law enforcement there for in your opinion?

Buck Ewer said:
If you are caught speeding every night on the same stretch of road by the same cop ... is he going to put a "lien" on your house to stop you and get you to pay your speeding tickets?
Click to expand...
False equivocation as speeding tickets do not equate federal litigation (as you previously pointed out). At least use a better analogy.

Buck Ewer said:
No. He is going to have your car impounded.
Click to expand...
Government uses liens all the time for payments not made in all sorts of situations. The bottom line here was, the government was going to teach this guy a lesson and scare the **** out of him by sending armed feds - and when he didn't buckle under - they doubled down. When that happen, public support went to the little guy and the feds didn't want to start shooting American's over what is, cows eating grass. No politician especially Reid needed that. If the government wants their money, there were ways to do it other than armed Feds. They now look stupid and rightly so. The issue will be tied up in court for lots of years and Bundy will be in the ground before it's probably done.

So tell me, what's the benefit of sending the cops out and camping out for weeks, stealing the guys cows as a petty method of payment, then having a stand off? Zero. While I appreciate the pro totalitarians in the liberal party applauding brown shirt methods, some people, like myself see it as stupid.
 
humbolt said:
I haven't disputed the nature or veracity of the debt. I have merely pointed out the selective nature of enforcement, and documented it. Since none have addressed that, I assume it's because none can.
Click to expand...

If a US Marshal shows up at your doorstep, do you believe that person will be carrying flowers, or will they have a side arm?

It's not selective either. It's only selective because you've been spoon fed with media and believe everything it says.

Most ranchers, oil companies, and logging companies pay the leases they use, Clyde didn't. He might be one, or, there might be others who have not paid that we have no knowledge of.
 
Ockham said:
Then the government wasted taxpayer time and money. They should have submitted a lien against Bundy's ranch and pursued payment through the courts and the IRS. There was zero reason for an armed state or federal officer to be there, and everyone knows it and can now see the heavy handed federal gestapo tactics used. :shrug:
Click to expand...

The same heavy handedness was used by the Bundy's and their use of Militia groups and their guns and threats.
 
Federalist said:
I find it amazing, but not surprising, how the sycophants and toadies of tyrannical government will always blame the victims of government violence and never the government itself. I'm sure there were similar types who considered the militiamen at Lexington and Concord to be nut jobs who needed to be placed back underneath the bottom of the barrel from which they crawled. Such government bootlickers consider anyone who stands up with force to government tyranny to be nut jobs.
Click to expand...

So, how is this helped if some tea party goober shoots a BLM employee who is doing their job?

Nothing sychophantic, just trying to ensure that a deadbeat follows the law, this has been adjudicated in court, Bundy claims there is no Federal government, because it is convenient to his pocketbook. You bring up words like tyranical government...they have been letting this mooch slide for years, hardly tyranical. Bundy is guilty for any BLM person that gets injured, he caused this situation, he needs to be a man and pay his damned bills.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
The same heavy handedness was used by the Bundy's and their use of Militia groups and their guns and threats.
Click to expand...

Did they call the militia in? Can you link that part of the story?
 
Ockham said:
Really - were they there to serve a search warrant? Were they there to arrest him for non payment? What purpose other than a threat was law enforcement there for in your opinion?
Click to expand...
It's not my opinion but they were in the process of seizing his cattle when the thugs came out with their guns.

The BLM was taking his cattle to stop him from breaking the law any further.
As for a lien on his ranch ...the BLM was putting a "lien " on his cattle when the thugs came out with their guns.
 
Last edited:
Ockham said:
Good to know there's still followers of mass murderers like Pol Pot living in the liberal party. How about gassing them... all of them, say in shower stalls. Is that okay too? I'm just wondering if any type of holocaust murder in your eyes is off limits for the government.
Click to expand...

Hyperbolic twaddle that doesn't contribte to the argument at hand.
 
AJiveMan said:
If a US Marshal shows up at your doorstep, do you believe that person will be carrying flowers, or will they have a side arm?

It's not selective either. It's only selective because you've been spoon fed with media and believe everything it says.

Most ranchers, oil companies, and logging companies pay the leases they use, Clyde didn't. He might be one, or, there might be others who have not paid that we have no knowledge of.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Let's string the bastard up. The government could easily collect their debt without all the firepower, but what the hell. It's more fun this way.
 
humbolt said:
Yeah. Let's string the bastard up. The government could easily collect their debt without all the firepower, but what the hell. It's more fun this way.
Click to expand...

I think the left has been watching too many Westerns. They seem to be pro-lynching and range war a la pre-statehood. Too many John Wayne movies indeed.
 
Tettsuo said:
Oh, so now the law and people enforcing the law are dictators comparable to Pol Pot and Nazi Germany?

