This is my county, just north of my home. Land and grazing rights
since 1870. A land war has started... Bunkerville, NV.

Cops taze pregnant women.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/blm-takes-down-first-amendment-areas-set-cattle-roundup

Video:

Nev. rancher threatens 'range war' against federal gov't

Authorities seized Cliven Bundy's 134 cattle

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/index.html#/v/3451342607001

....what ever it takes for freedom and liberty

Spit!

On 04/11/2014 11:43 AM, Harry K wrote:
Yep. I have never heard of anyone being allowed free grazing on federal/state land. There is always a grazing fee of some kind.

I can't believe that people are supporting that POS. He is stealing the use of OUR land.

Harry K


Yah, I pay about $3500/yr in property tax for my little 2 acre ranch.

"Harry K" wrote in message news:4806b084-fabd-403b-a5c2-

stuff snipped

Yep. I have never heard of anyone being allowed free grazing on
federal/state land. There is always a grazing fee of some kind.

I can't believe that people are supporting that POS. He is stealing the
use of OUR land.

It's like Exxon deciding they don't have to pay the royalties on the oil
they find on public land. I have no sympathy for a deadbeat. Especially
one trying to hide behind a false issue. Reading this story it seems that he
just stopped paying the fees in protest one day and then glommed onto the
lame "my ancestors" spiel.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannit...ral-government

This all started in 1993 when the government declared the land habitat for
the federally protected desert tortoise. Following that move, Bundy refused
to pay new grazing fees and continued letting his cattle graze on the land.
He argued that his ancestors worked this land since the 1870s, long before
the Bureau of Land Management was formed, granting him the rights to the
property.

Don't let the Native Americans hear that line of reasoning . . .

When Hannity says "new grazing fees" it's not clear whether they started new
fees in 1993 or that's when Bundy decided to stop paying any more fees. But
what's worse in my mind is a) Hannity giving this loon a perch to warble
from and b) not understanding a whit about grazing fees and claiming Bundy's
providing "lawn" care service of some kind:

HANNITY: It is interesting. Your cattle -- this is public land. It's not
being used. In my mind, and I'm not a rancher, but I would think the federal
government would be thankful because you're cutting the lawn for free, and
they're charging huge amounts of money to let your cattle graze there with
these fees?

Wow, I knew Hannity was ot-Nay oo-Tay right-Bay, but this is remarkably
daft. Read the rest of the article to make your head swim. Bundy's doing
us taxpayers a service, using OUR land to make a commericial profit from,
saving himself the cost of feed and cheating taxpayers out of a fee that
plenty of other ranchers pay without whining because they know it's a good
deal, overall. This guy's bill went sky high because of interest and
penalties from when he decided he was too important to pay fees in 1993.
It's not like the BLM decided unilaterally to seize his cattle. He had his
day in court. And lost.

Try walking into a Wal-mart and taking something off the shelf and walking
out with it without paying because it's "not being used." Jeez.

Less than zero sympathy for Bundy. I just wonder if the publicity that Fox
is giving this deadbeat is going to end in violent tragedy. In more than
one place I've read people are asking people to bring their guns to the
protest.

HANNITY: How far are you willing to go? How far are you willing to take
this?
BUNDY: My statement to the American people, I'll do whatever it takes to
gain our liberty and freedom back.

Liberty and freedom? What bunk. Freedom from having to pay for what you
use, like the rest of us is what he really wants.

--

Bobby G.

There are always folks on both the right and the left fringes!!!!

On 4/10/2014 10:09 PM, Oren wrote:
This is my county, just north of my home. Land and grazing rights
since 1870. A land war has started... Bunkerville, NV.

Cops taze pregnant women.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/blm-takes-down-first-amendment-areas-set-cattle-roundup

Video:

Nev. rancher threatens 'range war' against federal gov't

Authorities seized Cliven Bundy's 134 cattle

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/index.html#/v/3451342607001

...what ever it takes for freedom and liberty

Spit!


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...5460514&type=1

First amendment isn't an area. It's a limit on
the power of government.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 08:33:55 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...5460514&type=1

First amendment isn't an area. It's a limit on
the power of government.

Correct. The 1st is also not limited to speech. BLM had two 25 X 25
foot areas and tried to limit only 25 protestors at a time. The
Governor told them to take them down.

This whole thing is not about grazing fees or a tortoise. This area
was not even in the original boundary when Nevada became a state and
President Lincoln grabbed 85% of the original land. The county was
still part of the New Mexico Territory. North of Clark county (East)
was still part of the Utah Territory. Settled by Mormons.

The EPA designated part of this land used by farmers as a tortoise
preserve - calling them endangered. Cows don't step on or harm the
land tortoise; nor do the step on snakes. The EPA did not site the
tortoise as a reason to remove wild Mustangs from public lands. In
fact, a tortoise refuge in Las Vegas has so many, the Feds are
euthanizing them. These were collected when developers built housing,
etc. So much for "endangered". This is about government take over and
control. Hundreds of federals, armed to the hilt, with snipers
surrounding the people.

