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...
“How many years in prison did Bill Clinton, Jon Corzine & Charley Rangel get?”
Maybe you want to be Bill Clinton. I do not. I believe the truth is important. I’m more concerned with being on God’s side than on selling an argument, and that means taking the truth seriously.
“Would you and your wife assent to the terms of the updated contract”
The contract ALWAYS allowed the government to revise it at will. The contract never specified XXXX AMU forever. Since the government had the right to change it at will, it had less market value than a fixed contract on private land. It is possible to sue the BLM successfully for arbitrary and capricious changes to an allotment - Hage did, and won.
“The language from the court cases is just that - the language of the Double Tongues.”
The language was provided by Bundy in sworn statements. You cannot complain that, when required to give a statement under oath, he did not say what you wish he said.
“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...”
Bundy could sue for a ‘taking’, except he had no legal right to install those in the first place. A right to water does not mean you get to put a water tank anywhere you want. It means access to water, but not anywhere you choose to access the water. And water is something notably missing from any of Bundy’s court filings.