Nevada Rancher Standoff

[suthdj]

Nice story surprised it is in huffington post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-wh ... 85606.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[sjfcontrol]

Nice story surprised it is in huffington post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-wh ... 85606.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

An amazing article for that rag.They'll probably fire the guy.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Nice story surprised it is in huffington post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-wh ... 85606.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't support Bundy - think he's using his supporters. But this makes an excellent case that, regardless of how you feel about him, this is an issue.
Consider me converted in that aspect.

[RoyGBiv]

Nice story surprised it is in huffington post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-wh ... 85606.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't support Bundy - think he's using his supporters. But this makes an excellent case that, regardless of how you feel about him, this is an issue.
Consider me converted in that aspect.

[cb1000rider]

I don't support Bundy - think he's using his supporters. But this makes an excellent case that, regardless of how you feel about him, this is an issue.
Consider me converted in that aspect.

I'm with you on that. I don't support Bundy's situation either. And he's given every single nut-job conspiracy theorist something to talk about for months.
That being said, the government over reached. They stopped just short of using military style force on the public.

I've seen calls on this forum of an upcoming incident that might spark some action. I generally don't believe in that sort of thing, but this got us much closer than I'm comfortable with...

[Cedar Park Dad]

I don't support Bundy - think he's using his supporters. But this makes an excellent case that, regardless of how you feel about him, this is an issue.
Consider me converted in that aspect.

I'm with you on that. I don't support Bundy's situation either. And he's given every single nut-job conspiracy theorist something to talk about for months.
That being said, the government over reached. They stopped just short of using military style force on the public.

I've seen calls on this forum of an upcoming incident that might spark some action. I generally don't believe in that sort of thing, but this got us much closer than I'm comfortable with...

Agreed on all points. Its good the BLM backed off to use more traditional legal means as we are a civil society. When Reid started calling them domestic terrorists though that got my goat. I may not agree with them but, as the immortal bard once said: "sucker please."

[suthdj]

I don't support Bundy - think he's using his supporters. But this makes an excellent case that, regardless of how you feel about him, this is an issue.
Consider me converted in that aspect.

I'm with you on that. I don't support Bundy's situation either. And he's given every single nut-job conspiracy theorist something to talk about for months.
That being said, the government over reached. They stopped just short of using military style force on the public.

I've seen calls on this forum of an upcoming incident that might spark some action. I generally don't believe in that sort of thing, but this got us much closer than I'm comfortable with...

Agreed on all points. Its good the BLM backed off to use more traditional legal means as we are a civil society. When Reid started calling them domestic terrorists though that got my goat. I may not agree with them but, as the immortal bard once said: "sucker please."

Reid the domestic tyrant calling them terrorists, now thats funny.

[cb1000rider]

Governments call anyone that takes actions against their interest terrorists. We've got foreign terrorists, domestic terrorists.. It's washing it all out.
It's political. No one would support a terrorist organization, but an organized militia might have support. Apply the label, pass it on to the media, and you've accomplished something.

My advice: read between the lines. Terrorist, liberal, conservative, progressive, freedom fighter - they're all perspective based.

[The Annoyed Man]

Text of AG Greg Abbot's letter to director of BLM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interac ... anagement/

Since it is in the public domain, I've quoted the entire thing here:

April 22, 2014
The Honorable Neil Kornze Director
Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street NW, Rm. 5665
Washington, DC 20240

Dear Director Kornze:

Respect for property rights and the rule of law are fundamental principles in the State of Texas and the United States. When governments simply ignore those principles, it threatens the foundation of our free and prosperous society. That is why I am deeply concerned about reports that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering taking property in the State of Texas and that it now claims belongs to the federal government. Given the seriousness of this situation, I feel compelled to seek answers regarding the BLM’s intentions and legal authority with respect to Texas territory adjacent to the Red River.

I understand that your office is in the early stages of developing a plan—known as a Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (RMP/EIS)—to regulate the use of federal lands along a 116-mile stretch of the Red River. As Attorney General of Texas, I am deeply troubled by reports from BLM field hearings that the federal government may claim—for the first time—that 90,000 acres of territory along the Red River now belong to the federal government.

