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

Question for ot

Tam

Well-known member
Here is a good question when the Bundy family friend and spokesperson was just on Judge Jeanine, she asked him what is next for the Bundy family and his answer was, They need good representation to get right with the government at least that is what they want to do is get right with the Government.

If the Bundy family has been right in their own minds, for the past 20 years grazing the BLM without paying the fees and the Government was in the wrong like the Bundy family made the armed protesters believe what did their family spokesperson mean by they want to get right with the government?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Tam said:
Here is a good question when the Bundy family friend and spokesperson was just on Judge Jeanine, she asked him what is next for the Bundy family and his answer was, They need good representation to get right with the government at least that is what they want to do is get right with the Government.

If the Bundy family has been right in their own minds, for the past 20 years grazing the BLM without paying the fees and the Government was in the wrong like the Bundy family made the armed protesters believe what did their family spokesperson mean by they want to get right with the government?

Tam, it took Hage, more than 20 years to get the truth to come out, in court. Don't be too quick to judge...

...I will take the side of the citizen on this one, knowing that the Government plays games with the law/media etc. to get their message out.

The government was not worried about past "fees" owed, that's for sure. If they were they were, they'd be chasing and showing up on more doorsteps, armed to the teeth, as they were in Nevada.
 

Tam

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Tam said:
Here is a good question when the Bundy family friend and spokesperson was just on Judge Jeanine, she asked him what is next for the Bundy family and his answer was, They need good representation to get right with the government at least that is what they want to do is get right with the Government.

If the Bundy family has been right in their own minds, for the past 20 years grazing the BLM without paying the fees and the Government was in the wrong like the Bundy family made the armed protesters believe what did their family spokesperson mean by they want to get right with the government?

Tam, it took Hage, more than 20 years to get the truth to come out, in court. Don't be too quick to judge...

...I will take the side of the citizen on this one, knowing that the Government plays games with the law/media etc. to get their message out.

The government was not worried about past "fees" owed, that's for sure. If they were they were, they'd be chasing and showing up on more doorsteps, armed to the teeth, as they were in Nevada.

I would stand behind the citizen too if he was not adding to his problems by admitting to that same media he does not follow Federal laws when he is grazing his cattle on FEDERAL LANDS. :? :roll:

Personally I would like to see half as much concern for Andy Johnson from Wyoming that paid for all the state permits he need and got his state government's assurance he was good to go on his stock pond. And after he built it on his 8 acre privately owned piece of land, for his family to enjoy, the EPA stepped in and threatened him that he either filled the pond in or face $75 k a day fines until he did. He followed the rules as I see it the Bundy family's actions are very questionable and have been for 20 years.
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
I was under the impression that the land in question is actually owned by the state of Nevada, NOT the federal government... and that Bundy had only stopped paying the federal charges.....

Nobody involved in this is without blame, but there is absolutely no excuse for the jack booted thug antics of the BLM...I don't care what Mr. Bundy did or didn't do.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
That is my understanding he says its State land so he paid the bill at the cou8nty level and they didnt accept it Thw feds want the money and he feels he owes the m oney to the owner
 

Mike

Well-known member
The BLM Commissioner has been ordered to find a 285,000 acre site for a wind farm in that area. Harry Reid is in on that..............

Something stinks............and it smells like a Democrat.
 

Steve

Well-known member
I would stand behind the citizen too if he was not adding to his problems by admitting to that same media he does not follow Federal laws when he is grazing his cattle on FEDERAL LANDS.

had he "followed the law" he would be out of business..

had he not been provocative the media would have ignored his plight..


news this morning reported the feds have "at least" 18week or so old calves they separated from the mothers..

“We have seen cows with tight bags but no calves on them, who are being moved by the BLM,” Ammon Bundy told WND. “This means they have separated the newborn calves from their mothers and they will eventually die.”

there is never a good reason to kill cattle ... but this just shows how inhumane the BLM was in this..
 

Steve

Well-known member
The 2014 Progressive Democratic Candidate for Nevada Governor Allen Rheinhart said this is not the first time he has witnessed the BLM strong arm a Nevada rancher. He said the BLM took cattle belonging to a man named Wayne Hage for the same reasons cited in the Bundy case.

“The BLM took some of his cattle, Rheinhart said. “Then (they) sold them all off for grazing on BLM land, and then sent him a bill for housing the cattle until the auction took place.

“In the end, he was forced to sell his ranch – a ranch that had been in his family for four generations if memory serves me correctly.”

Read more: KCSG Television - Heated Cattle Debates Spikes The Question Who Really Owns The Land

so really what other choice did Bundy have... stand up or sell out..
 

