Bundy ranch situation in Nevada

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

From what I can gather one of the the main beef (pun intended) the guy has is they just want him off the land no matter what and he doesn't want to leave.

Originally the grazing fees were intended to fund improvements to the area (like fences) so the ranchers accepted them and paid them. Then they started using the fees to buy out the ranchers and get them off the land. He is the last hold-out.

Only when he stopped cooperating they went to the endangered tortoise card to get him kicked off the land. Then they got courts to go along with it and etc etc.

From his point of view it's basically a federal land grab which he sees as illegal since the fix was in from day 1. They just used whatever means they could to get their pre-planned objective achieved.

---

What does the fed want to do with the land?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

Do you not think the ties between Reid, his son, and Kornze are the least bit concerning?

---

No, but I'm not that familiar with the situation. What should I be concerned with?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

From what I can gather one of the the main beef (pun intended) the guy has is they just want him off the land no matter what and he doesn't want to leave.

Originally the grazing fees were intended to fund improvements to the area (like fences) so the ranchers accepted them and paid them. Then they started using the fees to buy out the ranchers and get them off the land. He is the last hold-out.

Only when he stopped cooperating they went to the endangered tortoise card to get him kicked off the land. Then they got courts to go along with it and etc etc.

From his point of view it's basically a federal land grab which he sees as illegal since the fix was in from day 1. They just used whatever means they could to get their pre-planned objective achieved.

---

I think the main beef is that he and his family doesn't think the federal government has authority over him. Sooner or later they'll find out how wrong they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

What does the fed want to do with the land?

---

No idea. Maybe that solar plant maybe something else. Maybe nothing.

The big picture is its part of a plan to stop all the small time ranching. It's appears to have been going on for a while . Like I said, he's the last holdout in the area. I have no idea what they used the other land for.

Oh, the government also seems have personally exterminated a whole bunch of those tortoises themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I think the main beef is that he and his family doesn't think the federal government has authority over him. Sooner or later they'll find out how wrong they are.

---

As a practical matter you're probably right.

My guess is he has a heart attack any day now.

"Land of the free"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

No, but I'm not that familiar with the situation. What should I be concerned with?

---

Never took you for one to support crony capitalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

From what I can gather one of the the main beef (pun intended) the guy has is they just want him off the land no matter what and he doesn't want to leave.

Originally the grazing fees were intended to fund improvements to the area (like fences) so the ranchers accepted them and paid them. Then they started using the fees to buy out the ranchers and get them off the land. He is the last hold-out.

Only when he stopped cooperating they went to the endangered tortoise card to get him kicked off the land. Then they got courts to go along with it and etc etc.

From his point of view it's basically a federal land grab which he sees as illegal since the fix was in from day 1. They just used whatever means they could to get their pre-planned objective achieved.

---

How is the federal government grabbing land that already belongs to the federal government?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

As a practical matter you're probably right.

My guess is he has a heart attack any day now.

"Land of the free"

---

His kids don't sound much different, tbh... I understand that cowboy stories are sexy and nostalgic but this isn't the far west anymore... these days this kind of stuff get settled in a court of law.

If you think otherwise, then don't be surprised when SWAT/Sniper team shows up.

Statist shills getting blown the FUCK out ITT

Let's see here....we've got the Senate majority leader's former senior advisor as the director of the BLM, all the while the Senate majority leader's son is representing a firm trying to build a 5 billion dollar solar farm in Nevada desert and he needs land. Wonder how they'll work that one out.

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/...ps103833cf.jpg

Must be nice to be able to enact new regulations and force citizens out whenever you need land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

How is the federal government grabbing land that already belongs to the federal government?

---

By getting his cattle off of it so it can be used for other purposes.

Legally they can't just say, go away. They have to make it legal so the nose breathers can blame the rancher for squatting in a place his family has worked for over 100 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

Let's see here....we've got the Senate majority leader's former senior advisor as the director of the BLM, all the while the Senate majority leader's son is representing a firm trying to build a 5 billion dollar solar farm in Nevada desert and he needs land. Wonder how they'll work that one out.

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/...ps103833cf.jpg

Must be nice to be able to enact new regulations and force citizens out whenever you need land.

---

Is the Chinese plant to be located on the Bundyville plot?

Yes or no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

By getting his cattle off of it so it can be used for other purposes.

---

So they aren't grabbing any land and not using it for any other purpose.

Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Is the Chinese plant to be located on the Bundyville plot?

Yes or no.

So they aren't grabbing any land and not using it for any other purpose.

Thanks.

---

Hello Mr. literal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

How is the federal government grabbing land that already belongs to the federal government?

---

Question would be was the land acquired by the government previously done legitimately, or were the other ranchers forced out by not being able to afford the costly new regulations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

Must be nice to be able to enact new regulations and force citizens out whenever you need land.

---

Eminent domain is part of the Constitution, and predates it from Common Law. The government always had the power, they just had to make up the excuse.

Legally they can't just say, go away. They have to make it legal so the mouth breathers can blame the rancher for squatting in a place his family has worked for over 100 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

Hello Mr. literal.