Those yammering on about this rancher owing grazing fees, then he owes
it to Clark county or the state. Not the federals. He said he will
pay, but not pay the feds. If the feds had something on him, then
arrest him for violating the court order to remove the cows from a
tortoise preserve designated by the EPA for a non-endangered reptile.

Remember the kid in Miami, Elián González?

http://scholarsandrogues.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/elian.jpg

This mess is ticking....for a blow up if the feds don't back away
soon.

Molon labe!

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 08:43:37 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

Yep. I have never heard of anyone being allowed free grazing on federal/state land. There is always a grazing fee of some kind.

I can't believe that people are supporting that POS. He is stealing the use of OUR land.

Harry K

What ignorance you show. Grazing fees go to the landlord. YOU do not
own this land, nor does the federal government. This a Clark County,
Nevada land.

Now go preen your feathers.

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 04:38:01 -0400, TrollBuster
wrote:

In my opinion, looks like Bundy is a freeloading deadbeat worthless piece of **** bum that needs to pay his bills.

Your opinion doesn't matter. You have no clue about this county so
STFU and & GFYS.

Embitter!

The rancher won today... you "deadbeat worthless piece of shift bum".

On 04/12/2014 02:16 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 08:43:37 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

Yep. I have never heard of anyone being allowed free grazing on federal/state land. There is always a grazing fee of some kind.

I can't believe that people are supporting that POS. He is stealing the use of OUR land.

Harry K

What ignorance you show. Grazing fees go to the landlord. YOU do not
own this land, nor does the federal government. This a Clark County,
Nevada land.

Now go preen your feathers.


Even the deadbeat Mormon admits he owes $300,000.


From
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nation...,1159016.story

The government has said the cattle round-up was a “last resort” to enforce court orders
ruling that Bundy has failed to pay more than $1 million in fees since 1993 for his cattle
to graze on public land.

Forcing him either to pay or to give up his cattle is a matter of fairness to the
16,000 ranchers who do follow the rules, U.S. officials say.

The 68-year-old father of 14 has argued in court that his Mormon ancestors worked the land
since the 1880s, long before the BLM was formed, giving him rights that predate federal
involvement. He says he only owes about $300,000.

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 20:54:02 -0400, Stanley wrote:

On 04/12/2014 02:16 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 08:43:37 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

Yep. I have never heard of anyone being allowed free grazing on federal/state land. There is always a grazing fee of some kind.

I can't believe that people are supporting that POS. He is stealing the use of OUR land.

Harry K

What ignorance you show. Grazing fees go to the landlord. YOU do not
own this land, nor does the federal government. This a Clark County,
Nevada land.

Now go preen your feathers.


Even the deadbeat Mormon admits he owes $300,000.


He never said it is owed the to the feds. Try to keep up.

From
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nation...,1159016.story

The government has said the cattle round-up was a “last resort” to enforce court orders
ruling that Bundy has failed to pay more than $1 million in fees since 1993 for his cattle
to graze on public land.

Forcing him either to pay or to give up his cattle is a matter of fairness to the
16,000 ranchers who do follow the rules, U.S. officials say.

The 68-year-old father of 14 has argued in court that his Mormon ancestors worked the land
since the 1880s, long before the BLM was formed, giving him rights that predate federal
involvement. He says he only owes about $300,000.


As of this morning, PST, the feds tucked tail. He will get his cattle
back that was stolen from him without a warrant. In violation of the
Bill of Rights.

Stealing cattle was once a hangable offense. Folks back east should
learn this.

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 17:44:42 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 04:38:01 -0400, TrollBuster
wrote:

In my opinion, looks like Bundy is a freeloading deadbeat worthless piece of **** bum that needs to pay his bills.

Your opinion doesn't matter. You have no clue about this county so
STFU and & GFYS.

Embitter!

The rancher won today... you "deadbeat worthless piece of shift bum".

Everyone, let this be a warning. It must be that time of the month
for. Don't mess with Oren!

On Saturday, April 12, 2014 6:07:52 PM UTC-7, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 20:54:02 -0400, Stanley wrote:

On 04/12/2014 02:16 PM, Oren wrote:


snip

As of this morning, PST, the feds tucked tail. He will get his cattle
back that was stolen from him without a warrant. In violation of the
Bill of Rights.

Stealing cattle was once a hangable offense. Folks back east should
learn this.

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

Why don't you at least stick to actual facts instead of making up your own version.

I realize it is probably that time of month for you but...

Harry K

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.

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

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.

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.

On Sunday, April 13, 2014 8:12:16 AM UTC-7, 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.

And the fact remains that the WARRANT TO REMOVE THE CATTLE was issued just recently.


As of this morning, PST, the feds tucked tail. He will get his cattle
back that was stolen from him without a warrant. In violation of the
Bill of Rights.

Your claim is false.

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.

It gives them the right to secure the premises in the interest of public safety. Did they carry it a bit too far? Possibly.

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

For sure. At least he shouldn't have been allowed to thumb his nose at the courts for all those years. I saw somewhere that he has appealed his case and the feds may have been holding off due to it. Fore sure they shouldn't have for 19 years.

Heck, we have undocumented grazers eating off taxpayer money!

Which is what almost everyone in all these threads across the 'net have been saying.

