Feds lay siege to Nevada ranch

[jimmytavino 16]

Land of the Free

Home of the Brave

it appears that we may find OUT who is the bravest

I cannot accept ANY Government agency or representative, arming themselves against the citizenry , in order to "enforce" anything.....

there HAS to be a better way

Instead of tossing a lighted match,, into a powder keg, isn't it more SENSIBLE to wave a white flag and monitor the situation from a NON threatening distance, as selected attaches meet, to DISCUSS the circumstances

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning Against using pasture lands for grazing....seems like a good use of grasses that are gonna just Die,,,,anyway, at the end of the season.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Boogers

***Are we all having a blonde moment understanding what law enforcement means? 'Wait and take it out of his estate is the stupidest fucking thing I've heard all week.'

What happens when a homeowner doesn't pay his property taxes? Do we surround his home with armed police and threaten him with violence? No, we just put a lien on his home, and at some point in the future when the home is sold, the back taxes due are taken from the proceeds of the sale.

Ah, but that just doesn't make you feel good about enforcing the law against "thugs", does it? Bring on the snipers!

But that is not quite what is happening.
he is "squatting" on land that doesn't belong to him. He has been asked to pay for the use, and he isn't doing that, but remains on the land that doesn't belong to him.

At some point, his belongings have to be removed from the l;and that doesn't belong to him and he is not willing to pay to occupy.

If somebody started using and occupying land that belonged to you. Would you just wait till he died and hope you got something out if the estate?

(Never mind that doing nothing might be seen as consent and would possibly jeapordize future legal proceedings)

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

Instead of tossing a lighted match,, into a powder keg, isn't it more SENSIBLE to wave a white flag and monitor the situation from a NON threatening distance, as selected attaches meet, to DISCUSS the circumstances

Isn't that what you call a court of law?

So what do you do after two of those have ruled. Just do nothing?

Quote

I cannot accept ANY Government agency or representative, arming themselves against the citizenry , in order to "enforce" anything.....

So there should be no police force? Plus if the citizens have a constitutional right to be armed, why wouldn't those who have to enforce rules be?

[billvon 2,400]

>Right, ranchers are "thugs" for wanting to keep the land they've always had.

No, ranchers are thugs for disobeying the law, disobeying a judge's order and then threatening violence when they don't get their way.

Do you support violent thugs, or the rule of law?

[rushmc 18]

SkyDekker

******Are we all having a blonde moment understanding what law enforcement means? 'Wait and take it out of his estate is the stupidest fucking thing I've heard all week.'

What happens when a homeowner doesn't pay his property taxes? Do we surround his home with armed police and threaten him with violence? No, we just put a lien on his home, and at some point in the future when the home is sold, the back taxes due are taken from the proceeds of the sale.

Ah, but that just doesn't make you feel good about enforcing the law against "thugs", does it? Bring on the snipers!

But that is not quite what is happening.
he is "squatting" on land that doesn't belong to him. He has been asked to pay for the use, and he isn't doing that, but remains on the land that doesn't belong to him.

At some point, his belongings have to be removed from the l;and that doesn't belong to him and he is not willing to pay to occupy.

If somebody started using and occupying land that belonged to you. Would you just wait till he died and hope you got something out if the estate?

(Never mind that doing nothing might be seen as consent and would possibly jeapordize future legal proceedings)

IMO the BLM is the squaters
The fed gov has taken control of millions of acres of land
They do not have the authority to do this
But they have

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 622]

There does appear to be some truth to that.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

rushmc

*********Are we all having a blonde moment understanding what law enforcement means? 'Wait and take it out of his estate is the stupidest fucking thing I've heard all week.'

What happens when a homeowner doesn't pay his property taxes? Do we surround his home with armed police and threaten him with violence? No, we just put a lien on his home, and at some point in the future when the home is sold, the back taxes due are taken from the proceeds of the sale.

Ah, but that just doesn't make you feel good about enforcing the law against "thugs", does it? Bring on the snipers!

But that is not quite what is happening.
he is "squatting" on land that doesn't belong to him. He has been asked to pay for the use, and he isn't doing that, but remains on the land that doesn't belong to him.

At some point, his belongings have to be removed from the l;and that doesn't belong to him and he is not willing to pay to occupy.

If somebody started using and occupying land that belonged to you. Would you just wait till he died and hope you got something out if the estate?

