breitbart piece on the bundy ranch

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

the court documents in particular don't support the narrative presented by the "alternate media" and bundy family.
do these facts affect the case? or not?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/12/The-Saga-of-Bundy-Ranch


heres an attempt at an alternate legal defense that i think fails   and oddly the reasons why are laid out in this piece thats reaching hard to  find a way
http://benswann.com/exclusive-does-cliven-bundy-have-something-called-prescriptive-rights-why-the-blm-may-be-afraid-of-going-to-court/

[AJ Dual]

Frankly speaking, the fed.gov needs to be taken down several pegs, whether Bundy is in the right or not.

The tea that wound up in Boston harbor was someone's rightful property too. Even if one wants to make the case said tea belonged to the East India Co. a monopolistic corporate instrument of the crown, the people handling the tea and the ship were "ordinary people just doing their jobs".

[charby]

Frankly speaking, the fed.gov needs to be taken down several pegs, whether Bundy is in the right or not.

The tea that wound up in Boston harbor was someone's rightful property too. Even if one wants to make the case said tea belonged to the East India Co. a monopolistic corporate instrument of the crown, the people handling the tea and the ship were "ordinary people just doing their jobs".

Difference is King George was born as a monarch and we can replace our leaders at election time.

[Bigjake]

Frankly speaking, the fed.gov needs to be taken down several pegs, whether Bundy is in the right or not.

The tea that wound up in Boston harbor was someone's rightful property too. Even if one wants to make the case said tea belonged to the East India Co. a monopolistic corporate instrument of the crown, the people handling the tea and the ship were "ordinary people just doing their jobs".

This.

IMO,  It's an issue of out of control Feds more than anything else, and we're lucky that no one died this time.

[Bigjake]

Difference is King George was born as a monarch and we can replace our leaders at election time.

With what?  The Dem or Republican on the ballot?  Different side of the same coin.

[bedlamite]

Different side of the same coin.

Heads they win, tails we lose.

[French G.]

Frankly speaking, the fed.gov needs to be taken down several pegs, whether Bundy is in the right or not.

The tea that wound up in Boston harbor was someone's rightful property too. Even if one wants to make the case said tea belonged to the East India Co. a monopolistic corporate instrument of the crown, the people handling the tea and the ship were "ordinary people just doing their jobs".

Yeah, at some point inertia runs right on past the original issue and its merits. Like Ukraine, a few months ago we were watching protests and armed clashes in Kiev with mild interest. Now it looks more like Sudetenland and Austria 2.0. Could we even go back to the original issues there? At this point what does it matter?_tm

[Scout26]

Here's the best piece I've read on what truly happened at Bundy Ranch and what I meant when I said "You don't get it." and the difference between legally and ethically right:

http://johntreed.com/BLM-Nevada-rancher-showdown.html


Something that was already in the works prior to Bundy Ranch.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57836973-90/utah-lands-lawmakers-federal.html.csp

[AJ Dual]

Difference is King George was born as a monarch and we can replace our leaders at election time.

A few have already pointed out the futility in that.

Also, it's a lack of vision on the part of the "law and order" types on this board. What you fail to understand/believe is that it does not require someone with evil intent for the evil to happen.

It is simply an emergent property of the system.

[Scout26]

Everything Hitler did was legal and within the laws of the Third Reich.

The Purges by Lenin and Stalin, legal.  Same with all those sent to die in the Gulags.

The Famine in the Ukraine in the 1920's and 1930's.  100% Legal.

The Purges, Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution in China under Mao.  All laws duly passed by the government.

The Killing Fields of Cambodia and Re-education camps in Vietnam.  Run and coordinated Legally by decrees of the governments.


Again.  Do not confuse legal with moral and ethical.  

[Angel Eyes]

A few have already pointed out the futility in that.

Especially since the larger problem is the unelected bureaucrats, answering to (apparently) no one.

[Scout26]

Perhaps this might help with understanding "why":

http://prepperchimp.com/2014/04/19/awesome-video-bundy-ranch-supporter-crushes-nbc-news-host/

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Perhaps this might help with understanding "why":

http://prepperchimp.com/2014/04/19/awesome-video-bundy-ranch-supporter-crushes-nbc-news-host/

How was that supposed to help?
She was a bit less bug eyed than some of bundy's disciple's but she seemed to rehash debunked points and avoided answering some goid questions

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

[bedlamite]

avoided answering some goid questions

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=goid

[p12]

Here's the best piece I've read on what truly happened at Bundy Ranch and what I meant when I said "You don't get it." and the difference between legally and ethically right:

http://johntreed.com/BLM-Nevada-rancher-showdown.html

This in spades!!

