Waco and Ruby ridge all over again

This is a quote from the daughter of the accused that helps explain how the land came into their possession and what caused their father to quit paying the feds.

Quote:I have had people ask me to explain my dad's stance on this BLM fight. Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much to it, but here it s in a nut shell. My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972. These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the servival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars. These rights to the land use is called preemptive rights. Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment which was to be use to pay the BLM wages and to help with repaires and improvements of the ranches. My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve. Instead they began using these money's against the ranchers. They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with they're own grazing fees. When they offered to buy my dad out for a penence he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren't doing their job. He quit paying the BLM but, tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down. So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes. In essence the BLM was managing my dad out of business. Well when buying him out didn't work, they used the indangered species card. You've already heard about the desert tortis. Well that didn't work either, so then began the threats and the court orders, which my dad has proven to be unlawful for all these years. Now their desperate. It's come down to buying the brand inspector off and threatening the County Sheriff. Everything their doing at this point is illegal and totally against the constitution of the United States of America. Now you may be saying," how sad, but what does this have to do with me?" Well, I'll tell you. They will get rid of Cliven Bundy, the last man standing on the Bunkerville allotment and then they will close all the roads so no one can ever go on it again. Next, it's Utah's turn. Mark my words, Utah is next.
Then there's the issue of the cattle that are at this moment being stolen. See even if dad hasn't paid them, those cattle do belong to him. Regardless where they are they are my fathers property. His herd has been part of that range for over a hundred years, long before the BLM even exsisted. Now the Feds think they can just come in and remove them and sell them without a legal brand inspection or without my dad's signature on it. They think they can take them over two boarders, which is illegal, ask any trucker. Then they plan to take them to the Richfeild Aucion and sell them. All with our tax money. They have paid off the contract cowboys and the auction owner as well as the Nevada brand inspector with our tax dollars. See how slick they are?
Well, this is it in a nut shell. Thanks
 
Originally Posted By: jumprightinitThat's the first step in the right direction by the BLM. Now they need to vacate Nevada and take Harry Reid with them.

True dat homie.
 
BLM leaves, SWAT shows up...it isn't over yet...

Quote:
Matt Finn FNC @MattFinnFNC
Follow
BREAKING: Dozens of police/swat in stand-off like situation w protestors. Protestors now have rifles and guns highly visible. No violence.

 
What's SWAT going to do gun everyone down? That would be a huge mistake!!


While Bundy's daughter's grammar ain't exactly up to par, she does make a very valid point. The cattle can't legally be sold without a signed brand release, and the only person(s) that can sign off on that brand release, are the registered owners of said brand. Legally!
 
Originally Posted By: KLAS TV Las VegasAt one point, I-15 was closed in both directions, about seven miles south of Mesquite, because protesters had blocked the freeway. Nearly two dozen police officers and a SWAT unit were at the scene to keep the peace and assist the BLM enforcement officers to safely leave the area.

"We had a lot of fears. Individuals being shot, trampled. Individuals being run over on the highway. So it took a lot of resources, a lot of resources to associate with this," Assistant Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo said.

It is not appropriate for armed protestors to block an interstate highway in both directions to show support of Bundy and his cattle. If the protestors continue to display armed civil disobedience that jeopardizes the safety of the general public, they are likely going to be met with force. The protestors are inviting a confrontation.
 
Yep, that is the reason I'm hearing the same line of sh1t and seeing the same line of sh1t on bee leases in the National Forest here, as is going on out there. Because we are located right in the middle of that great big arrow going down through the middle of Florida.
 
Here is the link to the court orders that authorize the BLM to take action:

July 9, 2013 Court Order

October 9, Court Ruling


Originally Posted By: Statement from BLM Director Neil Kornze

Release Date: 04/12/14

Statement from Director of the Bureau of Land Management Neil Kornze

As we have said from the beginning of the gather to remove illegal cattle from federal land consistent with court orders , a safe and peaceful operation is our number one priority. After one week, we have made progress in enforcing two recent court orders to remove the trespass cattle from public lands that belong to all Americans.

Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public.

We ask that all parties in the area remain peaceful and law-abiding as the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service work to end the operation in an orderly manner.

Ranching has always been an important part of our nation’s heritage and continues throughout the West on public lands that belong to all Americans. This is a matter of fairness and equity, and we remain disappointed that Cliven Bundy continues to not comply with the same laws that 16,000 public lands ranchers do every year. After 20 years and multiple court orders to remove the trespass cattle, Mr. Bundy owes the American taxpayers in excess of $1 million. The BLM will continue to work to resolve the matter administratively and judicially.

