Clark County (Vegas) commissioner tells lawful Americans to make funeral plans

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

That's pretty much it. It's not about tortoise or cattle. Just money and power. Here's a link to what this whole fiasco is really about. Harry Reid should go straight to fucking jail. The guy is nothing but a corporate criminal.

Jim
http://scgnews.com/bundy-ranch-what-...not-being-told

You do know that website TOOK DOWN the Bundy Ranch video because it had serious factual errors in it, right?

So, were you linking to the original? Or the retraction - which is where your link now leads?

[Guest032516]

Hey, JD, here is an closer look at your ignorant hero:

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

Key quote:
------------------------
His personal grievance with federal authority doesn't stop with the BLM, though. "I believe this is a sovereign state of Nevada," Bundy said in a radio interview last Thursday. "I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing." Ironically, this position directly contradicts Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution:
-------------------------

As a result of the Civil War, all new states joining the Union were required - as a condition of admission - to acknowledge the supremacy of the US Constitution over all state law and sovereignty issues by drafting a state constitution that was in line with the US Constitution.

Here is Nevada's 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 no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, 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.
------------------------------

So this ignoramus is asserting rights of sovereignty in the state and county that don't even exist according to the state constitution itself.

You can't make this up.

Bundy is just another ignorant "Republic of Texas"-type scofflaw who breaks laws and then tries to pretend they aren't legitimate based on some insane legal theories.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

You do know that website TOOK DOWN the Bundy Ranch video because it had serious factual errors in it, right?

So, were you linking to the original? Or the retraction - which is where your link now leads?

When I posted it was up and running. Iam not sure of the specific factual errors this author is referring to, but I'll check back periodically for a revised version and I'll post it. This incident has received way to much publicity in my opinion to claim it's about Tortoise habitat. I imagine this incident will set a precedent. It should be interesting how it all plays out.


Jim

[LordBeaverbrook]

Mojo, it isn't about tortoises, it is about defiance of the feds for defiance sake (for 21 years no less) with no rationality or justification at all (well maybe a little pique, but all out of proportion). Factual errors abound on Bundy's side.

Originally Posted by BigLouie

The simple fact that is beyond dispute is that for years he has grazed his cattle on land that did not belong to him and he does not want to pay for this.

+1 - Precisely. Bundy is a nutbag squatter not to mention a thief and a criminal plain and simple. He justifies his self serving theft because of an irrational hatred of all things federal apparently.

Apparently he had a permit and had been paying fees as of 1993, but when they tried to buy his grazing permit from him to further the plan to help the desert tortoise, the state reptile (for whatever importance that might have), he just unilaterally decided to quit paying.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013...ght-feds-land/

BTW, fees to graze on private land are usually around $20/head/mo, state land ~$12/head/mo and on federal land ~$1.20/head/mo. He was gettin' a hell of a deal IMO.

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Even Glenn Beck had a handle on it telling other conservatives to stay away. Stating Bundy is grazing his cattle on land he doesn't own for free.

Exactly, as the quote below shows, he has to "protect my property", his cattle, on land he doesn't own and doesn't pay for.

"“I’ve got to protect my property,” Bundy said as Arden steered several cattle inside an elongated pen. “If people come to monkey with what’s mine, I’ll call the county sheriff. If that don’t work, I’ll gather my friends and kids and we’ll try to stop it. I abide by all state laws. But I abide by almost zero federal laws."

Protect them on your own damn land, son!

Originally Posted by ExNYer

You do know that website TOOK DOWN the Bundy Ranch video because it had serious factual errors in it, right?

In 1998, Bundy was found by the courts to be out of compliance, and ordered to remove the cattle from Federal lands. In July of 2013, the case returned to US District Court, where Judge Lloyd George ruled that if Bundy did not remove the cattle, they could be seized by the BLM and auctioned for partial payment of those years of arrears.

The Feds rounded the cattle up on federal, not private Bundy, land and brought all that force and equipment because of the threats of violence the Bundy family had made repeatedly over the years. Feds never set one foot on Bundy land (to get cattle).

This long predated any involvement with Harry Reid, solar, the Chinese or any of the kookie conspiracy theories put forth here to justify supporting a thief.

The project being referenced by all the right wing sites was cancelled nearly a year ago, after ENN could not secure a market at a profitable rate.

Neither Reid was going to profit from this. ENN hired Nevada's largest and most prominent law firm, Lionel Sawyer & Collins, at which Reid's son is an attorney.

Neither Reid was an investor, and neither stood to gain profits from the project if successful

The proposed site for the solar project was in Laughlin, NV, 90 miles south of Las Vegas on county land, not Federal. Bundy's ranch is in Bunkerville, 100 miles north of Las Vegas.

There is absolutely no connection between the solar project proposal on Clark County land, the Reids and the seizure of cattle from Federal lands 200 miles away, a year after that solar project died.

