Armed protest against government not a civil rights issue?

[guruatbol]

Many remedies have been mentioned here. They are all reasonable and appropriate.

Like I said before I really don't care about Bundy being right or wrong. I care about how our government decided to act.

I have found some very reputable news outlets that both agree with Snopes and some that show data that are contrary to snopes.

So, who is right there?

Oh, IMHO Nepotism is not off topic. It is relevant in that it can be cause for us to loose rights discussed here and can be cause for drastic change to the 2A, 1A and others.

Mel

[guruatbol]

Here's and interesting read on the subject.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/ha...ancher-117884/

Mel

[Dreaming100Straight]

Many remedies have been mentioned here. They are all reasonable and appropriate.

Like I said before I really don't care about Bundy being right or wrong. I care about how our government decided to act.

Like I thought, you don't know what you are talking about. If you did, you would be able to tell us what else the BLM could have done in the past 20 years of dealing with Bundy.

[guruatbol]

Oh, come on, what a cop out. Are you too lazy to go back and read the posts about liens and etc. Heck even the news outlets I have been able to find that have written about this have mentioned those same things that were mentioned in previous posts.

I never said I know everything. I also never said I agreed with Mr. Bundy.

All I have said was it frightens me the way our government is behaving and that we all stand to loose rights that are dear to us if we are not careful.

I'm done with this thread. Which I am sure will make you and a few others very happy.

I think anyone that doesn't take a good hard look at this and what may happen the next time, has their head in the sand and needs to wake up.

Mel

[JimDandy]

It seems that the head of the BLM has a son that is a lawyer for a Chinese company that makes solar panels. It seems that the head of the BLM is attempting to secure the land for the project.

This is multiple facts that have been mish-mashed into wild inaccuracies.

The head of the BLM used to work for Harry Reid. Unless the mother of his children is Mary Kay Letourneau he is not old enough to have a child already through law school. The story I saw pegged him at about 35 years old.

Harry Reid has a son who works for a lawfirm that represents a Chinese company that was trying to build a solar farm 200 miles away Not only was the project so far away as to be irrelevant, they apparently couldn't get a consumer for the power, and the project is dead.

I also never said I agreed with Mr. Bundy.

No, you didn't. You said

I don't care if Bundy is right or wrong, I care about how the people there were treated by the government.

Which means you don't care if the government was right or wrong, you just care if they do anything about it, even if they're supposed to.

You also said:

Had I been placed in charge, I would not have placed one officer on the ground until the animals had all been located via air and put down. Once down I would dispatch unarmed contract labor to collect the carcasses.

Yes his cows would be dead, and sent to the dog food processors and that money used to pay his bill, but it would have been done before all this big hoopla had a chance to happen.

Which means you would have butchered 900 head of cattle for no gain- and I would hope in violation of at least your orders, if not the court order for seizing the cattle. Even the dog food companies wouldn't want beef that sat out for that long- locate, slaughter, locate slaughter, rinse repeat ~898 more times, search to make sure there aren't more or time wasted searching if there were less. Gather, Gather, Gather, rinse and repeat over God only knows how many acres- 897-ish more times. Truck the meat to a dog food plant. Watch them refuse delivery.

You said

FYI, Mr Bundy's son was tasered for no legal reason from what limited information I can get.

Did you know there was a video? Where instead of backing away from the law enforcement, as ordered, he advanced on them? Invaded their personal space in a manner threatening enough to set off a tightly controlled and leashed police dog which he then kicked?

[Aguila Blanca]

Yes, and Mr. Bundy's son isn't exactly a scrawny teen-ager, either.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

I thought it was ironic when the militia started chanting "USA, USA, USA" when Bundy doesn't even recognize the existence of the USA.

[steve4102]

Bundy had his day in court, twice. He was ordered to remove his cattle from public land. He refused.

By refusing a court order can the Feds simply arrest him and charge him with a crime, thus avoiding all this drama?

[JimDandy]

By refusing a court order can the Feds simply arrest him and charge him with a crime, thus avoiding all this drama?

The cattle would still have to be removed. Even if Bundy were arrested and in custody while they removed the cattle, his son would be at large and the drama would remain.

[Buzzcook]

Turtles and solar and wind farms.
http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/04...ed-harry-reid/

While the story is unfoavorable for Ried and the BLM, the picture shows what others have said about the distance between where Bundy was grazing cattle and where the proposed solar arrays were planned and then canceled.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
More on free speech zones.
Given the open abuse of the concept of free speech zones by the Bush administration, the protests of them here seem to be on the order of whose ox is being gored.

The Bush administration has been criticized by columnist James Bovard of The American Conservative for requiring protesters to stay within a designated area, while allowing supporters access to more areas.[17] According to the Chicago Tribune, the American Civil Liberties Union has asked a federal court in Washington D.C. to prevent the Secret Service from keeping anti-Bush protesters distant from presidential appearances while allowing supporters to display their messages up close, where they are likely to be seen by the news media

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/10/us/nev...ttle-showdown/

On Wednesday, a bureau truck driven by a civilian employee assisting in the roundup "was struck by a protester on an ATV and the truck's exit from the area was blocked by a group of individuals who gathered around the vehicle," the agencies' statement said.

So there ya go. Once you block a road or a sidewalk you justify free speech zones.
Just be thankful the protesters weren't protesting a war, they'd all be in jail.

[Dreaming100Straight]

So there ya go. Once you block a road or a sidewalk you justify free speech zones.
Just be thankful the protesters weren't protesting a war, they'd all be in jail.

Don't compare protesting a war that cost the lives of 50,000 Americans with protesting the removal of cattle for the refusal of the owner to pay grazing fees that the courts determined were owed and other cattleman paid.

As long as you are cherry picking that article, I think this excerpt best states the government view.

In the scuffle with protesters, a police dog was kicked, and officers protecting the civilian driver were threatened and assaulted, the two agencies' statement said. "After multiple requests and ample verbal warnings, law enforcement officers deployed Tasers on a protestor," the statement said.

The best evidence of the tasering incident that is currently publicly available is the tape on youtube. Ammon Bundy clearly is shown assaulting the civilian contractor by crashing an ATV into the contractor's truck. He is ordered out of the ATV and that is when a confrontation with the rangers takes place that ends with him being tasered. The dog was only ordered to advance on
Ammon, when he continued to advance on one ranger to the point that the officer had to take two paces back to keep Bundy from closing on him. The dog was never released. Bundy kicked it once and attempted to kick it a second time, before he was tasered.

[Buzzcook]

Dream100straight: What do you think was the intent of my post? What side of the issue do you think I stand on?

[Dreaming100Straight]

I think you, as are most on this thread, using your head and are more objective than the far right or the far left. I believe the general intent of your post was to flag the stupidity of the government's execution of its rights, while also calling out the weakness of the protesters.

[Mike38]

…..I really don't care about Bundy being right or wrong. I care about how our government decided to act.

I agree. What the government should have done was place a lean on all of Bundy’s property. All of it, livestock included. When he passed away, the government would get their $1M in past fees and fines. But no, the government sends 50 armed agents to confront the guy, and so the confrontation began.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Mike38

. . . .What the government should have done was place a lean on all of Bundy’s property. All of it, livestock included. When he passed away, the government would get their $1M in past fees and fines. But no, the government sends 50 armed agents to confront the guy, and so the confrontation began.

There's a slight problem here. Let's assume for a moment that the gov't could establish a valid lien. That seems reasonable. If the gov't puts a lien on the cattle, what then? Wait for Bundy to pass away? What if the cattle die first? The average lifespan of cattle is shorter than that of a human, so it's quite possible that some of the cattle would die before Bundy.

The one who has a lien against others typically has a few options as to how to execute or collect. For example, in some of my work, if I get a judgment against a plaintiff, I get an automatic lien on all of their real property in the county. I can either certify that lien to the State to collect on the tax rolls (which $ will then be sent to my client), or I can ask the court to sell some of the defendant's real property on the courthouse steps and get my money that way. Why should the party that lost in court get to decide how the lien is collected?

I don't really agree with the manner in which the gov't responded to Bundy, but as I understand the story, he had his day in court, lost, and chose to defy court orders.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by steve4102

Bundy had his day in court, twice. He was ordered to remove his cattle from public land. He refused.

By refusing a court order can the Feds simply arrest him and charge him with a crime, thus avoiding all this drama?

I'm not sure about "the Feds" (as in BLM) charging him with a crime, but the court could certainly hold him in contempt.

[JimDandy]

I can either certify that lien to the State to collect on the tax rolls (which $ will then be sent to my client), or I can ask the court to sell some of the defendant's real property on the courthouse steps and get my money that way. Why should the party that lost in court get to decide how the lien is collected?

In addition to which, there's no title transfer process for cattle. He could sell it to a guy that pulls a semi onto his ranch, sell for cash, and the government both wouldn't know until after the fact, and couldn't do much anyway.

Expecting him to voluntarily comply with the lien, when he wouldn't voluntarily comply with the permit regulations, or voluntarily comply with the judgements that eventually led to the lien feels a bit naive.

As Spats has pointed out the lien, if there was one, would likely be against all of Bundy's property, including his farm, so they might eventually get his money. If the farm is his.

