Feds and Militias stand off over cattle seizures.

[gipper]

Uh, it has already been settled in the courts.
Where have you been?
The order was for him to comply with the RULING OF THE COURT.
LOL, a lien on his property on an order for him to vacate his cattle off of Federal land?

You misunderstand.

The government places liens on private property all the time. It does not require an army to impose and collect liens. For example, if you fail to pay property taxes, liens are accessed and collected without the need for violence.

Now on to the other issue. Could it be that this action by the feds was instigated by Dirty Harry Reid for his benefit? Seems likely considering most politicians are nothing more than operators of a crime syndicate.

You forgot to list the government can put a lien on property for someone that never entered into a contract for grazing cattle.
Because you know that you can not lien property for that.
You can NEVER put a lien on any property in the United States of America on any property for fees owed the government.
Income taxes are under a different amendment to the Constitution.
You know better but prefer to offer your BS as a dodge, twist and distortion of the facts.

WRONG!

Listen to the judge. He says the government can place a lien.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iayVoKJbRNo]Feds To Pursue Effort To End Dispute With Rancher In Nevada - Judge Andrew Napolitano Stuart Varney - YouTube[/ame]

The great Ron Paul...


and this too...
I?m Ambivalent on the Bundy Ranch Case :: The Mises Economics Blog: The Circle Bastiat

 

[Gadawg73]

You misunderstand.

The government places liens on private property all the time. It does not require an army to impose and collect liens. For example, if you fail to pay property taxes, liens are accessed and collected without the need for violence.

Now on to the other issue. Could it be that this action by the feds was instigated by Dirty Harry Reid for his benefit? Seems likely considering most politicians are nothing more than operators of a crime syndicate.

You forgot to list the government can put a lien on property for someone that never entered into a contract for grazing cattle.
Because you know that you can not lien property for that.
You can NEVER put a lien on any property in the United States of America on any property for fees owed the government.
Income taxes are under a different amendment to the Constitution.
You know better but prefer to offer your BS as a dodge, twist and distortion of the facts.

WRONG!

Listen to the judge. He says the government can place a lien.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iayVoKJbRNo]Feds To Pursue Effort To End Dispute With Rancher In Nevada - Judge Andrew Napolitano Stuart Varney - YouTube[/ame]

The great Ron Paul...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrwMFGemfyg]Ron Paul: Feds May Return With Reinforcements For Bundy - YouTube[/ame]

and this too...
I?m Ambivalent on the Bundy Ranch Case :: The Mises Economics Blog: The Circle Bastiat

You have to first have a monetary judgment with a dollar amount to place any lien on any property.
Where is that judgment?
Where was it recorded?
There is no judgment and never will be.
Why?
Because they are still pre judgment in this case as the order they were attempting to serve was for "specific performance", which is not monetary value, it is to do something which was remove the cattle from the lands.
As that was what they were doing.
The order was to remove the cattle from public lands.
Amazing a Judge will do anything to make money including tell fibs.
And IF there could be any lien placed guess what would have to be against?
THE CATTLE ONLY.

 

[jon_berzerk]

You forgot to list the government can put a lien on property for someone that never entered into a contract for grazing cattle.
Because you know that you can not lien property for that.
You can NEVER put a lien on any property in the United States of America on any property for fees owed the government.
Income taxes are under a different amendment to the Constitution.
You know better but prefer to offer your BS as a dodge, twist and distortion of the facts.

WRONG!

Listen to the judge. He says the government can place a lien.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iayVoKJbRNo]Feds To Pursue Effort To End Dispute With Rancher In Nevada - Judge Andrew Napolitano Stuart Varney - YouTube[/ame]

The great Ron Paul...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrwMFGemfyg]Ron Paul: Feds May Return With Reinforcements For Bundy - YouTube[/ame]

and this too...
I?m Ambivalent on the Bundy Ranch Case :: The Mises Economics Blog: The Circle Bastiat

You have to first have a monetary judgment with a dollar amount to place any lien on any property.
Where is that judgment?
Where was it recorded?
There is no judgment and never will be.
Why?
Because they are still pre judgment in this case as the order they were attempting to serve was for "specific performance", which is not monetary value, it is to do something which was remove the cattle from the lands.
As that was what they were doing.
The order was to remove the cattle from public lands.
Amazing a Judge will do anything to make money including tell fibs.
And IF there could be any lien placed guess what would have to be against?
THE CATTLE ONLY.

they have no intention of filing a lien

since they would have to show the true value of

the missed grazing payments

which is no where near a million dollars

 

[JakeWIlls92]

The militias are the modern day minutemen! God bless them!