(Never mind that doing nothing might be seen as consent and would possibly jeapordize future legal proceedings)

IMO the BLM is the squaters
The fed gov has taken control of millions of acres of land
They do not have the authority to do this
But they have

Then take them to court. In the mean time two court rulings have gone against the rancher.

[rushmc 18]

SkyDekker

************Are we all having a blonde moment understanding what law enforcement means? 'Wait and take it out of his estate is the stupidest fucking thing I've heard all week.'

What happens when a homeowner doesn't pay his property taxes? Do we surround his home with armed police and threaten him with violence? No, we just put a lien on his home, and at some point in the future when the home is sold, the back taxes due are taken from the proceeds of the sale.

Ah, but that just doesn't make you feel good about enforcing the law against "thugs", does it? Bring on the snipers!

But that is not quite what is happening.
he is "squatting" on land that doesn't belong to him. He has been asked to pay for the use, and he isn't doing that, but remains on the land that doesn't belong to him.

At some point, his belongings have to be removed from the l;and that doesn't belong to him and he is not willing to pay to occupy.

If somebody started using and occupying land that belonged to you. Would you just wait till he died and hope you got something out if the estate?

(Never mind that doing nothing might be seen as consent and would possibly jeapordize future legal proceedings)

IMO the BLM is the squaters
The fed gov has taken control of millions of acres of land
They do not have the authority to do this
But they have

Then take them to court. In the mean time two court rulings have gone against the rancher.

Cant argue with that

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 622]

Unless it's federal judges!

[Boogers 0]

SkyDekker

******Are we all having a blonde moment understanding what law enforcement means? 'Wait and take it out of his estate is the stupidest fucking thing I've heard all week.'

What happens when a homeowner doesn't pay his property taxes? Do we surround his home with armed police and threaten him with violence? No, we just put a lien on his home, and at some point in the future when the home is sold, the back taxes due are taken from the proceeds of the sale.

Ah, but that just doesn't make you feel good about enforcing the law against "thugs", does it? Bring on the snipers!

But that is not quite what is happening.
he is "squatting" on land that doesn't belong to him. He has been asked to pay for the use, and he isn't doing that, but remains on the land that doesn't belong to him.

At some point, his belongings have to be removed from the l;and that doesn't belong to him and he is not willing to pay to occupy.

If somebody started using and occupying land that belonged to you. Would you just wait till he died and hope you got something out if the estate?

(Never mind that doing nothing might be seen as consent and would possibly jeapordize future legal proceedings)

The land occupation "squatting" is by cows, and the government is already in the process of confiscating and removing them. So when that's complete, what then? Then it's just a civil matter of how much back fees he owes for the grazing rights. That's not worth armed force. And it's not another private individual who is aggrieved - it's the government. They can afford to wait to avoid bloodshed. The amount of money he owes to the government, gets spent by that same government in less than one minute. It's not going to break the U.S. bank. That's Obama's job.

[billvon 2,400]

>The land occupation "squatting" is by cows, and the government is already in the
>process of confiscating and removing them. So when that's complete, what then?
>Then it's just a civil matter of how much back fees he owes for the grazing rights.
>That's not worth armed force.

Agreed. Hence the fact that the ranchers are threatening to shoot people is ominous.

>They can afford to wait to avoid bloodshed.

Also agreed. Wait until his bill comes due, then send him a letter, then issue a warrant for his arrest, then arrest him if he still refuses to pay. If he resists arrest, then things get a little more serious. And of course if anyone attempts to harm a cop who is doing his job, then they deserve what they get when the cop defends himself.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

The land occupation "squatting" is by cows, and the government is already in the process of confiscating and removing them.

Right and the confrontations are stemming from the ranchers trying to stop BLM from removing the cattle.

So, you then either enforce the court ruling. Or, as you seem to be advocating, do nothing.

[normiss 622]

There are some dicey federal rules regarding livestock aren't there?

[jimmytavino 16]

maybe he should just say "the hell with it " and Move to Texas.
wouldn't he and his cows be welcomed, in that state ???
It's Not worth getting killed over.. and certainly not worth Killing ANYbody, over, either, cause then His life will never be the same.. "principle,,,, or No principle "

everybodys definition of Free , can be different.

[billvon 2,400]

>wouldn't he and his cows be welcomed, in tha state ?

Local ranchers would have shot the trespasser 20 years ago and the issue would have gone away.