It is all about the right supporting a thief and a criminal to stick it in the eye of the Federal government at any cost, warranted or not.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by LordBeaverbrook

Mojo, it isn't about tortoises, it is about defiance of the feds for defiance sake (for 21 years no less) with no rationality or justification at all (well maybe a little pique, but all out of proportion). Factual errors abound on Bundy's side.



+1 - Precisely. Bundy is a nutbag squatter not to mention a thief and a criminal plain and simple. He justifies his self serving theft because of an irrational hatred of all things federal apparently.

Apparently he had a permit and had been paying fees as of 1993, but when they tried to buy his grazing permit from him to further the plan to help the desert tortoise, the state reptile (for whatever importance that might have), he just unilaterally decided to quit paying.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013...ght-feds-land/

BTW, fees to graze on private land are usually around $20/head/mo, state land ~$12/head/mo and on federal land ~$1.20/head/mo. He was gettin' a hell of a deal IMO.



Exactly, as the quote below shows, he has to "protect my property", his cattle, on land he doesn't own and doesn't pay for.

"“I’ve got to protect my property,” Bundy said as Arden steered several cattle inside an elongated pen. “If people come to monkey with what’s mine, I’ll call the county sheriff. If that don’t work, I’ll gather my friends and kids and we’ll try to stop it. I abide by all state laws. But I abide by almost zero federal laws."

Protect them on your own damn land, son!



In 1998, Bundy was found by the courts to be out of compliance, and ordered to remove the cattle from Federal lands. In July of 2013, the case returned to US District Court, where Judge Lloyd George ruled that if Bundy did not remove the cattle, they could be seized by the BLM and auctioned for partial payment of those years of arrears.

The Feds rounded the cattle up on federal, not private Bundy, land and brought all that force and equipment because of the threats of violence the Bundy family had made repeatedly over the years. Feds never set one foot on Bundy land (to get cattle).

This long predated any involvement with Harry Reid, solar, the Chinese or any of the kookie conspiracy theories put forth here to justify supporting a thief.

The project being referenced by all the right wing sites was cancelled nearly a year ago, after ENN could not secure a market at a profitable rate.

Neither Reid was going to profit from this. ENN hired Nevada's largest and most prominent law firm, Lionel Sawyer & Collins, at which Reid's son is an attorney.

Neither Reid was an investor, and neither stood to gain profits from the project if successful

The proposed site for the solar project was in Laughlin, NV, 90 miles south of Las Vegas on county land, not Federal. Bundy's ranch is in Bunkerville, 100 miles north of Las Vegas.

There is absolutely no connection between the solar project proposal on Clark County land, the Reids and the seizure of cattle from Federal lands 200 miles away, a year after that solar project died.

It is all about the right supporting a thief and a criminal to stick it in the eye of the Federal government at any cost, warranted or not.

I know it's not about Tortoise, that's pretty obvious. Our Government hardly shows any sincere concern for us and our lives, so I know they don't care about Turtles.


Jim

[LordBeaverbrook]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

I know it's not about Tortoise, that's pretty obvious. Our Government hardly shows any sincere concern for us and our lives, so I know they don't care about Turtles.

Jim

You say that like our Government is something or someone apart from us. It isn't.

I guess you liked President Clinton because he could "feel your pain". Not sure how a huge organization like the USG can genuinely "show any sincere concern for us and our lives" but I'll think on it.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by LordBeaverbrook

You say that like our Government is something or someone apart from us. It isn't.

I guess you liked President Clinton because he could "feel your pain". Not sure how a huge organization like the USG can genuinely "show any sincere concern for us and our lives" but I'll think on it.

Who said I had any pain. This incident is a classic case of Government run amuck.


Jim.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Who said I had any pain. This incident is a classic case of Government run amuck.


Jim.

a Reagan aw run amuck or idiots fucking with cops run amuck?

[JohnnyCap]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

You don't get to pick and choose what laws you will obey.

You sure do! That's why there are penalties for disobeying them, and a chance to take on improper laws.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by CJ7

a Reagan aw run amuck or idiots fucking with cops run amuck?

Fuck the cops. Nobody out there is messing with them. The Bundy's and any supporters have a right to be there. The BLM is making up reasons in order to get public support to push the Bundy's off their own land. The Government isn't the sovereign in this deal it's the citizen, being the Bundy family. This is an unconstitutional effort by BLM to confiscate another persons land for bureaucratic interests. That's why Bundy isn't budging.

Jim

[JD Barleycorn]

Harry Reid started talking about the people who came to Nevada with guns and frightened people. I thought he was talking about the armed federal agents but he wasn't.

[IIFFOFRDB]

From the comments ... http://scgnews.com/bundy-ranch-what-...not-being-told


"There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher's grazing permit it says the following: "You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due." The "mandatory" terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this "contract" agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher's permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are "suspended," but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of "suspended" AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero."