 

[The T]

WRONG!

Listen to the judge. He says the government can place a lien.
Feds To Pursue Effort To End Dispute With Rancher In Nevada - Judge Andrew Napolitano Stuart Varney - YouTube

The great Ron Paul...
Ron Paul: Feds May Return With Reinforcements For Bundy - YouTube

and this too...
I?m Ambivalent on the Bundy Ranch Case :: The Mises Economics Blog: The Circle Bastiat

You have to first have a monetary judgment with a dollar amount to place any lien on any property.
Where is that judgment?
Where was it recorded?
There is no judgment and never will be.
Why?
Because they are still pre judgment in this case as the order they were attempting to serve was for "specific performance", which is not monetary value, it is to do something which was remove the cattle from the lands.
As that was what they were doing.
The order was to remove the cattle from public lands.
Amazing a Judge will do anything to make money including tell fibs.
And IF there could be any lien placed guess what would have to be against?
THE CATTLE ONLY.

they have no intention of filing a lien

since they would have to show the true value of

the missed grazing payments

which is no where near a million dollars

This government is seeking examples...high profiles to make examples of to keep the people in check, and their power unchallenged.

 

[jon_berzerk]

You have to first have a monetary judgment with a dollar amount to place any lien on any property.
Where is that judgment?
Where was it recorded?
There is no judgment and never will be.
Why?
Because they are still pre judgment in this case as the order they were attempting to serve was for "specific performance", which is not monetary value, it is to do something which was remove the cattle from the lands.
As that was what they were doing.
The order was to remove the cattle from public lands.
Amazing a Judge will do anything to make money including tell fibs.
And IF there could be any lien placed guess what would have to be against?
THE CATTLE ONLY.

they have no intention of filing a lien

since they would have to show the true value of

the missed grazing payments

which is no where near a million dollars

This government is seeking examples...high profiles to make examples of to keep the people in check, and their power unchallenged.

the Blm has been doing unconstitutional acts for years and years

 

[The T]

they have no intention of filing a lien

since they would have to show the true value of

the missed grazing payments

which is no where near a million dollars

This government is seeking examples...high profiles to make examples of to keep the people in check, and their power unchallenged.

the Blm has been doing unconstitutional acts for years and years

For now they are setback...licking their wounds...they will be back...

 

[paulitician]

Harry Reid's Henchmen violated the Court Order. They killed the man's cattle. They will be held accountable.

 

[Gadawg73]

WRONG!

Listen to the judge. He says the government can place a lien.
Feds To Pursue Effort To End Dispute With Rancher In Nevada - Judge Andrew Napolitano Stuart Varney - YouTube

The great Ron Paul...
Ron Paul: Feds May Return With Reinforcements For Bundy - YouTube

and this too...
I?m Ambivalent on the Bundy Ranch Case :: The Mises Economics Blog: The Circle Bastiat

You have to first have a monetary judgment with a dollar amount to place any lien on any property.
Where is that judgment?
Where was it recorded?
There is no judgment and never will be.
Why?
Because they are still pre judgment in this case as the order they were attempting to serve was for "specific performance", which is not monetary value, it is to do something which was remove the cattle from the lands.
As that was what they were doing.
The order was to remove the cattle from public lands.
Amazing a Judge will do anything to make money including tell fibs.
And IF there could be any lien placed guess what would have to be against?
THE CATTLE ONLY.

they have no intention of filing a lien

since they would have to show the true value of

the missed grazing payments

which is no where near a million dollars

Fully agree with that as the $200 a day per head is absurd.
But let me appeal to your reason and common sense.
Background undisputed:
Cattle ranchers at the turn of the century and during the depression had great problems with over grazing on Federal lands so they went to Congress asking for a law to manage that resource. The Taylor grazing Act was passed in 1934 which leased the property.
There are now 18,000 leases on Federal land mostly cattle and sheep grazing.
All legal since 1934.
So under what theory does Bundy offer, and he has offered none to date, does he have to justify never even applying for a lease, which is very simple and not that costly?
What theory does he have, which he has never offered, does he have to claim he is exempt from the fines?
And the bottom line is who was there to serve the order on Bundy, as he had prior notice they were coming, and who were these people there other than BLM to serve the order?
Federal marshals.
So we have men that are Federal marshals that all they are doing is just going about their business of enforcing the law. Men that have families and are there to do a job.
And we have Bundy calling in armed militia groups to stop them.
Now tell me if in your county where you live someone had cattle that came over on your property and a court issued an order to be served on the person that owned those cattle to remove them how is anyone that is in law enforcement doing anything wrong?
You do know that this is exactly what happened in this case, don't you as I doubt you are stupid and do not admit believe Bundy avoided this law since 1993?
So the marshals in your county come out attempting to serve the order on the man that has cattle on your property and the guy that owns the cattle calls every militia group and they show up armed, all of them.
What happens?
All of them are arrested for obstruction of justice because they intervered with law enforcement performing their official legal duties in serving legal process.
Either we support law enforcement or not.
As a conservative I support law enforcement and the rule of law.
Either you do or don't support law enforcement.

 

[jon_berzerk]

You have to first have a monetary judgment with a dollar amount to place any lien on any property.
Where is that judgment?
Where was it recorded?
There is no judgment and never will be.
Why?
Because they are still pre judgment in this case as the order they were attempting to serve was for "specific performance", which is not monetary value, it is to do something which was remove the cattle from the lands.
As that was what they were doing.
The order was to remove the cattle from public lands.
Amazing a Judge will do anything to make money including tell fibs.
And IF there could be any lien placed guess what would have to be against?
THE CATTLE ONLY.

they have no intention of filing a lien

since they would have to show the true value of

the missed grazing payments

which is no where near a million dollars

Fully agree with that as the $200 a day per head is absurd.
But let me appeal to your reason and common sense.
Background undisputed:
Cattle ranchers at the turn of the century and during the depression had great problems with over grazing on Federal lands so they went to Congress asking for a law to manage that resource. The Taylor grazing Act was passed in 1934 which leased the property.
There are now 18,000 leases on Federal land mostly cattle and sheep grazing.
All legal since 1934.
So under what theory does Bundy offer, and he has offered none to date, does he have to justify never even applying for a lease, which is very simple and not that costly?
What theory does he have, which he has never offered, does he have to claim he is exempt from the fines?
And the bottom line is who was there to serve the order on Bundy, as he had prior notice they were coming, and who were these people there other than BLM to serve the order?
Federal marshals.
So we have men that are Federal marshals that all they are doing is just going about their business of enforcing the law. Men that have families and are there to do a job.
And we have Bundy calling in armed militia groups to stop them.
Now tell me if in your county where you live someone had cattle that came over on your property and a court issued an order to be served on the person that owned those cattle to remove them how is anyone that is in law enforcement doing anything wrong?
You do know that this is exactly what happened in this case, don't you as I doubt you are stupid and do not admit believe Bundy avoided this law since 1993?
So the marshals in your county come out attempting to serve the order on the man that has cattle on your property and the guy that owns the cattle calls every militia group and they show up armed, all of them.
What happens?
All of them are arrested for obstruction of justice because they intervened with law enforcement performing their official legal duties in serving legal process.
Either we support law enforcement or not.
As a conservative I support law enforcement and the rule of law.
Either you do or don't support law enforcement.

his theory is that he paid clark country and would continue to pay clark county

he says that BLM is not the correct managers of the land

BLM on their website states that the rate for grazing fees is

1.35 per head per month counting cow and calf as one head

so money was not the issue

he also claims that BLM has been systematically robbing the livelihood of the ranchers

by limiting the number of head to a hundred cattle

 

[regent]

So it sounds like the Bundy dispute is over who owns the land, Nevada or the Federal government?
Does Nevada claim ownership?

 

[beagle9]

So it sounds like the Bundy dispute is over who owns the land, Nevada or the Federal government?
Does Nevada claim ownership?

Better yet, why does the Feds own or claim this land ? Was it won during the Indian wars back in the early days by the U.S. calvary ? What gives the feds the rights to this land ?

 

[eagle1462010]

So it sounds like the Bundy dispute is over who owns the land, Nevada or the Federal government?
Does Nevada claim ownership?

The Gov't has taken it over the decades via Acts, Gov't agencies, and Presidential orders without the consent of Congress or the State.

Perhaps it's time to find out who really is SUPREME on this issue.

 

[Iceweasel]

Either we support law enforcement or not.
As a conservative I support law enforcement and the rule of law.
Either you do or don't support law enforcement.

Oh come on. That's overly simplistic, you're smarter than that. I support LE but can be very sympathetic to Bundy and the like. Supporting LE doesn't mean you agree with the law. In this case they trimmed down the allowable herd size considerably and he refused to get the reduced permit size. If government keeps making laws that grow it's size and scope we will eventually be subjects of the state.

I agree that the best weapon is the voting booth so I blame Americans more than the clowns they put in power.

As far as the lien thing goes, Napalitano's point was that the collection would come when the property changed hands, probably at this death. The amount of the punitive fees would be disputed in court presumably.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Either we support law enforcement or not.
As a conservative I support law enforcement and the rule of law.
Either you do or don't support law enforcement.

Oh come on. That's overly simplistic, you're smarter than that. I support LE but can be very sympathetic to Bundy and the like. Supporting LE doesn't mean you agree with the law. In this case they trimmed down the allowable herd size considerably and he refused to get the reduced permit size. If government keeps making laws that grow it's size and scope we will eventually be subjects of the state.

I agree that the best weapon is the voting booth so I blame Americans more than the clowns they put in power.

As far as the lien thing goes, Napalitano's point was that the collection would come when the property changed hands, probably at this death. The amount of the punitive fees would be disputed in court presumably.

more likely when he sells cattle or calves

 

[Gadawg73]

they have no intention of filing a lien

since they would have to show the true value of

the missed grazing payments

which is no where near a million dollars

Fully agree with that as the $200 a day per head is absurd.
But let me appeal to your reason and common sense.
Background undisputed:
Cattle ranchers at the turn of the century and during the depression had great problems with over grazing on Federal lands so they went to Congress asking for a law to manage that resource. The Taylor grazing Act was passed in 1934 which leased the property.
There are now 18,000 leases on Federal land mostly cattle and sheep grazing.
All legal since 1934.
So under what theory does Bundy offer, and he has offered none to date, does he have to justify never even applying for a lease, which is very simple and not that costly?
What theory does he have, which he has never offered, does he have to claim he is exempt from the fines?
And the bottom line is who was there to serve the order on Bundy, as he had prior notice they were coming, and who were these people there other than BLM to serve the order?
Federal marshals.
So we have men that are Federal marshals that all they are doing is just going about their business of enforcing the law. Men that have families and are there to do a job.
And we have Bundy calling in armed militia groups to stop them.
Now tell me if in your county where you live someone had cattle that came over on your property and a court issued an order to be served on the person that owned those cattle to remove them how is anyone that is in law enforcement doing anything wrong?
You do know that this is exactly what happened in this case, don't you as I doubt you are stupid and do not admit believe Bundy avoided this law since 1993?
So the marshals in your county come out attempting to serve the order on the man that has cattle on your property and the guy that owns the cattle calls every militia group and they show up armed, all of them.
What happens?
All of them are arrested for obstruction of justice because they intervened with law enforcement performing their official legal duties in serving legal process.
Either we support law enforcement or not.
As a conservative I support law enforcement and the rule of law.
Either you do or don't support law enforcement.

