What happens if your car is towed and impounded because you have racked up thousands of dollars of unpaid parking tickets?
Driving since I was 17. I'm 43 now and some change (+ months). I have not received any parking tickets. I do pay my speeding ticket being my last one was '98 I do know though that there be a Warrent for your arrest issued after so many unpaid tickets. Our Smaj was blindsided on that one for wife driving his car downtown all the time.
How does this relate to a Court Order?
A Summon to appear before Court can have date change is legit enough one to two weeks in advance notice
A Court Order though cannot be adjusted though being its a "Order" and as such one is to stay within the guide lines of a "Order"
Since your going with unpaid Fee's Ouze. A Lien on his ranch is way more effective then what BLM tried to do.
Its like Bundy is pure anti everything with his stance and protest. While BLM is like the "Golden Child" that did no wrong.
Jihadin wrote: Driving since I was 17. I'm 43 now and some change (+ months). I have not received any parking tickets. I do pay my speeding ticket being my last one was '98 I do know though that there be a Warrent for your arrest issued after so many unpaid tickets. Our Smaj was blindsided on that one for wife driving his car downtown all the time.
You're ducking the question. Are you familiar with the reality that in, I daresay, every jurisdiction in this country, that when you car is seized and impounded due to unpaid fines/tickets, that if you don't pay your fines in a certain window, that it is sold at auction? That "to seize and impound" in the legal sense means the property will be sold if the balance is not satisfied?
Jihadin wrote: How does this relate to a Court Order?
A Summon to appear before Court can have date change is legit enough one to two weeks in advance notice
I'm not very good at math, but the court order I've read seems to have given him 45 days to rectify the situation and was 9 months before the roundup started.
My understanding is there is an additional court order, but this one is sufficient for the debate.
Jihadin wrote: Its like Bundy is pure anti everything with his stance and protest. While BLM is like the "Golden Child" that did no wrong.
You're creating an irrelevant fallacy. The facts are that Mr. Bundy has not paid his fines, citing that he does not believe the government has a right to exist. The government has a lawful order to then seize his property. Good, evil - those don't come into play. When I say that he is a scofflaw, it is a indisputable fact (that he himself readily agrees to), not a moral judgement.
So I take it D-USA that a Court Order can be expanded by BLM eh
You're creating an irrelevant fallacy. The facts are that Mr. Bundy has not paid his fines, citing that he does not believe the government has a right to exist. The government has a lawful order to then seize his property. Good, evil - those don't come into play. When I say that he is a scofflaw, it is a indisputable fact (that he himself readily agrees to), not a moral judgement.
Hold one. I'm talking Court Order and your talking him not paying his fines His fines are not covered in the Court Order that was issued. His cattle was covered in the Court Order to be impounded. You have to stay within the guide lines of the Court Order regardless what rules, regulations and laws of the Department says.
Court Order.
So you all agree the Executive branch can over reach the Guide Lines established in a Judicial Court Order. Wow. Awesome. A Judicial Court Order can be trampled upon. So happy your for that D-USA and Ouze.
The court has directed since the original order that they can be impounded and disposed.
Their regulations make it clear that they can be impounded and disposed.
Legal precedent makes it clear that disposal follows impoundment.
You have done jack to back up your claim other than "I don't think they should be able to even though I have zero legal basis for that opinion".
So excuse me for choosing legal facts, precedents, and regulatory guidelines over the non-fact based opinion from the guy supporting the criminal who has not provided any real evidence to back his argument.
Your head is so far up your own delusion that you should really come up for air sometime before there is permanent damage.
Where in the Court Order it says "Sell" or "Dispose" of. I can read to D-USA and dealt with Court Orders. It did not give guide lines to sell or dispose of cattle. Department rules, regulations and laws does not trump a Court Order.
Now if your done attacking me and my "world" show me on the Court Order where it specifies that. So far it specifies "Impound".
It says that. I even posted where it said that. The very first court order, the one that started it all and has been upheld for two decades, states that they are to impound and dispose.
Your entire delusion hinges in the fact that in your mind impound='hold indefinitely until a court says something else' without providing any legal or regulatory basis for that opinion.
d-usa wrote: It says that. I even posted where it said that. The very first court order, the one that started it all and has been upheld for two decades, states that they are to impound and dispose.
Your entire delusion hinges in the fact that in your mind impound='hold indefinitely until a court says something else' without providing any legal or regulatory basis for that opinion.
They may have been told to sell them, but the method was illegal according to federal standards.
August 2013: A court order says Bundy has 45 days to remove his cattle from federal land.
October 2013: A federal district judge court tells Bundy not to “physically interfere with any seizure or impoundment operation.”
March 15, 2014: After nearly 20 years, the Bureau of Land Management sends Bundy a letter informing him that they plan to impound his "trespass cattle," which have been roaming on 90 miles of federal land. BLM averages four livestock impoundments a year, usually involving a few dozen animals.
March 27, 2014: The BLM has closed off 322,000 acres of public land, and is preparing to collect Bundy's cattle. Bundy files a notice with the county sheriff department, titled “Range War Emergency Notice and Demand for Protection." Bundy also says he has a virtual army of supporters from all over the country ready to protect him. He also has Gardner. “I think Cliven is taking a stand not only for family ranchers, but also for every freedom-loving American, for everyone," Gardner said. "I’ve been trying to resolve these same types of issues since 1984. Perhaps it’s difficult for the average American to understand, but protecting the individual was a underlying factor of our government. ... My support is that I am determined to stand by the Bundy family in any fashion it takes regardless of the threat of life or limb."
You're after August 2013 Court Order. If you want to stick with a 1998 Court Order then stick with it.
They can try to sell them, they can put a bullet in their heads, they can mount 900 heads in their lobby for their "we sure showed them ranchers" after party.
None of that violates the court order, which is the argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: You posted a 1998 Court Order. 15 years old
You have a habit of posting very old info
Like your "Tibet" post
Find me a current up to date Court Order.
August 2013
August 2013: A court order says Bundy has 45 days to remove his cattle from federal land.
October 2013: A federal district judge court tells Bundy not to “physically interfere with any seizure or impoundment operation.”
March 15, 2014: After nearly 20 years, the Bureau of Land Management sends Bundy a letter informing him that they plan to impound his "trespass cattle," which have been roaming on 90 miles of federal land. BLM averages four livestock impoundments a year, usually involving a few dozen animals.
March 27, 2014: The BLM has closed off 322,000 acres of public land, and is preparing to collect Bundy's cattle. Bundy files a notice with the county sheriff department, titled “Range War Emergency Notice and Demand for Protection." Bundy also says he has a virtual army of supporters from all over the country ready to protect him. He also has Gardner. “I think Cliven is taking a stand not only for family ranchers, but also for every freedom-loving American, for everyone," Gardner said. "I’ve been trying to resolve these same types of issues since 1984. Perhaps it’s difficult for the average American to understand, but protecting the individual was a underlying factor of our government. ... My support is that I am determined to stand by the Bundy family in any fashion it takes regardless of the threat of life or limb."
You're after August 2013 Court Order. If you want to stick with a 1998 Court Order then stick with it.
It's like talking to a 6 year old.
The old original court order matters, because every single court order since then goes back to it. Bundy has spend the last 20 years going "bitch bitch they can't enforce that order" and every court since then ruled that the BLM can enforce the order.
There is no "pick and chose which order you want to go with", there is no "old order or new order", there is only the original order to impound and dispose and all the orders since then which are all orders to uphold and enforce the original court order.
The new order doesn't change the old order, the new order enforces the old order.
You have yet to produce a single piece of evidence in your favor that impound =/= dispose. Considering they local, state, and federal government impound and dispose crap every single day you shouldn't have any problems finding court cases showing that they are all acting illegally.
Jihadin wrote: You posted a 1998 Court Order. 15 years old
You have a habit of posting very old info
Like your "Tibet" post
Find me a current up to date Court Order.
August 2013
I already posted it earlier in this thread. Here it is again. Case 2:12-cv-00804-LDG-GWF Document 35 Filed 07/09/13
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States is entitled to protect the New
Trespass Lands against this trespass, and all future trespasses by Bundy.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bundy shall remove his livestock from the New
Trespass Lands within 45 days of the date hereof, and that the United States is entitled to
seize and remove to impound any of Bundy’s cattle that remain in trespass after 45 days of
the date hereof.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States is entitled to seize and remove to
impound any of Bundy’s cattle for any future trespasses, provided the United States has
provided notice to Bundy under the governing regulations of the United States Department
of the Interior.