Private landowners in Texas have owned, maintained, and cultivated this land for generations. Despite the long-settled expectations of these hard-working Texans along the Red River, the BLM appears to be threatening their private property rights by claiming ownership over this territory. Yet, the BLM has failed to disclose either its full intentions or the legal justification for its proposed actions. Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box.

Nearly a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the gradient line of the south bank of the Red River—subject to the doctrines of accretion and avulsion—was the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma. Oklahoma v. Texas, 260 U.S. 606 (1923). More recently, in 1994, the BLM stated that the Red River area was “[a] unique situation” and stated that “[t]he area itself cannot be defined until action by the U.S. Congress establishes the permanent state boundary between Oklahoma and Texas.” Further, the BLM determined that one possible scenario was legislation that established the “south geologic cut bank as the boundary,” which could have resulted “in up to 90,000 acres” of newly delineated federal land. But no such legislation was ever enacted.

Instead, in 2000, the U.S. Congress enacted legislation ratifying an interstate boundary compact agreed to by the State of Texas and the State of Oklahoma. With Congress’ ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact, federal law now provides that the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma is “the vegetation on the south bank of the Red River. . “—not the “south geologic cut bank.” Given this significant legal development, it is not at all clear what legal basis supports the BLM’s claim of federal ownership over private property that abuts the Red River in the State of Texas.

This issue is of significant importance to the State of Texas and its private property owners. As Attorney General of Texas, I am deeply concerned about the notion that the BLM believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations. Accordingly, I hereby request that you or your staff respond in writing to this letter by providing the following information as soon as possible:

1. Please delineate with specificity each of the steps for the RMP/EIS process for property along the Red River.
2. Please describe the procedural due process the BLM will afford to Texans whose property may be claimed by the federal government.
3. Please confirm whether the BLM agrees that, from 1923 until the ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact, the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma was the gradient line of the south bank of the Red River. To the extent the BLM does not agree, please provide legal analysis supporting the BLM’s position.
4. Please confirm whether the BLM still considers Congress’ ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact as determinative of its interest in land along the Red River? To the extent the BLM does not agree, please provide legal analysis supporting the BLM’s new position.
5. Please delineate with specificity the amount of Texas territory that would be impacted by the
   BLM’s decision to claim this private land as the property of the federal government.

In short, the BLM’s newly asserted claims to land along the Red River threaten to upset long-settled
private property rights and undermine fundamental principles—including the rule of law—that form the
foundation of our democracy. It is incumbent on BLM to promptly disclose both the process it intends to
follow and the legal justification for its position.

Sincereley
Gregg Abbott
Attorney General of Texas

cc:
The Honorable Mac Thornberrv
2329 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-4314

THIS is not a tempest in a teacup. Gregg Abbott has correctly recognized that the Federal Government, through the agency of the BLM, is making an unprecedented land grab and trying to run roughshod over the rights and sovereignty of the affected states in the process. This is NOT going to just go away. It will almost certainly wind up being fast-tracked by the administration into a review by SCOTUS. If SCOTUS is smart (and they aren't always), they'll refuse to grant the administration standing in any bald-faced attempt to steal land from the states.

[RoyGBiv]

I sure do like Mr. Abbott.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Worse to worse sounds like we should annex Oklahoma. ;)

[jmra]

I sure do like Mr. Abbott.

[Jaguar]

I sure do like Mr. Abbott.

[Dave2]

I sure do like Mr. Abbott.

(even though he said we're a democracy instead of a republic)

[Jim Beaux]

The machine never stops.

All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.
- Sun Tzu, the Art of War

One man, among the self-described militia, says at least two federal agents went undercover to gather information and are preparing to make arrests. This latest information is causing increased tensions among those who say their goal is to protect rancher Cliven Bundy. Around 50 people remain at the ranch, many living in tents, and are prepared to stay for weeks, even months. The men say they took an oath to protect, but they are worried there is a rat in the ranks

"When you pledge your life and your fortune, you're prepared to give it up," said Bobby Bridgewater, an Oath Keeper.

An atmosphere of uncertainty now surrounds the Bundy ranch. The so-called security guards aren't sure, but they believe it's possible federal agents are among them, posing as militia.

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25313504/ ... undy-ranch