There's not a doubt in my mind that if Spats, Frank, some of the other lawyers in here, or some combination of the above wanted to work the system with a front man like Bundy willing to take the consequences they could set up the property ownership in such a way to leave so little exposed in Bundy's name as to make a lien next to worthless UNTIL the government is ready and willing to seize the cattle- which so many are objecting to in the first place.

[Wyoredman]

It now appears that the BLM was having a hard time finding a buyer for the cows it had managed to round up!

It seems, they had contracted a sale barn in Utah to sell the beef, but the Utah Governor wouldn't allow them to bring the cattle into the State.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politic...y-blm.html.csp

I understand that sale barns in Nevada, also refused to sell the beef.

Also, in the link above,

Some of the cattle seized so far apparently had wandered into Nevada from allotments on the Arizona Strip and will be returned to the Utah-based ranchers who own them, Eardley said.

.

It appears the BLM had gathered some other brands along with Bundy's!

So, if the government wants to confiscate cattle to settle trespassing fines and grazing fees, yet has no place to sell them, how exactly are we (the U.S. Public) going to get our money? Not to mention how do we recoup the cost of the round-up, the cost of feeding the cattle?

I wonder if the fines/fees are the real motivating factor, or did the BLM just want punishment?

[JimDandy]

A motivating factor does not mean the ONLY motivating factor. The fine attached to a speeding or parking ticket is not solely for revenue generation.

[madmo44mag]

OK I have my flame suite on so here goes.

I’ve watched this tread and others on different forums.
They same arguments here are happening there.

Who is right or wrong here may have nothing to do with what is going on.
Bundy and his family have done as they saw fit for over 100 years and up until fairly recently the gooberment has not fought to hard to make him comply.

IMHO it all could have been handled completely differently by both sides but it seem to me both sides were spoiling for a fight.

Now we have a major stand off.
Armed citizenry vs the US Gooberment.

So I have to ask myself does this really have anything to due with frees, monies owed or grazing right or is the nothing more than big brother publicly flexing their muscle and creating a situation by which more over reaching laws can be enacted because a US citizen (Right or wrong) stood up to big brother.

Just think about how this whole situation has unfolded.
Just makes me wonder and better yet, gives me real concern as to what will happen next to our freedoms based on what has taken place so far.

Just like a drunken bar fight.
Two loud moth bullies disagree and next thing you know the whole bar is throwing punches.

Just a though brought about by observation.

BTW I'm not here to argue who is right or wrong because I don't feel I have enough facts to make that argument.
I just want to bring another prospective to the table.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by madmo44mag

...Just like a drunken bar fight.
Two loud moth bullies disagree and next thing you know the whole bar is throwing punches....

More like one guy defying two court orders.

Links to the court papers:

1. The Government's motion for summary judgment.
   
   
2. Bundy's response (pro se).
   
   
3. The Court Order granting judgment to the Government.

It doesn't look like Bundy did himself much good representing himself instead of getting a good lawyer.

From the government's motion for summary judgement:

• Page 7:

  ...Defendant Bundy did not comply with the 1998 Order to remove his livestock from the Bunkerville Allotment by November 30, 1998. As a result, the United States brought a motion to enforce the injunction in 1999 based on evidence of continuing trespass. This Court granted the United States’ motion, ordered Defendant Bundy to remove his livestock as previously directed, and ordered him to pay a modified level of damages to the United States. Bundy I, Docket No. 45, Order dated September 17, 1999.
  
  Defendant Bundy acknowledges he has not complied with the Court’s orders to remove his cattle from the former Bunkerville Allotment. Ex. 4, Excerpts of Bundy Deposition (“Depo.”), pp. 99:20-100:6. Nor did Defendant Bundy ever comply with the order to pay damages. Ex. 2, Rugwell Declaration ¶ 25. ...

• Page 10:

  ...The United States has reached out to Defendant Bundy in different ways to try to bring his trespass to a close. As described below, those efforts have included letters, an overture to speak with him in person or by telephone, scheduling a meeting (that was subsequently canceled), contact with him to discuss safety concerns caused by his trespassing livestock, working through local law enforcement personnel, and an offer to provide him the proceeds from the sale of his cattle if impounded. All of these efforts were to no avail. Defendant Bundy refuses to cooperate....

• Pages 14 to 15:

  ...At his deposition, Defendant Bundy made clear his position that he does not feel bound by and does not intend to comply with federal law or orders that might be issued by this Court to enforce federal law:
  

  Q. Now, let’s go back to the question. Let’s assume the federal authorities have the authorization to present themselves on land, whether you call it your ranch or the former Bunkerville Allotment, or for that matter the new trespass lands, and they’ve got the authorization in hand to remove cattle that belongs to you and they literally, physically, take the steps necessary to accomplish that right there and you're standing by. Are you going to undertake any effort to physically stop that?
  