--BLM--
 
Info from the BLM website

Quote:The cattle impound operation ended April 12. 2014.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q. Why are BLM and NPS removing cattle?

A. Allowing individuals to continue illegal trespass grazing on federal lands is a matter of fairness to thousands of ranchers whose livestock graze in compliance with state and federal laws and regulations throughout the west.

Impoundments of livestock are done only as a last resort. In this case, the BLM and the National Park Service (NPS) have made repeated attempts to resolve the matter with Mr. Bundy administratively and judicially for over 20 years. Mr. Bundy has also failed to comply with multiple court orders to remove his cattle from the federal lands and to end the illegal trespass.

The BLM and NPS are working closely with local, state and federal officials to ensure the impoundment occurs safely and in a transparent and orderly manner, and with limited disruption to other users and visitors who enjoy our nation’s public lands.

Q. Why are these considered trespass cattle?

A. The lands where the cattle are trespassing are not Mr. Bundy’s private lands. They are public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service. Two District Court Judges have held that Mr. Bundy has no legal right to graze the federal lands, and he has been permanently enjoined from grazing these lands and ordered to remove his cattle. Mr. Bundy's claim that he has a historic right to graze the federal lands was rejected by the court. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada ruled that “The Court has stated unequivocally on numerous occasions that . . . the Allotment is owned by the United States and managed by the DOI through the BLM and the NPS.”


Q. Are there other public land ranchers in Southern Nevada?

A. Yes. Ranching continues throughout Southern Nevada on public and private lands. The BLM currently administers three active grazing allotments on public lands in Southern Nevada and nearly 800 allotments in the State of Nevada as a whole. Nationwide, the BLM administers nearly 18,000 grazing permits and leases on 157 million acres of public lands.


Q. What is the legal authority here?


A. In July and October 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada ordered Cliven Bundy to remove his trespass cattle from public land inside and outside the former Bunkerville Allotment within 45 days and stated that the United States is authorized to seize and impound any cattle that remain in trespass after 45 days.

Q. Will trespass cattle be rounded up on private land in the impoundment area?

A. No. Only cattle found on federal lands will be impounded.


Q. Where will the cattle be taken after they are impounded?


A. Consistent with state law and administrative process, branded cattle will be offered back to the owner or owners of record and any estray cattle will be turned over to the Nevada Department of Agriculture.

Q. What areas of public land will be closed during the impoundment?
A. In order to ensure the safety of the public and personnel involved with the impoundment, the BLM and NPS will be implementing temporary and limited closures during the operations. Areas temporarily closed to public access will be posted with appropriate signage. The BLM and NPS will also provide daily updated information about the impoundment and closure areas on their websites. Please note that we are making every effort to minimize the impacts on public land users while the impound operations are underway and we regret any inconveniences this may cause.

Last updated: 04-12-2014
 
Fursniper, it is very easy to see what side you are on. If I have my facts straight, you are a law enforcement guy, right?

You seem to quote and reference only what the black and white printed results of what the law is.

Sometimes the letter of the law is not the intent of the law. Especially when the BLM was only used as a pawn, and the instrument of eviction in a civil battle that started over 20 years ago precipitated by a radical environmental group, much like the one that protested the convention in Las Cruces this year.

Bundy paid his fees and things were fine until that point in time when the environmental group brought the fight to him over the desert tortoise. At that time, BLM cut the man's ability to make a living. They reduced the size of his grazing permit from 600,000 acres and over 600 head of cattle to 150,000 acres and 150 head of cattle.

They brought the fight to him!

But, more importantly, during all this court battle time, the desert tortoise has fallen by the wayside. They are even killing them now because the funding for the endangered rascal is depleted. http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/desert-tortoise-reserve-euthanized/2013/08/26/id/522264/

Bundy should have paid his fees on the 150 cattle he was allowed. But he protested, and as part of that refused to pay fees to the agency that was using his own money against him. He instead offered the monies to the state. The state refused because they had no accountability for it.

In the meantime... Those radical environmental groups that we are all too familiar with, continue to force ranchers off of public lands their families had been on for over a 100 years. Much like the Bundy's.

Here is one example is them at work. http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/ (An interesting subsidiary of these folks is the Southwest Environmental Center. Remember Them?
sneaky2.gif
https://www.wildmesquite.org/

Both organizations WANT to take ranch lands and close them down. Not only to ranching, but to hunting, shooting, camping and fishing as well.