---

Hello, Mr. Innuendo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

Question would be was the land acquired by the government previously done legitimately, or were the other ranchers forced out by not being able to afford the costly new regulations.

---

They were absolutely done legitimately. you posted the entire legal history. dude should have been off the land 20 years ago -- long before this Reid bullshit you are trying to push.

I ask again -- is the Chinese plaint going to be located on the Bundyville plot.

Yes or no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

Legally they can't just say, go away. They have to make it legal so the mouth breathers can blame the rancher for squatting in a place his family has worked for over 100 years.

---

So there is no way you could consider this legitimate because it insults your political sensibilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

Legally they can't just say, go away. They have to make it legal so the mouth breathers can blame the rancher for squatting in a place his family has worked for over 100 years.

---

No, legally they can certainly tell him to go away. They just have to compensate him for whatever they think it's "just"... unfortunately all those missed payments will be part of the discount.

I believe he stopped paying the fees when they told him he could only graze 150 cattle there. I'm sure in 10 years they would have reduced it to 50.

Soon they'd just outlaw it altogether.

But the courts go along with it so its "legal" and how dare he complain! How dare he not want to fund the instrument of his own destruction!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

I believe he stopped paying the fees when they told him he could only graze 150 cattle there. I'm sure in 10 years they would have reduced it to 50.

Soon they'd just outlaw it altogether.

But the courts go along with it so its "legal" and how dare he complain! How dare he not want to fund the instrument of his own destruction!!!!

---

So due to your political beliefs, there is no way the federal government can ever have a legitimate reason for changing the way its land is used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

No, legally they can certainly tell him to go away. They just have to compensate him for whatever they think it's "just"... unfortunately all those missed payments will be part of the discount.

---

But they didn't use emminent domain.

Legally the man is clearly in the wrong (though he argues differently and no court would buy it.) The point is the laws are unjust and are being applied vindictively to this guy. Hence why its a fight over "freedom"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

But they didn't use imminent domain.

Legally the man is clearly in the wrong. The point is the laws are unjust and are being applied vindictively to this guy. Hence why its a fight over "freedom"

---

Sorry, people who don't pay rent get evicted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

They were absolutely done legitimately. you posted the entire legal history. dude should have been off the land 20 years ago -- long before this Reid bullshit you are trying to push.

---

You believe the intitial fees for a tortoise that may or may not have been endangered are legitimate?

Quote:

---

I ask again -- is the Chinese plaint going to be located on the Bundyville plot.

Yes or no.

---

I'll let you know when Harry Reid replies to my email. Could take a while.

You can't keep ignoring that the positions the three of these men hold is a serious conflict of interest.

Let's play the yes or no game you so love to partake in.

Is the possibility for crony capitalism EXTREMELY high when you have Reid, Reid, and Kornze in the mix?

Yes or no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Sorry, people who don't pay rent get evicted.

---

So if the government decided to fine you if anyone in your house was over 4 feet tall you'd be cool with that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

I believe he stopped paying the fees when they told him he could only graze 150 cattle there. I'm sure in 10 years they would have reduced it to 50.

Soon they'd just outlaw it altogether.

But the courts go along with it so its "legal" and how dare he complain! How dare he not want to fund the instrument of his own destruction!!!!

---

According to the letter posted here from his daughter, he stopped paying the fees when he felt the fees weren't being used to help the ranchers.

That's akin to any of us to stop paying our taxes when we feel like the government isn't doing it's job. It's a recipe for disaster.

The courts don't pass laws, legislatures do. Courts issue orders based on those laws. If he had this basic understanding, he would realize that he should've spent that money in political support or a damn good attorney.

Might be too late now though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Sorry, people who don't pay rent get evicted.

---

And had he paid them they'd have added new regulations on top of new regulations to eventually get him to this point anyways. Stop being naive, you know they would have found a succulent that needed protecting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

You believe the intitial fees for a tortoise that may or may not have been endangered are legitimate?

---

Wiat, now you are questioning the tortoise designation?

I'll take a federal judge's word over yours, counselor.

Quote:

---

I'll let you know when Harry Reid replies to my email. Could take a while.

---

So you just made up the connection.

OK. Wouldn't be the first time.

Quote:

---

You can't keep ignoring that the positions the three of these men hold is a serious conflict of interest.

Let's play the yes or no game you so love to partake in.

Is the possibility for crony capitalism EXTREMELY high when you have Reid, Reid, and Kornze in the mix?

---

I suspect cronyism in every level of government.

But thanks for admitting it has nothing to do with Bundyville.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

According to the letter posted here from his daughter, he stopped paying the fees when he felt the fees weren't being used to help the ranchers.

That's akin to any of us to stop paying our taxes when we feel like the government isn't doing it's job. It's a recipe for disaster.

The courts don't pass laws, legislatures do. Courts issue orders based on those laws. If he had this basic understanding, he would realize that he should've spent that money in political support or a damn good attorney.

Might be too late now though.

---

I'm not one to post youtubes but the BLM doesn't operate like any other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

And had he paid them they'd have added new regulations on top of new regulations to eventually get him to this point anyways. Stop being naive, you know they would have found a succulent that needed protecting.

---

It's the landowner's right.

Why can't a landowner determine how the land is used?

You can't squat in your apartment after your lease is up just because you want to live there for free.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

But they didn't use emminent domain.

Legally the man is clearly in the wrong (though he argues differently and no court would buy it.) The point is the laws are unjust and are being applied vindictively to this guy. Hence why its a fight over "freedom"

---

The laws are whatever was voted. What's "just" or not is debatable.

We all agree or disagree about a certain law all the time, but one thing we certainly do know is that if you don't follow it, then there's going to be repercussions. That's not up for debate and never changed. That kind of "freedom" to disregard law is imaginary, and outside of perhaps the prohibition, always been pretty consistent. I think we all understand that's part of living in a civilized society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

I'm not one to post youtubes but the BLM doesn't operate like any other.

---

The BLM sought a court order and got it. This guy needed to go there or another court and overturn it. That's how society works these days.

This isn't even a FISA court where civilians have little to no recourse. He probably thought that because nothing was done in 20 years, nothing would happen. Wrong idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

The laws are whatever was voted. What's "just" or not is debatable.

We all agree or disagree about a certain law all the time, but one thing we certainly do know is that if you don't follow it, then there's going to be repercussions. That's not up for debate and never changed. That kind of "freedom" to disregard law is imaginary, and outside of perhaps the prohibition, always been pretty consistent. I think we all understand that's part of living in a civilized society.

---

What you're saying is you can't support someone who refuses to obey what they consider to be an unjust law.

Obviously consequences will follow. But today's law isn't something set in stone delivered from God on high.

People do what they think they must to protect themselves.

It also depends if you think we live in civilized society instead of one where the criminals run everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

I'm not one to post youtubes but the BLM doesn't operate like any other.

---

Dumb rant.

The federal government owns the land in question. Bundy doesn't have a right to squat on it for 20 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

What you're saying is you can't support someone who refuses to obey what they consider to be an unjust law.

Obviously consequences will follow. But today's law isn't something set in stone delivered from God from on high.

People do what they think they must to protect themselves.

It also depends if you think we live in civilized society instead of one where the criminals run everything.

---

He should move his cattle off the federal land he's been squatting on for 20 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

He should move his cattle off the federal land he's been squatting on for 20 years.

---

Your level of insight and thought into this is amazing.

You probably hated Les Miserables.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

So you just made up the connection.

OK. Wouldn't be the first time.

---

Make the connection for yourself.

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/...ps5b97040f.jpg

Bundy's land in question fall within the Dry Lake solar energy zone.

“Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle,”

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medial...dat/TN_444.pdf

Quote:

---

But thanks for admitting it has nothing to do with Bundyville.

---

You so sure about that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

Your level of insight and thought into this is amazing.

---

It's very simple. You guys are making shit up to complicate it.

Quote:

---

You probably hated Les Miserables.

---

The book or the play or the movie?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

Make the connection for yourself.

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/...ps5b97040f.jpg

Bundy's land in question fall within the Dry Lake solar energy zone.

“Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle,”

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medial...dat/TN_444.pdf





You so sure about that?

---

Seeing as it was 20 years ago, yes.

I need a microscope to read your map.

And it's not Bundy's land. Quit making shit up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Seeing as it was 20 years ago, yes.

I need a microscope to read your map.

---

You shouldn't sit in front of a computer screen as much as you do as it has obviously ruined your eyesight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

It's very simple. You guys are making shit up to complicate it.


The book or the play or the movie?

---

It's amazing. You're like the perfect serf.

As for Les Miserables, I'm referring to the story (so the book Mr. Literal). Jean ValJean stole dammit. He should have gone to prison!

(I'm glad you couldn't figure out the reference on your own. You're really smart.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

And it's not Bundy's land. Quit making shit up.

---

Does Bundy's land not fall within the Dry Lake solar energy zone?

Yes or no?

Chump I'm off to watch the Masters with my militia brothers. I'll check back in later to see if you were able to read the map.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

Does Bundy's land not fall within the Dry Lake solar energy zone?

Yes or no?

---

The land dispute is not over land Bundy owns.

Quit making shit up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

It's amazing. You're like the perfect serf.

As for Les Miserables, I'm referring to the story (so the book Mr. Literal). Jean ValJean stole dammit. He should have gone to prison!

(I'm glad you couldn't figure out the reference on your own. You're really smart.)

---

I liked all three in their own way.

Bundy has no relation to any character in the book.

Les Mis is not about a squatter's making threats because he may no longer be able to freeload off the federal government.

This guy stole over a million dollars of your tax money and you want to pass him off as some kind of hero.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

Chump I'm off to watch the Masters with my militia brothers. I'll check back in later to see if you were able to read the map.

---

If you can fix me up with a phone with a 24 inch screen, let me know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I liked all three in their own way.

Bundy has no relation to any character in the book.