As the first page says of it, it's re-iterating that his appeals are done and that the original order from 1998 stands.
The "seize and impound" means they they are to take his property, which is now property of the US government, and dispose of it as they wish. This is what seize and impound means in this context, just as cars are sold every day all around the country at auction.
Jihadin wrote: So most of you all agree that a Executive Branch department can go beyond a Judicial Court Order. So one's own Rules, Regulation and Laws of the Executive Branch trumps the guide lines of a Court Order.
Somehow it doesn't shock me to find more people who don't know how law enforcement works. The police impound millions of dollars in items every year. Sitting on them is a waste of tax payer money so they are put up for sale. The original owner has until the sale is finalized (30-45 days depending) to claim their property. If it is not claimed the sale goes through.
The court has nothing to do with the sale beyond granting permission to impound.
As far as Bundy goes, I said from the first he was wrong, but I despised the way the BLM screwed the whole thing up. Have you even been reading anything I wrote, or were you so jazzed on your slaughter everyone down there line that you totaly overlooked that?
The only thing the BLM screwed up was not going in with more force and fully enforcing the court order.
You continue to make excuses and justifications for Bundy and all the horrible violent criminals down there. This is an open and shut case. The cattle should not be illegally trespassing on public land, Bundy should pay all his back fees and have his property seized to cover his debts. Done. That was not enforced because of violent, armed, illegal mobs and the cattle are still illegally trespassing and Bundy is still not paying fees.
The people down there deserve every bit of 'badness' which happens to them. If they didn't want it, then they shouldn't support a violent criminal and stop being involved in the racist and dangerous county supremacy movement.
I shouldn't have to remind you all, but you shouldn't be directing negativity at other users. Behave, or else I may dispose of your ability to post here.
As well as saying rape and murder should be ignored when comparing the two groups of protestors.
Crimes committed by protesters do not impact the legitimacy of what they are protesting. I consider a protest against wealth inequality to be a significantly more legitimate cause than a protest against a Federal agency enforcing a court ruling.
That isn't a law, it is a Department of Agriculture regulation. The BLM is part of the Department of the Interior, so it isn't relevant.
Laws and regulations are different things.
Well, regulations do govern the interstate movement of cattle so there is some merrit there. I did post the Department of Interior regulations on how to impound and sell cattle, so I've claimed regulations as well.
However, reading through the DOA regulations, and the relevant Nevada and Utah regulations (I think we talked about Utah in particular) doesn't lead me to believe that any regulations were violated. I'll have to wait on Relapse to tell me which guidelines he believes were violated to know for certain though.
nkelsch wrote: OWS were legally protesting, non-violently without being armed, and when the courts determined they were trespassing and ordered them dispersed, they were dispersed. The difference is the BLM protestors are not peaceful, they are violent, armed, and trespassing and refusing to obey the law and let the courts implement the end result.
Well, no, the OWS were not legally protesting. That's why the police broke them up in cities throughout the country eventually. They also certainly were not peaceful, if the myriad police reports related to OWS activity in nearly every city they operated in are to be believed.
And if they couldn't afford guns, well...color me not shocked.
But it is illegal to transport guns across state lines for illegal purposes... Armed militias are illegal purposes.
No, I don't believe they are.
And just because you can carry doesn't mean you are not restricted in what you can legally do with said guns. An armed illegal militia breaking the law and assaulting federal agents is not a legal use covered by any carry permit I have ever seen.
Have you seen a lot of carry permits? I'm skeptical. And I haven't heard of any federal agents being shot yet, so I'm not sure what you're basing your assertions on.
Well, regulations do govern the interstate movement of cattle so there is some merrit there. I did post the Department of Interior regulations on how to impound and sell cattle, so I've claimed regulations as well.
Right, but Department of Agriculture regulations do not apply to the BLM because the BLM is not a part of the Department of Agriculture.
Acting contrary to the regulations of another Executive department is not illegal, or even wrong. It happens all the time.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States is entitled to protect the New
Trespass Lands against this trespass, and all future trespasses by Bundy.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bundy shall remove his livestock from the New
Trespass Lands within 45 days of the date hereof, and that the United States is entitled to
seize and remove to impound any of Bundy’s cattle that remain in trespass after 45 days of
the date hereof.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States is entitled to seize and remove to
impound any of Bundy’s cattle for any future trespasses, provided the United States has
provided notice to Bundy under the governing regulations of the United States Department
of the Interior
Impound. Just IMPOUND
One word IMPOUND
there is no IAW
In Accordance With Rules, Regulations, and/or Laws of "whatever BLM has on the books" to further the issue.
Those three words right there opens up additional avenues to resolve an issue. As it stands the Court Orders specify IMPOUND
Government documentation has to specify EVERYTHING to ensure the Law, Rules, and/or Regulations, Ordinance and Torts to, is on the government side. Its why you do not go outside the guide lines of a issue Court Order unless SPECIFIED with a "IAW" clausewhateverfitstoensureotheravenuestoresolve to make it "Idiot Proof". Right now the Court Order gives Bundy a loophole and puts BLM on the hook.
Ouze if this was the '98 then the there be a re-issue date in the first paragrapth or on page there should be a set of "numbers" running across the top and bottom. Its a verification date and page sequence number.
Though I believe we're looking at a re-issue date in first para.
nkelsch wrote: OWS were legally protesting, non-violently without being armed, and when the courts determined they were trespassing and ordered them dispersed, they were dispersed. The difference is the BLM protestors are not peaceful, they are violent, armed, and trespassing and refusing to obey the law and let the courts implement the end result.
Well, no, the OWS were not legally protesting. That's why the police broke them up in cities throughout the country eventually. They also certainly were not peaceful, if the myriad police reports related to OWS activity in nearly every city they operated in are to be believed.
We had our own branch of OWS here in Oklahoma City.
They had permits for use of the park they stayed in for months, the police made frequent rounds there (more for the protection of the protesters than preventing them from causing problems), the protesters let the police know what their plans were for the day ("hey, we are protesting in front of the Governors mansion today") and the police blocked the street for them to march and closed down a lane of traffic so that they could protest better. When the city refused to renew the permit for night-time use the Occupy OKC folks filed suit to try to stay in the park. The Chief of Police said that nobody will be rounded up even though there is no permit until the court makes a decision. A couple days later the court said that they can't stay without a permit so the protesters packed up and left.
Oklahoma, where even your protesting hippies are conservative
It wasn't one word. It was "seize and impound". It's been explained numerous time that those words in this context do not mean "seize and store indefinitely"; they mean to seize and sell at auction. We can keep repeating this indefinitely and it looks like we will but at this point you really should show at least some evidence to support your argument.
Jihadin wrote: Ouze if this was the '98 then the there be a re-issue date in the first paragrapth or on page there should be a set of "numbers" running across the top and bottom. Its a verification date and page sequence number.
Though I believe we're looking at a re-issue date in first para.
Did you read the order? It's 5 pages. That's not a snotty question, for some reason my earlier link isn't showing up in orange. It is now, I don't know what the difference is.
Anyway on the first page, second paragraph, it lays out that it's reiterating then 1998 litigation and orders.
Well, regulations do govern the interstate movement of cattle so there is some merrit there. I did post the Department of Interior regulations on how to impound and sell cattle, so I've claimed regulations as well.
Right, but Department of Agriculture regulations do not apply to the BLM because the BLM is not a part of the Department of Agriculture.
Acting contrary to the regulations of another Executive department is not illegal, or even wrong. It happens all the time.
But I do think that some federal departments have to follow regulations of other federal departments. I work for the Department of Veterans Affairs, but our pharmacy still has to follow the rules set forth by the FDA and our providers still have to get Federal provider numbers in order to practice. I don't know if the VA can purchase and ship guns across state lines without following the rules for firearms set forth by other federal agencies (keep your ATF jokes to yourself folks ). All Federal Agencies have to follow labor laws set forth by one specific agency, and it would be illegal for them not to do so. I'm not certain just how much influence one agency has on another, but I do think there is some overlap there. I most certainly could be wrong.
