In my world, the federal government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they're not lying about anything they're involved in, since that's all they ever do.
My assumption in this case is that they changed the rules after the fact, and are lying about it.
Just the fact that this is Clark County and Dingy’s protege is now in charge of the BLM is strong indication that the pooch is being screwed.
“My assumption in this case is that they changed the rules after the fact, and are lying about it.”
Where exactly were the rules changed?
Yes the federal government does push people around. That is not germane to this topic. What is germane is who owns the land in question. The fact is that the US government owns the land and under the most basic of rights, has the authority to decide what is to be done with their property.
The government did change the rules. Twice.
The government has never lied about that.
Under the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act, the federal grazing contracts had ten-year terms. The Bundy family first entered into a Taylor Grazing Act contract and began paying grazing fees in 1934. The first grazing contact expired in 1943, and subsequent contracts expired in 1953, 1963, 1973, 1983, and 1993.
At any of those points, the government could change the terms of the grazing contract.
In 1993, the government changed the contract to provide for an increased grazing fee and a massively decreased limit on the amount of cattle that Bundy could graze on the old Bunkerville allotment . . . because of the presence of desert tortoises, which the Fish & Wildlife Service had placed on the Endangered Species list in 1989.
Cliven Bundy refused to sign a new contract and continued to graze his cattle on the old Bunkerville allotment.
The government has never lied about that.
In 1988, the government made another change. The BLM declared the old Bunkerville allotment a 'no-graze' area because of the presence of desert tortoises. The government has never lied about that.
We can discuss the point, but I don't consider it to be changing the rules after the fact when a property owner (a) offers different terms in a new contract upon the expiration of a previous contract, or (b) changes the rules for use of its land, affecting someone who consciously chose not to renew a contract or pay a grazing fee for the land.
One of the BLM's legal reasons for claiming the right to remove Bundy's cattle is trespass. Bundy has claimed in legal documents that the BLM is essentially lying about that, and the true legal basis being asserted by the BLM comes from the Endangered Species Act.