The man's a thief! He's breaking the law! People are taking up arm against the law officers coming to enforce the laws of Nevada!!

I didn't know the right now wants to turn away all state law and federal laws as well as supporting people taking up arms in support of criminals.

Ya'll really should be ashamed of yourselves.
Click to expand...

Yeah, itis the old "Reductio ad Hitlerium" fallacy. Pretty poorly executed.
 
beefheart said:
So, how is this helped if some tea party goober shoots a BLM employee who is doing their job?

Nothing sychophantic, just trying to ensure that a deadbeat follows the law, this has been adjudicated in court, Bundy claims there is no Federal government, because it is convenient to his pocketbook. You bring up words like tyranical government...they have been letting this mooch slide for years, hardly tyranical. Bundy is guilty for any BLM person that gets injured, he caused this situation, he needs to be a man and pay his damned bills.
Click to expand...

Well, most lessees, be they oil companies, loggers or ranchers gladly pay to use federal lands, Clyde is an exception to the rule, and, he has the blessings of (dare I say) constitutionalists? or, in simpler terms, anti government activists, to be kind and not use those words like tea party, or other.
 
Buck Ewer said:
It's not my opinion but they were in the process of seizing his cattle when the thugs came out with their guns.
Click to expand...
They did seize cattle but that would hardly cover the alleged 1 million dollars claimed. So can you please show where the Bundy camp pulled guns? It was very well documented on video - surely there's a segment showing the Bundy group pointing guns at the federal officers. I'd like to see that.

Buck Ewer said:
The BLM was taking his cattle to stop him from breaking the law any further.
As for a lien on his ranch ...the BLM was putting a "lien " on his cattle when the thugs came out with their guns.
Click to expand...

Because the eaten grass was being injured. I know. Show me where the Bundy's pulled guns on the federal officers. Pretty please.
 
beefheart said:
Hyperbolic twaddle that doesn't contribte to the argument at hand.
Click to expand...

Sorry to hear your anti-truth. I have to probe and find out how far of a murderous twat some posters, especially when no trial, judge or jury is required.
 
Tettsuo said:
You're not making sense, unless your premise is that no laws should be enforced until Holder goes after Sharpton. Which is a stupid premise and has nothing to do with this guy Bundy.
Click to expand...

Doesn't answer the question ... why pick the old rancher who nobody ever heard of and not all the other tax cheats when you know exactly who they are and where they are?
Doesn't it make you wonder?
 
Ockham said:
Did they call the militia in? Can you link that part of the story?
Click to expand...

A Montana militia member, Jim Lardy, told KLAS-TV in Las Vegas his group, Operation Mutual Aid, was prepared to “provide armed response.”
Read more at Militias beat back feds in ranch war
Click to expand...

He said he’s not afraid to shoot, if necessary.

“They have guns. We need guns to protect ourselves from the tyrannical government,” Lardy said.

Other militia members are joining him, he said: “There is many more coming.”
Click to expand...


Read more at Militias beat back feds in ranch war
 
Ockham said:
I think the left has been watching too many Westerns. They seem to be pro-lynching and range war a la pre-statehood. Too many John Wayne movies indeed.
Click to expand...

They'll probably just wait until Bundy is in his house so they have an excuse to smoke him out. It got out of hand in Waco, but maybe they've been practicing since and can manage to not burn everything and everybody up. I assume the requisite amount of Whooping It Up will go along with the smoking.
 
humbolt said:
Yeah. Let's string the bastard up. The government could easily collect their debt without all the firepower, but what the hell. It's more fun this way.
Click to expand...

Oh, please tell us of how the government would collect over one million dollars.

String people up? where did that come from?
 
humbolt said:
No I'm not. You are. The reason the federal agents are involved is because they claim Bundy owes them money. It wouldn't matter whether it was the IRS, BLM, or any other agency within the government. The debt is what precipitated the action. Exactly which of the agencies Bundy owes the money to is a moot point trotted out to cover the selective nature of the attempted enforcement.
Click to expand...

More than a claim, courts back that up. Follow the rule of the law.
 
beefheart said:
Focusing too hard? They did nothing for years! They won in court every time. This guy should have been tossed on his ass years ago.

Sorry dude, you can't talk about EBT cards, this moocher fleeced you of 1 million dollars....that is a pretty big deadbeat isn't it?
Click to expand...

When people talk about less government, I'm beginning to believe that some people think use of anything is free, especially federal owned lands, because it's the "we the people" clause of the constitution. Granted, some government land is free to utilize and enjoy for our personal use, but please, I want some sage brush and high desert grasses to remain, and I don't want people going into forests chopping down all the trees we all need and enjoy.

Some of those people just don't understand what leasing means.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom