If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Reply to thread

Message

Ulterior motives maybe corrupt government most likely BUT,   he admitted to the Federal court his cattle were grazing on land that had never been permitted to him or his family, and had been since about 2000. He did water development on land that no party, according to court testimony, was ever given permits to do.

I'd say even if he had a legal argument on the Land that was at one time permitted to him, he sure did not have an argument to support his trespassing on the other unpermitted tracts of land for over a decade.

By Nevada State Livestock laws it is illegal to graze your cattle on a piece of land without the consent of the land owner. And in this case sad to say it was the Federal Government like it or not.

If he had even kept to the once permitted land that might have been one thing but he did not, once he lost the long held family permitted land for nonpayment in 1994, he took it upon himself to decide where his boundries would be which included the land never permitted to him or his family, which lead to warnings to him to get his cattle out and when he did not comply to either the BLM or the National Forest Service,   legal federal court orders to remove his cattle were granted.

Also according to Nevada Livestock law, cattle that are subject to illegal trespassing can be legally seized by the land owner to cover fees and damages. So when the Bundy family were on the TV claiming the government were STEALING their cattle they were not telling the truth as they owed over a million dollars in fees and fines and the cattle were being legally seized in lue of payment by court order. That is the repercussions of not paying your fees for over 20 years and still thinking you have a right to the land, I'm guessing.

Megyn Kelly was talking to a guy that was video taping the standoff on her show tonight and she said She did not agree with the handling of the issue by the government but she looked at the court documents and felt as a lawyer that the Government had the Bundy's dead to rights on the issue. She has no skin in the game and she is not a big fan of the government so why would she not tell it as she sees it?

One of the daughters was on Greta tonight and she claimed a lot of the fight was with the local Sheriff as he would not step in and do anything to protect her dad. She claimed it was his county and he had more power than any federal agency when it came to the people in Clark County. But what was he to do if he knew the land was legally the Federal Governments?

According to one article that I posted here on ranchers, the Clark County Sheriff's office in 2012 agreed to assist the BLM in the removal of the Bundy cattle that were trespassing when the family failed to remove them as they said they would. If he was to do his job, her dad might well had been in jail for breaking Nevada State trespassing laws, but would you want to live in a town with Cliven Bundy's family after arresting him? He likely figured it was the Federal Governments issue and to not risk upsetting the locals he would stay out of it the best he could and let the BLM and Federal Courts deal with the Second Amendment exercising family, which was upsetting to the family according to the daughter.

They might be rejoicing now as they won this battle but this is a no win situation and the Bundy family's own admitted actions did nothing to help out the cause if they knew it was going to wind up in the courts. As how can you win when your only defense is you haven't paid your permit and grazing fees for the past 20 years because you don't recognized the Federal Government to be the rightful owners of the land when the titles are in the United States of Americans name and have been since before the Bundy family settle on the land 140 year ago, the same landlord they have been paying their fees to up until the dispute 20 years ago. The Bundy's claimed they were there before the BLM was ever created so they didn't have to follow their rules but does that really matter when the BLM is a agency set up by the legal land owner the Federal Government to administer the day to day operations of their Public Lands?

I have stated and restated my reasoning for my lack of support for the Bundy family so you decide was the Bundy family breaking the law or are they hero's for getting the government to back down that well might encourage others to stop paying their legally owed bills?

And please ask yourself this question, If I support the Bundy family's illegal trespassing on Government owned land for 20 years because he is a rancher just trying to preserve his way of life, do I have a right to then demand the government hold their employees, that lied under oath to preserve their jobs, accountable by firing them or maybe even charging them with a crime and jailing them?

As is it not Hypocrisy to support one while demanding the other?