They proudly brag about their accomplishments of the very things that happened to Bundy. From their sites:

Quote:MILESTONES

Our Public Lands Program:

• Protected 24 desert species on 11 million acres in the California Desert Conservation Area under a sweeping legal settlement with the Bureau of Land Management in 2001, helping protect the Peninsular bighorn sheep, prohibiting mining on 3.4 million acres and off-road vehicles on 550,000 acres, and reducing or prohibiting livestock on 2 million acres.

• Secured injunctions against logging in Arizona and New Mexico, halting all logging on national forests in both states for 16 months in 1995 and 1996.

• Won designation of 4.6 million acres of forest as critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah, and a subsequent court victory designating more critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl — for a final total of 8.6 million acres.

• Brought about cancellation of many major timber sales, including the Clear Creek sale in Coconino National Forest, the Corner Mountain sale in Gila National Forest, and four sales in Willamette National Forest — saving millions of board feet and important habitat for species from birds to bull trout.

• Achieved retirement of a number of grazing allotments in southwestern national forests and removal of cattle by the U.S. Forest Service from 330 miles of rivers in the Gila River basin.

• Won significant wildlife protections, and drove water-management reform, on Arizona and Mexico’s stunning San Pedro River, the last completely free-flowing river in the Southwest and a biodiversity hotspot that hosts 400 bird species.


Now, this rancher's family settled and homesteaded that ranch in 1877. Before BLM even existed. And a radical environmental terrorist group uses BLM to FORCE him off the land they have made a living on for 140 years because their agenda includes shutting down ranching as a mainstay goal on public lands?

The guys stands up and calls BS on the attempt to take over his ranch, and all that gets argued is that he is in violation?
mad.gif


I have news for a few of you here... The founding fathers of this country were in violation of the law and their government when they signed the Declaration of Independence. They were in violation of the law when the Boston Tea Party took place.

With all the atrocities that our current government displays weekly, people don't trust the government anymore. They don't trust the cops either. Time and again the government is taking our freedoms and rights. They have forgotten who the boss is. And even more telling is the willingness of the law enforcement agencies to do the bidding as the instrument of enforcement of such heinous actions against citizens of this country.

Even if you leave out the Harry Reid and Obama administration ties to this stinking mess, you are left with BLM law enforcement being the instrument of eviction for a radical environmental group, of a stubborn old man that refuses to leave the homestead that was stolen from him with the stroke of a pen by people that never shed a drop of blood or sweat on that land for over 140 years like he had.

Now, as an Oathkeeper, I look to uphold the constitution of the United States. No number of links that you can post laws or rulings from can make me believe that tazing a man multiple times that had never even thrown a punch, or tackling a 57 year old woman and hurting her as she was protesting un armed, or running to death 130 cattle, shooting 2 bulls, or leaving countless calves behind in the roundup as they took their mothers away was justified. Nor was the aiming of rifles by snipers on hilltops at crowds of protesters taking pictures of them upholding anything. It only showed Americans that no matter what our government does, there WILL be law enforcement agents out there that WILL follow orders. No matter what they are. BLM posted "First Amendment Areas" with lots of restrictions on them. Since when does the Constitution become a restricted area?

With government regulation you must have enforcement of those regulations. It is very enlightening to see that the enforcers are completely on the side of the regulator.
 
Here's an interesting read with some answers to a lot of the questions that I have had about this:http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/13/is-harry-reid-involved-seven-answers-to-seven-questions-youre-probably-asking-right-now-about-the-nevada-rancher-situation/

I think it could really have been handled more efficiently on both sides of the coin.
 
rocknbbar, great post and I cannot add anything to it.

Get ready to get flamed though, as you have dared to disagree with a LEO and dissent is verboten.
 
I guess that Bundy being in violation of anything is pretty much left to interpretation as well.

http://mvprogress.com/2014/04/09/no-one-asked-me-but-april-9-2014/

Quote:By DR. LARRY MOSES

There has been a great deal of discussion about rancher Cliven Bundy and his cattle. Some people support Cliven; others support the stand the federal government, egged on by environmentalists, has taken.

This caused me to turn to the Nevada Revised Statutes to see what laws Mr. Bundy has violated, if any. Why turn to state law to deal with the federal government on federal land? Because in the 1930’s, the federal government turned over to the various western states the responsibility of “protecting, improving, and developing public lands fit for grazing of livestock” within their borders.

