Perhaps this essay will shed some more light on Bundy’s claim: http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/bundy-ranch-crisis-causes-us-ask-actually-owns-americas-land/
But this is a republic, dammit — and those who hope to keep it cannot pick and choose the provisions with which they are willing to deign to comply.
**********
Fugitive Slave Act.
The headline captures my feelings exactly. I understand there is a lot of nuance, along with judicial and historical twists and turns, that bear on this and I’m still open to hearing more. Somewhere along the line, there was a missed opportunity to sort this out, probably about the time Bundy decided to represent himself before the court. Still listening and reading, though...
The property may be taken either for government use or by delegation to third parties who will devote it to public or civic use or, in some cases, economic development. The most common uses of property taken by eminent domain are for government buildings and other facilities, public utilities, highways, and railroads; however, it may also be taken for reasons of public safety, as in the case of Centralia, Pennsylvania. Some jurisdictions require that the condemnor offer to purchase the property before resorting to the use of eminent domain.
Heck, I learned this in the EIGHTH grade.
If Cliven Bundy’s behavior is legitimized by the gravity of his circumstances, how many others may follow suit, singing his name as they go?
Many, many more. We can all hope. The more that stand up to tyranny, the sooner it crawls away.
Hinderaker concedes at the outset that “legally, Bundy doesn’t have a leg to stand on,” that Bundy’s claim that the federal government does not own the land is flagrantly incorrect,
Bundy is correct. The BLM illegally annexed State land. That is the dispute. The first Sagebrush Rebellion proved that the Federal Government cannot steal land that belongs to the States.
Somebody likes the sound of his typewriter.
The only thing that makes the law worth anything is the faith and loyalty of those that really think it's worth something.
Kind'a like the dollar bill.
The law is a religion practiced by priests (lawyers) and bishops (judges) according to the papacy (SC)
They speak a foreign language (latin ... don't get me started) and if you need to be part of a law experience, you have to hire a foreign speaking national (lawyer speaking latin) so he can translate what they're gonn'a do to you into English ... which would have served just fine ... but the religion must be followed
The moment the BLM showed up with its militarized unit and special forces team leader it became an us against them showdown. The government has lost all credibility or claim of moral high-ground. They need to lose.
Nobody likes to see the massive power of a federal agency targeting an individual citizen. But there aren’t any good guys in this, just one who is less bad than the other. Hell yes the government overreacted. But Bundy also broke the law. The courts have ruled against him at every stage. And at the end of the day the government will continue to pursue it and he’s going to lose his land and his business through less visually attention grapping means.
"As government expands and civil society retreats, bad laws pile atop bad laws, and the cause for dissent is magnified and deepened. Cliven Bundy has been dealt a raw hand by a system that is deaf to his grievances and ham-fisted in its response. But this is a republic, dammit — and those who hope to keep it cannot pick and choose the provisions with which they are willing to deign to comply."
George Soros funds Center for Biological Diversity through funding Earthjustice
http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/fundingthedemise/Soros/georgesorostoc.htm
Blah, blah, blah.
How is it reasonable for BLM to restrict herd size so much that Bundy would lose 90% of his herd? From 500 to 150, plus his water rights.
BLM and ‘Biodiversity’ (Soros) wants to put the guy out of business.
Bump for later evisceration of a clueless fool
The law is on Bundy’s side - strictly speaking. Nevada grazing law says that Bundy, by historic use, has a grazing easement on the land, regardless of who owns the dirt. This easement includes the forage and the water, and is similar to mineral rights in that they can be held separately from the real estate.
Bundy’s rights were established before the feds took possession of the land - the transfer of the land from the state to the feds did not end his grazing easement. He needs to start making his case based on Nevada range law and grazing easements. His rights have nothing to do with whether or not the feds own 80% of the land - his grazing easement supersedes the federal ownership. They do not have the authority to charge him for rights or easements he already owns - which is why they claim payment for “management”. However, they are supposed to manage it to maximize grazing - and they haven’t been doing that - which is why Bundy stopped paying them. They have no right to “manage” the grazing without his consent - and if they aren’t doing the job he was paying them for, i.e. managing HIS forage for maximum grazing capacity, he has every right to stop paying them.
He has the law on his side, if he and his attorneys would argue the proper laws.
Why can't Bundy graze his cattle on the proposed offset like he has for years?
...the EPA & BLM were not worried about the damn turtle before the Solar First project.
Cooke is an apparatchik.
Couldn’t disagree more. His actions were mild compared to what is needed. There is no reason whatever to respect “the law” today as “the law” does not respect we, the people. If it has become open season on any member of government, it is their own fault for their arrogance and anti-American hatred of the citizens.