Another Ruby Ridge/Waco event brewing - Page 10 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Txjake · #**136** 04-14-2014, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panZZer

Why not just ceceed from the nation--since once again the pendulum swung the other way,( and you cant stand the damn d's in control --again) maybe you can set up your own little asshat land up in the hills n east okie-land and declare it soverign.... better yet--do it back in misisipi, i like going to Talequa once n a while.

lol, I dont like Ds or Rs. The less th egovernment does, the better off the people seem to be. Love my country though.

aklim · #**137** 04-14-2014, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BAVBMW

If it is true that he/his family bought the land, or the rights to the land, long before the BLM existed and/or managed land, what rights would he have? Is it possible to refuse "management" by the government?

Let's just take her story at face value for a moment, what would everyone's thoughts on the BLM be then?

MV

Again, let the court decide. That he refused to even go to court to make his argument heard doesn't inspire me to think he is some sort of hero. Just another freeloading bum.

aklim · #**138** 04-14-2014, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

That's not the way I read it. There's something about the land belonging to the state while the Feds were trying to. Left or some type of gray are like that.

Do you or do you not agree to use the court as an arbiter of the dispute? It is that simple. If you, as David had pointed out say you believe in using the channels then either he did or he did not. If he did fine. If not, well, the answer to that is petty clear.

aklim · #**139** 04-14-2014, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Txjake

don't know enough about the stucture. however, in that situation, if a shot rang out, both sides would have opened fire almost immediately because of the tension.

I'd be celebrating of those militiamen got wiped out. Wouldn't bother me in the least. Just a bunch of outlaws siding with another outlaw.

Botnst · #**140** 04-14-2014, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panZZer

Why not just ceceed from the nation--since once again the pendulum swung the other way,( and you cant stand the damn d's in control --again) maybe you can set up your own little asshat land up in the hills n east okie-land and declare it soverign.... better yet--do it back in misisipi, i like going to Talequa once n a while.

If TXJAKE asks I will be glad to translate.

cmbdiesel · #**141** 04-14-2014, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Txjake

don't know enough about the stucture. however, in that situation, if a shot rang out, both sides would have opened fire almost immediately because of the tension.

All the more reason to send Bubba 12-Pack back where he came from....

As for both sides, I would like to think that the SPECOP guys, as you described them, might have enough training to hold fire until the command is given.
Maybe you have a different opinion of their training.

Unless... by both sides, you mean both sides of the militias elaborate 'pincher' formation. (pronounced payne-cher)....

BTW... What is the color of the boathouse at Hereford?...

panZZer · #**142** 04-14-2014, 07:28 PM

Air&Road · #**143** 04-14-2014, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Challenge it in court if you disagree. Or maybe you see a better way.

You mind showing me where I have implied that it should NOT be settled in court?

Air&Road · #**144** 04-14-2014, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

I'm pretty sure grazing rent free by refusing to pay isn't legal.

The situation is more complex than that. They will settle it in court. Meanwhile the federal Gestapo evidently murdered 130 of the guys cows. What did the cows do to anyone?

It appears that once they began making a connection of this whole mess with Harry Reid the federales backed off pretty fast.

It appears that there is more to this than someone not paying grazing fees to the federales for state owned land.

it seems that the federales might be wanting go run them off to use the land for some fat cats wind farm or other development.

Some investigator needs to follow the money. There's more behind this than meets the eye.

As I said before, if the guys flagrantly broken the law, get a rope, but this needs to be looked into further. There's govt connected hanky panky somewhere. A brother in law is being positioned for something.

elchivito · #**145** 04-14-2014, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

The situation is more complex than that. They will settle it in court. Meanwhile the federal Gestapo evidently murdered 130 of the guys cows. What did the cows do to anyone?

It appears that once they began making a connection of this whole mess with Harry Reid the federales backed off pretty fast.

It appears that there is more to this than someone not paying grazing fees to the federales for state owned land.

it seems that the federales might be wanting go run them off to use the land for some fat cats wind farm or other development.

Some investigator needs to follow the money. There's more behind this than meets the eye.

As I said before, if the guys flagrantly broken the law, get a rope, but this needs to be looked into further. There's govt connected hanky panky somewhere. A brother in law is being positioned for something.

It's not state land. No matter how much you and Cliven want it to be. Read the quote I posted from the Nevada constitution, you little constitutionalist you.