The state of Nevada, which was dominated by ranchers and miners in the 1930’s, took that responsibility to heart and this effort resulted in the state passing The Taylor Grazing Act in 1934. This act is codified in NRS 568, and is in effect today.

According to NRS 568.010, it is “An act to stop injury to the public grazing lands by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration, to provide for their orderly use, improvement, and development, to stabilize the livestock industry dependent upon the public range…”

I am not an attorney, and I do not play one on television, but I read NRS. 568 which includes 568.355 which defines the term “open range” as “all unenclosed land outside of cities and towns upon which cattle, sheep or other domestic animals by custom, license, lease or permit are grazed or permitted to roam”.

I am not about to tell you how these statutes should be interpreted. However, it seems that if one is to debate the issue, one should take the time to read the law. Apparently, the law can be read in more ways than one. Mr. Bundy and the federal judges certainly see it differently.

NRS 568.230 states: … “It is unlawful … (to) restrict or interfere with the customary use of the land for grazing livestock by any person who, by himself or herself or the person’s grantors or predecessors, has become established, either exclusively or in common with others, in the grazing use of the land by operation of law or under and in accordance with the customs of the grazers of the region involved.”

That brings into question what does customary mean under the law? NRS 568.240 states: “Customary or established use… to include the continuous, open, notorious, peaceable and public use of such range seasonally for a period of 5 years or longer immediately before March 30, 1931, by the person or the person’s grantors or predecessors in interest, …Any change in customary use so established must not be made after March 30, 1931, so as to prevent, restrict or interfere with the customary or established use of any other person or persons. NRS 568.230 to 568.290, “…does not prohibit any such established user from continuing his or her grazing use, as established by operation of law or in accordance with such customs.” NRS 568.290 states: “Nothing in NRS 568.230 to 568.290, inclusive, amends or repeals existing law regarding the grazing use of the public lands or of water for the purpose of watering livestock, or modifies or compromises any valid rights or priorities which exist therein on March 30, 1931.”

Since the federal government closed much of the contested area to grazing, they surely cannot charge Bundy for not paying grazing fees.

They have charged Mr. Bundy’s cattle with trespass. However, the state trespass law states it is the responsibility of the landowner to fence out cattle, not the rancher’s responsibility to fence them in. According to state law, there can be no damages collected for trespass unless the cattle have breached a “legal fence.” NRS 569.431 states: “a legal fence means a fence with not less than four horizontal barriers, consisting of wires, boards, poles or other fence material in common use in the neighborhood, with posts set not more than 20 feet apart. The lower barrier must be not more than 12 inches from the ground and the space between any two barriers must be not more than 12 inches and the height of top barrier must be at least 48 inches above the ground. Every post must be so set as to withstand a horizontal strain of 250 pounds at a point 4 feet from the ground, and each barrier must be capable of withstanding a horizontal strain of 250 pounds at any point midway between the posts.”

Has the federal government fenced the boundaries of Mr. Bundy’s ranch?

Here is an interesting side note. There are cattle legally being grazed by another rancher in areas being searched for Bundy’s cattle. If the Utah cowboys round up any of those or even herd them without permission of the legal owner they are in violation of NRS 568.350 which states: “It shall be unlawful for any person to lead, drive or in any manner remove … any head of neat cattle, … the same being the property of another person, from the range on which they are permitted to run in common, without the consent of the owner thereof first. …Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. …such person shall be civilly liable to the owner of livestock so removed from the range for the value of all such stock and the necessary expenses incident to their return.”

It should be noted that federal courts don’t give a rip about Nevada State Law. They have ruled against Mr. Bundy and have ordered him to remove his cattle.

It should not come as a surprise that the federal government would ignore state law. This same government sued the State of Arizona to stop their enforcement of federal immigration laws. By imperial decree, the federal government today is selecting which law it will or will not enforce.

It’s not the 1930’s anymore and Nevada politics are no longer controlled by ranchers and miners. They have been replaced by BMW driving snobs who wouldn’t know a day’s work if they saw it.

The bottom line issue is not Bundy’s cattle. It is the environmentalists’ interest in closing the Gold Butte and surrounding area to all but their elite backpacking buddies.
 
Originally Posted By: rockinbbarI guess that Bundy being in violation of anything is pretty much left to interpretation as well.

http://mvprogress.com/2014/04/09/no-one-asked-me-but-april-9-2014/

Quote:By DR. LARRY MOSES

There has been a great deal of discussion about rancher Cliven Bundy and his cattle. Some people support Cliven; others support the stand the federal government, egged on by environmentalists, has taken.