his theory is that he paid clark country and would continue to pay clark county

he says that BLM is not the correct managers of the land

BLM on their website states that the rate for grazing fees is

1.35 per head per month counting cow and calf as one head

so money was not the issue

he also claims that BLM has been systematically robbing the livelihood of the ranchers

by limiting the number of head to a hundred cattle

LOL, the county has nothing to do with leasing Federal land.
So when you get a speeding ticket you get to choose who to pay the fine to.
Rich there.
Many claim Elvis is still alive and you support that excuse also.
No one with any sense of the law in this matter supports a very wealthy rancher feeeloading off the government.
Bundy has conned you with the talking points for dummies of "freedom, patriotism" and outright paranoia to further his business interests only to get an advantage over his competitors.
And you buy it hook, line and sinker same as the left wing bought the media drivel that Trayvon Martin was a 6th grade choir boy.
Do not feel bad though as many have been suckered in by the multi millionaire Bundy.
Thousands of ranchers across the west pay the fees for their businesses to graze their cattle. But Bundy and his supporters believe Bundy should get free use of public resources to make a personal profit.
We call folks like that here in the deep south straight up communists.
Bundy's foundational argument is the land has been used by his family for generations and claims to have ancestors that worked the land since the 1800s. LOL, if Bundy wants to make that argument he needs to speak to the native Americans of the many different tribes that occupied the land far before Bundy did.
Also, I thought America was founded on building wealth through capitalism, rather than depending on your daddy to to pass on his membership into the landed aristocracy where Bundy sits. Bundy seems to think himself a member of the neo-nobility.
Bundy has no right to public land for personal profit. Anyone that believes that needs to move to Havanna and smoke one with Fidel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

So it sounds like the Bundy dispute is over who owns the land, Nevada or the Federal government?
Does Nevada claim ownership?

Better yet, why does the Feds own or claim this land ? Was it won during the Indian wars back in the early days by the U.S. calvary ? What gives the feds the rights to this land ?

Is it really Federal land or do they just say it is. How did the Fed acquire the land?

Why should the Federal government own most of the land in a sovereign state?

I think the Federal government is wrong on this issue.

 

[whitehall]

Media propaganda used to be the only source of information available to the public. When the ATF entrapped Veteran Randy Weaver and killed his wife and son the locals supported him but there was no National outrage or Fox news and no fair and balanced reporting about the "Ruby Ridge siege". When the feds used poison gas and tanks against the Branch Dividian compound the media supported the carnage and so did the public even though nobody really knew what happened. Things are different today and the word gets out quickly especially during a repressive administration and the bloated federal bureaucracy backed down.

 

[Gadawg73]

Media propaganda used to be the only source of information available to the public. When the ATF entrapped Veteran Randy Weaver and killed his wife and son the locals supported him but there was no National outrage or Fox news and no fair and balanced reporting about the "Ruby Ridge siege". When the feds used poison gas and tanks against the Branch Dividian compound the media supported the carnage and so did the public even though nobody really knew what happened. Things are different today and the word gets out quickly especially during a repressive administration and the bloated federal bureaucracy backed down.

Great dodge and distortion there.
Stick to the facts.
Bundy is a multi millionaire manipulating you and many others so he can mooch off the taxpayers and get a competitive advantage in the market place.
This administration had nothing to do with the 1993 order for him to start paying grazing fees like the other 18,000 ranchers do.
Co-op free use of property is as communist as it gets.
Why do you support communism?

 

[eagle1462010]

So it sounds like the Bundy dispute is over who owns the land, Nevada or the Federal government?
Does Nevada claim ownership?

Better yet, why does the Feds own or claim this land ? Was it won during the Indian wars back in the early days by the U.S. calvary ? What gives the feds the rights to this land ?

Is it really Federal land or do they just say it is. How did the Fed acquire the land?

Why should the Federal government own most of the land in a sovereign state?

I think the Federal government is wrong on this issue.

They acquired the land by executive orders, claiming the right of doing so by old acts and laws. Currently Obama is taking land via a 1906 Act, BYPASSING Congress.

Carter did the same to create the Sage Bush Rebellion.