steveincowtown wrote:This may have already been brought up, but if the Feds think they are owed money why don't they put a lien against his property instead of being such instigators. Putting a lien will allow the issue to play out in the courts.
Just for clarity... (and hopefully I don't get this wrong)...
The feds can put a lien against his business and his business assets, but not "necessarily" his land. If the land is owned by the business, then yes, the land can be affected by the lien. If the land is his family land, and held privately, and the business pays rent and operates on the land as a separate corporate entity, then the "lien on the land" issue is less clear.
Another reason never to operate a business without formally incorporating.
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.! Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek
mamabearCali wrote:The lien has been brought up by many.
I think all Texans should remember something. In 1836 Texas by all rights belonged to Mexico. By all rules of law in the area the freedom fighters were nothing more than land pirates deserving of no quarter. They died at Goliad and at the Alamo, but they set up San Jacinto. The desire for freedom from a corrupt state was overwhelming and in the end they were victorious.
These ranchers have been oppressed and abused by the govt. A govt which colludes with itself to deprive men of their property, their livelihood, and sometimes their lives at the slightest provocation. We have all started to feel the pinch of the Feds of late. We are all feeling the weight of corruption on us, The FEDS and all govt in general would be wise not to set up an Alamo, unless they want a San Jacinto.
So for everyone saying the laws the law.......perhaps you think we should be swearing fealty to a green and red flag with an eagle on it. Because that was the law in 1836.
Please this isn't the Texas Revolution. This is a grifter in the middle of nowhere cheating the govenrment because he can.
Its federal property. They can do what they want. I propose they an artillery range there.
And the texans were land pirates out above the deserts. The colonists were traitors across the water. It all depends on your perspective. You have a right to your opinion. I do too.
SAHM to four precious children. Wife to a loving husband.
"The women of this country learned long ago those without swords can still die upon them!" Eowyn in LOTR Two Towers
mamabearCali wrote:The lien has been brought up by many.
I think all Texans should remember something. In 1836 Texas by all rights belonged to Mexico. By all rules of law in the area the freedom fighters were nothing more than land pirates deserving of no quarter. They died at Goliad and at the Alamo, but they set up San Jacinto. The desire for freedom from a corrupt state was overwhelming and in the end they were victorious.
These ranchers have been oppressed and abused by the govt. A govt which colludes with itself to deprive men of their property, their livelihood, and sometimes their lives at the slightest provocation. We have all started to feel the pinch of the Feds of late. We are all feeling the weight of corruption on us, The FEDS and all govt in general would be wise not to set up an Alamo, unless they want a San Jacinto.
So for everyone saying the laws the law.......perhaps you think we should be swearing fealty to a green and red flag with an eagle on it. Because that was the law in 1836.
Please this isn't the Texas Revolution. This is a grifter in the middle of nowhere cheating the govenrment because he can.
Its federal property. They can do what they want. I propose they an artillery range there.
"Grifter"? His family was there long before the BLM came along.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
There is no precedent for the State automatically assuming ownership of all the land encompassed by the boundaries of a newly established State so why would there be some special reason that over 100 years later the State should of owned the land the whole time?
I stated his argument sounds credible. You should provide specifics to support your supposition if you dispute that.
History lends credibility to the argument. The original 13 colonies where promised much during the effort to form the U.S. - there was a lot of reluctance that required negotiation & demanded concessions to state rights - which have slowly been infringed upon bit by bit as the years go by. You can bet your bottom dollar that the feds didnt do a lot of bullying in the early youth of the U.S.
States Rights once meant a whole lot more than it does today. Case in point, consider the amount of land claimed by the feds in the younger western states verses what is held in the eastern....Not by any means equitable; The feds paid for much of the eastern lands it now possess while "assuming" land in the west.
At one time a state was a state governed by the local values of its citizens - which doesnt seem to be the case currently in Nevada. In a country based on local governance, the fed gov has greatly overstepped its original charter.
Sorry but I still believe there is a credible argument involved here.
The guy can state the moon is made out of green cheese and I should support my argument that it is not? Look I'm not "supporting" something you can find out in 2 min by doing a search. The absurd thing is people keep repeating facts online when if they bothered to check online they would find out that the so called facts just aren't. And by the way I feel like I( did provide support. The "territory" forms a constitutional congress remember?
Last edited by EEllis on Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The guy you're defending doesn't even recognize the US. I bet he takes our currency though.
His personal grievance with federal authority doesn't stop with the BLM, though. "I believe this is a sovereign state of Nevada," Bundy said in a radio interview last Thursday. "I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing." Ironically, this position directly contradicts Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution:
The rancher took his argument back to the 19th century, when Nevada became a state. According to him, the federal government did, in fact, control the land when Nevada was a territory. But, he claimed, when the territory became a state, the government turned that land over to the sovereignty of the state of Nevada, and thus the federal government lacks the power to control it today.