Steve

Well-known member
in June 2012, Judge Jones had issued a scorching preliminary bench ruling that charged federal officials of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) with an ongoing series of illegal actions against Nevada rancher E. Wayne Hage that the judge described as “abhorrent” and a literal, criminal conspiracy.

“Judge Jones said he found that “the government and the agents of the government in that locale, sometime in the ’70s and ’80s, entered into a conspiracy, a literal, intentional conspiracy, to deprive the Hages of not only their permit grazing rights, for whatever reason, but also to deprive them of their vested property rights under the takings clause, and I find that that’s a sufficient basis to hold that there is irreparable harm if I don’t … restrain the government from continuing in that conduct.”



“In fact, Judge Jones accused the federal bureaucrats of racketeering under the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations) statute, and accused them as well of extortion, mail fraud, and fraud, in an effort “to kill the business of Mr. Hage.”


While no one (mercifully) has died on the Bundy ranch—yet—the stories of Bundy,—-Hage, Wally Klump and others are a disturbing match.

“In a previous court decision, Senior Judge Loren Smith referred to the well-publicized Hage lawsuit as “a drama worthy of a tragic opera with heroic characters.”

“A federal judge has added $150,000 to the original $4.22 million judgment won by the estate of rancher Wayne Hage in a years-long battle over property rights.

“The federal government had asked Senior Judge Loren Smith to throw out the judgment. Instead, he increased it.

“Hage, a leader of the “Sagebrush Rebellion” against federal control of land.

“The order is the most recent victory in a legal dispute that stretches back to 1991, when Hage filed suit against the government for taking his private property without just compensation.

“Hage’s 7,000-acre ranch in Nye County, Nev., bordered several allotments in the Toiyabe National Forest on which he built fences, corrals, water facilities and other rangeland improvements for cattle grazing.

“Tensions began to mount between the rancher and the U.S. Forest Service in the late 1970s, when the agency permitted the introduction of elk to the national forest, resulting in damaged fences and scattered cattle, according to court records.

“Over the next decade, other incidents aggravated the strain and eventually led to the lawsuit.

“According to court documents, the Forest Service excluded Hage’s cattle from forage and water in certain allotments, impounded animals that entered those allotments and prevented him from maintaining ditches needed to exercise his water rights.

“In his legal complaint, Hage claimed the agency had breached its contractual obligations and violated his constitutional rights.

“During the course of litigation, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims decided the Forest Service could legally prohibit grazing on the allotments without compensating Hage, since grazing permits are licenses and not contracts.

“As such, the impoundment of cattle was not an unconstitutional taking because the cattle had trespassed on government land, the court said.

“However, the court ruled that the agency had taken Hage’s water rights, ditch rights-of-way, roads, water facilities and other structures without just compensation and in 2008 ordered the government to pay him $4.22 million.

whether this is about solar, natural gas or water.. the fact remains.. this battle started long ago,.. and the BLM,.. wanted all the ranchers off the land.. and by "case law".... violated the contracts..

as Americans we see how our property rights are being eroded..

all the "president" has to do is sign an executive order and any land you had is now worthless.. but the taxes are still due....

how is that "Fair and Just" ?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Over two days and counting on the Wyoming family's fight with the EPA and still no comment on this issue where the family paid all their fees and got all the right permits to do what they did and are being heavily fined by an over reaching government on an issue that will affect every US land owner. :?
 

Tam

Well-known member
loomixguy said:
I was under the impression that the land in question is actually owned by the state of Nevada, NOT the federal government... and that Bundy had only stopped paying the federal charges.....

Nobody involved in this is without blame, but there is absolutely no excuse for the jack booted thug antics of the BLM...I don't care what Mr. Bundy did or didn't do.

In April 2012, court records indicate that a final administrative effort was made on the part of the BLM to resolve the alleged trespass on the tracts—including the federal lands traditionally used by the Bundy family and additional federal lands the Bundy family began using without permission on or around 2000. According to testimony, federal agents attempted to broker a deal involving the Clark County Sherriff that would allow cattle to be wrangled and transported to a sales market of the Bundy family’s choosing and allow the family to keep all proceeds. Court filings referenced Cliven Bundy’s assertion that any such action to round up cattle could lead to a “range war.”

Claiming to have exhausted all options, the U.S. Government filed a new civil lawsuit against the family for specific alleged trespass on the New Trespass Lands and the Lake Mead recreational area in May 2012. Court records reference Bundy’s confirmation in deposition that the cattle--branded or not--were indeed his on the tracts. Further, the DOJ detailed the family’s ranching improvements to the off-limits New Trespass Lands to include corrals, water troughs, hay and grazing supplements—such improvements were explicitly prohibited for any party, according to court records. The government repeatedly reminded the court that no grazing permits in the disputed area were ever offered. When asked in deposition what reaction the Bundy family would have should an impoundment occur, Cliven said he’d do “whatever it takes” to include physical force to stop such action.