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.

Sure they can if the rules are followed. I also saw somewhere where he had waaayyy more cattle pairs on the land than his original lease authorized.

Harry K

On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 12:13:27 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

On Sunday, April 13, 2014 8:12:16 AM UTC-7, 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.

And the fact remains that the WARRANT TO REMOVE THE CATTLE was issued just recently.


He was ordered to remove the animals in the first court order. Then
after the EPA declared the area a tortoise sanctuary the feds got all
hot and bothered.

As of this morning, PST, the feds tucked tail. He will get his cattle
back that was stolen from him without a warrant. In violation of the
Bill of Rights.

Your claim is false.


We can agree to disagree

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.

It gives them the right to secure the premises in the interest of public safety. Did they carry it a bit too far? Possibly.


Possibly? It was an infringement upon some people that were not doing
anything but exercising their right to do so. Maybe the po-po should
have bound and ganged them. It has been done in courts before (Abby
Hoffman).

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

For sure. At least he shouldn't have been allowed to thumb his nose at the courts for all those years. I saw somewhere that he has appealed his case and the feds may have been holding off due to it. Fore sure they shouldn't have for 19 years.

Well if one listens to Eric Holder, people have Civil and Human right
to violate the law. He picks which laws he feels like enforcing,
depending on what day it is or how the wind blows.

Heck, we have undocumented grazers eating off taxpayer money!

Which is what almost everyone in all these threads across the 'net have been saying.


(G) I was talking about illegal aliens (undocumented grazers)

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.

Sure they can if the rules are followed. I also saw somewhere where he had waaayyy more cattle pairs on the land than his original lease authorized.


And some cows on the land where not his, supported by inspectors
checking brands on the animals. Apparently some did not even have a
brand on them

The cost of this all by the government is more that what he owes.
Maybe if Al Charlatan would pay his back taxes it would cover the
cost.

On Sunday, April 13, 2014 2:04:58 PM UTC-7, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 12:13:27 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

On Sunday, April 13, 2014 8:12:16 AM UTC-7, Oren wrote:

As of this morning, PST, the feds tucked tail. He will get his cattle

back that was stolen from him without a warrant. In violation of the

Bill of Rights.

Your claim is false.

We can agree to disagree


http://centurylink.net/news/read/art...ith_rancher-ap

"The bureau was implementing two federal court orders issued last year to remove Bundy's cattle after making repeated efforts to resolve the matter outside court."

How about we both admit we were wrong. It may not have been warrants but the court orders to remove them were issued LAST year.

The seizue was legal and constitutional.

Bottom line: Bundy is still a thief no matter how you try to dress it up.

It is also clear that the BLM did not participate in the negotiations to return the cattle and they are not going to meekly back down. Bundy will lose in the end and all the idiot "patriots" won't stop it.

Harry K
Harry K

On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 21:48:49 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

The seizue was legal and constitutional.

Yes. A few things have since come to light. BLM Director Neil Kornze,
from Nevada, was for former worker for Sen. Harry Reid. There may be
some cronyism going on. Some here speculate the Chinese companies may
want areas for solar farms or other want water and mineral right on
the land. Who knows, but is stinks to high heaven.

Bottom line: Bundy is still a thief no matter how you try to dress it up.

Turns out Bundy is a real dumb ass. He never had a lawyer in the
first court appearance (98?) and tried to represent himself (fool for
a client). Therefore, the case was not appealed in the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals (dumb)

The local paper is not exactly a bastion of conservatism - but.

EDITORIAL: Washington, the Bundy ranch and our rights

http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/editorial-washington-bundy-ranch-and-our-rights

Court ruling July 2013:

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/reptiles/desert_tortoise/pdfs/Order_US_v__Bundy_7_9_13.pdf

Court ruling October 2013:

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/nv/field_offices/las_vegas_field_office/cattle_trespass.Par.40211.File.dat/Dkt%2056%20Order%20Granting%20Motion%20to%20Enforc e%2010-9-13.pdf

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 21:47:12 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

Don't mess with Oren!

Great advice. Let sleeping a dog lie.

You might get bit between the eyes.

Oren wrote:

Turns out Bundy is a real dumb ass. He never had a lawyer in the
first court appearance (98?) and tried to represent himself (fool for
a client). Therefore, the case was not appealed in the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals (dumb)

He's like those 'sovereign citizens' who dream up some defense based on
Admiralty law, the Magna Carta, and a few other odds and ends to justify why
they don't have to pay taxes or get licenses. The lucky ones don't get shot
or pull a lot of hard time.

The Montana Firearms Freedom Act sounds like a 2nd Amendment thing, which it
is in part. However the 10th Amendment is the real thrust of it. It took a
lot of work to get the Act passed and signed by a Democratic governor, but
it got done. Right now the fight is to get standing in the 9th Circuit as a
stepping stone to the SCOTUS. If the Sagebrush Rebellion types had spent the
last 20 years challenging the federal control of the majority of western
land, they might be further ahead that just having the odd ****ing contests
with the BLM.

On Monday, April 14, 2014 8:51:04 AM UTC-7, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 21:48:49 -0700 (PDT), Harry K wrote:

The seizue was legal and constitutional.