I do know that no state agency can pass any sort of law (well, they can pass what they want but it cannot be enforced) telling a federal agency how to do their job.
d-usa wrote: We had our own branch of OWS here in Oklahoma City.
They had permits for use of the park they stayed in for months, the police made frequent rounds there (more for the protection of the protesters than preventing them from causing problems), the protesters let the police know what their plans were for the day ("hey, we are protesting in front of the Governors mansion today") and the police blocked the street for them to march and closed down a lane of traffic so that they could protest better. When the city refused to renew the permit for night-time use the Occupy OKC folks filed suit to try to stay in the park. The Chief of Police said that nobody will be rounded up even though there is no permit until the court makes a decision. A couple days later the court said that they can't stay without a permit so the protesters packed up and left.
Oklahoma, where even your protesting hippies are conservative
You sure that wasn't a Tea Party rally? That sounds like a Tea Party rally.
d-usa wrote: I don't know if the VA can purchase and ship guns across state lines without following the rules for firearms set forth by other federal agencies
Is there less, or more paperwork when transferring to a different state vs selling to a Mexican drug cartel?
d-usa wrote: We had our own branch of OWS here in Oklahoma City.
They had permits for use of the park they stayed in for months, the police made frequent rounds there (more for the protection of the protesters than preventing them from causing problems), the protesters let the police know what their plans were for the day ("hey, we are protesting in front of the Governors mansion today") and the police blocked the street for them to march and closed down a lane of traffic so that they could protest better. When the city refused to renew the permit for night-time use the Occupy OKC folks filed suit to try to stay in the park. The Chief of Police said that nobody will be rounded up even though there is no permit until the court makes a decision. A couple days later the court said that they can't stay without a permit so the protesters packed up and left.
Oklahoma, where even your protesting hippies are conservative
You sure that wasn't a Tea Party rally? That sounds like a Tea Party rally.
d-usa wrote: I don't know if the VA can purchase and ship guns across state lines without following the rules for firearms set forth by other federal agencies
Is there less, or more paperwork when transferring to a different state vs selling to a Mexican drug cartel?
As far as Bundy goes, I said from the first he was wrong, but I despised the way the BLM screwed the whole thing up. Have you even been reading anything I wrote, or were you so jazzed on your slaughter everyone down there line that you totaly overlooked that?
The only thing the BLM screwed up was not going in with more force and fully enforcing the court order.
You continue to make excuses and justifications for Bundy and all the horrible violent criminals down there. This is an open and shut case. The cattle should not be illegally trespassing on public land, Bundy should pay all his back fees and have his property seized to cover his debts. Done. That was not enforced because of violent, armed, illegal mobs and the cattle are still illegally trespassing and Bundy is still not paying fees.
The people down there deserve every bit of 'badness' which happens to them. If they didn't want it, then they shouldn't support a violent criminal and stop being involved in the racist and dangerous county supremacy movement.
How is saying Bundy is wrong making excuses for him?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Racist now? I'll have to inform them that they have been elevated to racist. They are already laughing their asses off at the things I've quoted you on, tjhis will take it to a whole new level of hilarity for them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: They were wondering, bloodthirsty as you are, if you'll appear, leading the charge to wipe the town out.
They hold your comments with all the respect they have for Dutch saying it's the Mormon church behind all of this.
Whew. Talk about justifying ones action to escalate the situation. No one wants a fire fight and if one ever experience a fire fight then you know dang well you don't want to be in another one.
Courts and BLM knew they had a Wild Card on their hands. The Park Rangers screwed the pooch on the round up. The Court Order should have been lock tighter then the Virgin Mary Chastity Belt.
Alot of you all sound like you never handle protestors and armed individuals in a uniform capacity
Edit
Don't wait for a reply from me. Firing up Elder Scroll Online to check it out......NO SPOILERS!!!!!
Interesting, I just always figured it the other way around.
A good analogy for the relationship between Executive departments is the relationship between military branches. They work together because they have to, but they don't especially like it, and one is always vying for supremacy over another.
But I do think that some federal departments have to follow regulations of other federal departments. I work for the Department of Veterans Affairs, but our pharmacy still has to follow the rules set forth by the FDA and our providers still have to get Federal provider numbers in order to practice.
I should have mentioned laws as well.
If a statute or court order requires Department X to adhere to the regulations established by Department Y, then yes; Department X must follow them. This is the case regarding the VA and HHS. This is not, to my knowledge, the case with DOI and AOG, meaning AOG regulations are not relevant to BLM.
One thing I have been told in the past is that federal agencies cannot bill each other. We can bill insurance for patients we treat, but we cannot bill Medicare or any other federal source of payment. I don't know if that has to do with the apperant "federal agencies don't mess with each other" thing or if it is a rule that prevents federal agencies from ignoring budgets and shifting money back and forth.
Another question about the whole BLM thing and following Department of Agriculture rules:
Let's say that the BLM doesn't have to follow the regulations for interstate transport of cattle. That wouldn't exempt the eventual buyer of the cattle from having to follow the guidelines though, at least I wouldn't think that it would. So even though the BLM may be able to shuffle cattle around all they want, the person that buys the cattle (and eventually sells it for slaughter) would have to have all the required paperwork. So a potential buyer in Utah would want to make sure that they have all the required documents to track the cattle and sell it. So even if the BLM doesn't have to follow the rules, it might be in their best interest to follow them to make sure that somebody actually buys the things once they go to auction.
Reading through the case and the actual regulations (again, focused on Utah as that was one of the states that was given as an example of not following the guidelines) it seems like everything was done correctly:
1) Both Nevada and Utah allow branding to track origin of the cattle, as long as the mark is registered and inspected prior to movement. Bundy has a registered brand and from reading the articles it does seem like the brands were inspected as they were rounded up.
2) They usually would require a veterinary inspection prior to interstate movement so that they can be issued a interstate certificate of veterinary inspection. I have not read any articles that said that this was already done, but they would still be in compliance with the standards if they rounded up the cattle and transported them somewhere else to be inspected prior to leaving the state. There are exceptions to requiring an ICVI though:
2.1) (a) Cattle consigned directly to slaughter at an approved slaughter establishment; or (b) Cattle consigned directly to a State or Federal approved Auction Market.
So even if the BLM doesn't have to follow the regulations, it does seem like they did (or at least were in the process of doing so).
Ahtman wrote: Unless they were conflating Jesus and America while getting skinheads to nod in approval it wasn't a Tea Party rally.
I'm surprised the rampant infiltration of the Tea Party by skinheads hasn't been reported on more.
It isn't rampant, but if we are going to pretend that OWS was a criminal group because of a few I don't see why the Tea Party deserves any less. Every rally I went to there were a few there, but much like the people doing bad things in OWS they don't really represent close to the majority of the members.
Ahtman wrote: It isn't rampant, but if we are going to pretend that OWS was a criminal group because of a few I don't see why the Tea Party deserves any less. Every rally I went to there were a few there, but much like the people doing bad things in OWS they don't really represent close to the majority of the members.
I think we're going to acknowledge that the OWS occupations were in fact illegal. It's illegal to take over parks and camp out because you happen to (foolishly) believe it will change US financial industry regulations.
But if we want to get down to more "serious" crimes, we can go to major news outlets and find plenty of support for the notion that many OWS sites around the country experienced difficulty with assaults, sexual and otherwise, theft, vandalism, etc. I had a tough time digging up info on skinheads regularly attending Tea Party rallies.
Not that I don't doubt your unbiased word, or anything.
Seaward wrote: It's illegal to take over parks and camp out because you happen to (foolishly) believe it will change US financial industry regulations.
Seaward wrote: It's illegal to take over parks and camp out because you happen to (foolishly) believe it will change US financial industry regulations.
Unless it is, as d-usa claimed it was in OKC.
Unless it's legal, you mean?
Yes, it can be legal provided you get the proper permitting. Most Occupy movements did not, to the best of my recollection, which is why the police kicked them out. This rather belies the notion that the Occupy movement and the Tea Party movement were moral equivalents on different sides of the aisle, as Ahtman claimed, both with tiny minorities that committed crimes - the well-documented assaults and thefts of the Occupy movement, and the seemingly far more mythical Neo-Nazi element of the Tea Party.
The fact is, Occupy was broadly engaged in illegal activity the moment it started. Hardly serious illegal activity, but illegal activity all the same. Meanwhile, the Tea Party was not, and has worked within the system, getting candidates elected, funding policy initiative studies and PACs, etc. They're not comparable, and wishing won't make it so.
So even if the BLM doesn't have to follow the regulations, it does seem like they did (or at least were in the process of doing so).
Good argument, I agree.
Seaward wrote: This rather belies the notion that the Occupy movement and the Tea Party movement were moral equivalents on different sides of the aisle, as Ahtman claimed, both with tiny minorities that committed crimes - the well-documented assaults and thefts of the Occupy movement, and the seemingly far more mythical Neo-Nazi element of the Tea Party.
Ahtman never claimed OWS and the Tea Party were morally equivalent.
loki old fart wrote: I'd support Bundy and occupy wall street. What unjust law was ever got rid of, without protest.
Let me be clear on this specific argument: I wholly support Mr. Bundy's right to protest. I don't agree the law that is applying here is unjust., and he's in the wrong legally on the cattle situation, and I think some of his supporters should have been arrested when they started crossing the line into obstructing justice and assaulting law enforcement personnel; but the right of the people to protest is indeed the cornerstone of our democracy and when the BLM put up those first amendment areas, that was 110% bs.
Jihadin was right about the dog. In the video you can clearly see it lunges for the guy and he tries to fend it off by kicking at it (kinda lamely, really). He doesn't just walk up and kick it or something. I love dogs but I'm not about to say you can't try to defend yourself from one if it attacks you (or, even worse, that you should be executed for doing so).
Otherwise, yeah, Bundy seems to be very clearly in the wrong here and it's amazing they've let it go on this long. If they really are backtracking then that's sort of terrible.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Jihadin was right about the dog. In the video you can clearly see it lunges for the guy and he tries to fend it off by kicking at it (kinda lamely, really). He doesn't just walk up and kick it or something. I love dogs but I'm not about to say you can't try to defend yourself from one if it attacks you (or, even worse, that you should be executed for doing so).
Otherwise, yeah, Bundy seems to be very clearly in the wrong here and it's amazing they've let it go on this long. If they really are backtracking then that's sort of terrible.
But is he? That's the point.
Timeline as follows
Bundy family was paying the state.
The BLM comes into being, with promises of improving the land, ETC.
Bundy and all the other ranchers pay the BLM.
The BLM restricts the number of cattle per ranch that can be grazed on their land, making cattle ranching unsustainable.
The other ranchers go out of business. The BLM buys their land for pennies on the dollar.
Using the money they paid as rent.
Bundy stops paying rent to the BLM, And attempts to pay the state instead. Whilst challenging the BLM in court
The courts not surprisingly(being the government) sides with the BLM (also the government).
This goes on for years, until now.
Have I missed anything out ?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/civilian-militia-remain-bundy-ranch-standoff-ends/story?id=23394097 I admire their guts but not much else. The fact that they brought their kids with them shows either a lack of understanding of what their doing or lack of caring about if their kids get killed. I agree about the US government getting more authoritarian but they picked a crappy issue to make a stand on.
http://www.salon.com/2014/04/19/cliven_bundys_ailing_america_what_a_wingnut_ranchers_rise_says_about_our_waning_democracy/ As Salon makes the point of where the hell were these guys during all the other abuses of power. Where were they when medical marijuana patients were handcuffed to hospital beds? What about the "kids for cash" scandal when kids were being literally sold to privatized prisons by judges? Why don't they go threaten the local cops where I live that are infamous for doing things like shooting an old lady? Or the Swat team in the country north of mine that shot the 15 year old that no one cares about? I find it strange that the media criticizes Anonymous who don't threaten anyone just change the codes of websites and invade privacy lives who actually fight for the rights of people who can't fight themselves like that girl in Steubenville.
Kilkrazy wrote: @Relapse, a very simple question, has Bundy complied with the court orders handed down by a 21 year legal process?
Not that I know of and I don't support him in this.
But I despise the heavy handed methods the BLM is using in this matter and others throughout the western United States. Why don't we hear more about them going after far more serious offenders, like those with big drug farms on public land or other offences of that nature? We know they have gakloads of equipment to come down on what they assumed was a lone, defensless rancher, in effect firing the first shot by posting snipers on people filming their cattle being rounded up, trying regulate them to "free speach or 1st ammendement zones" then beating up Bundy's son and taking him away with no word of charges or even where he was taken.
The attitudes of some of the posters here, such as DutchWinsAll, who claims it's a Mormon church plot and that I support Bundy because he's Mormon, despite me saying Bundy is wrong, as well as Nkelsch, saying my family and friends down there should be wiped out, shows some true ignorance on the part of some of those that are against Bundy.
If you want, I can repeat myself on the other reasons I have nothing but disgust for the BLM in this incident, but I assume you've already seen those posts.
So you're aware of every single legal battle going on?
Kan
I let you figure in what context I put that in. From the sound of it Kan you were aware of it from 98 on up to 2014. You "Clark Kent"?
To comply with the order, would suggest you think the other side is possibly correct.
If you believe you are right, why would you comply.
Loki
First off. I am only siding with him just to see how far he can take it. I know he is going to get hammered regardless of outcome. Yet he broke the laws. Same as OWS yet we, well the government did not crack down on them. Yet he broke the laws and everyone wants to crush him because he broke the "LAWS" I called Double Standards.
Why should Bundy not have to comply with the court order?
KillKrazy
He doesn't have to being its his choice. A Court Order issued needs to be details as I mention earlier to prevent a "Loop Hole". The Court Order issued has a Loop Hole in it being "Impounded". Now the situation open up more over a slew of legal issues. If they have updated last year with a IAW clause then "Bingo" BLM is totally in the right.
Right now with the situation the BLM put themselves in due to the actions of two Park Rangers they are the bad guys. Right now with the wording of the Court Order BLM violated the Court Order.
Even if they try to sell the cattle that are healthy in the state many other ranchers fear to being "Black Listed" for having the perception of buying "stolen cattle"
Only thing BLM can do to make this go away and resolve the issue is to "Fence" off the Federal lands. Put a lien on Bundy house. Bundy tax returns for Federal is held.
If this continue with confrontation with BLM and other Federal Agency with Bundy someone going to get "stupid" and fire a real round.
Kilkrazy wrote: @Relapse, a very simple question, has Bundy complied with the court orders handed down by a 21 year legal process?
Not that I know of and I don't support him in this.
I'll give Bundy the benefit of the doubt.
I'm not saying he's right, but I think he believes he's right.
And he deserves credit for standing up for what he believes in.
Ironclad Warlord wrote: http://abcnews.go.com/US/civilian-militia-remain-bundy-ranch-standoff-ends/story?id=23394097
I agree about the US government getting more authoritarian but they picked a crappy issue to make a stand on.
I'll give Hitler the benefit of the doubt.
I'm not saying he's right, but I think he believes he's right.
And he deserves credit for standing up for what he believes in.
I'll give Hitler the benefit of the doubt.
I'm not saying he's right, but I think he believes he's right.
And he deserves credit for standing up for what he believes in.
Sorry. I just had to Godwin this XD
Made me laugh. but think comparing Bundy to Hitler is a bit OTT
I'll give Hitler the benefit of the doubt.
I'm not saying he's right, but I think he believes he's right.
And he deserves credit for standing up for what he believes in.
Sorry. I just had to Godwin this XD
Made me laugh. but think comparing Bundy to Hitler is a bit OTT
Oh of course. It's just that I read that and my thought was "omg Chamberlain probably said something like this"
Oh of course. It's just that I read that and my thought was "omg Chamberlain probably said something like this"
Probably did.
The thing that sours me towards politicians is they profess to believe in something. And as soon as elected, you find they believe in nothing.
Nick Clegg is a prime example.
So you're aware of every single legal battle going on?
Kan
I let you figure in what context I put that in. From the sound of it Kan you were aware of it from 98 on up to 2014. You "Clark Kent"?
Actually the point was more that even such a "big case" like this, there's hundreds of similar cases going on.
I love when these things make the news as it's always interesting to see how it gets perceived or how the "historical rewrites" tend to go.
To comply with the order, would suggest you think the other side is possibly correct.
If you believe you are right, why would you comply.
Loki
First off. I am only siding with him just to see how far he can take it. I know he is going to get hammered regardless of outcome. Yet he broke the laws. Same as OWS yet we, well the government did not crack down on them. Yet he broke the laws and everyone wants to crush him because he broke the "LAWS" I called Double Standards.
So all those instances of police brutality against OWS protests were just imagined?
The government did crack down on some of the protests when they got really, really out of hand. Did they deal with some of the crimes that occurred during the protests/at the protest sites? Not necessarily--but it doesn't mean that they just ignored them.
Why should Bundy not have to comply with the court order?
KillKrazy
He doesn't have to being its his choice. A Court Order issued needs to be details as I mention earlier to prevent a "Loop Hole". The Court Order issued has a Loop Hole in it being "Impounded". Now the situation open up more over a slew of legal issues. If they have updated last year with a IAW clause then "Bingo" BLM is totally in the right.
Right now with the situation the BLM put themselves in due to the actions of two Park Rangers they are the bad guys. Right now with the wording of the Court Order BLM violated the Court Order.
Even if they try to sell the cattle that are healthy in the state many other ranchers fear to being "Black Listed" for having the perception of buying "stolen cattle"
Only thing BLM can do to make this go away and resolve the issue is to "Fence" off the Federal lands. Put a lien on Bundy house. Bundy tax returns for Federal is held.
If this continue with confrontation with BLM and other Federal Agency with Bundy someone going to get "stupid" and fire a real round.
What ranchers are going to be in "fear of being blacklisted" for buying cattle from the BLM?
Bundy's a toolbag and as mentioned has not kept the cattle properly up to date with health, etc---so did it ever occur to you that might be the reason why they don't want to buy the cattle instead?
What ranchers are going to be in "fear of being blacklisted" for buying cattle from the BLM?
Bundy's a toolbag and as mentioned has not kept the cattle properly up to date with health, etc---so did it ever occur to you that might be the reason why they don't want to buy the cattle instead?
Which leads to the one of the point I have been making throughout this thread at the arrogance of the BLM in breaking the law and risking healthy herds by trying to sell cattle they did not have documentation on. Real nice of them putting law abiding ranchers livlihoods at risk with potentialy diseased cattle.
What ranchers are going to be in "fear of being blacklisted" for buying cattle from the BLM?
Bundy's a toolbag and as mentioned has not kept the cattle properly up to date with health, etc---so did it ever occur to you that might be the reason why they don't want to buy the cattle instead?
Which leads to the one of the point I have been making throughout this thread at the arrogance of the BLM in breaking the law and risking healthy herds by trying to sell cattle they did not have documentation on. Real nice of them putting law abiding ranchers livlihoods at risk with potentialy diseased cattle.
So now the ranchers are being forced to buy the cattle?
First it was "wasteful" that they were killing off the "potentially diseased cattle", now it's irresponsible to "put law abiding ranchers' livelihoods at risk"?
What ranchers are going to be in "fear of being blacklisted" for buying cattle from the BLM?
At the sell a Vet has to sign off on them I believe. So documentation and free health care, not aimed at ACA, is provided by the government for the cattle being sold.
I posted a few pages back that its a Integrity check when cattle are sold between ranchers. They pretty much enforce it themselves. For if I was a Rancher in that area I be quite leery on buying up Bundy cattle.
Only relevant example I can compare it to is Washington and Colorado legal "Marijuana Growers" and not being able to keep their money in banks being the Federal Government consider Marijuana growing a crime. Banks do not want to be caught in the battle. Unless the government change their stance on State Legal Marijuana growers lately
Edit
So now the ranchers are being forced to buy the cattle?
First it was "wasteful" that they were killing off the "potentially diseased cattle", now it's irresponsible to "put law abiding ranchers' livelihoods at risk"?
Nevada Governor stopped that attempt citing that reason. So BLM has an option to either hold on to them in impound or execute them all. Cheaper to turn them back on Bundy property.
Feral cattle though....unbranded....no idea how much one can fetch in Auction after certified. Feral in not having a "Brand" on them. US Military have Vets who can certify live stock so no unGodly amount of cash to a contractor. Light Bulbs anyone?
You inspect the cattle before it is shipped, unless it is one of he situations agreed to by federal and state laws that doesn't require inspection. I have yet to see how they were breaking any regulations or risking animal health.
d-usa wrote: You inspect the cattle before it is shipped, unless it is one of he situations agreed to by federal and state laws that doesn't require inspection. I have yet to see how they were breaking any regulations or risking animal health.
No documentation, for one, and when you are getting cattle under those circumstances, you want to quarantine them for a couple of weeks at least. The BLM was attempting to go straight from the range to auction. Plus they were leaving dead cattle to rot.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: I love dogs but I'm not about to say you can't try to defend yourself from one if it attacks you (or, even worse, that you should be executed for doing so
If you assault a police officer doing his job, then the police is legally justified to escalate that force to make you stop. You get to kick a dog that is attacking you, you don't get to kick a police officer that is taking you down. You get to defend yourself from a guy punching you, you don't get to fight back against a police officer that is taking you down.
I've actually been pretty consistent with that across multiple threads and multiple different examples. The time to fight an unlawful arrest or excessive force is in court after the arrest. Because whatever bullcrap reason they had for arresting you or setting the dog on you, once you act like that they have a valid "resisting arrest", "assaulting an officer", and "obstructing justice" charge on you.
Comply, don't dig yourself a hole, cash settlement check once everything is said and done.
Kick the police dog, and they are legally justified to defend him.
d-usa wrote: You inspect the cattle before it is shipped, unless it is one of he situations agreed to by federal and state laws that doesn't require inspection. I have yet to see how they were breaking any regulations or risking animal health.
No documentation, for one, and when you are getting cattle under those circumstances, you want to quarantine them for a couple of weeks at least. The BLM was attempting to go straight from the range to auction. Plus they were leaving dead cattle to rot.
They had all the required documentation per federal regulation. How did they not have documentation?
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: I love dogs but I'm not about to say you can't try to defend yourself from one if it attacks you (or, even worse, that you should be executed for doing so
If you assault a police officer doing his job, then the police is legally justified to escalate that force to make you stop. You get to kick a dog that is attacking you, you don't get to kick a police officer that is taking you down. You get to defend yourself from a guy punching you, you don't get to fight back against a police officer that is taking you down.
I've actually been pretty consistent with that across multiple threads and multiple different examples. The time to fight an unlawful arrest or excessive force is in court after the arrest. Because whatever bullcrap reason they had for arresting you or setting the dog on you, once you act like that they have a valid "resisting arrest", "assaulting an officer", and "obstructing justice" charge on you.
Comply, don't dig yourself a hole, cash settlement check once everything is said and done.
Kick the police dog, and they are legally justified to defend him.
d-usa wrote: You inspect the cattle before it is shipped, unless it is one of he situations agreed to by federal and state laws that doesn't require inspection. I have yet to see how they were breaking any regulations or risking animal health.
No documentation, for one, and when you are getting cattle under those circumstances, you want to quarantine them for a couple of weeks at least. The BLM was attempting to go straight from the range to auction. Plus they were leaving dead cattle to rot.
They had all the required documentation per federal regulation. How did they not have documentation?
If they were feral. not documented disease free. You wouldn't want them mixed with certified cattle, because of cross contamination.
They would have to be quarantined and checked by a vet, to be certified before sale and mixing with other stock.
They were almost all branded, so they were documented. You inspect them and issue an ICVI before transport, unless it is one of the exempted options for selling them. They had rounded them up, none of them were crossing state lines yet. They had not done anything to violate regulations. This is like accusing me of not giving my daughter her 12 month shots even though she is only 8 months old. They had all the documentation on these cattle that they were required to have at this point, at least that is what my reading of the regulations leads me to believe.
That is how the tracking works, if Bundy were to sell them he wouldn't provide every piece of paper to the seller. He would get them inspected prior to shipping them same as the Feds would have had to do. If they were found to be sick later they would be tracked back to him and then his records would be used to track them back further than that.
If all these "you could never sell these cattle" arguments are true then Bundy looks even dumber for racking up fines and organizing an armed uprising for worthless cattle that he can never sell. What a horrible business model, raising cattle that can never be sold.
d-usa wrote: They were almost all branded, so they were documented. You inspect them and issue an ICVI before transport, unless it is one of the exempted options for selling them. They had rounded them up, none of them were crossing state lines yet. They had not done anything to violate regulations. This is like accusing me of not giving my daughter her 12 month shots even though she is only 8 months old. They had all the documentation on these cattle that they were required to have at this point, at least that is what my reading of the regulations leads me to believe.
That is how the tracking works, if Bundy were to sell them he wouldn't provide every piece of paper to the seller. He would get them inspected prior to shipping them same as the Feds would have had to do. If they were found to be sick later they would be tracked back to him and then his records would be used to track them back further than that.
If all these "you could never sell these cattle" arguments are true then Bundy looks even dumber for racking up fines and organizing an armed uprising for worthless cattle that he can never sell. What a horrible business model, raising cattle that can never be sold.
From the Salt Lake Tribune. There were health concerns, but the BLM attempted to sell anyway.
If all these "you could never sell these cattle" arguments are true then Bundy looks even dumber for racking up fines and organizing an armed uprising for worthless cattle that he can never sell. What a horrible business model, raising cattle that can never be sold.
That's an interesting point. What's all the rage about people taking his cattle, if he could never have used them for anything productive. Was he keeping cattle on this land illegally as pets? Because that's basically the only reason to keep them if they can't be sold at all.
If they were found to be sick later they would be tracked back to him and then his records would be used to track them back further than that.
.
you inspect for sick cattle before they enter the system not after.
You inspect then before they cross state lines. None had crossed yet, so there was no need for a vet to inspect them yet.
Utah even has legal provisions for transporting cattle into the state without requiring an ICVI.
They BLM was following all the regulation. Utah didn't want to deal with militias showing up on their door because of this so they went "crapcrapcrap...something something disease?" to avoid having to deal with this.
It will be interesting if any of the "it's a health risk" crowds will throw a fit when they are sold by Bundy.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Relapse has posted the relevant regulations. If you can show me the sections that were violated please go ahead.
If they were found to be sick later they would be tracked back to him and then his records would be used to track them back further than that.
.
you inspect for sick cattle before they enter the system not after.
You inspect then before they cross state lines. None had crossed yet, so there was no need for a vet to inspect them yet.
Utah even has legal provisions for transporting cattle into the state without requiring an ICVI.
They BLM was following all the regulation. Utah didn't want to deal with militias showing up on their door because of this so they went "crapcrapcrap...something something disease?" to avoid having to deal with this.
It will be interesting if any of the "it's a health risk" crowds will throw a fit when they are sold by Bundy.
No you inspect before mixing with any other cattle, You put 30 cattle in with 70 known and certified cattle. And 2 get sick, you now have 100 cattle to check again and re certify.
Bundy would have taken them back to his ranch, corralled them observed them for 2 weeks, a vet may have been called. Before letting them near any other cattle. Even the branded stock would need to be re checked.
If they were found to be sick later they would be tracked back to him and then his records would be used to track them back further than that.
.
you inspect for sick cattle before they enter the system not after.
You inspect then before they cross state lines. None had crossed yet, so there was no need for a vet to inspect them yet.
Utah even has legal provisions for transporting cattle into the state without requiring an ICVI.
They BLM was following all the regulation. Utah didn't want to deal with militias showing up on their door because of this so they went "crapcrapcrap...something something disease?" to avoid having to deal with this.
It will be interesting if any of the "it's a health risk" crowds will throw a fit when they are sold by Bundy.
No you inspect before mixing with any other cattle, You put 30 cattle in with 70 known and certified cattle. And 2 get sick, you now have 100 cattle to check again and re certify.
And none of the cattle were mixed, no rule was violated, regulations were followed.
By the admission from everybody Bundy is so horrible at keeping track of his cattle that they are pretty much feral, how would he make them un-feral now?
Bundy would have taken them back to his ranch, corralled them observed them for 2 weeks, a vet may have been called. Before letting them near any other cattle. Even the branded stock would need to be re checked.
Bundy will never be able to sell any of his cattle for the same reasons the Feds were not able to sell them.
If Bundy transport the cattle himself then its on him and the buyer. If a Trans Company was contracted to transport the cattle to the buyer then the Trans company is at fault for not verifying the proper documentation IE "Clean Bill of Health whatever" are attach to the pile of documentation. Your all at the beginning and of the end of movement phase.
If they were found to be sick later they would be tracked back to him and then his records would be used to track them back further than that.
.
you inspect for sick cattle before they enter the system not after.
You inspect then before they cross state lines. None had crossed yet, so there was no need for a vet to inspect them yet.
Utah even has legal provisions for transporting cattle into the state without requiring an ICVI.
They BLM was following all the regulation. Utah didn't want to deal with militias showing up on their door because of this so they went "crapcrapcrap...something something disease?" to avoid having to deal with this.
It will be interesting if any of the "it's a health risk" crowds will throw a fit when they are sold by Bundy.
No you inspect before mixing with any other cattle, You put 30 cattle in with 70 known and certified cattle. And 2 get sick, you now have 100 cattle to check again and re certify.
And none of the cattle were mixed, no rule was violated, regulations were followed.
By the admission from everybody Bundy is so horrible at keeping track of his cattle that they are pretty much feral, how would he make them un-feral now?
Bundy would have taken them back to his ranch, corralled them observed them for 2 weeks, a vet may have been called. Before letting them near any other cattle. Even the branded stock would need to be re checked.
Bundy will never be able to sell any of his cattle for the same reasons the Feds were not able to sell them.
Unless people are liars of course.
Bundy would keep the cattle penned for 2 weeks before moving then instate, let alone across state lines.
It's like you being a good parent, taking your child for all their needles, and when they start school, some idiot take a child into class with chicken pox. Every parent will check their children for a couple of weeks worrying if they got chicken pox.
Bundy had the cattle for years, and according to Utah they are a public health risk due to him not watching them. The government can't sell them, even though there has not been any evidence of them breaking a single regulations. But the guy who has not tracked them and turned them feral can un-feral them by sticking them somewhere for two weeks.
The idiot who made this cattle worthless can fix it just like that, but a government agency will kill all the cattle in Nevada or Utah by doing the same.
d-usa wrote: Bundy had the cattle for years, and according to Utah they are a public health risk due to him not watching them. The government can't sell them, even though there has not been any evidence of them breaking a single regulations. But the guy who has not tracked them and turned them feral can un-feral them by sticking them somewhere for two weeks.
The idiot who made this cattle worthless can fix it just like that, but a government agency will kill all the cattle in Nevada or Utah by doing the same.
That's why the claim is pretty silly.
NO the government would have to follow the same procedure. The BLM didn't
d-usa wrote: Bundy had the cattle for years, and according to Utah they are a public health risk due to him not watching them. The government can't sell them, even though there has not been any evidence of them breaking a single regulations. But the guy who has not tracked them and turned them feral can un-feral them by sticking them somewhere for two weeks.
The idiot who made this cattle worthless can fix it just like that, but a government agency will kill all the cattle in Nevada or Utah by doing the same.
That's why the claim is pretty silly.
NO the government would have to follow the same procedure. The BLM didn't
They did.
There has not been a single piece of evidence in this thread that they didn't. They didn't mix them, they didn't transport them, they didn't violate a single regulation.
The only evidence for why it can't be sold has been from Utah, and even they didn't accuse the BLM of violating regulations. Instead Utah basically said that they are all feral cattle and can never be sold, not because of what the BLM did but because of what Bundy did.
Jihadin wrote: BLM was stopped before they committed to the sale.
Cattle seized from public land in Nevada were once headed to Richfield for auction — but federal officials have changed their plans after Utah leaders argued the animals would threaten the state’s $1 billion livestock industry.
Translated as we don't know these un certified cattle. your not putting them with our prime beef herds. Sod them off, and put them back where you found them.
But the BLM’s plan to ship the cows 200 miles to a Sevier County auction yard sparked even more controversy. Herbert and other Utah political leaders say the cows should remain in Nevada.
d-usa wrote: Planing in selling them there =/= cattle were on a truck headed for the state line.
All the evidence we have seems to show that the cattle remained pretty close to the area during the entire time.
If anything, it strikes me as the people who were holding the cows and working on the arrangements were grunts on the ground not privy to the chess game going on between the generals.
d-usa wrote: Planing in selling them there =/= cattle were on a truck headed for the state line.
All the evidence we have seems to show that the cattle remained pretty close to the area during the entire time.
Telephone call goes like this.
BLM Hi we've got 200 head of cattle to sell.
Auction house If you have the papers ok.
BLM These are feral, off government land.
Auctioneers don't bother.
d-usa wrote: Planing in selling them there =/= cattle were on a truck headed for the state line.
All the evidence we have seems to show that the cattle remained pretty close to the area during the entire time.
Telephone call goes like this.
BLM Hi we've got 200 head of cattle to sell.
Auction house If you have the papers ok.
BLM These are feral, off government land.
Auctioneers don't bother.
Pure speculation, and if that was what happened then Utah would have declined and given the lack of papers as a reason.
d-usa wrote: Planing in selling them there =/= cattle were on a truck headed for the state line.
All the evidence we have seems to show that the cattle remained pretty close to the area during the entire time.
Telephone call goes like this.
BLM Hi we've got 200 head of cattle to sell.
Auction house If you have the papers ok.
BLM These are feral, off government land.
Auctioneers don't bother.
Pure speculation, and if that was what happened then Utah would have declined and given the lack of papers as a reason.
Instead Utah gave Bundy as a reason.
They could have had many reasons, bundy being one of them
d-usa wrote: Planing in selling them there =/= cattle were on a truck headed for the state line.
All the evidence we have seems to show that the cattle remained pretty close to the area during the entire time.
Telephone call goes like this.
BLM Hi we've got 200 head of cattle to sell.
Auction house If you have the papers ok.
BLM These are feral, off government land.
Auctioneers don't bother.
Pure speculation, and if that was what happened then Utah would have declined and given the lack of papers as a reason.
Instead Utah gave Bundy as a reason.
They could have had many reasons, bundy being one of them
They could have, they also could have all turned Hindu and stopped eating beef. But what evidence do you have of any reasons apart from the ones clearly given.
d-usa wrote: Planing in selling them there =/= cattle were on a truck headed for the state line.
All the evidence we have seems to show that the cattle remained pretty close to the area during the entire time.
Telephone call goes like this.
BLM Hi we've got 200 head of cattle to sell.
Auction house If you have the papers ok.
BLM These are feral, off government land.
Auctioneers don't bother.
Pure speculation, and if that was what happened then Utah would have declined and given the lack of papers as a reason.
Instead Utah gave Bundy as a reason.
They could have had many reasons, bundy being one of them
They could have, they also could have all turned Hindu and stopped eating beef. But what evidence do you have of any reasons apart from the ones clearly given.
We have the same sort of rules here. My old man, has a farm, so I know the sort of hoops you have to jump thru.
You know the hoops that a US federal body has to jump through upon seizing illegally grazing cattle in one state and selling it in another because your dad owns a farm?
Right.
Does your dad owning a farm also give you clairvoyant powers, to better know what the Utah people really meant instead of what they actually gave as the reason for their decision?
There are rules and hoops. There is just no evidence that any of the rules were broken.
There was zero evidence that any of the cattle were in transit to auction.
There was zero evidence that there was an attempt to auction them off without the paperwork.
There was zero evidence that Utah refused the cattle because of bad paperwork by the Feds..
But because your dad owns a farm you know the Feds, despite lack of any evidence and contrary to their public statements, broke the rules.
The only evidence we have is their statement that they refused because they considered them feral due to Bundy, which means he will never be able to sell them either. If anything Utah hurt Bundy more than the BLM.
motyak wrote: You know the hoops that a US federal body has to jump through upon seizing illegally grazing cattle in one state and selling it in another because your dad owns a farm?
Right.
Does your dad owning a farm also give you clairvoyant powers, to better know what the Utah people really meant instead of what they actually gave as the reason for their decision?
I think Utah probably gave various reasons, and the people writing that chose the one that gave the best headline or was best for the point they wanted to get across.
I think it was unreasonable of the BLM to think they could round up those cattle one day and sell them the next.
d-usa wrote: Planing in selling them there =/= cattle were on a truck headed for the state line.
All the evidence we have seems to show that the cattle remained pretty close to the area during the entire time.
Telephone call goes like this.
BLM Hi we've got 200 head of cattle to sell.
Auction house If you have the papers ok.
BLM These are feral, off government land.
Auctioneers don't bother.
Pure speculation, and if that was what happened then Utah would have declined and given the lack of papers as a reason.
Instead Utah gave Bundy as a reason.
They could have had many reasons, bundy being one of them
The Tribune article I linked does indeed list a few reasons and protecting the Utah herds was one of them.
A quote from the article:
""There are serious concerns about human safety and animal health and well-being if these animals are shipped to and sold in Utah," Herbert wrote."
But they didn't give "lack of following regulations by the BLM" as the reason for those risks. Utah said the cattle is a risk because of Bundy, and basically black-listed the cattle from ever being ok for sale anywhere.
d-usa wrote: Planing in selling them there =/= cattle were on a truck headed for the state line.
All the evidence we have seems to show that the cattle remained pretty close to the area during the entire time.
Telephone call goes like this.
BLM Hi we've got 200 head of cattle to sell.
Auction house If you have the papers ok.
BLM These are feral, off government land.
Auctioneers don't bother.
Pure speculation, and if that was what happened then Utah would have declined and given the lack of papers as a reason.
Instead Utah gave Bundy as a reason.
They could have had many reasons, bundy being one of them
The Tribune article I linked does indeed list a few reasons and protecting the Utah herds was one of them.
A quote from the article:
""There are serious concerns about human safety and animal health and well-being if these animals are shipped to and sold in Utah," Herbert wrote."
Agreed there were many reasons given.
"On Friday, Eardly and his fellow commissioners passed an emergency resolution giving a litany of reasons why the Bundy cows must stay out. Topping the list are brucellosis and other diseases that could spread to Utah herds.
The resolution claims many of Bundy’s cows have been running loose on the range for so many years that they can no longer be considered domestic. In addition to being disease carriers, these animals are not accustomed to being gathered or transported and would be a menace to those handling them, it said.
"Feral cattle do not receive proper immunizations or other veterinary care," the resolution states. "Feral cattle are likely to interbreed, and interbreeding of cattle creates numerous problems with maintaining a healthy and vibrant herd."
"On Friday, Eardly and his fellow commissioners passed an emergency resolution giving a litany of reasons why the Bundy cows must stay out. [color=orange]Topping the list are brucellosis and other diseases that could spread to Utah herds.
You realize that that reason just goes right back to Bundy, right? Pretty much every reason listed can be paraphrased as "Bundy is a terrible rancher." Pretty much the only solution under the Utah resolution is to go out and commit cowlocaust.
"On Friday, Eardly and his fellow commissioners passed an emergency resolution giving a litany of reasons why the Bundy cows must stay out. [color=orange]Topping the list are brucellosis and other diseases that could spread to Utah herds.
You realize that that reason just goes right back to Bundy, right? Pretty much every reason listed can be paraphrased as "Bundy is a terrible rancher." Pretty much the only solution under the Utah resolution is to go out and commit cowlocaust.
I think its the difference between rancher and farmer. They both breed cattle, they just go about it differently.
Having said that Who knows how good a rancher he is.
I think its the difference between rancher and farmer. They both breed cattle, they just go about it differently.
Having said that Who knows how good a rancher he is.
So you're argument that this entire thing isn't all Bundy's fault... is that despite all evidence saying its his fault, it's not?
I think its the difference between rancher and farmer. They both breed cattle, they just go about it differently.
Having said that Who knows how good a rancher he is.
So you're argument that this entire thing isn't all Bundy's fault... is that despite all evidence saying its his fault, it's not?
The circular side of the force is strong in this place.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: he 900+ public health risk feral cattle are his fault.
And as those cattle and unpaid dues are the whole reason any of this happened, it's still Bundy's fault. At best, you can place some blame on a bunch of idiots who want to fight against the man for the hell of it while completely missing what is going on around them (probably some jokes here about why idiots shouldn't be allowed to breed or something).
d-usa wrote: The 900+ public health risk feral cattle are his fault.
The feral cattle were the fault of anybody who had cattle roaming free on that land. Do you think cattle check each others brands before mating.
So...Bundy's fault then. Gotcha
Clearly it's BLM's fault for sitting on this for 20 years. I mean, if they'd arrested Bundy and rounded up all his cattle back when this started, instead using restraint and other such sissy nonsense, we clearly wouldn't be here now.
d-usa wrote: The 900+ public health risk feral cattle are his fault.