This caused me to turn to the Nevada Revised Statutes to see what laws Mr. Bundy has violated, if any. Why turn to state law to deal with the federal government on federal land? Because in the 1930’s, the federal government turned over to the various western states the responsibility of “protecting, improving, and developing public lands fit for grazing of livestock” within their borders.

The state of Nevada, which was dominated by ranchers and miners in the 1930’s, took that responsibility to heart and this effort resulted in the state passing The Taylor Grazing Act in 1934. This act is codified in NRS 568, and is in effect today.

According to NRS 568.010, it is “An act to stop injury to the public grazing lands by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration, to provide for their orderly use, improvement, and development, to stabilize the livestock industry dependent upon the public range…”

I am not an attorney, and I do not play one on television, but I read NRS. 568 which includes 568.355 which defines the term “open range” as “all unenclosed land outside of cities and towns upon which cattle, sheep or other domestic animals by custom, license, lease or permit are grazed or permitted to roam”.

I am not about to tell you how these statutes should be interpreted. However, it seems that if one is to debate the issue, one should take the time to read the law. Apparently, the law can be read in more ways than one. Mr. Bundy and the federal judges certainly see it differently.

NRS 568.230 states: … “It is unlawful … (to) restrict or interfere with the customary use of the land for grazing livestock by any person who, by himself or herself or the person’s grantors or predecessors, has become established, either exclusively or in common with others, in the grazing use of the land by operation of law or under and in accordance with the customs of the grazers of the region involved.”

That brings into question what does customary mean under the law? NRS 568.240 states: “Customary or established use… to include the continuous, open, notorious, peaceable and public use of such range seasonally for a period of 5 years or longer immediately before March 30, 1931, by the person or the person’s grantors or predecessors in interest, …Any change in customary use so established must not be made after March 30, 1931, so as to prevent, restrict or interfere with the customary or established use of any other person or persons. NRS 568.230 to 568.290, “…does not prohibit any such established user from continuing his or her grazing use, as established by operation of law or in accordance with such customs.” NRS 568.290 states: “Nothing in NRS 568.230 to 568.290, inclusive, amends or repeals existing law regarding the grazing use of the public lands or of water for the purpose of watering livestock, or modifies or compromises any valid rights or priorities which exist therein on March 30, 1931.”

Since the federal government closed much of the contested area to grazing, they surely cannot charge Bundy for not paying grazing fees.

They have charged Mr. Bundy’s cattle with trespass. However, the state trespass law states it is the responsibility of the landowner to fence out cattle, not the rancher’s responsibility to fence them in. According to state law, there can be no damages collected for trespass unless the cattle have breached a “legal fence.” NRS 569.431 states: “a legal fence means a fence with not less than four horizontal barriers, consisting of wires, boards, poles or other fence material in common use in the neighborhood, with posts set not more than 20 feet apart. The lower barrier must be not more than 12 inches from the ground and the space between any two barriers must be not more than 12 inches and the height of top barrier must be at least 48 inches above the ground. Every post must be so set as to withstand a horizontal strain of 250 pounds at a point 4 feet from the ground, and each barrier must be capable of withstanding a horizontal strain of 250 pounds at any point midway between the posts.”

Has the federal government fenced the boundaries of Mr. Bundy’s ranch?

Here is an interesting side note. There are cattle legally being grazed by another rancher in areas being searched for Bundy’s cattle. If the Utah cowboys round up any of those or even herd them without permission of the legal owner they are in violation of NRS 568.350 which states: “It shall be unlawful for any person to lead, drive or in any manner remove … any head of neat cattle, … the same being the property of another person, from the range on which they are permitted to run in common, without the consent of the owner thereof first. …Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. …such person shall be civilly liable to the owner of livestock so removed from the range for the value of all such stock and the necessary expenses incident to their return.”

It should be noted that federal courts don’t give a rip about Nevada State Law. They have ruled against Mr. Bundy and have ordered him to remove his cattle.

It should not come as a surprise that the federal government would ignore state law. This same government sued the State of Arizona to stop their enforcement of federal immigration laws. By imperial decree, the federal government today is selecting which law it will or will not enforce.

It’s not the 1930’s anymore and Nevada politics are no longer controlled by ranchers and miners. They have been replaced by BMW driving snobs who wouldn’t know a day’s work if they saw it.

The bottom line issue is not Bundy’s cattle. It is the environmentalists’ interest in closing the Gold Butte and surrounding area to all but their elite backpacking buddies.