Les Mis is not about a squatter's making threats because he may no longer be able to freeload off the federal government.

This guy stole over a million dollars of your tax money and you want to pass him off as some kind of hero.

---

You're right. It's about a criminal who a decadent and corrupt government is legally yet unjustly prosecuting.

What possible relationship does that have with today?

Clearly that viewpoint doesn't resonate with anyone as seen by how unpopular the story is.

Squatting is squatting. Stealing is stealing.

The justice system is completely fair to all classes.

The government never unevenly applies the law based on personal vendettas or the class of people affected.

If you complain about it there's obviously something wrong with you. If you try to fight it you're an idiot.

Civil disobedience is a waste of time. No laws have ever been changed due to people rising up and voicing their displeasure with them either through "legal" or "illegitimate" means.

Appears the standoff is not over.
http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/...ps09c38eef.jpg

BLM still has guns pointed at unarmed (visibly) peacefully protesting citizens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

The land dispute is not over land Bundy owns.

Quit making shit up.

---

The land he owns most definitely falls within the Dry Lake solar zone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

He should move his cattle off the federal land he's been squatting on for 20 years.

---

I'm all for it if the government would agree do the same to illegal immigrants. Tax dollars are tax dollars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

You're right. It's about a criminal who a decadent and corrupt government is legally yet unjustly prosecuting.

What possible relationship does that have with today?

Clearly that viewpoint doesn't resonate with anyone as seen by how unpopular the story is.

---

Bundy hasn't been charged with anything.

He lost several court hearings fair and square. His squatting is completely unjustified. He needs to pay up and get out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

Squatting is squatting. Stealing is stealing.

The justice system is completely fair to all classes.

The government never unevenly applies the law based on personal vendettas or the class of people affected.

If you complain about it there's obviously something wrong with you. If you try to fight it you're an idiot.

Civil disobedience is a waste of time. No laws have ever been changed due to people rising up and voicing their displeasure with them either through "legal" or "illegitimate" means.

---

This guy is no hero. He is a freeloader who is upset he may have to stop freeloading.

Your attempt to beatify him is laughable. Dude needs to find another place to graze cattle. Or do something else. It's not his land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

The land he owns most definitely falls within the Dry Lake solar zone.

---

The dispute is not over his land. Quit making shit up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

I'm all for it if the government would agree do the same to illegal immigrants. Tax dollars are tax dollars.

---

No, you would still not be all for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Bundy hasn't been charged with anything.

He lost several court hearings fair and square. His squatting is completely unjustified. He needs to pay up and get out.

This guy is no hero. He is a freeloader who is upset he may have to stop freeloading.

Your attempt to beatify him is laughable. Dude needs to find another place to graze cattle. Or do something else. It's not his land.

---

He's been fined. That's an administrative penalty. Principle is the same.

If this guy wasn't part of the bigger story of other ranchers getting removed I'd be much more inclined to agree with you.

As it stands there is obviously another agenda going on. You just don't want to admit it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

If this guy wasn't part of the bigger story of other ranchers getting removed I'd be much more inclined to agree with you.

As it stands there is obviously another agenda going on. You just don't want to admit it.

---

You guys never have any evidence of a bigger agenda -- you just throw up some conspiracy innuendo and hope others take it as fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

As it stands there is obviously another agenda going on. You just don't want to admit it.

---

It pains him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

You guys never have any evidence of a bigger agenda -- you just throw up some conspiracy innuendo and hope others take it as fact.

---

Reid, Reid, Kornze. Stop focusing exclusively on Bundy. You can not deny there is a bigger agenda, you are not naive.

He tried paying the fines to the state. They refused. How is that being "upset he may have to stop freeloading?" Oh wait, it isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

It pains him.

---

If they build a solar farm on the designated tortoise habitat, you may have something, but not really since the government can do with its land as it pleases.

It's not Bundy's land and nothing you have said has changed or will change that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

You guys never have any evidence of a bigger agenda -- you just throw up some conspiracy innuendo and hope others take it as fact.

---

How about all the other ranchers being bought out with funds from their own grazing fees?

You just don't accept things unless a government press release tells you to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

Reid, Reid, Kornze. Stop focusing exclusively on Bundy. You can not deny there is a bigger agenda, you are not naive.

---

Spell it out.

Give actual projects and exact locations. Otherwise, it's just your innuendo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

He tried paying the fines to the state. They refused. How is that being "upset he may have to stop freeloading?" Oh wait, it isn't.

---

It's not the state's land.

It's the federal government's land.

He had been paying the federal government.

Now he is freeloading off the federal government.

The land is actually owned by the state, not the government. The government is issuing orders based on their court approved jurisdiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

How about all the other ranchers being bought out with funds from their own grazing fees?

---

How about it?

Quote:

---

You just don't accept things unless a government press release tells you to.

---

You just don't accept things unless infowars tells you to.

God knows you won't believe anything Bundy says about it himself. But you're totally willing to swallow everything the government says about it hook line and sinker

Where there's smoke there's fire.