The U.S. Government claimed that cattle on or near the two off-limits tracts posed “a significant risk to public safety.” Federal agencies claimed to have been in receipt of reports “of vehicle collisions and near collisions” due to the cattle. Bundy directly denied the allegation.

Throughout litigation, the Bundy family defended its actions using similar defense theories from prior litigation—despite the federal court’s rejection of them. The family argued that the United States did not in fact maintain jurisdiction or ownership of the federal lands in question, citing a specific Nevada code NRS 321.596 Legislative Findings. Bundy also challenged the inclusion of the tortoise as an endangered species.

In July 2013, the federal court granted the DOJ’s motion for summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Government. The court reiterated its position that “the public lands of Nevada are the property of the United States because the United States has held title to those public lands since 1848, when Mexico ceded the land to the United States.”

The Nevada federal district court offered a rather blunt summary of its ruling, “In sum, this most recent effort to oppose the United States’ legal process, Bundy has produced no valid law or specific facts raising a genuine issue of fact regarding federal ownership or management of the public lands of Nevada, or that his cattle have not trespassed on the New Trespass Lands.”
In February 2014, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals again rejected Bundy’s claims.

From the Nevada Livestock laws website

It is unlawful to graze livestock on any part of the unreserved and unappropriated public lands of the United States in the State of Nevada

LIKE IT OR NOT The Federal Government owns the title of the land in question and it is illegal by Nevada law to graze cattle on US public lands in Nevada without consent of the land owner. Bundy's stop paying the Federal fees 20 years ago because they no longed recognized the Federal Government exists according to Bundy's own words. Just because he doesn't recognize the Federal Government, that his family has always paid their permit fees to, doesn't not change the ownership of the land to somebody he does recognize.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Tam said:
Over two days and counting on the Wyoming family's fight with the EPA and still no comment on this issue where the family paid all their fees and got all the right permits to do what they did and are being heavily fined by an over reaching government on an issue that will affect every US land owner. :?

this was posted back in April,..

Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property

All Andy Johnson wanted to do was build a stock pond on his sprawling eight-acre Wyoming farm.

and again on march 14th


http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=69391&highlight=wyoming+acres+pond

was it brought up again?
 

Steve

Well-known member
. He quit paying the BLM but, tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down.

They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with they’re own grazing fees. When they offered to buy my dad out for a penance he said no thanks.

Well when buying him out didn’t work, they used the endangered species card. You’ve already heard about the desert tortoise.

Well that didn’t work either, so then began the threats and the court orders


In 1993, the BLM had authorized him to graze only 152 cattle."

it is my understanding when the offer to buy him out failed they then reduced his ability to graze the land by limiting the cattle he could graze...

his family had a contract with the federal government for over a hundred years,.. the BLM "changed" the contract without his consent...

legally that is not allowed in most cases..

I can't sign a contract and then just change it.. but the US government can..

The BLM wants the issue to be about not paying fees.. but the reality is when he failed to let them buy him out,.. they "broke" the contract and started forcing him out..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
The Federal government used to encourage settlement of those lands...the Mormons had a big push on (Brigham Young). I have no doubt that his family was grazing that land before Nevada was even a state.

So Mexico gave his land to the Federal Government... :???:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Steve said:
Tam said:
Over two days and counting on the Wyoming family's fight with the EPA and still no comment on this issue where the family paid all their fees and got all the right permits to do what they did and are being heavily fined by an over reaching government on an issue that will affect every US land owner. :?

this was posted back in April,..

Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property

All Andy Johnson wanted to do was build a stock pond on his sprawling eight-acre Wyoming farm.

and again on march 14th


http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=69391&highlight=wyoming+acres+pond

was it brought up again?

So then it is even sadder that none of you bothered to comment on the issue when I reposted on Mar 24 or again several times in the past few days. :?

And pointing out the fact it was already posted doesn't really tell anyone much about how you feel about what the EPA is attempting to do and what you think should be done about it . :wink:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
the EPA should be allowed to do whatever they wish, just like the BLM and other Federal agencies, just like the Constitution states they should. It's all just a matter of today's interpretation...
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Tam, just because we didn't post on your topic doesn't mean it doesn't concern us. Several years ago, I had a call from a person who wanted to check on the water in our lakes. At first I said yes, but upon further questioning, the man admitted he was from the EPA. I then told him that I normally was pretty easy to get along with, but if he worked for the EPA, he was not welcome to check out my water. That is the last I've hear of the deal, and probably ten years has passed since this incident.
 
Top