re: BLM vs. Nevada Rancher

quote:

---

He's armed and he threatened violence against the gov't before they showed up with the SWAT teams.

---

But why show up with SWAT teams?

The dude obviously leaves the property to go to the local store or whatnot. Apprehend him when he is by himself.

The Govt wanted to swing their big dicks the same as he wanted to. Instead they should have used common fricking sense and avoided this clusterfrick.

quote:

---

do you have a link for this?

---

Yes, it was posted the other day in another thread.

And if I thought you were capable of rational discourse, I would share it with you. But I don't, so go find it yourself.

quote:

---

Instead they should have used common fricking sense and avoided this clusterfrick.

---

Let's assume the government is in the right for a moment. Let's say that there is a rancher who is trespassing his cattle on public lands and interfering with the lawful agent of the land to manage it according to law. After trying various methods of removing said cattle for 20 years, including notices served, court action and appeals, offers to sell the cattle at an auction of the owners choosing, and handing over the proceeds of such a sale to the rancher, what course of action should the government take? Keep in mind that the rancher threatened violence when the gov't notified him that they would remove the cattle themselves.

And considering, for a moment, that the government is not necessarily ALWAYS in the wrong, what should they do? It's been 20 years, and they've tried all manner of non-violent means to remove the cattle.

quote:

---

They don't want to apprehend him

---

quote:

---

Ummmm, so now the story changes? I thought they wanted to apprehend the cattle

---

Then don't change the story. They want to remove the cattle from public lands (and do whatever, sell them for back 'rent', sell then and give the proceeds to the rancher, it's irrelevant, they cannot wait for the cattle to show up at the Feed Store to 'bring them in' as you suggested they do.) They do NOT want to apprehend Bundy personally - not to my knowledge anyway. I believe this is all a civil matter, and not a criminal one. I could be wrong on that.

I said:

quote:

---

He's armed and he threatened violence against the gov't before they showed up with the SWAT teams...They told him to remove the cattle. He refused. they told him if he didn't remove the cattle, they would. He threatened violence if they tried it. They came in with overwhelming force to execute the removal of the cattle - and then backed down. I don't see the government acting wrongfully here.

---

Then you said:

quote:

---

But why show up with SWAT teams?

The dude obviously leaves the property to go to the local store or whatnot. Apprehend him when he is by himself.

---

Then I said:

quote:

---

They don't want to apprehend him, they want to remove his cattle from public lands.

---

Then you said:

quote:

---

so now the story changes? I thought they wanted to apprehend the cattle

[if you thought they wanted to apprehend the cattle, as you clearly state here, why did you state above, "Apprehend him when he is by himself."?]

---

Then I said:

quote:

---

They want to remove the cattle from public lands...They do NOT want to apprehend Bundy personally

---

Then you said:

quote:

---

For fricks sake, its impossible to have an honest debate with you... You change what you are talking about, spin statements, and otherwise ignore anything that doesn't go into your narrative.

---

It looks to me like I've been consistent in claiming that the feds want to remove the cattle from public lands and that I don't believe they want to apprehend Bundy. I have repeatedly stated this. Can you please indicate in the above exchange where you think I'm being dishonest or inconsistent? tia

quote:

---

If he doesn't have all his belongings out in 6 days from today, I simply meet a Sheriff at the property and put the rest of his stuff on the street side. If safety is an issue, than I just back away and allow LE to bring in their personal to deal with that.

---

How much does the sheriff and other LE staff cost?

And how is you turning to LE any better than the BLM turning to LE?

quote:

---

What you fail to understand is that it costs next to nothing to remove a tenant when you follow the process

---

I don't fail to understand that, I've evicted tenants. What you fail to understand is how the costs can escalate when the tenant refuses to leave. You simply pass the costs off to the sheriff and other LE. How handy.

quote:

---

none of the drama in your own life is a reason to pay.

---

No drama in my life, I don't have any tenants refusing to leave. I'm sorry for your misunderstanding.

quote:

---

Yes against an armed man. Are you paying your own personal militia or something? Where in the eviction process are you expected to remove a person, armed or not, from your property? You file the papers and let the legal system do its job. If he is still refusing to leave, and threatens with armed force, you step aside and let LE do it's job. That costs you nothing except what you have already paid in taxes to fund LE.

---

What is your point? Are you disagreeing with my statement that sometimes it's worth more than the back rent to remove an intransigent tenant?

The federal government is wrong, they have zero right to own 80 percent of Nevada nor large tracts of land in the west.

Seems the reason Nevada got statehood in 1864 was that Lincoln and company felt the presidential race with 3 candidates running might go to the house of representatives, thus they allowed Nevada to become a state with only 40,000 people instead of the required 60,000 people, which was against the law ( seem familiar ?)also Lincoln had a narrow loss on his propsed 13th amendment, and figured that Nevada could help his cause here. So, in return for statehood, that was really against the law, the new state surrndered any right, title, or claim to the unappropriated public lands lying within Nevada. Moreover, this can't be altered without the consent of the federal government. Hence, the people of Nevada can't claim any land whatsoever because politicians needed Nevada for the 1864 election, bud didn't want to hand over anything in return.
Ronald Reagan argued for the turnover of such lands to the state and local governments in the 1980's. Clearly the surrender of all claims to any land for statehood was illegal under the constitution. The Supreme Court actually addressed this in :

Pollard's Lessee vs. Hagan ( 1845 ) when Alabama became a state in 1819. The question presented was concerning a clause where it was stated “ that all navigable waters within said state shall remain public highways, free to citizens of said state, and of the United States without any tax, duty, impost, or toll therefor imposed by said state.”

The SCOUS held that this clause was constitutional because it “ Conveys no more powers over the navigable waters of Alabama to the Government of the United States than it possesses over navigable waters of other states under the provisions of the constitution.”

The Pollard decision expressed a statement of constitutional law in dictum making it very clear that the Feds have no claim over the lands in Nevada. The Supreme Court states :

The United States never held any supreme sovereignty, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new states, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virgina and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.

So, in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the federal government must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory.

The SCOTUS made it clear in 1845 that the constitution forbids the federal government to retain ownership of the territory and simultaneously grant state sovereignty. At the very minum it became state-land not federal land.

quote:

---

You simply pass the costs off to the sheriff and other LE. How handy

---

My point is that aside from property taxes, you are not paying for this service out of pocket. And what do you mean "How Handy"? Is that not their job? Surely you don't think landlords should endeavor to forcefully remove tenants on their own.

quote:

---

No drama in my life....

---

Did not assert there is any. I stated that Judges don't care about the drama in the lives of tenants as it pertains to unpaid rent.