[masterrig 1]

Boogers

***The laws say he owes $$$, the judge says he owes $$$, if he's not willing to pay, then they need to arrest him.

Okay, so wait until he drives into town to buy a gallon of milk, and catch him then. That would be less dangerous than surrounding his home with law officers and facing a horde of angry citizens.

Have we learned nothing since Waco and Ruby Ridge?

I just wonder if all this blood lust from the liberals here would still apply if it was instead a liberal home owner standing up against the government, rather than a conservative.

Here's a little more on the subject...
http://home.myhughesnet.com/tv/3/player/vendor/CNN/player/cnn/asset/cnn-pilots_friend_something_went_wrong-cnn/source/auto

I watched this a couple times and I swear, it says the BLM didn't start charging Bundy a fee for grazing his cattle until 1993. In a previous story, it said Bundy owed the fee since 1993. That makes it sound like Bundy had been paying then just quit paying. A little confusing! The land has been in the Bundy family for over a hundred years and now, all of a sudden, the BLM is raising hell over it. I'm beginning to get a different view of this matter. I think the BLM is pulling a fast one and using gestapo tactics to get their way.


Chuck

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Did the Bundy family own it?

Or did they just use it?

There's a pretty distinct difference. Owning it means filing the paperwork, holding title and paying taxes. Way back in the frontier days, it wasn't hard to do. Homesteading was pretty common.
But if they just used it for their cattle, without having title or (more importantly) without paying any taxes on it, then they were subject to the rules changing and getting booted the entire time.

Lot of people use a lot of BLM land for a lot of things. And they tend to get mad when the rules change and their ability to use the land is changed (usually not for the better). That's part of the thing about public land. It's usually free to use, but the rules for it's use can be changed by the politicians or the bureaucrats at any time.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[masterrig 1]

I can't find anything in regard to 'ownership' of that particular piece of land. I would tend to think that the Bundy's 'free-grazed' and continued to do so after the BLM was formed in 1946. There was probably a handshake agreement. That's probably what he means by 'in the family'.
Much like anything else the media covers, we're not getting the 'whole' story, I feel.
Just seems funny, Mr. Bundy is 67 yrs. old and so is the BLM.


Chuck

[Boogers 0]

More info from the family perspective:

"THE BUNDY DAUGHTER SPEAKS OUT ON GOVERNMENT TERRORISM AGAINST HER FAMILY!"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3143026/posts

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Did the Bundy family own it?

Or did they just use it?

There's a pretty distinct difference. Owning it means filing the paperwork, holding title and paying taxes. Way back in the frontier days, it wasn't hard to do. Homesteading was pretty common.
But if they just used it for their cattle, without having title or (more importantly) without paying any taxes on it, then they were subject to the rules changing and getting booted the entire time.

I'm pretty certain it was the second. The BLM can't just take your land without compensating you for it (it's in the Constitution!).

On the other hand most Western ranchers (except for Texas, I think) do not own the vast majority of the land they use; they own the part with buildings and such, and pay for grazing rights on vast acreages of public land. It wouldn't really be practical to have to own the land, as most of it is so poor that it takes several acres to support one cow.

Because BLM land is publicly owned, it is supposed to be "multi-use". That means the rancher is not supposed to be able to deny access to hikers, rockhounds, etc as long as they don't bother the livestock. For that reason, as one example, roads could have gates (to keep cattle in) but those gates were not supposed to be locked. However, when I lived in Arizona in the 90's there was a movement amongst many ranchers to treat the land as their private property and deny access to everyone. Local sheriffs were very reluctant to get involved in access disputes, so generally there was no practical way to fight this land grab. Southern Arizona has a myriad of small mountain ranges, often called "sky islands" because the higher elevations are much cooler and so are forested, unlike the lowland desert between the ranges. Ranchers could in effect claim entire mountain ranges as their private fiefdom just by leasing grazing rights to the surrounding desert and denying everyone else access.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[masterrig 1]

Thanks for posting that!! That shines a different light on this mess. Sound right in line with how the BLM operates. I believe, I'll take her word over the BLM's. They're trying to make Bundy look like a land grabber and a thief when it's the BLM who is wrong. They've got their 'goon squad' there for intimidation and force. I sure don't want to see any blood-shed over this.


Chuck

[masterrig 1]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

Did the Bundy family own it?

Or did they just use it?

