re: Tensions rise in Nevada-snipers,1st am zones,no fly zones used and in effect

There are some simple unassailable facts.

1. The land at issue is the property of the federal government. The federal government has held title to this land since 1848, when Mexico ceded the land to the United States of America under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Nevada did not become a state until 1864, and Nevada did not acquire title to the land upon becoming a state. In short, the State of Nevada does not own the land at issue.

2. Bundy does not own the land. Bundy does not even claim to own the land. The Bundys merely make claims that their cattle grazed on the land. However, even their claims of grazing do not precede the federal government acquiring title to the land.

3. Bundy was afforded his day in court, multiple times, and has lost each time at the trial level and on appeal. There are not any issues open for debate. In a succession of court rulings, the courts determined several issues: (1) the land is owned by the federal government, not the Bundys (Bundy did not offer any evidence or argument that he owned the land), (2) the Bundys do not have any right to have their cattle on the land, (3) the continuing presence of Bundy’s cattle on the land constitutes a trespass, (4) as a result of Bundy's failure to remove his cattle, the federal government was authorized to remove the cattle. Judge Lloyd D. George was appointed United States District Judge for the District of Nevada by President Ronald Reagan in May 1984.

4. This is not a recent dispute. Bundy stopped paying rent two decades ago. When he stopped paying his grazing fees, he no longer had any right to have his cattle on the property. In an order dated November 3, 1998, the United States District Court for Nevada permanently enjoined Bundy from grazing his cattle on the land, and the court ordered Bundy to remove his livestock before November 30, 1998. The court also ordered that the federal government was entitled to trespass damages from Bundy for livestock left on the property after such date.

5. BLM has had the authority to remove the cattle for well over a decade. However, over that course of time the feds have canceled plans to round up the cattle many times because Bundy threatened violence.

You may very well be correct in most or all of that, but can you give me a link as to where he threatened violence?? I haven't seen this anywhere except where BLM said the protesters kicked a dog or somwthing

HERE is what's true: you're an idiot.

quote:

---

You may very well be correct in most or all of that, but can you give me a link as to where he threatened violence?? I haven't seen this anywhere except where BLM said the protesters kicked a dog or somwthing

---

Pretty much any interview with Bundy or sons, Bundy confirms that he is "willing to whatever is necessary" and characterizes this situation as a Range War. For example, Sean Hannity offered him a chance to step away from that position, but Bundy confirmed it. Another example: ABC News

Bundy: "I don't recognize the United States government as even existing."



He's a loon.

The truth hurts Rex. You have the heart of a tyrant, the soul of a rat and the respect of nobody. You are the worst amongst us, and exist on this board solely as a cautionary tale-somebody we can point to and roll our eyes . The fricking board joke. Here's to Rex Blackheart, the infantilized little she-man, the last kid to get picked for the team, the guy you don't want in your foxhole, the silly little teacher's pet of the classroom, the punk-arse-bitch that 84% of the board reviles for his eternal nastiness and love of injustice.

Your fascination with me is pathological. Seek help.

The majority of the states (Utah, California, Arizona, etc.) have clauses within their state constitutions (or other agreements with the Feds at the time of admission to the Union) that allow them to buy back the land from the feds. I know what the Nevada constitution says about giving away their rights to the land. I did not specifically cite the Alabama case because it was irrelevant to this discussion. The BLM was selling lands back to various states very slowly but completely stopped after Bill Clinton issued his Executive order to grab land in 1991. In 2010, the Obama Administration had a memo leaked that described how Obama could issue an EO to grab additional millions in acreage using Teddy Roosevelt's Antiquities Act of 1906.

The Bundy ranch situation, which I predict will become a case taken to the Supreme Court, sheds light on (to use your terms) the need to "evolve." In my terms, the spirit of the law, the spirit of the U.S. Constitution is to LIMIT federal powers. The climate for several decades has been to expand the feds power. The states that have tried to buy back their land from the feds will use this case to file multiple lawsuits. Watch and see what happens.

Mr. Bundy is not a freeloader. He has said multiple times that he is more than willing to pay the state or the county. He has done so in the past. He has not been spending his fees. He has been holding on to these fees for this point in time. If you read the court documents Mr. Bundy has not once stated that he refused to pay or was unable to pay. He has always stated that he will not pay the feds. He's not stupid. He was very calculated in what he did and in what he is doing now. If you ever bothered to do more scholarly research than to google something or to just swallow your partisan talking points without question you would be able to see what is going on.

As I stated, you refuse to have an honest debate. I have come to accept that you are incapable of doing so.

You ignored half of what I posted with links to back it up. I even showed you a case where the BLM attempted to harass and intimidate another rancher. The rancher (who has passed away since) won the case and the Judge crushed the Feds for what they had done.

I am neither a conspiracy nut nor a hater of government in general. I am a common sense guy. I look at this situation and think where is the common sense? The common sense resides with Mr. Bundy as he has played the feds right into his trap. No one on this board or in the media has taken the time to truly examine what Mr. Bundy has been doing. All I hear or read is "it's the law of the land" or "he's a freeloader." Well, the law in many states is that voters have to get an I.D. Do you support this law or do you think it goes against the spirit of voting? I know that you think it is being done by Republicans who are racists and want poor, black voters disenfranchised.

If you are anything it is consistent in your cherry picking of information and in your short-sightedness. BTW, pain train has just rolled over your arse.

quote:

---

I'm "fascinated" with you the way a doctor is fascinated with a the herpes virus.

---

quote:

---

I don't recognize the United States government

---

Well, I don't anymore, either, so I at least know where this guy is coming from. Nothing to do with this case, though.