Then he's wrong, a liar, and a grifter. Two courts affirm he's wrong.
I can't believe people are taking the side of a grifter and welfare queen just because he's ginning up anti government resentment.
welfare queen? this guy WORKS and probably WORKS harder than you or any two of you.
I can't believe you're ok with your government setting up snipers on an old man and his family. I can't believe you're ok with your government throwing women to the ground. Several calves were left orphaned because of the methods of the round-up, because for some reason it had to be done NOW, during calving season, but hey he's a bad guy.
you've repeatedly said you're mad at this guy and you're ok with what happened, you do understand what happened? and that this is what happened, right?
there are better ways of collecting debts, much better ways....this wasn't about collected debts, this was about making a scene, this was about running him off of his land, they want him off all the land, not just off the fed land.
There are better ways to handle this. The BLM just made a PR nightmare for themselves with their actions.
NRA Benefactor Life Member
NSCA Life Member
Native Texan
CHL Holder Since 1996
I have said this several times. The guy could be bat crap crazy and I still think the FEDS were 100% wrong on this. You do not settle financial disputes at the end of a rifle. You put a lien on his asserts, you can seize a portion of his bank account, you can out a lien on his taxes. What I never want my govt. to do is to show up with a small army for a dispute over grazing rights. To point rifles at old men and women instead of simply working through legal channels of obtaining the money they think they are owed is unacceptable.
As I understand it the dispute over the grazing fees is because the turtle that is so endangered that it is being euthanized for over population by the BLM was the reason the grazing rights were so diminished. In order to get the grazing rights paperwork done and in order to pay the fee, Bundy would have had to agree to a 90% reduction in his cattle. That is like you getting a 90% pay cut. Who would agree to that? It was done to deliberately harm the ranchers. It was done to drive them out. Why......well Harry Reid sure does seem to take a serious interest in a solar farm not too far away. Perhaps he is looking to expand.
That is immoral. That is unjust. It may be the law, but legalized theft is still theft. An unjust law is no law at all.
SAHM to four precious children. Wife to a loving husband.
"The women of this country learned long ago those without swords can still die upon them!" Eowyn in LOTR Two Towers
"Grifter"? His family was there long before the BLM came along.
So? My family's been here since they lost a minor dispute with the British before there was a US. I still have to pay taxes and fees. Its still government property, not his.
psijac wrote:Harry Reid 's son has plans to build a solar energy farm there. So the BLM needs to clear the buddy's off that land.
Yeah........not true. While there was a project that Reid's kid is involved with it isn't on the same land in question, just near by. Same thing with the whole turtle deal. Sure there is an issue but the rancher stopped paying fees before anyone ever broached the subject and mentioned turtles.
mamabearCali wrote:I have said this several times. The guy could be bat crap crazy and I still think the FEDS were 100% wrong on this. You do not settle financial disputes at the end of a rifle. You put a lien on his asserts, you can seize a portion of his bank account, you can out a lien on his taxes. What I never want my govt. to do is to show up with a small army for a dispute over grazing rights. To point rifles at old men and women instead of simply working through legal channels of obtaining the money they think they are owed is unacceptable.
As I understand it the dispute over the grazing fees is because the turtle that is so endangered that it is being euthanized for over population by the BLM was the reason the grazing rights were so diminished. In order to get the grazing rights paperwork done and in order to pay the fee, Bundy would have had to agree to a 90% reduction in his cattle. That is like you getting a 90% pay cut. Who would agree to that? It was done to deliberately harm the ranchers. It was done to drive them out. Why......well Harry Reid sure does seem to take a serious interest in a solar farm not too far away. Perhaps he is looking to expand.
That is immoral. That is unjust. It may be the law, but legalized theft is still theft. An unjust law is no law at all.
And if your neighbors livestock were continually on your property and you felt that you were owed money for that trespass keeping the cattle that are on your land is somehow immoral? Mind you I'm not trying to support the feds I just think a lot of the representations are just crap. Like the turtle thing. He quit paying fees long before the turtle was ever an issue so no the dispute had nothing to do with a turtle.
mamabearCali wrote:I have said this several times. The guy could be bat crap crazy and I still think the FEDS were 100% wrong on this. You do not settle financial disputes at the end of a rifle. You put a lien on his asserts, you can seize a portion of his bank account, you can out a lien on his taxes. What I never want my govt. to do is to show up with a small army for a dispute over grazing rights. To point rifles at old men and women instead of simply working through legal channels of obtaining the money they think they are owed is unacceptable.
