Actually, it is ALWAYS about truth, and we should not ignore the truth. Bundy made it clear in 1993 that he refused to pay because he believed the federal government could not own the land. He was willing to pay Clark County for the grazing permit, but not the BLM.
In court, “Bundy appears to argue in his Motion to Dismiss (#4) that the Complaint (#1) should be dismissed because this Court lacks jurisdiction since Article IV of the Constitution cannot be imposed upon him. Bundy claims that he is a citizen of Nevada and not a citizen of a territory of the United States, and he also quotes religious texts. Bundy also brings in the Property Clause, the Commerce Clause and International Treaty laws. None of these statutes, laws or other citations is relevant to the jurisdictional issue...
...The FLPMA provides the Secretary of the Interior with the authority to regulate grazing and issue grazing permits that require permittees to adhere to the terms and conditions of such permits...The Allotment where Bundy and his father before him have been grazing livestock is classed as an ephemeral region, which does not consistently produce forage. The BLM has authority under the FLPMA to place restrictions on grazing when the forage declines to a level that would defeat the goals of multiple use and sustained yield...
...Bundy argues the federal government cannot have authority over lands “inside an admitted state.” See Motion to Dismiss (#4), p. 10. That argument must fail because federal lands located within states are federal territories under federal jurisdiction....”
Refresh my memory. How many years in prison did Bill Clinton, Jon Corzine & Charley Rangel get? You can cipher for a while if you need to. I'm not in a hurry for an answer.
Bundy made it clear in 1993 that he refused to pay because he believed the federal government could not own the land. He was willing to pay Clark County for the grazing permit, but not the BLM.
In order to pay the BLM, he had to sign the contract.
For argument's sake, let us say that the bank which holds your 30 year house mortgage approached you at 25 years into the contract, and gave you an updated contract which stated that your wife had to sexually service the male banking staff on demand. The bank further stated that you and your wife MUST sign the updated contract in order to continue making payments on your mortgage.
Would you and your wife assent to the terms of the updated contract, or would you become a "deadbeat" who refused to make his mortgage payments? The language from the court cases is just that - the language of the Double Tongues. It's telling that it took the Double Tongues TWENTY years to maneuver Cliven Bundy into a position where they could send in The King's gunthugs.
And speaking of court cases, did the BLM have some sort of court order enabling them to destroy Bundy's water infrastructure out there in the desert, or is The King's Law a one-way street in this case?
I'm sure the Double-Tongues will have some sort of ready explanation for us simple peasants...