But mr. literal is incapable of reaching conclusions unless he is led there 100% of the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

You guys never have any evidence of a bigger agenda -- you just throw up some conspiracy innuendo and hope others take it as fact.

---

Yep. But somehow you're the one that is naive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbestpro

The land is actually owned by the state, not the government. The government is issuing orders based on their court approved jurisdiction.

---

If that's true, it's managed by the BLM. I dont' see Nevada's disputing the BLM's control of the land.

Regardless, it isn't Bundy's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

God knows you won't believe anything Bundy says about it himself. But you're totally willing to swallow everything the government says about it hook line and sinker

Where there's smoke there's fire.

But mr. literal is incapable of reaching conclusions unless he is led there 100% of the way.

---

Show me something that isn't innuendo.

That's all I ask.

This project did not exist 20 years ago when Bundy stopped paying his fees. Yet you are trying to go back in time to make it exactly about a solar project conspiracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Show me something that isn't innuendo.

That's all I ask.

This project did not exist 20 years ago when Bundy stopped paying his fees. Yet you are trying to go back in time to make it exactly about a solar project conspiracy.

---

I don't think its completely about a solar project.

Long term its probably about big ranches taking out small ones. Or the government just wanting the land for whatever use it wants.

Now you'll say where's the proof?

It's like asking for a memo that Bush started the Iraq war for anything but to free the Iraqi people and 9/11

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Spell it out.

Give actual projects and exact locations. Otherwise, it's just your innuendo.

---

Look into Whittemore (jailed for contributions to Reid) and Brightsource. Pull your head out of the sand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

You just don't accept things unless infowars tells you to.

---

Seems to be your guys fallback line these days. Only person that posted an infowars link was Fuzzy. I've provided plenty of reputable sources you choose to ignore tying these crooks together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

I don't think its completely about a solar project.

Long term its probably about big ranches taking out small ones. Or the government just wanting the land for whatever use it wants.

Now you'll say where's the proof?

It's like asking for a memo that Bush started the Iraq war for anything but to free the Iraqi people and 9/11

---

The government can do what it wants with that land.

It's not Bundy's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

Look into Whittemore (jailed for contributions to Reid) and Brightsource. Pull your head out of the sand.

---

Hey, more innuendo!

You're just like a twoofer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

Seems to be your guys fallback line these days. Only person that posted an infowars link was Fuzzy. I've provided plenty of reputable sources you choose to ignore tying these crooks together.

---

You have failed to post anything but innuendo for anything having to do with this situation.

Dude didn't pay his fees for 20 years. Dude should get his cattle off the land that isn't his.

It's that simple and you are trying to make a grand conspiracy out of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Show me something that isn't innuendo.

That's all I ask.

This project did not exist 20 years ago when Bundy stopped paying his fees. Yet you are trying to go back in time to make it exactly about a solar project conspiracy.

---

Coincidence that nothing was really done up until now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Hey, more innuendo!

You're just like a twoofer.

---

You wanted proof of a bigger agenda, I provided it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

You have failed to post anything but innuendo for anything having to do with this situation.

Dude didn't pay his fees for 20 years. Dude should get his cattle off the land that isn't his.

It's that simple and you are trying to make a grand conspiracy out of it.

---

I'll tell you again, stop focusing on only Bundy.

I'm glad that we now have to become expert litigators on the subject to satisfy your burden of proof.

Or you could look yourself. But you already know the answer of course so there's no need.

Its really just government encroachment on their property rights. The grazing law was brought in and accepted under one premise, and is then used by the BLM for another. That's a bait and switch. When stores do that we get upset, (it's their sales technique after all) but when the government does it you say its A-ok.

I'm saying you shouldn't be surprised when people get mad.

This is all coming down to power anyway. The law of conquest is the oldest law in existence.

You know Chump, circumstantial evidence is still evidence.

If you see a smoldering pile of ashes where a house used to stand, but you didn't see the fire, do you think it's likely that the house burned down?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

Reid, Reid, Kornze. Stop focusing exclusively on Bundy. You can not deny there is a bigger agenda, you are not naive.

---

So Reid started planning this back in 1993?

God you are stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

So Reid started planning this back in 1993?

God you are stupid.

---

Where did I ever imply that? I believe Reid is a crook and have given proof to support this (not once refute), never once said this was planned by him in 1993. Bundy is a new target for him because he was able to get his ex-senior advisor named director of the BLM. Do you know how many contributors of Reid's have been jailed? Care to guess? Do you know of all the shady land dealings he's been linked to in Las Vegas?

Have at it. A whole web page documenting Reid's corruption. But yeah you're right, nothing shady going on at the Bundy ranch.

http://www.futurnamics.com/reid_bundyranch.php

Although very different from the Bundy situation it's not the first time the BLM has been proven to be crooks.

U.S. vs Hage

http://www.tsln.com/agliving/farming...111/story.html

The Court found, “In the present case, the Government’s actions over the past two decades shocks the conscience of the Court…”. This finding, coupled with the Court’s finding that agents of the BLM and the USFS engaged in a conspiracy to deprive the Hage family of their vested property rights, opens the door to potential lawsuits against the individual agents personally for their unconstitutional actions.