100%
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.! Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek
mamabearCali wrote:I have said this several times. The guy could be bat crap crazy and I still think the FEDS were 100% wrong on this. You do not settle financial disputes at the end of a rifle. You put a lien on his asserts, you can seize a portion of his bank account, you can out a lien on his taxes. What I never want my govt. to do is to show up with a small army for a dispute over grazing rights. To point rifles at old men and women instead of simply working through legal channels of obtaining the money they think they are owed is unacceptable.
As I understand it the dispute over the grazing fees is because the turtle that is so endangered that it is being euthanized for over population by the BLM was the reason the grazing rights were so diminished. In order to get the grazing rights paperwork done and in order to pay the fee, Bundy would have had to agree to a 90% reduction in his cattle. That is like you getting a 90% pay cut. Who would agree to that? It was done to deliberately harm the ranchers. It was done to drive them out. Why......well Harry Reid sure does seem to take a serious interest in a solar farm not too far away. Perhaps he is looking to expand.
That is immoral. That is unjust. It may be the law, but legalized theft is still theft. An unjust law is no law at all.
And if your neighbors livestock were continually on your property and you felt that you were owed money for that trespass keeping the cattle that are on your land is somehow immoral? Mind you I'm not trying to support the feds I just think a lot of the representations are just crap. Like the turtle thing. He quit paying fees long before the turtle was ever an issue so no the dispute had nothing to do with a turtle.
mamabearCali wrote:I have said this several times. The guy could be bat crap crazy and I still think the FEDS were 100% wrong on this. You do not settle financial disputes at the end of a rifle. You put a lien on his asserts, you can seize a portion of his bank account, you can out a lien on his taxes. What I never want my govt. to do is to show up with a small army for a dispute over grazing rights. To point rifles at old men and women instead of simply working through legal channels of obtaining the money they think they are owed is unacceptable.
As I understand it the dispute over the grazing fees is because the turtle that is so endangered that it is being euthanized for over population by the BLM was the reason the grazing rights were so diminished. In order to get the grazing rights paperwork done and in order to pay the fee, Bundy would have had to agree to a 90% reduction in his cattle. That is like you getting a 90% pay cut. Who would agree to that? It was done to deliberately harm the ranchers. It was done to drive them out. Why......well Harry Reid sure does seem to take a serious interest in a solar farm not too far away. Perhaps he is looking to expand.
That is immoral. That is unjust. It may be the law, but legalized theft is still theft. An unjust law is no law at all.
And if your neighbors livestock were continually on your property and you felt that you were owed money for that trespass keeping the cattle that are on your land is somehow immoral? Mind you I'm not trying to support the feds I just think a lot of the representations are just crap. Like the turtle thing. He quit paying fees long before the turtle was ever an issue so no the dispute had nothing to do with a turtle.
If I pointed rifles at them I'd be going to jail. There are very limited circumstances where a homeowner can remove a neighbors animal with force, but 75% you have to work it out between the two of you. If my neighbor and I have a shared pasture for 50 years and then suddenly I claim it is mine by virtue of the fact that I am bigger and stronger then him, and he has to pay me, is that right?
The turtles were brought up by the govt as the reason for this nonsense. As I have heard it that was their argument in court for the removal of the cattle. So if it is bogus, then it is the govt that brought the turtles up in the first place.
SAHM to four precious children. Wife to a loving husband.
"The women of this country learned long ago those without swords can still die upon them!" Eowyn in LOTR Two Towers
There is no precedent for the State automatically assuming ownership of all the land encompassed by the boundaries of a newly established State so why would there be some special reason that over 100 years later the State should of owned the land the whole time?
I stated his argument sounds credible. You should provide specifics to support your supposition if you dispute that.
History lends credibility to the argument. The original 13 colonies where promised much during the effort to form the U.S. - there was a lot of reluctance that required negotiation & demanded concessions to state rights - which have slowly been infringed upon bit by bit as the years go by. You can bet your bottom dollar that the feds didnt do a lot of bullying in the early youth of the U.S.
States Rights once meant a whole lot more than it does today. Case in point, consider the amount of land claimed by the feds in the younger western states verses what is held in the eastern....Not by any means equitable; The feds paid for much of the eastern lands it now possess while "assuming" land in the west.
At one time a state was a state governed by the local values of its citizens - which doesnt seem to be the case currently in Nevada. In a country based on local governance, the fed gov has greatly overstepped its original charter.
Sorry but I still believe there is a credible argument involved here.
The guy can state the moon is made out of green cheese and I should support my argument that it is not? Look I'm not "supporting" something you can find out in 2 min by doing a search. The absurd thing is people keep repeating facts online when if they bothered to check online they would find out that the so called facts just aren't. And by the way I feel like I( did provide support. The "territory" forms a constitutional congress remember?
You provide no validation for your position if you embrace rhetoric over the issues. The below link (Courtesy of sjfcontrol) supports my contention that Mr. Bundy's argument is credible.
There are better ways to handle this. The BLM just made a PR nightmare for themselves with their actions.