If they BLM charges by animal units, then he only pays for what he has on the leased land. But he didn't pay for any of the "animal units" on the land, so he is basically stealing from the citizens. Being a thief is as bad as a welfare mom pumping out babies, or the robber of the local 7-11.
 
Originally Posted By: FursniperHere is the link to the court orders that authorize the BLM to take action:

July 9, 2013 Court Order

October 9, Court Ruling


Originally Posted By: Statement from BLM Director Neil Kornze

Release Date: 04/12/14

Statement from Director of the Bureau of Land Management Neil Kornze

As we have said from the beginning of the gather to remove illegal cattle from federal land consistent with court orders , a safe and peaceful operation is our number one priority. After one week, we have made progress in enforcing two recent court orders to remove the trespass cattle from public lands that belong to all Americans.

Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public.

We ask that all parties in the area remain peaceful and law-abiding as the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service work to end the operation in an orderly manner.

Ranching has always been an important part of our nation’s heritage and continues throughout the West on public lands that belong to all Americans. This is a matter of fairness and equity, and we remain disappointed that Cliven Bundy continues to not comply with the same laws that 16,000 public lands ranchers do every year. After 20 years and multiple court orders to remove the trespass cattle, Mr. Bundy owes the American taxpayers in excess of $1 million. The BLM will continue to work to resolve the matter administratively and judicially.

--BLM--


This is the same Neil Kornze that was a top staffer for Harry Reid? The same guy that while holding that position for Harry Reid was appointed by the Obama Administration to the top position in BLM for the entire U.S.?

Sorry. I rest my case as far as he is concerned, and where his loyalties and interests lie.
 
Originally Posted By: rockinbbarOriginally Posted By: FursniperHere is the link to the court orders that authorize the BLM to take action:

July 9, 2013 Court Order

October 9, Court Ruling


Originally Posted By: Statement from BLM Director Neil Kornze

Release Date: 04/12/14

Statement from Director of the Bureau of Land Management Neil Kornze

As we have said from the beginning of the gather to remove illegal cattle from federal land consistent with court orders , a safe and peaceful operation is our number one priority. After one week, we have made progress in enforcing two recent court orders to remove the trespass cattle from public lands that belong to all Americans.

Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public.

We ask that all parties in the area remain peaceful and law-abiding as the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service work to end the operation in an orderly manner.

Ranching has always been an important part of our nation’s heritage and continues throughout the West on public lands that belong to all Americans. This is a matter of fairness and equity, and we remain disappointed that Cliven Bundy continues to not comply with the same laws that 16,000 public lands ranchers do every year. After 20 years and multiple court orders to remove the trespass cattle, Mr. Bundy owes the American taxpayers in excess of $1 million. The BLM will continue to work to resolve the matter administratively and judicially.

--BLM--


This is the same Neil Kornze that was a top staffer for Harry Reid? The same guy that while holding that position for Harry Reid was appointed by the Obama Administration to the top position in BLM for the entire U.S.?

Sorry. I rest my case as far as he is concerned, and where his loyalties and interests lie.

Just because Reid and his cronies being crooks doesn't give Bundy any right to steal from the citizens.
 
Quote:If they BLM charges by animal units, then he only pays for what he has on the leased land. But he didn't pay for any of the "animal units" on the land, so he is basically stealing from the citizens. Being a thief is as bad as a welfare mom pumping out babies, or the robber of the local 7-11.

Keep repeating what CNN reports and eventually you may start to believe anything they say.
wink.gif


He paid his fees fine until environmental terrorists got the BLM to evict him off the ranch his family homesteaded since 1877. He would have continued to pay them if they had left him alone. I agree that he should have paid fees on the reduced allotment to give him better legal footing for his court battle. But, if you think that his intent was to steal the relatively small grazing fees paid by ranchers, then you are narrow minded and fail to see the bigger picture of what this is all about.

To liken him to an armed robber at the 7-11 is ridiculous.
laugh.gif
 
Quote:Just because Reid and his cronies being crooks doesn't give Bundy any right to steal from the citizens.

So you are worried about your tax dollars, right?

Bundy may owe some grazing fees. Some estimates are saying after interest and penalties that may be close to a million dollars.

So the government spends $3 million on this failed operation... Now, there's your tax dollars at work for you.

Bundy would also pay grazing fees in arrears as the family has stated if his permit is restored.

How much are the fees for the land to be used for that tortoise? NONE. Ever.

So, sing me a little song about how concerned you are about your tax dollars again...
crazy.gif
 
Back
Top