Yes. A few things have since come to light. BLM Director Neil Kornze,
from Nevada, was for former worker for Sen. Harry Reid. There may be
some cronyism going on. Some here speculate the Chinese companies may
want areas for solar farms or other want water and mineral right on
the land. Who knows, but is stinks to high heaven.

Bottom line: Bundy is still a thief no matter how you try to dress it up..

Turns out Bundy is a real dumb ass. He never had a lawyer in the
first court appearance (98?) and tried to represent himself (fool for
a client). Therefore, the case was not appealed in the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals (dumb)

Big mistake there. The 9th circuit is known for making idiotic judgements. He would have had a good chance at winning.

The local paper is not exactly a bastion of conservatism - but.

EDITORIAL: Washington, the Bundy ranch and our rights

http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/editorial-washington-bundy-ranch-and-our-rights

Court ruling July 2013:
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/reptiles/desert_tortoise/pdfs/Order_US_v__Bundy_7_9_13.pdf

Court ruling October 2013:
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/nv/field_offices/las_vegas_field_office/cattle_trespass.Par.40211.File.dat/Dkt%2056%20Order%20Granting%20Motion%20to%20Enforc e%2010-9-13.pdf

Thanks for the links. I've just been going by the news reports which, as usual, have their own "axe to grind"

As to bundy being a fool I totally agree. All those "militia" types supporting him are in the same bed with him on that.

Gonna be interesting to see what BLMs next move will be. I can't see more "judicial" action working - 20 years of that hasn't.
'
We had much the same type situation in this county with the nuts crawlingout of the woodwork supporting a dead beat...up until the Swat team showed up and impounded a batch of horses and forced him out of his foreclosed and barricaded house. Not a shot fired, no real threats made and all the "militia" quietly folded and snuck away.

Harry K

On Monday, April 14, 2014 11:36:49 PM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
Oren wrote:



Turns out Bundy is a real dumb ass. He never had a lawyer in the

first court appearance (98?) and tried to represent himself (fool for

a client). Therefore, the case was not appealed in the 9th Circuit

Court of Appeals (dumb)



He's like those 'sovereign citizens' who dream up some defense based on

Admiralty law, the Magna Carta, and a few other odds and ends to justify why

they don't have to pay taxes or get licenses. The lucky ones don't get shot

or pull a lot of hard time.



There you go. That's what I was talking about earlier when I told the
story about the limo driver I use occasionally. He's one of those types.
Interesting to chat with, but he sure has some kooky ideas. He was telling
me about how they looked at him like he was nuts when he went to the state
capitol to try to get some kind of "ambassador" status to give him diplomatic
immunity. Something about being a representative of the real America of old
to the current one.......

trader_4 wrote:

There you go. That's what I was talking about earlier when I told the
story about the limo driver I use occasionally. He's one of those types.
Interesting to chat with, but he sure has some kooky ideas.

Unfortunately, like Mel Brooks in 'Conspiracy Theory', the blind pigs do
find acorns every now and then. The problem is knowing when their mental
universe and reality are in synch.

On Monday, April 14, 2014 9:06:54 PM UTC-7, Harry K wrote:
On Monday, April 14, 2014 8:51:04 AM UTC-7, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 21:48:49 -0700 (PDT), Harry K wrote:

snip


EDITORIAL: Washington, the Bundy ranch and our rights

http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/editorial-washington-bundy-ranch-and-our-rights

The comments are very interesting. Very few of them agree with the editorial, most basically call the editor a dumb ass.


Court ruling July 2013:
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/reptiles/desert_tortoise/pdfs/Order_US_v__Bundy_7_9_13.pdf

Hmmm...seems that not only was he not paying his grazing fees, running way more pairs than authorized, he was also grazing where not allowed to on neighboring areas. Court calls it the "New Trespass Area". High point was where he tried to claim the cows in he new area _wearing his brand_ were not his

snip

Harry K

"Harry K" wrote in message news:299aee26-b79c-4e56-bcc6-

stuff snipped


http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion...dy-ranch-and-o
ur-rights

Gack! There's SO much wrong with that editorial it's hard to decide where
to begin. It's filled with pseudo facts and mis-information to the brim.
It certainly would appeal to your gun toting militia member who stops
believing in democracy when things aren't going his way. Why bother with
the rule of law when you have a rifle and you're not afraid to use it?
These types are as loony as the Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh.

You see, even peaceful protests can be intimidating to government types.
If government types feel slightly threatened, they arm themselves to the
teeth. When they arm themselves to the teeth, they're far more likely to
view a peaceful protest as cover for an attack on the government. And if
they believe someone holding a sign or a camera might also have a gun,
agents are more likely to hurt someone. Thus, the government suspends the
First Amendment as a public safety measu Citizens are denied their rights
to peacefully assemble and engage in political speech because the content of
that expression might be "intimidating" enough to make government agents
overreact and hurt them. . . . That's exactly why unaccountable agents have
the authority to ignore the Constitution without consequence.