The ruling chronicles the drama of 21-day trial in Reno, NV last spring between rancher Wayne N. Hage who, unable to afford an attorney, represented himself, and Mark Pollot, the Estate’s attorney, who were defending their case against two federal agencies represented by a cadre of attorneys and staff from the Justice Department.

The Court noted the government’s motive for their pursuit of the present trespass case. ”In 2007…the Government brought the present civil trespass action against Hage and the Estate” because the USFS and BLM were “unsatisfied with the outcome” in the ongoing related 1991 Constitutional Fifth Amendment takings case of Hage v. U.S. before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (CFC).

However, during the pendency of the trespass case, the agencies pursued remedies outside the jurisdiction of the Court, leading to a referral to the U.S. Attorney for obstruction of justice and findings of contempt of court. Specifically, the BLM invited others, including Mr. Gary Snow of Fallon, to apply for grazing permits on allotments where the Hages previously had permits; the BLM testified they knew Snow’s cattle would use Hage waters; the BLM and USFS both applied to the State of Nevada for stock watering rights over Hage waters, even though neither agency owns cattle, for the “purpose of obtaining rights for third parties other than Hage in order to interfere with Hage’s rights;” and they attempted to intimidate witnesses in the trespass case by issuing trespass notices and demands for payments against persons who had cattle pastured at Pine Creek Ranch, despite having been notified that Hage was responsible for these cattle.

Judge Jones reasoned the trespass notices and demands for payment were meant “to pressure other parties not to do business with the Hages, and even to discourage or punish testimony in the present case.” The Court noted such demands for payment were even issued to “witnesses soon after they testified in this case.”

Tonopah BLM Manager, Tom Seley and Forest Ranger, Steve Williams were both found to be in contempt of court, and were referred to the U.S. Attorney for possible prosecution for criminal obstruction of justice. Noting that Seley and Williams knew of ongoing litigation between the parties in this court and the CFC, they “took actions to interfere with the defense of the present trespass action by intimidating witnesses.” A written order is pending from the separate August 2012 contempt hearing.

The Court stated, “In summary, the government officials, and perhaps also Mr. Snow, entered into a literal, intentional conspiracy to deprive the Hages not only of their permits but also their vested water rights. This behavior shocks the conscience of the Court and provides a sufficient basis for a finding of irreparable harm” to support permanent injunctive relief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

I'm glad that we now have to become expert litigators on the subject to satisfy your burden of proof.

Or you could look yourself. But you already know the answer of course so there's no need.

Its really just government encroachment on their property rights. The grazing law was brought in and accepted under one premise, and is then used by the BLM for another. That's a bait and switch. When stores do that we get upset, (it's their sales technique after all) but when the government does it you say its A-ok.

I'm saying you shouldn't be surprised when people get mad.

This is all coming down to power anyway. The law of conquest is the oldest law in existence.

---

it is not bundy's property

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

You know Chump, circumstantial evidence is still evidence.

If you see a smoldering pile of ashes where a house used to stand, but you didn't see the fire, do you think it's likely that the house burned down?

---

If I see that a dude hasn't paid fees for 20 years, that dude is freeloading and needs to get his cattle off the land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

What you're saying is you can't support someone who refuses to obey what they consider to be an unjust law.

Obviously consequences will follow. But today's law isn't something set in stone delivered from God on high.

People do what they think they must to protect themselves.

It also depends if you think we live in civilized society instead of one where the criminals run everything.

---

The process to enact laws hasn't changed in over a century. You could say that people's interests have, which is pretty normal. There's always winners and losers in rule making, and that's not even circumscribed to government.

And yeah, I'm not really a fan of people breaking the law. I think it's a dangerous slippery slope, no matter who does it, big corps or the little guy.

I've never once been in on any conspiracy theories thrown around here on the board, not once, so to be labeled a twoofer is odd.

Anyone who doesn't think Harry Reid is a crook is blind. It's scary he's been in power this long after everything he has been linked to in Nevada, even scarier he's the third most powerful person in office right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

But they didn't use emminent domain.

Legally the man is clearly in the wrong (though he argues differently and no court would buy it.) The point is the laws are unjust and are being applied vindictively to this guy. Hence why its a fight over "freedom"

---

Unjust? In 1993, he was told reduce his herd for overgrazing. He was supposed to only have 150 head on the range and in 1994 he was ordered off the range for having 400. In 1998, federal court first ordered him off of the land and when Bunker appealed, he lost. He decided to keep on anyway. He ignored the order and now has ~900.

This has gone back and forth and Bunker has threatened a 'range war' threatening violence on LMRA and BLM people who have tried to get him to remove the herd.

It's been over 15 years of federal court orders that he disregards. What is just here then? It's fucking stupid that right wing GOP rank and file eat this shit up like Bunker is some sort of white knight out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

Although very different from the Bundy situation it's not the first time the BLM has been proven to be crooks.

