Posted on 04/12/2014 11:09:47 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
If it is "federal" land, then it belongs to we the people. Since we pay the fedgov with our taxes, they work for us.OK, fair enough. Would you agree to all ranchers ceasing to pay grazing fees? And would you agree to, say, me using that land for whatever I want? My company has some old copiers that needs dumping and since it belongs to "we the people" that means it belongs to me to do what I will...
It has occurred to me that since Mr. Bundy has said he is willing to pay the county and the county currently holds the grazing rights to the disputed allotment, the county should send Mr. Bundy a bill for the grazing fees. I’d like to see if he would actually pay up.Clark County has already said it ain't their land and they won't accept fees for it. Bundy says he tried giving them money and they wouldn't take it, referred him to the Feds.
However, he also said that around 1990, there was a guy who went around telling ranchers that they didn’t need to pay grazing fees, and that the federal government could not own land and that people were citizens of states, but not of America. One of his close friends bought off on it and has spent 20 years refusing to pay income taxes, get a drivers license, etc.I knew sovereign citizen tax protesters were in there somewhere! Anytime you hear the ever-changing stuff that Bundy was saying in court and on TV about who the land belongs to, it's "freeman on the land" woo.
That was many, many years ago, when this conflict started. There is nothing stopping the BLM from authorizing Clark County to collect the required fees except their own stupid officiousness and power tripping.
Bundy says he’s willing to pay the county, let him.
There is nothing stopping the BLM from authorizing Clark County to collect the required fees except their own stupid officiousness and power tripping.And what if Clark County doesn't want the responsibility? Why do you think their position would have changed?
Where are you going to be when the Feds come into GA? Spouting rules and regs that by the way are not voted on by the House or Senate?
Just in case you didn’t know the US Congress never voted to declare the Bundy range a Tortoise sanctuary. Nor did the US Congress ever vote to make or change the rules regulating how many cattle could be run on a certain amount of acreage. The US Congress votes on almost none of the regulations that are in question here. So what this means is that its all done on an arbitrary basis by a bunch of progressive bureacrats backed up by Federal judges.
Truth be told the whole thing is unconstitutional. Mr. Bundy’s declaration of pre-emptive rights are far more legitimate and have more standing than the Dept of Agriculture’s BS regulations that change on a whim.
He’s claiming more or less a patent claim. We have patent claims in GA going back 150 years or more. They are handed down from one generation to another and there are no fees charged and many of these claims are on public land.
There’s a storm coming and you better get your head screwed on straight Bubba your mouth is not backing up your tag line.
I agree with you on the sovereign citizens woo being an influence. That’s one of the reasons I think the BLM should arrange to have Clark Co. collect the fees for them.
Let’s see if Bundy pays up or starts up with some more woo on the subject of money.
There are no angels dancing on the head of this pin, both sides are wrong. The BLM was/is using bad science to bolster their ideologically driven management of public lands to the detriment of the locals and Bundy is a charismatic woo salesmen using specious legal reasoning to avoid paying his bill.
But... and it’s a big BUT... this episode has demonstrated the serious power of social networking on law enforcement activities as well as how developed the militia movement has gotten. And how feeble the federal response was to it, this time.
We live in interesting times.
Depends on what's in it for the county. They may accept the money if they get to keep a portion of it. They may be willing to play along to call Bundy's bluff in order to clearly establish that he's indeed a scofflaw and not a victim of government oppression. Also, I believe Clark County is the current possessor of the grazing leases on the allotments Bundy's cattle are trespassing on.
They may accept the money if they get to keep a portion of it.That would be contrary to federal law.
Also, I believe Clark County is the current possessor of the grazing leases on the allotments Bundy's cattle are trespassing on.Nope. Those are under the BLM, not the county.
Where are you going to be when the Feds come into GA?Standing on the side of established law, like I always do.
Just in case you didn’t know the US Congress never voted to declare the Bundy range a Tortoise sanctuary. Nor did the US Congress ever vote to make or change the rules regulating how many cattle could be run on a certain amount of acreage. The US Congress votes on almost none of the regulations that are in question here.They don't have to. That's under the authority of the Department of the Interior and subsidiary agencies underneath them. The BLM is one of those. I don't much like it, but that's how it goes until Congress dissolves the Dept of the Interior.
Truth be told the whole thing is unconstitutional.According to whom and what court decisions on the subject? As much as I would like to see such regulations be declared unConstitutional by SCOTUS, we can't just have people going around declaring this or that to be unConstitutional willy-nilly and expect it to fly. Rule of law don't work that way. There's a procedure for doing this. If we ignore that, we might as well toss the Constitution and the Bill of Rights out the window.
He’s claiming more or less a patent claim.Check Nevada law. A patented claim in Nevada is property where the owner has both surface and mineral rights. The owner pays property taxes in the same way as a homeowner. Bundy hasn't done that and can't do a patent claim because of that.
We have patent claims in GA going back 150 years or more. They are handed down from one generation to another and there are no fees charged and many of these claims are on public land.That's because GA is a State Land State. Nevada ain't; it's a Public Domain State and the land patents there are handled through the BLM Nevada State Office. See here for the difference between the two. Don't assume that what we have here in GA applies out there.
There’s a storm coming and you better get your head screwed on straight Bubba your mouth is not backing up your tag line.It's already been established that he's made sovereign citizen woo arguments in court. That's not freedom; sovereign citizens, tax protesters, and "freeman on the land types" are just 'gibsmedat' people dressed up in faux-patriotism. I have no patience for it.
There is nothing stopping the BLM from authorizing Clark County to collect the required fees except their own stupid officiousness and power tripping.Except for Clark County saying "Naw, we ain't fooling with that."
Sadly you are part of the problem and you don’t even have a clue.
The office of the Governor of Nevada has verified that Mr. Bundy has faithfully paid all of his state and local fees and taxes.
This scenario had nothing to do with grazing fees. By now you should have realized that.
You are in for a big suprise my friend.
You need a new tag line.
The office of the Governor of Nevada has verified that Mr. Bundy has faithfully paid all of his state and local fees and taxes.It's not about his state and local fees and taxes. It's about paying grazing fees on federal lands. That's a wholly different story.
This scenario had nothing to do with grazing fees. By now you should have realized that.Court case says different.
Clark County bought the leases and retired them as part of their tortoise mitigation which then gave them leeway for other developments, so they are the current lease holders. BLM is merely the administrator.
Since the country is the current lease holder they could bill Bundy for the cattle he is trespassing on their leased ground.
It was established law, in Russia, to report, arrest, and prosecute 'profiteers', aka capitalists.
It was established law, in Cambodia, to identify, round up, and murder intellectuals.
Established law is an insufficient test as to moral imperatives.
Just wearing eyeglasses was enough to be considered an "intellectual."
Established law is an insufficient test as to moral imperatives.Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. Last I checked, grazing fees didn't belong to God.
Clark County bought the leases and retired them as part of their tortoise mitigation which then gave them leeway for other developments, so they are the current lease holders. BLM is merely the administrator. Since the country is the current lease holder they could bill Bundy for the cattle he is trespassing on their leased ground.I haven't seen that anywhere and I'm unable to verify it with a google search. What's your source saying that Clark County is the current lease holder? Did a Clark County rep say that?
Hey, looky here. A government agency that wants to remove SOMETHING illegal!
Sadly you are confusing established regulation with established law.
Again Mr. Bundy has broken no law. If he had he would have had a jury of his peers and been convicted of a crime.
Mr. Bundy is arguing his pre-emptive rights to graze is cattle on the range land that has been grazed by his family for 140 years. Its called precedence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.