Article

2014-04-13 Government

Range War-BLM says it won't enforce court order to seize cattle

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by DarthVader 2014-04-13 09:06|| || Front Page|| [4 views ] Top

#1 I like the take by this blogger.

If the issue is monetary Bundy not paying grazing fees then there is absolutely no reason the government cant sit down with Bundys lawyer at a neutral site and negotiate while not under threat of a gun. Even if the issue is that poor, picked upon Desert Tortoise, accommodations can be made as well. The turtles dont need 600,000 acres to thrive but neither does Bundy need 600,000 acres to feed his cows.

When government chooses to intimidate instead of negotiate in good faith, they should expect this kind of resistance.

Posted by DarthVader 2014-04-13 09:09|| 2014-04-13 09:09|| Front Page Top

#2 From Western Rifle Shooters Association:

Posted by badanov 2014-04-13 09:20|| http://www.chriscovert.net 2014-04-13 09:20|| Front Page Top

#3 "We hang rustlers in this here country".

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2014-04-13 10:53|| 2014-04-13 10:53|| Front Page Top

#4 The turtles donÂ't need 600,000 acres to thrive Â-- but neither does Bundy need 600,000 acres to feed his cows.

I dunno, it's what 1 cow per 5 acres out that way? It ain't Wisconsin.

Posted by Shipman 2014-04-13 11:36|| 2014-04-13 11:36|| Front Page Top

#5 Yeah, even at that... the number of cows, is what 800? 4k acres or so would be about right. And he does need to pay the grazing fees, bad optics not to.

Posted by Shipman 2014-04-13 11:38|| 2014-04-13 11:38|| Front Page Top

#6 Unleash the lawyers: Federal agency vows to continue legal action after ending Nevada ranch standoff

Posted by Uncle Phester 2014-04-13 11:38|| 2014-04-13 11:38|| Front Page Top

#7 And he does need to pay the grazing fees, bad optics not to. Posted by Shipman 2014-04-13 11:38

It appears that Mr. Bundy is willing to pay fees to the county and/or state, but not to the feds. (Articles I, II, and III of the Constitution and all that related stuff increasingly omitted from public school curricula.).

Posted by Uncle Phester 2014-04-13 11:48|| 2014-04-13 11:48|| Front Page Top

#8 The Feds withdrew was because they were outgunned, the media was present, and the Reid & Son scheme had been revealed. Calling in the National Guard or the Army might have been a disastrous turning point if the military had remained neutral or sided with the ranchers. Champ did not wish to risk it.

I suspect a DoJ dedicated air-mobile Federal Quick Reaction Force (QRF) will soon be organized. FBI, ATF, Homeland Security...air assets, drones, etc. I'd be very surprised if this just... goes away.

Posted by Besoeker 2014-04-13 11:59|| 2014-04-13 11:59|| Front Page Top

#9 I'd be very surprised if this just... goes away.

Not at all. Unleashing the coon and squirrel dogs. They may have police dogs but we have tracking dogs. The entire scam will now be exposed. The biggest mistake an operation makes when a skirmish is won is not pursuing those retreating. There is too much at stake not to.

Posted by Bubba Graiting8281 2014-04-13 12:16|| 2014-04-13 12:16|| Front Page Top

#10 If it is true that his family has been grazing cattle on the land since the 1870s then his free access to the land for grazing was grandfathered in by the legislation that established the BLM and gave them authority to lease federal land and collect fees for grazing. I personally think it was all about clearing the land for the Reid/Chinese gig...and I am very interested to see how the "friends of the desert tortoise" respond when an influential democrat wants to build something on their habitat.

And speaking of the desert tortoise, it is all over California as I have had a number of projects requiring special measures to mitigate effects upon desert tortoise habitat. SO if there are enough of them to be all over the freaking Mojave and in Southern Nevada, how can they be endangered? Seems some group or another is always screaming endangered species when ever we have someone trying to make a living on public land or grow a crop or build a house.

Posted by Bill Clinton 2014-04-13 12:21|| 2014-04-13 12:21|| Front Page Top

#11 Getting the wrong house number, kicking in old Mrs. Stonecypher's door, 'stacking in' and throwing her on the floor and shooting her cat and dog... no problem.

Standing up to a unknown number of well armed and trained, angry irregulars, who know a bit about tactical security and psyops media coverage, is a totally different story. So much for the Oakley's, fancy uniforms, big guns, hand-held radios, and expensive kit.

WTF! These cowboys mean business and we're all walking silhouettes. I didn't sign on for this shi*. Time for lunch and some coconut pie, we're outta here Jake.