U.S. vs Hage

http://www.tsln.com/agliving/farming...111/story.html

The Court found, “In the present case, the Government’s actions over the past two decades shocks the conscience of the Court…”. This finding, coupled with the Court’s finding that agents of the BLM and the USFS engaged in a conspiracy to deprive the Hage family of their vested property rights, opens the door to potential lawsuits against the individual agents personally for their unconstitutional actions.

The ruling chronicles the drama of 21-day trial in Reno, NV last spring between rancher Wayne N. Hage who, unable to afford an attorney, represented himself, and Mark Pollot, the Estate’s attorney, who were defending their case against two federal agencies represented by a cadre of attorneys and staff from the Justice Department.

The Court noted the government’s motive for their pursuit of the present trespass case. ”In 2007…the Government brought the present civil trespass action against Hage and the Estate” because the USFS and BLM were “unsatisfied with the outcome” in the ongoing related 1991 Constitutional Fifth Amendment takings case of Hage v. U.S. before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (CFC).

However, during the pendency of the trespass case, the agencies pursued remedies outside the jurisdiction of the Court, leading to a referral to the U.S. Attorney for obstruction of justice and findings of contempt of court. Specifically, the BLM invited others, including Mr. Gary Snow of Fallon, to apply for grazing permits on allotments where the Hages previously had permits; the BLM testified they knew Snow’s cattle would use Hage waters; the BLM and USFS both applied to the State of Nevada for stock watering rights over Hage waters, even though neither agency owns cattle, for the “purpose of obtaining rights for third parties other than Hage in order to interfere with Hage’s rights;” and they attempted to intimidate witnesses in the trespass case by issuing trespass notices and demands for payments against persons who had cattle pastured at Pine Creek Ranch, despite having been notified that Hage was responsible for these cattle.

Judge Jones reasoned the trespass notices and demands for payment were meant “to pressure other parties not to do business with the Hages, and even to discourage or punish testimony in the present case.” The Court noted such demands for payment were even issued to “witnesses soon after they testified in this case.”

Tonopah BLM Manager, Tom Seley and Forest Ranger, Steve Williams were both found to be in contempt of court, and were referred to the U.S. Attorney for possible prosecution for criminal obstruction of justice. Noting that Seley and Williams knew of ongoing litigation between the parties in this court and the CFC, they “took actions to interfere with the defense of the present trespass action by intimidating witnesses.” A written order is pending from the separate August 2012 contempt hearing.

The Court stated, “In summary, the government officials, and perhaps also Mr. Snow, entered into a literal, intentional conspiracy to deprive the Hages not only of their permits but also their vested water rights. This behavior shocks the conscience of the Court and provides a sufficient basis for a finding of irreparable harm” to support permanent injunctive relief.

---

Well you certainly are trying hard for the guilt by association schtick.

The order came from federal court 4 separate times. The BLM is the enforcement arm for the interior ministry. Who do you think made the order to call off the dogs? BLM chief? Secretary of the Interior? POTUS? I think any of those could at the very least meet a circuit court judge head on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

I've never once been in on any conspiracy theories thrown around here on the board, not once, so to be labeled a twoofer is odd.

Anyone who doesn't think Harry Reid is a crook is blind. It's scary he's been in power this long after everything he has been linked to in Nevada, even scarier he's the third most powerful person in office right now.

---

Well, you were shown where the ENN project was going to be built. You were talking about a 'solar range.' You are right they are in the middle of a large stretch of flat desert good for solar. Bravo!

You making the leap without cause when they bought the land around Laughlin already is hilarious. You still double down on it. You guys are literally parroting the breitbart and infowars narrative about 'you don't really think it's about the turtle?' You think this is the first rancher displaced and butthurt because of the endangered species act?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Well you certainly are trying hard for the guilt by association schtick.

---

Has Harry Reid been linked to numerous scandalous land dealings in Nevada yes or no?

Is Harry Reid's senior advisor now the director of the BLM yes or no?

Is Harry Reid's son representing a firm with a $5 billion dollar project in Nevada yes or no?

http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_4_1687.html

Quote:

---

From April 11, 2014 at 2140 UTC
To May 11, 2014 at 1434 UTC

No pilots may operate an aircraft in the areas covered by this NOTAM (except as described).

ONLY RELIEF AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS UNDER DIRECTION OF BLM ARE AUTHORIZED IN THE AIRSPACE

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Well, you were shown where the ENN project was going to be built. You were talking about a 'solar range.' You are right they are in the middle of a large stretch of flat desert good for solar. Bravo!

You making the leap without cause when they bought the land around Laughlin already is hilarious. You still double down on it. You guys are literally parroting the breitbart and infowars narrative about 'you don't really think it's about the turtle?' You think this is the first rancher displaced and butthurt because of the endangered species act?

---

Water rights. Bravo!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

Has Harry Reid been linked to numerous scandalous land dealings in Nevada yes or no?

Is Harry Reid's senior advisor now the director of the BLM yes or no?

Is Harry Reid's son representing a firm with a $5 billion dollar project in Nevada yes or no?