I'm not sure what planet this writer was on, but I saw plenty of pictures of
protesters armed to the teeth including setting up sniping positions behind
concrete highway barricades. Peaceful my ass. The Feds were smart enough
to realize the massing of armed idiots could result in a bloodbath. The
Feds apparently have learned from Waco and Ruby Ridge and I assume that many
of the armed protesters will be ID'ed and closely monitored from here on in.

It's pretty clear who has the rule of law on their side and who are the
armed thugs despite what revved up libertarian loons write in their
editorials. The writer needs to take a ConLaw class or two, because he
doesn't know his arse from a hole in the ground. "First Amendment Zones"
are nothing new and have been extensively court tested.

I wonder if this writer or the others who agree with him were equally
bothered when Bush II's teams set up "First Amendment Zones." Seems they
only howl when *their* ox is getting gored.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

"Though free speech zones existed in limited forms prior to the Presidency
of George W. Bush; it was during Bush's presidency that their scope was
greatly expanded." The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court
decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and
manner-but not content-of expression.

In the face of armed, sadly misinformed idiots being rabble-roused (sort of
like Sharpton does, when you come to think about it) to come in "aid" of
this deadbeat the Feds really had no other choice. From what little I saw
of the videos, there are charges a'plenty for anyone who was pointing a
weapon at a federal official or interfering with the performance of their
lawful duties. My guess is that they take them down quietly, one by one
after the dust clears. I wouldn't even be surprised if the whole point of
this exercise was to carefully identify anyone who decided to arm themselves
and come to deadbeat's Clive's aid. What a great way to separate the
armchair idiots from the truly dangerous ones.

We had much the same type situation in this county with the nuts
crawlingout of the woodwork supporting a dead beat...up until the Swat team
showed up and impounded a batch of horses and forced him out of his
foreclosed and barricaded house. Not a shot fired, no real threats made and
all the "militia" quietly folded and snuck away.

That's what's going to happen here as well, I predict. An open
confrontation would have likely made martyrs out of these militia kooks.
Reminds me of a cop friend who didn't believe in hot pursuit because it was
so dangerous to innocent civilians. His theory was that this *wasn't* their
last criminal act and eventually he or some other cop would catch them when
they could be captured safely. That was the mistake the Feds made at Waco
and RR. They weren't willing to wait for the right moment. Maybe they
*have* learned something from the past after all.

There's slightly more factual reading than the RJ (Rotten Journalism?)
editorial he

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-stand/360587/

Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution:

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted
for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the
right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it.
But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal
Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have
been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States . . . and
whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede
from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the
Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force
in compelling obedience to its Authority.

IOW, you'd get a better reading of Constitutional law from *Al* Bundy, the
fictional shoe salesman from "Married - with Children" than Cliven Bundy or
some of the editorial hacks supporting him.

--
Bobby G.

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:06:54 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

All those "militia" types supporting him are in the same bed with him on that.

http://api.ning.com/files/JF-pWsE9wxcknkwKRuyVXZ*1X1DkrVUCN9iCWpCAHwJN98FNP*qI6 73PiKnWYdoQRcbbtisALZ0-ExyuP-QFPVBTF7guTpdU/NWOURGENTMilitiasAreMobilizingtotheClivenBundyranc h.jpg

(G)

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 3:39:28 PM UTC-7, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:06:54 -0700 (PDT), Harry K wrote:

All those "militia" types supporting him are in the same bed with him on that.

http://api.ning.com/files/JF-pWsE9wxcknkwKRuyVXZ*1X1DkrVUCN9iCWpCAHwJN98FNP*qI6 73PiKnWYdoQRcbbtisALZ0-ExyuP-QFPVBTF7guTpdU/NWOURGENTMilitiasAreMobilizingtotheClivenBundyranc h.jpg

(G)

Odd. They call themselves militia. Perhaps you should point that out to them.

Harry K

On 4/12/2014 1:16 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 08:43:37 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

Yep. I have never heard of anyone being allowed free grazing on federal/state land. There is always a grazing fee of some kind.

I can't believe that people are supporting that POS. He is stealing the use of OUR land.

Harry K

What ignorance you show. Grazing fees go to the landlord. YOU do not
own this land, nor does the federal government. This a Clark County,
Nevada land.

Now go preen your feathers.

I wonder how much of that grazing fee would pay toward one trip by our
Affirmative Action President in the fleet of jet it takes to fly him
around? Perhaps about one minute? ^_^

TDD

On 4/12/2014 8:07 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 20:54:02 -0400, Stanley
wrote:

On 04/12/2014 02:16 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 08:43:37 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

Yep. I have never heard of anyone being allowed free grazing
on federal/state land. There is always a grazing fee of some
kind.

I can't believe that people are supporting that POS. He is
stealing the use of OUR land.

Harry K

What ignorance you show. Grazing fees go to the landlord. YOU
do not own this land, nor does the federal government. This a
Clark County, Nevada land.

Now go preen your feathers.


Even the deadbeat Mormon admits he owes $300,000.


He never said it is owed the to the feds. Try to keep up.

From
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nation...,1159016.story



The government has said the cattle round-up was a “last resort” to
enforce court orders
ruling that Bundy has failed to pay more than $1 million in fees
since 1993 for his cattle to graze on public land.