<blockquote data-quote="Tam" data-source="post: 650633" data-attributes="member: 25">Ulterior motives maybe corrupt government most likely BUT,&nbsp;&nbsp; he admitted to the Federal court his cattle were grazing on land that had never been permitted to him or his family, and had been since about 2000. He did water development on land that no party, according to court testimony, was ever given permits to do. I&#039;d say even if he had a legal argument on the Land that was at one time permitted to him, he sure did not have an argument to support his trespassing on the other unpermitted tracts of land for over a decade. By Nevada State Livestock laws it is illegal to graze your cattle on a piece of land without the consent of the land owner. And in this case sad to say it was the Federal Government like it or not.&nbsp;If he had even kept to the once permitted land that might have been one thing but he did not, once he lost the long held family permitted land for nonpayment in 1994,&nbsp; he took it upon himself to decide where his boundries would be which included the&nbsp; land never permitted to him or his family, which lead to warnings to him to get his cattle out and when he did not comply to either the BLM or the National Forest Service,&nbsp;&nbsp; legal federal court orders to remove his cattle were granted. Also according to Nevada Livestock law, cattle that are subject to illegal trespassing&nbsp; can be legally seized by the land owner to cover fees and damages. So when the Bundy family were on the TV claiming the government were STEALING their cattle they were not telling the truth as they owed over a million dollars in fees and fines and the cattle were being legally seized in lue of payment by court order. That is the repercussions of not paying your fees for over 20 years and still thinking you have a right to the land, I&#039;m guessing. Megyn Kelly was talking to a guy that was video taping the standoff&nbsp; on her show tonight and she said&nbsp; She did not agree with the handling of the issue by the government but she looked at the court documents and felt as a lawyer that the Government had the Bundy&#039;s dead to rights on the issue. She has no skin in the game and she is not a big fan of the government so why would she not tell it as she sees it?&nbsp;&nbsp; One of the daughters was on Greta tonight and she claimed a lot of the fight was with the local Sheriff as he would not step in and do anything to protect her dad. She claimed it was his county and he had more power than any federal agency when it came to the people in Clark County.&nbsp; But what was he to do if he knew the land was legally the Federal Governments?&nbsp;According to one article that I posted here on ranchers, the Clark County Sheriff&#039;s office in 2012 agreed to assist the BLM in the removal of the Bundy cattle that were trespassing when the family failed to remove them as they said they would. If he was to do his job,&nbsp; her dad might well had been in jail for breaking Nevada State trespassing laws, but would you want to live in a town with Cliven Bundy&#039;s family after arresting him?&nbsp; He likely figured&nbsp; it was the Federal Governments issue and to not risk upsetting&nbsp; the locals he would stay out of it the best he could and let the BLM and Federal Courts deal with the Second Amendment exercising family, which was upsetting to the family according to the daughter. They might be rejoicing now as they won this battle but this is a no win situation and the Bundy family&#039;s own admitted actions did nothing to help out the cause if they knew it was going to wind up in the courts.&nbsp; As how can you win when your only defense is you haven&#039;t paid your permit and grazing fees for the past 20 years because you don&#039;t recognized the Federal Government to be the rightful owners of the land when the titles are in the United States of Americans name and have been since before the Bundy family settle on the land 140 year ago, the same landlord they have been&nbsp; paying their fees to up until the dispute 20 years ago. The Bundy&#039;s claimed they were there before the BLM was ever created so they didn&#039;t have to follow their rules but does that really matter when the BLM is a agency set up by the legal land owner the Federal Government&nbsp; to administer the day to day operations of their Public Lands? I have stated and restated my reasoning for my lack of support for the Bundy family so you decide was the Bundy family breaking the law or are they hero&#039;s for getting the government to back down that well might&nbsp; encourage others to stop paying their legally owed bills?&nbsp; And please ask yourself this question, If I support the Bundy family&#039;s illegal trespassing on Government owned land for 20 years because he is a rancher just trying to preserve his way of life,&nbsp; do I have a right to then demand the government hold their employees, that lied under oath to preserve their jobs, accountable by firing them or maybe even charging them with a crime and jailing them? As is it not Hypocrisy to support one while demanding the other?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tam, post: 650633, member: 25"] Ulterior motives maybe corrupt government most likely BUT, he admitted to the Federal court his cattle were grazing on land that had never been permitted to him or his family, and had been since about 2000. He did water development on land that no party, according to court testimony, was ever given permits to do. I'd say even if he had a legal argument on the Land that was at one time permitted to him, he sure did not have an argument to support his trespassing on the other unpermitted tracts of land for over a decade. By Nevada State Livestock laws it is illegal to graze your cattle on a piece of land without the consent of the land owner. And in this case sad to say it was the Federal Government like it or not. If he had even kept to the once permitted land that might have been one thing but he did not, once he lost the long held family permitted land for nonpayment in 1994, he took it upon himself to decide where his boundries would be which included the land never permitted to him or his family, which lead to warnings to him to get his cattle out and when he did not comply to either the BLM or the National Forest Service, legal federal court orders to remove his cattle were granted. Also according to Nevada Livestock law, cattle that are subject to illegal trespassing can be legally seized by the land owner to cover fees and damages. So when the Bundy family were on the TV claiming the government were STEALING their cattle they were not telling the truth as they owed over a million dollars in fees and fines and the cattle were being legally seized in lue of payment by court order. That is the repercussions of not paying your fees for over 20 years and still thinking you have a right to the land, I'm guessing. Megyn Kelly was talking to a guy that was video taping the standoff on her show tonight and she said She did not agree with the handling of the issue by the government but she looked at the court documents and felt as a lawyer that the Government had the Bundy's dead to rights on the issue. She has no skin in the game and she is not a big fan of the government so why would she not tell it as she sees it? One of the daughters was on Greta tonight and she claimed a lot of the fight was with the local Sheriff as he would not step in and do anything to protect her dad. She claimed it was his county and he had more power than any federal agency when it came to the people in Clark County. But what was he to do if he knew the land was legally the Federal Governments? According to one article that I posted here on ranchers, the Clark County Sheriff's office in 2012 agreed to assist the BLM in the removal of the Bundy cattle that were trespassing when the family failed to remove them as they said they would. If he was to do his job, her dad might well had been in jail for breaking Nevada State trespassing laws, but would you want to live in a town with Cliven Bundy's family after arresting him? He likely figured it was the Federal Governments issue and to not risk upsetting the locals he would stay out of it the best he could and let the BLM and Federal Courts deal with the Second Amendment exercising family, which was upsetting to the family according to the daughter. They might be rejoicing now as they won this battle but this is a no win situation and the Bundy family's own admitted actions did nothing to help out the cause if they knew it was going to wind up in the courts. As how can you win when your only defense is you haven't paid your permit and grazing fees for the past 20 years because you don't recognized the Federal Government to be the rightful owners of the land when the titles are in the United States of Americans name and have been since before the Bundy family settle on the land 140 year ago, the same landlord they have been paying their fees to up until the dispute 20 years ago. The Bundy's claimed they were there before the BLM was ever created so they didn't have to follow their rules but does that really matter when the BLM is a agency set up by the legal land owner the Federal Government to administer the day to day operations of their Public Lands? I have stated and restated my reasoning for my lack of support for the Bundy family so you decide was the Bundy family breaking the law or are they hero's for getting the government to back down that well might encourage others to stop paying their legally owed bills? And please ask yourself this question, If I support the Bundy family's illegal trespassing on Government owned land for 20 years because he is a rancher just trying to preserve his way of life, do I have a right to then demand the government hold their employees, that lied under oath to preserve their jobs, accountable by firing them or maybe even charging them with a crime and jailing them? As is it not Hypocrisy to support one while demanding the other? [/QUOTE]

Verification: What city in Missouri has a big arch?