---

What project are they running north of Lake Mead? BLM and LMRA ordered him off in 1994. They are simply reinforcing that same order. Again federal court got involved in 1998. Reid involved then?

Your innuendo in place of fact is pretty contemptible really.

And lets be clear here. The order to seize the cattle came from federal court twice in the last year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Well you certainly are trying hard for the guilt by association schtick.

---

Reid helped good friend and bigtime lawyer/lobbyist Harvey Whittemore procure environmental waivers for the Coyote Springs golf and residential development, a short distance from the Bundy Ranch. L.A. Times did a big expose on Reid and Coyote Springs special deals for Whittemore. Reid was happy to let Brightsource propose to cover 8,300 acres of tortoise land of the 42,000-acre Coyote Springs. These included powerline changes and most importantly, a land swap with BLM for Desert Tortoise land. Whittemore claims Harry had nothing to do with the dubious Tortoise landswap. Whittemore will be serving two years for illegal contributions to Reid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

What project are they running north of Lake Mead? BLM and LMRA ordered him off in 1994. They are simply reinforcing that same order. Again federal court got involved in 1998. Reid involved then?

Your innuendo in place of fact is pretty contemptible really.

---

Three simple yes or no questions and you failed to answer a single one. Try again, yes or no will suffice.

Has Harry Reid been linked to numerous scandalous land dealings in Nevada yes or no?

Is Harry Reid's senior advisor now the director of the BLM yes or no?

Is Harry Reid's son representing a firm with a $5 billion dollar project in Nevada yes or no?

Follow the money Fuzzy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

What project are they running north of Lake Mead? BLM and LMRA ordered him off in 1994. They are simply reinforcing that same order. Again federal court got involved in 1998. Reid involved then?

Your innuendo in place of fact is pretty contemptible really.

---

Currently, water rights in Nevada run anywhere from $7,000 to $50,000 per acre-foot (depending on the time of year and the amount of rainfall or snowfall in the western region). The water in Nevada is then auctioned, as it has been for at least twenty-five years. That same water can be resold in Las Vegas, Arizona, or Southern California.

Bunkerville in Nevada is ensconced between the Virgin River and the main road, Riverside Road. The Virgin River is a tributary to Lake Mead. The river, along with other sources, discharges into Lake Mead, the largest reservoir in the United States. Both the Virgin River and Lake Mead are part of the Colorado River Basin. In fact, Lake Mead is considered the largest surface water collection for the Colorado River. Whoever controls the water controls the vast wealth that is distributed to a network of states at a crucial time during a water shortage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

Three simple yes or no questions and you failed to answer a single one.

---

Slow down...you gotta give Fuzzy time to google his answers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

Three simple yes or no questions and you failed to answer a single one. Try again, yes or no will suffice.

Has Harry Reid been linked to numerous scandalous land dealings in Nevada yes or no?

---

In a way linked to this dispute? No.

Quote:

---

Is Harry Reid's senior advisor now the director of the BLM yes or no?

---

He was not the one who made the initial order off of federal land so again besides the point.

Quote:

---

Is Harry Reid's son representing a firm with a $5 billion dollar project in Nevada yes or no?

---

The project again is south of Lake Mead.

I answered your questions before you are just too stupid to understand and can only think in terms of yes or no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

Follow the money Fuzzy.

Currently, water rights in Nevada run anywhere from $7,000 to $50,000 per acre-foot (depending on the time of year and the amount of rainfall or snowfall in the western region). The water in Nevada is then auctioned, as it has been for at least twenty-five years. That same water can be resold in Las Vegas, Arizona, or Southern California.

Bunkerville in Nevada is ensconced between the Virgin River and the main road, Riverside Road. The Virgin River is a tributary to Lake Mead. The river, along with other sources, discharges into Lake Mead, the largest reservoir in the United States. Both the Virgin River and Lake Mead are part of the Colorado River Basin. In fact, Lake Mead is considered the largest surface water collection for the Colorado River. Whoever controls the water controls the vast wealth that is distributed to a network of states at a crucial time during a water shortage.

---

So you have moved on from solar to water. Nice. What is next? Mineral rights?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

Reid helped good friend and bigtime lawyer/lobbyist Harvey Whittemore procure environmental waivers for the Coyote Springs golf and residential development, a short distance from the Bundy Ranch. L.A. Times did a big expose on Reid and Coyote Springs special deals for Whittemore. Reid was happy to let Brightsource propose to cover 8,300 acres of tortoise land of the 42,000-acre Coyote Springs. These included powerline changes and most importantly, a land swap with BLM for Desert Tortoise land. Whittemore claims Harry had nothing to do with the dubious Tortoise landswap. Whittemore will be serving two years for illegal contributions to Reid.

---

That is great and all but 900 head on that range especially given the drought is unacceptable. Not paying your fees for twenty years and ignoring federal circuit judges is unacceptable.

And as has been pointed out to you before, that is what court is for. He had his day in court regarding use of that land and lost. It is what it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

So you have moved on from solar to water. Nice. What is next? Mineral rights?

---

I've always looked at the big picture.