INSIDIOUS · #**146** 04-14-2014, 08:22 PM

The patience of a saint

panZZer · #**147** 04-14-2014, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchivito

It's not state land. No matter how much you and Cliven want it to be. Read the quote I posted from the Nevada constitution, you little constitutionalist you.

Yea well its in some state er other.... so they INSIST!

aklim · #**148** 04-14-2014, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

The situation is more complex than that. They will settle it in court.

Meanwhile the federal Gestapo evidently murdered 130 of the guys cows. What did the cows do to anyone?

It appears that there is more to this than someone not paying grazing fees to the federales for state owned land.

it seems that the federales might be wanting go run them off to use the land for some fat cats wind farm or other development.

Some investigator needs to follow the money. There's more behind this than meets the eye.

As I said before, if the guys flagrantly broken the law, get a rope, but this needs to be looked into further. There's govt connected hanky panky somewhere. A brother in law is being positioned for something.

How much more complex do you want to make it? Apparently there were some attempts made to settle it in court. Did he go to court to settle it one way or the other? If not, it ends there. I sue you, you fail to show up, default judgment in my favor. No ands, buts or ifs. Now, if the court renders it's judgment, is it optional to follow it? Either yes or no. Don't like it? Follow it and appeal. It isn't more complex unless you choose to make it.

I see your lips moving. What I don't see is you volunteering to move the cattle to your land and care for them at your expense. What is it you suggest they do? Keep them alive and send him a bill for the expense? IIRC, he already ignored the land use fees so what makes you think that he will pay for the upkeep?

A lot of things appear. It doesn't matter what use they have for it now. Fact is, he didn't pay for 20 years. That they find a more profitable use for it is irrelevant unless your intention is to muddy the waters.

Had the money been put forth by the man, perhaps none of this would come to this point.

How does it get more flagrant than disobeying a court order? I'm not interested in innuendos, suppositions and speculation. He either paid or did not. He either ignored a court order or not.

panZZer · #**149** 04-14-2014, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

How much more complex do you want to make it? Apparently there were some attempts made to settle it in court. Did he go to court to settle it one way or the other? If not, it ends there. I sue you, you fail to show up, default judgment in my favor. No ands, buts or ifs. Now, if the court renders it's judgment, is it optional to follow it? Either yes or no. Don't like it? Follow it and appeal. It isn't more complex unless you choose to make it.

I see your lips moving. What I don't see is you volunteering to move the cattle to your land and care for them at your expense. What is it you suggest they do? Keep them alive and send him a bill for the expense? IIRC, he already ignored the land use fees so what makes you think that he will pay for the upkeep?

A lot of things appear. It doesn't matter what use they have for it now. Fact is, he didn't pay for 20 years. That they find a more profitable use for it is irrelevant unless your intention is to muddy the waters.

Had the money been put forth by the man, perhaps none of this would come to this point.

How does it get more flagrant than disobeying a court order? I'm not interested in innuendos, suppositions and speculation. He either paid or did not. He either ignored a court order or not.

Look dude, I know you know, but ignorance and hypocracy are his typical trolling tools here.

Air&Road · #**150** 04-14-2014, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

How much more complex do you want to make it? Apparently there were some attempts made to settle it in court. Did he go to court to settle it one way or the other? If not, it ends there. I sue you, you fail to show up, default judgment in my favor. No ands, buts or ifs. Now, if the court renders it's judgment, is it optional to follow it? Either yes or no. Don't like it? Follow it and appeal. It isn't more complex unless you choose to make it.

I see your lips moving. What I don't see is you volunteering to move the cattle to your land and care for them at your expense. What is it you suggest they do? Keep them alive and send him a bill for the expense? IIRC, he already ignored the land use fees so what makes you think that he will pay for the upkeep?

A lot of things appear. It doesn't matter what use they have for it now. Fact is, he didn't pay for 20 years. That they find a more profitable use for it is irrelevant unless your intention is to muddy the waters.

Had the money been put forth by the man, perhaps none of this would come to this point.

How does it get more flagrant than disobeying a court order? I'm not interested in innuendos, suppositions and speculation. He either paid or did not. He either ignored a court order or not.

If all of what you state turns out to be true, you are making a good case and I could buy into most of what you say, saving for the welfare of the cows. There are two sides to everything though. I would have to have the time to hear the case by both sides. That, of course, is called a trial.