There's a pretty distinct difference. Owning it means filing the paperwork, holding title and paying taxes. Way back in the frontier days, it wasn't hard to do. Homesteading was pretty common.
But if they just used it for their cattle, without having title or (more importantly) without paying any taxes on it, then they were subject to the rules changing and getting booted the entire time.

I'm pretty certain it was the second. The BLM can't just take your land without compensating you for it (it's in the Constitution!).

On the other hand most Western ranchers (except for Texas, I think) do not own the vast majority of the land they use; they own the part with buildings and such, and pay for grazing rights on vast acreages of public land. It wouldn't really be practical to have to own the land, as most of it is so poor that it takes several acres to support one cow.

Because BLM land is publicly owned, it is supposed to be "multi-use". That means the rancher is not supposed to be able to deny access to hikers, rockhounds, etc as long as they don't bother the livestock. For that reason, as one example, roads could have gates (to keep cattle in) but those gates were not supposed to be locked. However, when I lived in Arizona in the 90's there was a movement amongst many ranchers to treat the land as their private property and deny access to everyone. Local sheriffs were very reluctant to get involved in access disputes, so generally there was no practical way to fight this land grab. Southern Arizona has a myriad of small mountain ranges, often called "sky islands" because the higher elevations are much cooler and so are forested, unlike the lowland desert between the ranges. Ranchers could in effect claim entire mountain ranges as their private fiefdom just by leasing grazing rights to the surrounding desert and denying everyone else access.

Don

You are correct... the BLM is not in Texas. Instead, we have The Nature's Conservancy.


Chuck

[quade 3]

Boogers

More info from the family perspective:

Quote

My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve.

Yeah, I don't think people get to pick and choose which taxes and fees they pay and not pay based on how the person who collects the taxes and fees uses them.

This was a flat out admission the family fucked up.

Fortunately, land claims, grants and ownership is something pretty well documented in the US. All a person should really have to do to check out the family's side of the story is visit the county's Hall of Records office.

Maybe even on-line.
http://www.clarkcountynv.gov/depts/assessor/pages/recordsearch.aspx

On the other hand, if the family wanted to lay claim by squatter's rights or something, they can also prove it's their land by coughing up property tax receipts. If they haven't been paying property tax, it's abandoned land and the BLM has every right to it.

Just out of curiosity, does anybody have the GPS coordinates outlining the land in question?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

You are correct... the BLM is not in Texas. Instead, we have The Nature's Conservancy. Unsure[/:/]

The Nature Conservancy buys land with ecologically sensitive resources. Their mandate is to protect habitat. Since they own the land, it would seem to me they have a right to do with it as they wish. Do you disagree? Or do you disagree with people buying land in order to protect endangered/threatened species or habitats? Should people be screened for their intentions before being allowed to buy land, and be denied if they intend to conserve it?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[funjumper101 15]

quade

***More info from the family perspective:

Quote

My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve.

Yeah, I don't think people get to pick and choose which taxes and fees they pay and not pay based on how the person who collects the taxes and fees uses them.

This was a flat out admission the family fucked up.

Fortunately, land claims, grants and ownership is something pretty well documented in the US. All a person should really have to do to check out the family's side of the story is visit the county's Hall of Records office.

Maybe even on-line.
http://www.clarkcountynv.gov/depts/assessor/pages/recordsearch.aspx

On the other hand, if the family wanted to lay claim by squatter's rights or something, they can also prove it's their land by coughing up property tax receipts. If they haven't been paying property tax, it's abandoned land and the BLM has every right to it.

Just out of curiosity, does anybody have the GPS coordinates outlining the land in question?

Don't go raining on the latest "outrage" parade that the Right Wing Conservatards are having right now.

You are messing with their minds, coming up with logical, factual information, and useful questions that show how the family is WRONG in their actions. The news that the RWC press has twisted the facts of the situation to make the government look like the bad guys is sure to get the 'tards all riled up. If their information sources are inaccurate on this matter, and are leading them to believe things that are provably false, they will freak out. It calls into question the accuracy of other information the 'tards receive and believe in. That just can't happen.

The right wing media machine is always accurate, truthful, and presents nothing but factual information, NOT.

You don't pay the rent to the landlord, you and your stuff gets evicted from the property. Simple and straightforward. You would think that these simple concepts would be apparent to anyone with an IQ over 85. Based on the writing here, that is not the case. You can make the 'tards believe anything, if you tell them lies the right way.
Baaaaa, the sheeple RWCs follow their shepherds down the path of stupidity.