On Sunday, April 13, 2014 11:12:16 AM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 21:32:38 -0700 (PDT), Harry K

wrote:



Odd. almost every report about this situation states that a federal court ISSUED A WARRENT to remove the cattle.



Harry,



An injunction was issued against the man 19 years ago, after BLM

changed rules. He should have been ARRESTED then for non-compliance.

BLM has enough time to arrest the cows, put 'em in leg irons and take

mug shots, too. Sheesh.



It does not give BLM the right to infringe on First Amendment rights

of people, close public roads, send in hundreds of armed goons or

intimidate people with dogs.



Apparently they didn't send in enough goons, because they had to back
down in the interest of safety. When executing a lawful court order,
I think law enforcement has the right to reasonable restrictions.
If they are serving a warrant on someone at a house for example,
does the public have a right to demonstrate on the sidewalk close
to the house?

I didn't follow this closely, but it seems the authorities had
reasonable grounds to expect that this could turn into a serious
confrontation. In that environment, it seems they have the right
to some reasonable restrictions on where people can exercise their
first ammendment rights.



The man should have been arrested 19 years ago and the cows charged

with trespass.



I'm not sure how that changes anything. The court apparently decided
that it was OK to deal with it now, ie the rancher lost his case.



Heck, we have undocumented grazers eating off taxpayer money!



A postal worker stealing $100,000, student loans in defaults,

government employees owing a billion or more in taxes, and the State

Dept. not able to account for 6 Billion in taxpayer money.



But the cows can't eat. No. No way that can happen.

I agree there are bigger issues and maybe they should have let it go.
But given that they chose to enforce the law, a court has ruled, I
don't see that the rancher is in the right. Again, I didn't follow
this closely, but it appears the rancher's claim is that his rights
go back hundreds of years, pre-date the area becoming a state, etc.
Sounds kind of goofy to me. I have a limo driver I use sometimes.
He's a libertarian loon. One day he was telling me that he's checking
to see if he has to continue to pay his mortgage, because if the
bank can't find the papers in their archives, he's off the hook. He
obviously doesn't realize that the mortgage is recorded at the county
hall of records. Last time I talked to him, he was mad that when he
went to the state capitol they looked at him like he was crazy. He
wanted to apply for some "ambassador" status, whereby he would be the
ambassador from some pre-existing territory or some such thing, and
thereby have diplomatic immunity. He thinks that's his "right"
because he read it somewhere on the internet. Just saying, there are
some real loons out there interpreting a lot of things in very
unconventional ways.