  A. Yes.
  
  Q. What efforts would that be?
  
  A. Whatever it takes.
  
  Q. Okay. Would that include -- when you say “whatever it takes,” would that include the soliciting, the assistance of neighbors, friends, family, supporters of yours to do whatever it takes in the scenario I just described?
  
  A. Yes.

  Ex. 4, Bundy Depo. at 99:1-19. As attested to in his deposition, and in his communications with the United States, Defendant Bundy has indicated that he does not rule out a physical confrontation with the federal government...

From the Court Order:

• Page 5:

  IV. CONCLUSION
  
  IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment (#18) is GRANTED.
  
  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Cliven Bundy’s Motion to Dismiss (#28) is DENIED as moot.
  
  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bundy is permanently enjoined from trespassing on the New Trespass Lands.
  
  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States is entitled to protect the New Trespass Lands against this trespass, and all future trespasses by Bundy.
  
  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bundy shall remove his livestock from the New Trespass Lands within 45 days of the date hereof, and that the United States is entitled to seize and remove to impound any of Bundy's cattle that remain in trespass after 45 days of the date hereof.
  
  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States is entitled to seize and remove to impound any of Bundy's cattle for any future trespasses, provided the United States has provided notice to Bundy under the governing regulations of the United States Department of the Interior...

Bundy can't reasonably expect that the BLM will simply not enforce the court orders.

[JimDandy]

So I have to ask myself does this really have anything to due with frees, monies owed or grazing right or is the nothing more than big brother publicly flexing their muscle and creating a situation by which more over reaching laws can be enacted because a US citizen (Right or wrong) stood up to big brother.

The phrasing of the question you ask yourself has quite a bit of predisposition in it. In the first place - and this is something a lot of anti-government folks forget- you, me, and most of the people posting here ARE Big Brother.
We- and our ancestors- were Big Brother when we revolted against the Crown.

• We were Big Brother when we wrote and ratified the Constitution.
• We were Big Brother when we went to war with Mexico.
• We were Big Brother when we elected the Congress that ratified the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
• We were Big Brother when we elected the Congress than formed the Territory of Nevada.
• We were Big Brother when we passed the enabling act making Nevada a state.
• We were Big Brother when we elected every single Congress since then that hasn't deemed it good for the US to divest title to that land.
• We were Big Brother when we decided that John Q Public can use that land, but since we all own it, he should pay all of us to use it.
• And we were all all Big Brother when we elected, appointed, and confirmed the various people in the various posts who decided that by using it and not paying for it for 20 years, Bundy was committing an offense against all of us as a whole.

[zxcvbob]

I have not followed the particulars of this case (nor BLM kerfuffles in general) but Bundy may have had a legitimate 5th Amendment claim (Takings Clause) that the fees were invalid because he was never compensated for his ancestral water and grazing rights. 19th century open-range laws can be complicated.

I don't think he ever made that claim.

--
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BlJ2Qc0CMAA0GnM.jpg:medium

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by madmo44mag

because I don't feel I have enough facts to make that argument.

That in itself is refreshing. This whole conversation is a microcosm of why our country is where it is today. Plenty of opinions, very little knowledge of the facts.

Some folks even say it out loud; "Expecting concrete proof from an opinion on an internet forum is asinine." Note that this is in response to a request for EVIDENCE, not "concrete proof". In other words "I've made up my mind! I don't have time to be bothered with facts!"

Every one has an opinion on any topic from war to marijuana to abortion to the Bundy cows, but look at how many can't name a single sitting senator, tell you how many senators there are, name the vice president, Secretary of State, Speaker of the House etc, but have no trouble at all telling you who won American Idol last year.

This Bundy thing... sadly, the best case scenario is usually an opinion that's based on a few minutes of news coverage. More likely, it's based on what a buddy gave from his slanted reinterpretation, based on a faulty memory of (at best) those few minutes of news coverage and very often not even that but rather on HIS buddies faulty reinterpretation of a few minutes news. Anyone who works with the public will see it all day every day.

I always thought that The Telephone Game we played in kindergarten was supposed to teach us how NOT to get information. It seems that an awful lot of folks saw it differently.

[madmo44mag]

JimDandy.

I see and respect the point you make.
This is you definition of “big brother” and you have the right and privilege to that definition.
It is a bit off topic and I will not be baited into that argument.

As stated I was just offering anther view point.

Cheers.