-Kena Lytle Gloeckner

[IIFFOFRDB]

BLM: We are Worried Cliven Bundy Might Have Prescriptive Rights & He Might Use that Defense in Court


http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/04...defense-court/

Posted on April 17, 2014 by Ben Swann
1-Bundy-Ranch-Fed-Cattle-RustlingIn this ongoing story surrounding cattle rancher Cliven Bundy, there are a series of questions media has ignored. For instance, in the 20 years Bundy hasn’t been paying his fees, why hasn’t he been taken to court? Why this year, spend nearly $1,000,000 of taxpayer money to round up 400 cattle that ultimately have to be returned? Why didn’t the BLM just place a lien on the cattle rather than attempting to take them by force and then auction them off? The Bureau of Land Management has suffered a huge black eye this week because of their response to the Bundy situation. Perhaps though, there is a reason the BLM chose force over the courts.

In an exclusive interview with Benswann.com, Montana cattle rancher Todd Devlin says the BLM is now considering new ways of dealing with the Cliven Bundy situation. Devlin is not just a Montana cattle rancher, but is also a County Commissioner in Prairie County Montana. He has also worked with the Department of Interior, having taught workshops for the agency in the past. Monday, Devlin reached out to his contacts in the Department of the Interior to find out why the Bureau of Land Management has refused to work with Bundy rather than simply attempting to run over him.

Among the questions Devlin asked of the BLM, “Is it possible that this guy (Cliven Bundy) has prescriptive rights?” The response from top officials at the BLM, “We are worried that he might, and he might use that defense.”

So what exactly are prescriptive rights? Prescriptive right to property is an easement that gives some one the right to use land owned by someone else for a particular purpose. An example is using a path through Party A’s land to get to your land; a prescriptive easement is allowed which gives the user the right to get to his land through A’s property.

In most states, if a trespass or use of land occurs regularly for at least 5 years without the “owner” of the land taking legal action, prescriptive rights come into play. Because Bundy stopped paying his grazing fees to the BLM in 1993, but continued to use the land for over 20 years, it is possible he now has prescriptive rights to the land. That might explain why the BLM has not taken this issue to court and never bothered to file a lien against the cattle.

Granted, there have been court actions over the years. In 1998, a federal judge issued a permanent injunction against Bundy, ordering him to remove his cattle from the federal lands. He lost an appeal to the San Francisco 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Yet, the “trespass cattle” remained on the BLM land. In fact, it took until August of 2013 for a court order to be issued saying Bundy had 45 days to remove his cattle from federal land. 15 years went by from the time of the last court case over the cattle until the BLM attempted to remove the livestock.

Of course, Bundy has not made the claim that he will not pay the fees, he simply says he will not pay those fees to the BLM because he doesn’t recognize federal authority over the land. Bundy has said that in the past that he would pay fees to Clarke County, Nevada, though Clarke County has refused to accept them. The BLM has insisted that Bundy owes $1.1 million dollars in grazing fees for his trespass cattle.

“The actual number is probably around $200,000. The $1.1 million claimed by the BLM is probably mostly interest and penalties for trespass cattle.” says Devlin, who goes on to say that it is unlikely that Clarke County would be able to collect those penalties.

When Devlin reached out to the BLM, he suggested that the federal agency just allow Bundy to pay the fees to the county rather than continuing with these aggressive tactics to confiscate his cattle.

“Why don’t you just let him pay them there (Clarke County)? I got a call back from the liaison saying ‘Yes, pursue it.’” Devlin reached out to contacts in Nevada to get that process moving forward. If that were to happen, Clarke County could collect the grazing fees and if it desired to do so could hand those fees over to the BLM.

Finally, Devlin says instead of allowing the situation with Bundy’s cattle to grow completely out of control, the BLM could have simply placed a lien on the cattle in the first place. Of course, that lien might have been rejected in court if Bundy were able to demonstrate those prescriptive rights. Then again, the courts so far have sided with the government; therefore, it is even more baffling why the lien wasn’t placed on the livestock.

Days after the BLM has claimed they will stand down, they are now reportedly considering a lien on the cattle,

“I asked why you didn’t put a lien against the cattle?” Devlin asked the BLM. “They hadn’t thought about that, but they are considering it now.”

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Fuck the cops. Nobody out there is messing with them. The Bundy's and any supporters have a right to be there. The BLM is making up reasons in order to get public support to push the Bundy's off their own land. The Government isn't the sovereign in this deal it's the citizen, being the Bundy family. This is an unconstitutional effort by BLM to confiscate another persons land for bureaucratic interests. That's why Bundy isn't budging.

Jim

Remove head from ass. It is not Bundy's land or he wouldn't need to pay grazing fees It is land managed by the BLM.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Fuck the cops. Nobody out there is messing with them. The Bundy's and any supporters have a right to be there. The BLM is making up reasons in order to get public support to push the Bundy's off their own land. The Government isn't the sovereign in this deal it's the citizen, being the Bundy family. This is an unconstitutional effort by BLM to confiscate another persons land for bureaucratic interests. That's why Bundy isn't budging.

Jim

right to be there ?... what right ?