The feral cattle were the fault of anybody who had cattle roaming free on that land. Do you think cattle check each others brands before mating.
So...Bundy's fault then. Gotcha
But he wasn't the only owner was he.
Can't blame people who had paid for the right to use the land and who had properly documented cattle which obeyed the health and safety laws.
Can only blame the trespasser whose cattle were not documented or vaccinated (he was probably afraid of getting autistic cows) or whatever else he didn't do.
I mean, if they'd arrested Bundy and rounded up all his cattle back when this started, instead using restraint and other such sissy nonsense, we clearly wouldn't be here now.
I hope your not like the other idiot who said they should shoot them all.
d-usa wrote: The 900+ public health risk feral cattle are his fault.
The feral cattle were the fault of anybody who had cattle roaming free on that land. Do you think cattle check each others brands before mating.
You know Utah, the people who you claim are the proof that the BLM screwed up?
The reason they gave for not wanting Bundy's cattle, the one with his Brand and that he raised, are because he has neglected them to such an extend that they are for all purposes feral cattle.
Not because other people had cattle there. Not because cattle mated. All because he is such a crappy rancher that his cattle can never be sold, according to the people that you are listening to.
loki old fart wrote: I hope your not like the other idiot who said they should shoot them all.
If you can't sell them then that is your only option really.
loki old fart wrote: Bundy and the BLM should have sorted it out20yrs ago agreed.
Don't be ridiculous. That was sarcasm.
I hope your not like the other idiot who said they should shoot them all.
If you read through everything, that's pretty much all that will happen (that or they die of age). Utah has blackballed Bundy. None of those cows will ever be sold. If they continue to be allowed to trespass on public land where other cows, managed by people who aren't bad at what they do, then they're a public health hazard and need to be disposed of. Even accepting BLM stumbled in its handling of the situation, it doesn't absolve Bundy of being a total feth up at life.
Honestly, at this point the only way to not get it that this entire thing is Bundy's fault is to be in willful ignorance.
d-usa wrote: The 900+ public health risk feral cattle are his fault.
The feral cattle were the fault of anybody who had cattle roaming free on that land. Do you think cattle check each others brands before mating.
You know Utah, the people who you claim are the proof that the BLM screwed up?
The reason they gave for not wanting Bundy's cattle, the one with his Brand and that he raised, are because he has neglected them to such an extend that they are for all purposes feral cattle.
Not because other people had cattle there. Not because cattle mated. All because he is such a crappy rancher that his cattle can never be sold, according to the people that you are listening to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
loki old fart wrote: I hope your not like the other idiot who said they should shoot them all.
If you can't sell them then that is your only option really.
quote=LordofHats 588685 6747026 dced7f76f550c255c81daad8b7737b41.jpg]
Down with BLM!
loki shrugs don't care no dog in this fight.
Lot's of opinion for somebody that doesn't care
Your allowing that because you don't like the guy. It must be all his fault. Because I don't care, I'm looking at it from all sides.
Your allowing that because you don't like the guy. It must be all his fault. Because I don't care, I'm looking at it from all sides.
I've posted plenty of evidence, and even showed that the evidence posted by his supporters don't match up what they claim.
You've not posted a single piece of evidence other than "well, I think they messed up" and "there are unspoken reasons, but I know that they are there and they are all the non-existing evidence that I need".
If the BLM screwed up and tried to ship cattle against regulations then you should be able to link us to some sources that show them loading them up and transporting them, being turned around after transporting them, official statements of "the BLM did not follow regulations so we had to turn the cattle down", or anything else to that regard.
The only proof we have is "they are a risk because they have been so neglected that they feral cattle and cannot be sold" statements from Utah.
Your allowing that because you don't like the guy.
People tend not to garner affection doing what Bundy does.
It must be all his fault.
That's because it is.
Because I don't care, I'm looking at it from all sides.
You say that, but somehow I'm unconvinced.
If he's right or wrong, time will tell. It won't be decided on an internet forum. Either way I won't be effected on this side of the Atlantic.
wether you believe me or not is irrelevant, what is is.
It's late here so I'll make this my last post.
All this is based on the premise "the law is never wrong" and they made a ruling.
No innocent person has ever been executed, But they have!
The law used to say black people were inferior to white people. It was wrong
The law used to say women couldn't vote(they weren't sensible enough) Well that was laid to rest
All this will sort it's self out in time. Goodnight all. 2:24am here, and this old fart needs his beauty sleep.
So, going against Bundy because he's been ruled as having broken the law is akin to disagreeing with women's suffrage and the civil rights movement/similar movements around the world?
Pull the other one.
Also that guy on the left looks like his outfit was lifted from the 70s/80s. He almost looks like something from Anchorman, all he needs is a moustache.
Also I didn't really see him get his ass handed to him, I saw her rambling and yelling, ignoring all questions and looking like a fool of an elected person. How hard is it to answer a question put to you buy a reporter, honestly.
It's late here so I'll make this my last post.
All this is based on the premise "the law is never wrong" and they made a ruling.
No innocent person has ever been executed, But they have!
The law used to say black people were inferior to white people. It was wrong
The law used to say women couldn't vote(they weren't sensible enough) Well that was laid to rest
All this will sort it's self out in time. Goodnight all. 2:24am here, and this old fart needs his beauty sleep.
Innocent until proven guilty. But once proven guilty, you are guilty until you can prove innocence. Bundy has had 20 years to prove that he had the right to be on that land and to prove that he did not need to follow the same health and safety laws as everyone else.
In a country of laws, when someone has been found guilty they are guilty. Otherwise we should just release everyone from prison because the court might have made a mistake. See how ridiculous that is?
If all these "you could never sell these cattle" arguments are true then Bundy looks even dumber for racking up fines and organizing an armed uprising for worthless cattle that he can never sell. What a horrible business model, raising cattle that can never be sold.
As this isn't about cattle, but a hatred of government, my guess is that Bundy deliberately damaged the cattle in order to create the discussion we're having.
Well. Reading the entire article Dogma it seems the State Political Parties removed themselves from the issue pretty much. They pretty much stepped to stop the sell over state lines to prevent a any far fetch/mythical/common sensewhatever disease spreading from cattle in their state to another state. Imagine the mayhem that would ensue if undocumented/non-vet seal of approval if like, mad cow, anthrax or something detrimental is released into Utah herds.
Who's talking about executing? I don't even think Bundy's offenses were jail worthy just fine worthy (though, arguably owing the government money is worse than being sent to jail XD).
The law used to say black people were inferior to white people. It was wrong
If you think the current laws governing, paying for the use of property that is not your own, properly caring for the health of cattle who are turned into food, and getting punished for doing neither of the former are gave injustices against mankind, please, do go on.
The law used to say women couldn't vote(they weren't sensible enough) Well that was laid to rest
I guess Bundy would be more than please to learn people are comparing his plight to that of Jim Crow and Women's Rights.
Good luck getting anyone else to see through that line of absurdities.
Jihadin wrote: Well. Reading the entire article Dogma it seems the State Political Parties removed themselves from the issue pretty much. They pretty much stepped to stop the sell over state lines to prevent a any far fetch/mythical/common sensewhatever disease spreading from cattle in their state to another state. Imagine the mayhem that would ensue if undocumented/non-vet seal of approval if like, mad cow, anthrax or something detrimental is released into Utah herds.
Jihadin wrote: Well. Reading the entire article Dogma it seems the State Political Parties removed themselves from the issue pretty much. They pretty much stepped to stop the sell over state lines to prevent a any far fetch/mythical/common sensewhatever disease spreading from cattle in their state to another state. Imagine the mayhem that would ensue if undocumented/non-vet seal of approval if like, mad cow, anthrax or something detrimental is released into Utah herds.
To comply with the order, would suggest you think the other side is possibly correct.
If you believe you are right, why would you comply.
The point I am trying to get at is do you think Bundy is right?
I refer the honorable member to the answer I gave earlier, I'm not saying he's right, but I think he believes he's right
For myself I don't know or care.
With all the arguments the BLM has going in other states. It will probably take another 20 yrs. before the truth become apparent.
.
). All Federal Agencies have to follow labor laws set forth by one specific agency, and it would be illegal for them not to do so. I'm not certain just how much influence one agency has on another, but I do think there is some overlap there. I most certainly could be wrong.
