[DogWrangler]

If the government wanted something they should have first negotiated, then gone to court. Well, to be technical about it, they DID go to court. More than once. Won every time. This was their effort to enforce the court order. What I'm wondering is whether (a) next time it'll be the US Marshals enforcing the order, and (b) whether they might not consider a less confrontational, but more effective, way of inducing compliance. Like for example getting a monetary judgment for the $1M in fines - which is not dischargeable in bankruptcy - and simply levying on his bank accounts. That can be done entirely electronically, with no flash point of direct physical confrontation. Or they could obtain a charging order on the proceeds of any sale of his cattle, and take that order to every one of the beef processors in the tri-state area. The processors would then be legally obligated to remit payment to the Feds, and not to Bundy. I don't understand why they haven't gone that route already, to be honest.

[KC Burke]

Because it doesn’t impose as much public autocratic subservience

[Gen.Blather]

“The processors would then be legally obligated to remit payment to the Feds, and not to Bundy. I don’t understand why they haven’t gone that route already, to be honest. “

Actually, I didn’t know that as I haven’t followed this. But I suspect they used the confrontational forces because they have them. But, as you point out, the less confrontational approach should work better. So, what is the long term prognosis? (And, actually, I’m against any government ownership of land. Clinton added hugely to the total making millions more acres forever undevelopable.)

[AppyPappy]

Kinda made you wonder if that was the point. But pushing him to financial ruin may have backfired on them.