Indeed.
Posted on 04/10/2014 10:35:30 AM PDT by bimboeruption
Sounds like Ex Post Facto law to me.
Is BLM borrowing an army from homeland security, or does every single department in the us government just happen to have their own army?
This is getting crazy. Wonder if we could rename the country United Tin Horn Dictators of America.
They’re also stupid beyond belief. Bringing in snipers and shooter over flippin’ cows.
BTTT!
These things have a way of escalating out of control all on their own.
However, no worry, the press will work overtime to bury it as much as possible and spin what they can't bury.
I wish them all the luck in the world, and they’re going to need it. And so are we.
God owns all the land. If Bundy’s family has made use of it since the 1800’s then in my eyes it’s theirs until THEY sell it.
I don’t know if Jeff Head was there but I drove out from Colorado and distributed some Tyranny Response Team t-Shirts. They were well received. I saw the strutting badge monkeys up close and personal.
What did your precious rule of law do for the Weaver family? What did your rule of law do for the Branch Davidians? Who went before a jury for using a tank to smash and burn 86 men, women and children alive?
The ABA tried to get a count of federal laws. They could not. In the USA today laws are to punish political enemies, while protecting political allies.
See Jon Corzine, exibit A.
Paying off the feds won’t work. They have already spent many times the back fees playing Gestapo. This is not about money, it is stamping on a rebel to make an example.
So first understand that the land belongs to the US Government. People were grazing on federal lands without the government’s permission before the creation of the Taylor Grazing act (1934). At that time, Congress decided to start charging a fee for grazing on their land. In that law, they created the Department of Interior Grazing Office for the charging of fees to graze on US Government lands. This office was later rolled into the BLM.
It is government land, the Congress has exclusive legislative authority over that land per Article 1 section 8 of the constitution, and they decided to start charging fees and for a while, Bundy was paying those fees.
“The day the Federal Govt. stands down is the day the Federal govt. pretty much ceases to exist. “
Sounds like Putin’s view of Obama....
Suppose you owned a vacation property of say 10 acres and that you had a nice cabin on it. You visit it once a year and you have a fence on it to “mark” your land. Then without your permission, or knowledge, one of your neighbors digs up your fence posts and moves them into your land so that they gain some of your property. If you don't assert your property rights to that now disputed land, you could lose that land to “adverse possession”
And in this case the government has repeatedly gone to the courts allowing Bundy to state his case. Bundy has repeatedly lost his case because he does not have a legal leg to stand on.
Indeed.
That actually happened to a friend of mine.
FWIW, you’re welcome.
There’s another thread about a video of a man speaking at a townhall meeting. He’s saying that this situation is bigger than Cliven Bundy. (It is.)
With respect to the BLM killing cows though ... in the video, he says that this round-up is taking place during calving season. The BLM doesn’t know enough to pair up babies and mommas. So now there are babies out there without mommas because the BLM rounded up the mommas. Then he makes the point that if the desert tortoise has rights so do the calves.
Day-old babies with no milk. This story gets worse by the hour.
Just like “first amendment zones”. How legal is that? Tazing people for peacful assembly and speaking out is a violation of our Constitution. Care to adress that? Care to address the death of the law? May your chains rest lightly, and the boots you lick taste good.
Well, the family is wrong about that point.
The fees and grazing contracts were created under the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act. The Act provided that receipts from grazing be distributed three ways: 50% to range betterment projects, 37½% to the US Treasury, and 12½% to the state.
So, no. The fees were not originally supposed to be used only to assist the local ranchers.
The Bundy family has owned a 150-acre ranch since 1876. Ownership of the 150-acre ranch is not in dispute. What’s in dispute is grazing rights to hundreds of thousands of acres of public land to which the BLM asserts title. The Bundy family says an ancestor bought permanent grazing rights to the old Bunkerville allotment in 1887. They have not said from whom they purchased it nor, for the skeptics, produced any document of conveyance. Bundy is now grazing on the old Bunkerville allotment as well as additional land to which the BLM or the National Park Service claims title.
That's a legal argument Cliven Bundy made in court, based upon Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 3 How. 212 212 (1845), in which the U.S. Supreme Court addressed lands ceded to the United States from Virginia and Georgia to discharge debt incurred by those states during the Revolutionary War. The USSC ruled that that the United States held this land in trust for the establishment of future states.
Subsequently, federal courts have ruled that Pollard's Lessee was based on the fact that Virginia and Georgia were sovereign entities before becoming states, and specifically ruled in four cases that it did not apply to land in the State of Nevada, because the U.S. owned the land before Nevada became a state.
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.