Forcing him either to pay or to give up his cattle is a matter of
fairness to the 16,000 ranchers who do follow the rules, U.S.
officials say.

The 68-year-old father of 14 has argued in court that his Mormon
ancestors worked the land since the 1880s, long before the BLM was
formed, giving him rights that predate federal involvement. He says
he only owes about $300,000.


As of this morning, PST, the feds tucked tail. He will get his
cattle back that was stolen from him without a warrant. In violation
of the Bill of Rights.

Stealing cattle was once a hangable offense. Folks back east should
learn this.

Strange how the feds showed up with machine guns, weapons of war that
Joe Citizen is not allowed to have. That kind of thing doesn't seem to
bother the mindless P.L.L.C.F. who have no problem with a government
that gives more rights to animals, fish and insects than the human
beings who are citizens. ^_^

TDD

On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 11:39:46 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

I wonder how much of that grazing fee would pay toward one trip by our
Affirmative Action President in the fleet of jet it takes to fly him
around? Perhaps about one minute? ^_^

You'll notice that BLM is not charging fees for the drug cartels,
using public land to bring drugs, traffic in humans and trash the
desert up at the Mexican border. Nope to chase down cows, run them to
death with helicopters and dig a mass grave to bury the cows. Bury the
food that coyotes or mountain lions would scavenge in the tortoise
sanctuary.

The contract for the "cowboys" from another state, is 1 Million. Wait
until the final cost of this mess is final.

Federal employees own 3.x Billion dollars in back taxes, student loans
default, Al Charlatan owing Millions in taxes, etc. But Harry Reid
says the Bundy matter is "not over" and that people can't just be
breaking the "law".

Meanwhile, millions of illegal aliens are grazing off the taxpayers.

Spit!

--
Progressives make a living voting....

The Daring Dufas posted for all of us...

And I know how to SNIP


On 4/12/2014 8:07 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 20:54:02 -0400, Stanley
wrote:

On 04/12/2014 02:16 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 08:43:37 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

Yep. I have never heard of anyone being allowed free grazing
on federal/state land. There is always a grazing fee of some
kind.

I can't believe that people are supporting that POS. He is
stealing the use of OUR land.

Harry K

What ignorance you show. Grazing fees go to the landlord. YOU
do not own this land, nor does the federal government. This a
Clark County, Nevada land.

Now go preen your feathers.


Even the deadbeat Mormon admits he owes $300,000.


He never said it is owed the to the feds. Try to keep up.

From
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nation...,1159016.story



The government has said the cattle round-up was a ?last resort? to
enforce court orders
ruling that Bundy has failed to pay more than $1 million in fees
since 1993 for his cattle to graze on public land.

Forcing him either to pay or to give up his cattle is a matter of
fairness to the 16,000 ranchers who do follow the rules, U.S.
officials say.

The 68-year-old father of 14 has argued in court that his Mormon
ancestors worked the land since the 1880s, long before the BLM was
formed, giving him rights that predate federal involvement. He says
he only owes about $300,000.


As of this morning, PST, the feds tucked tail. He will get his
cattle back that was stolen from him without a warrant. In violation
of the Bill of Rights.

Stealing cattle was once a hangable offense. Folks back east should
learn this.

Strange how the feds showed up with machine guns, weapons of war that
Joe Citizen is not allowed to have. That kind of thing doesn't seem to
bother the mindless P.L.L.C.F. who have no problem with a government
that gives more rights to animals, fish and insects than the human
beings who are citizens. ^_^

TDD

All I can think of is Waco, TX and Ruby Ridge. I am glad to see the gov't
withdraw. I am not following too closely but I am sure there are better
methods for BOTH sides to use. My understanding the BLM is not an
enforcement agency. Let the courts do their thing. Let the dissenters
speak.

I don't live nor have ever been in that part of the country. Personal mores
are different everywhere. It would take a huge jump for me to understand.

One thing I do know is to keep the conresscritters out of it. They lie
before they would tell the truth. It is essentially a local matter. So they
should STFU. That is part of the diversionary tactics. They screw up what
they touch and then when found out they lie their asses off and divert. Who
can trust any of them?

--
Tekkie

On 4/16/2014 12:01 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 11:39:46 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

I wonder how much of that grazing fee would pay toward one trip by
our Affirmative Action President in the fleet of jet it takes to
fly him around? Perhaps about one minute? ^_^

You'll notice that BLM is not charging fees for the drug cartels,
using public land to bring drugs, traffic in humans and trash the
desert up at the Mexican border. Nope to chase down cows, run them
to death with helicopters and dig a mass grave to bury the cows. Bury
the food that coyotes or mountain lions would scavenge in the
tortoise sanctuary.

The contract for the "cowboys" from another state, is 1 Million.
Wait until the final cost of this mess is final.

Federal employees own 3.x Billion dollars in back taxes, student
loans default, Al Charlatan owing Millions in taxes, etc. But Harry
Reid says the Bundy matter is "not over" and that people can't just
be breaking the "law".

Meanwhile, millions of illegal aliens are grazing off the taxpayers.

Spit!