I am not as educated as other on this board and across this country but I know the difference between my rights and some *expletive deleted*ing bird or turtle or what ever smoke screen that is used to screw me.

Enough is enough.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Do explain ones rights to property one does not own. Or in this case how not paying entitled him to expand the area he used beyond the original graze after stopping payments

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

[Ron]

Yea, I posted the link to that article early on in the other thread on Bundy. As an individual he certainly doesn't do the bigger cause much good

Bottom line is that the government has systematically been driving ranchers out of business for a long time under the guise of land management. Viewing this incident outside of the context of a century of government/rancher relations certainly makes the government look more reasonable than it really is. Government has an agenda and it doesn't include the ranchers who aren't part of big-ag industrial complex.

Maybe he should become a tortoise rancher and come out with his own brand of tex-mex tortoise soup.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Portraying bundy as poor rancher is a stretch if you use the numbers bandied about by his own camp. In fact it would place him  more on the big ag end. Big ag not paying their rent.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

[charby]

So who's going to lead the armed uprising or are you just going to bitch about it on a online forum where one is preaching to a mostly agreeing choir? 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I'm not interested in wading through all the partisan propaganda and biased mainstream media to get to the bottom of this.  So can someone help me out, what's the short version here?  

As I understand it, Bundy and his family going back several generations have been using land owned by FedGov to graze their cattle, with FedGov's permission.  About 20 years ago FedGov stopped granting permission.  Bundy continued to use the land without permission, engendering lawsuits and court rulings that Bundy & cattle were trespassing and must stop.  FedGov eventually sent someone out to the land to remove the cattle, and Bundy and sympathizers took up arms to stop them.

That much I think I understand.  Is that basically correct?

As a legal matter, it seems to be an open and shut case against Bundy.  It ain't their land, never has been, no way no how.  But Bundy and supporters are appealing to some moral authority not recognized by the law, yes?  That's what I'm not clear on.  What is that moral authority?  Can someone explain that for me, concisely and without rhetoric?

Or is it that folks are just spoiling for a fight with FedGov over their overbearing land/farm/ranch/waterway regulations?

[charby]

I'm not interested in wading through all the partisan propaganda and biased mainstream media to get to the bottom of this.  So can someone help me out, what's the short version here?  

As I understand it, Bundy and his family going back several generations have been using land owned by FedGov to graze their cattle, with FedGov's permission.  About 20 years ago FedGov stopped granting permission.  Bundy continued to use the land without permission, engendering lawsuits and court rulings that Bundy & cattle were trespassing and must stop.  FedGov eventually sent someone out to the land to remove the cattle, and Bundy and sympathizers took up arms to stop them.

That much I think I understand.  Is that basically correct?

Pretty much how I understand the Bundy situation

As a legal matter, it seems to be an open and shut case against Bundy.  It ain't their land, never has been, no way no how.  But Bundy and supporters are appealing to some moral authority not recognized by the law, yes?  That's what I'm not clear on.  What is that moral authority?  Can someone explain that for me, concisely and without rhetoric?

I think Bundy is acting like a squatter and trying to get squatter's rights.

Or is it that folks are just spoiling for a fight with FedGov over their overbearing land/farm/ranch/waterway regulations?

That also.

[Jamisjockey]

Difference is King George was born as a monarch and we can replace our leaders at election time.

Sure.  With more corporate shills.

[Perd Hapley]

I think Bundy is acting like a squatter and trying to get squatter's rights.

I've never heard of a squatter with a long history of paying the rent. Is a person fighting eviction considered a squatter? 

[Fitz]

I've never heard of a squatter with a long history of paying the rent. Is a person fighting eviction considered a squatter? 

18 years after being ordered to vacate for not paying rent anymore?

Absolutely

[charby]

I've never heard of a squatter with a long history of paying the rent. Is a person fighting eviction considered a squatter? 

He was told his lease wasn't being renewed and needed to leave