Posted by Besoeker 2014-04-13 12:33|| 2014-04-13 12:33|| Front Page Top

#12 Bundy Ranch: BLM agent Dan Love and Pete Santilli threaten mutual arrest

Posted by Uncle Phester 2014-04-13 12:43|| 2014-04-13 12:43|| Front Page Top

#13 I suspect the rest of Holder's arsenal will begin to attack. This week is the EPA, then OSHA, then IRS, followed by the ATF, and all of the food monitoring agencies and environmental impact studies. His wells were tore up, water tanks torn down, he will not get permits. Let alone the environazis will be out killing cattle. He might have won but his ranching is over. He may have swatted a few of the Wasps away, but the nest is emptying out and headed for him. He needs a high profile guardian from the government.

Posted by 49 Pan 2014-04-13 12:56|| 2014-04-13 12:56|| Front Page Top

#14 The "Grandfather Clause" is a concocted way of saying no ex post facto imposition of governmental authority, which is a principle hard coded into the text of the Constitution. The government can make no law that outlaws something that already exists. If the Bundy family owned the land before the creation of the BLM, they still own the land to this day until it is sold.

Neither the government nor the courts can "grant" that ex post facto doesn't apply, as a matter of common law, not can they take away rights held based on the conduct of an individual in opposing the government.

Similarly, an individual's property can't be taken away without due process. Enforcing an ex post facto law is not due process; it is invalid and has no force of law.

Remember, the whole idea is "consent of the governed" not policies of the government.

Posted by badanov 2014-04-13 13:31|| http://www.chriscovert.net 2014-04-13 13:31|| Front Page Top

#15 Pan probably has it right. If Bundy's water wells, stock tanks, and property were destroyed, that pretty much signifies 'other plans' for the property. Not a smart move on the part of the Feds.

Champ and Holder are very vindictive, it will not end here. They have absolutely nothing in common with those ranchers or that community. The Feds lacked overwhelming fire power. Had shooting started, it would not have gone well for the feds either on the ground or in the court of public opinion.

Once again a stand-down order was given by the White House. The reasons for this one could be quite similar to the Benghazi stand-down.

Posted by Besoeker 2014-04-13 13:51|| 2014-04-13 13:51|| Front Page Top

#16 The only part of this that will go away is the Reid/China connection. I doubt if we'll ever hear much more about that. Too bad.

Posted by Abu Uluque 2014-04-13 14:47|| 2014-04-13 14:47|| Front Page Top

#17 "Mr. Santelli, if you were right I wouldn't have a job."

Ummm hmmm.

That is some rough country. I'd guess the day begins with water, breaks for water, and ends with water. Tearing up the pumps and tanks was no mistake; the proverbial salting the ground.

Using some local grouse or prairie chicken or dutch ovened robin is well documented, so macro.

Posted by swksvolFF 2014-04-13 15:01|| 2014-04-13 15:01|| Front Page Top

#18 The Bundy family has been on the disputed land for more than 140 years. Many of the contracts for grazing rights signed in the early 1900's are still in effect today.

The world has changed drastically in the past 100 years and many of the provisions included in these contracts seem absurd and even comical today.
The city of Las Vegas probably did not even exist at the time Bundy's lease was signed.
The passage of time however (or the changing of social perception) does nothing to render these documents invalid or illegal.

Cliven Bundy claims that according to the original contract all legal grazing fees have been paid and disputes the federal governments right to impose additional fees. Without access to a copy of the original contract it is impossible to have an opinion of Bundy's rights.

Bundy has been fighting in the courts to retain his rights to the land for more than 20 years. The fact that the left wing controlled media offers no actual documentation to support the government's case is a good indication that Bundy has a very strong legal case.

Those people who who insist Bundy should relinquish his "grandfather rights" and renegotiate a new lease every three years are probably the very same people who believe the U.S. Constitution should be rewritten every three years.

Posted by junkiron 2014-04-13 17:15|| 2014-04-13 17:15|| Front Page Top

23:58 Zenobia Floger6220
22:52 JosephMendiola
21:01 Vlad Putin laughing
19:35 Snusort Spomose2148
19:32 49 Pan
19:30 Steve White
19:20 Chantry
18:44 Pappy
17:16 Frank G
17:15 junkiron
17:11 Frank G
16:47 Fred
16:46 Uncle Phester
15:57 Bubba Graiting8281
15:44 Bubba Graiting8281
15:23 Alaska Paul
15:13 Steve White
15:09 Steve White
15:01 swksvolFF
14:53 Pappy
14:47 Abu Uluque
14:47 Pappy
14:43 Beldar Angunter5777
14:40 g(r)omgoru