Isn't it amazing how the inmates run the asylum. The P.L.L.C.F. are
oblivious to the nonsensical nature of the government action against the
ranchers in the Western part of The United States. They ignore or don't
want to know that the feds have run most of the ranchers out of business
by bestowing superior rights on ****ing turtles over those of human
beings. I do recall hearing from my childhood, "Government for the
people by the people." When was it changed to "Government for the
turtles by machine gun toting federal agents."? The capital of the
country needs to be moved to the middle of the country and D.C. should
be razed. ^_^

TDD

On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 11:21:34 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

3. Why are you supporting a thief?

Harry K,

Mr. Dufas answered and I waited for him to do so.

I've said before this was about excessive force and government
intimidation, a violations of First Amendment rights. It was not
about a cow, grazing fees or a tortoise. Mainly this was about states
right, a sovereignty of the state.

The court order (you read it) not a single time, did it authorized the
feds to kill animals, destroy our land and shoot prized bulls, because
some ******* from Utah, a bull (mean *******) would gore a horse. The
order never said they could kill animals, shoot a bull 5 times and
leave him (2) in the desert. Or destroy the public lands, make mass
graves for dead cows, separate calves from heifers, etc.

Sure Mr. Bundy screwed the pooch by not having a lawyer and his
failure to appeal to the 9th Circuit. It does not justify excessive
force by government goons.

Now. I know you know something about use of force. How to deploy that
force and in what conditions to do so.

Use of force must meet the amount of resistance. When a man stops
resisting, there is more to use force. The incident is done. Write
the report.

You may also know about "calculated use of force". In this case the
government miscalculated the necessary amount of force needed.

They used a sledge hammer to stop of fly.

I have another example in Clark County, NV if you want it. It is in
the same Federal court. Police asked for use of a man's home, to spy
on his neighbor, he told them no and to get a warrant. The police
broke into the house, abused him and his wife with excessive force and
occupied his home anyway.

Do you see the difference in government abuse and somebody not paying
fees. BTW, there is some reports that BKM broke the contract with Mr.
Bundy years ago and waited 20 years to start some ****.

For the record, people here do not think the same was a people back
east.

Cows stealing grass - give me friggin' break.

Want the link for police agents occupying a man's house, the court
document number? A few miles from my house. And I can give other
examples of LEO abuse of ordinary, everyday tax payers.

Were is the outrage of stolen government money?

Folks should be very happy federal goons did not open fire on innocent
people exercising a right and question a government abuse.

Spit!

On 4/16/2014 7:32 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 11:21:34 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

3. Why are you supporting a thief?

Harry K,

Mr. Dufas answered and I waited for him to do so.

I've said before this was about excessive force and government
intimidation, a violations of First Amendment rights. It was not
about a cow, grazing fees or a tortoise. Mainly this was about
states right, a sovereignty of the state.

The court order (you read it) not a single time, did it authorized
the feds to kill animals, destroy our land and shoot prized bulls,
because some ******* from Utah, a bull (mean *******) would gore a
horse. The order never said they could kill animals, shoot a bull 5
times and leave him (2) in the desert. Or destroy the public lands,
make mass graves for dead cows, separate calves from heifers, etc.

Sure Mr. Bundy screwed the pooch by not having a lawyer and his
failure to appeal to the 9th Circuit. It does not justify excessive
force by government goons.

Now. I know you know something about use of force. How to deploy
that force and in what conditions to do so.

Use of force must meet the amount of resistance. When a man stops
resisting, there is more to use force. The incident is done. Write
the report.

You may also know about "calculated use of force". In this case the
government miscalculated the necessary amount of force needed.

They used a sledge hammer to stop of fly.

I have another example in Clark County, NV if you want it. It is in
the same Federal court. Police asked for use of a man's home, to
spy on his neighbor, he told them no and to get a warrant. The
police broke into the house, abused him and his wife with excessive
force and occupied his home anyway.

Do you see the difference in government abuse and somebody not
paying fees. BTW, there is some reports that BKM broke the contract
with Mr. Bundy years ago and waited 20 years to start some ****.

For the record, people here do not think the same was a people back
east.

Cows stealing grass - give me friggin' break.

Want the link for police agents occupying a man's house, the court
document number? A few miles from my house. And I can give other
examples of LEO abuse of ordinary, everyday tax payers.

Were is the outrage of stolen government money?

Folks should be very happy federal goons did not open fire on
innocent people exercising a right and question a government abuse.

Spit!

Didn't Waco and Ruby Ridge take place during the time a Democrat run
Executive Branch was in power? It seems to me that there are more mass
shootings and whack jobs going around killing people when Democrats are
in charge or is it that they just howl about it more. Like when the
teenaged thug committed suicide by armed citizen in Florida. ^_^

TDD

On 4/12/2014 7:33 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 4/10/2014 10:09 PM, Oren wrote:
This is my county, just north of my home. Land and grazing rights
since 1870. A land war has started... Bunkerville, NV.

Cops taze pregnant women.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/blm-takes-down-first-amendment-areas-set-cattle-roundup


Video:

Nev. rancher threatens 'range war' against federal gov't

Authorities seized Cliven Bundy's 134 cattle

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/index.html#/v/3451342607001

...what ever it takes for freedom and liberty

Spit!


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...5460514&type=1


First amendment isn't an area. It's a limit on
the power of government.

I wonder where in the hell they got those metal signs and if they got
the damn things fabricated just for the attack on civil rights? o_O

TDD

On 4/12/2014 12:23 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 08:33:55 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...5460514&type=1

First amendment isn't an area. It's a limit on
the power of government.

Correct. The 1st is also not limited to speech. BLM had two 25 X 25
foot areas and tried to limit only 25 protestors at a time. The
Governor told them to take them down.

This whole thing is not about grazing fees or a tortoise. This area
was not even in the original boundary when Nevada became a state and
President Lincoln grabbed 85% of the original land. The county was
still part of the New Mexico Territory. North of Clark county (East)
was still part of the Utah Territory. Settled by Mormons.

The EPA designated part of this land used by farmers as a tortoise
preserve - calling them endangered. Cows don't step on or harm the
land tortoise; nor do the step on snakes. The EPA did not site the
tortoise as a reason to remove wild Mustangs from public lands. In
fact, a tortoise refuge in Las Vegas has so many, the Feds are
euthanizing them. These were collected when developers built housing,
etc. So much for "endangered". This is about government take over and
control. Hundreds of federals, armed to the hilt, with snipers
surrounding the people.

Those yammering on about this rancher owing grazing fees, then he owes
it to Clark county or the state. Not the federals. He said he will
pay, but not pay the feds. If the feds had something on him, then
arrest him for violating the court order to remove the cows from a
tortoise preserve designated by the EPA for a non-endangered reptile.

Remember the kid in Miami, Elián González?

http://scholarsandrogues.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/elian.jpg

This mess is ticking....for a blow up if the feds don't back away
soon.

Molon labe!

Oren, you have experience dealing with criminals. Who's displaying
criminal behavior in this instance? ^_^

TDD

On 4/16/2014 11:19 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 4/12/2014 7:33 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...5460514&type=1



First amendment isn't an area. It's a limit on
the power of government.

I wonder where in the hell they got those metal signs and if they got
the damn things fabricated just for the attack on civil rights? o_O

TDD

You implying that the attack on our rights
had some planning, and forethought? That's
spooky thought.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 4/16/2014 8:32 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 11:21:34 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

3. Why are you supporting a thief?

Harry K,

Mr. Dufas answered and I waited for him to do so.

I've said before this was about excessive force and government
intimidation, a violations of First Amendment rights. It was not
about a cow, grazing fees or a tortoise. Mainly this was about states
right, a sovereignty of the state.

The court order (you read it) not a single time, did it authorized the
feds to kill animals, destroy our land and shoot prized bulls, because
some ******* from Utah, a bull (mean *******) would gore a horse. The
order never said they could kill animals, shoot a bull 5 times and
leave him (2) in the desert. Or destroy the public lands, make mass
graves for dead cows, separate calves from heifers, etc.

Sure Mr. Bundy screwed the pooch by not having a lawyer and his
failure to appeal to the 9th Circuit. It does not justify excessive
force by government goons.

Now. I know you know something about use of force. How to deploy that
force and in what conditions to do so.

Use of force must meet the amount of resistance. When a man stops
resisting, there is more to use force. The incident is done. Write
the report.

You may also know about "calculated use of force". In this case the
government miscalculated the necessary amount of force needed.

They used a sledge hammer to stop of fly.

I have another example in Clark County, NV if you want it. It is in
the same Federal court. Police asked for use of a man's home, to spy
on his neighbor, he told them no and to get a warrant. The police
broke into the house, abused him and his wife with excessive force and
occupied his home anyway.

Do you see the difference in government abuse and somebody not paying
fees. BTW, there is some reports that BKM broke the contract with Mr.
Bundy years ago and waited 20 years to start some ****.

For the record, people here do not think the same was a people back
east.

Cows stealing grass - give me friggin' break.

Want the link for police agents occupying a man's house, the court
document number? A few miles from my house. And I can give other
examples of LEO abuse of ordinary, everyday tax payers.

Were is the outrage of stolen government money?

Folks should be very happy federal goons did not open fire on innocent
people exercising a right and question a government abuse.

Spit!


Like certain other Nations Leaders, this gov is
practicing divide and conquer. First they came
for the cattle ranchers. I didn't speak up, because
I wasn't a cattle rancher.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

The Daring Dufas wrote:

I wonder where in the hell they got those metal signs and if they got
the damn things fabricated just for the attack on civil rights? o_O

Probably FCI Lompoc; you see their stamp on many FS signs.

On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 22:19:06 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...5460514&type=1


First amendment isn't an area. It's a limit on
the power of government.

I wonder where in the hell they got those metal signs and if they got
the damn things fabricated just for the attack on civil rights? o_O

TDD

The signs are most likely made in federal prison UNICOR factories.
Need a wiring harness for military aircraft or tanks?

http://www.unicor.gov/

Years ago, convicts just loved a Jimmy Hoffa mattress (extra thick).
Not the thin 4" ones