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

MS Fowler · #1 04-20-2014, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NC-Diesel

I hope they do show back up. Take his cows and sell it for the back grazing fees he owes. Regan no less signed the executive order directing the BLM to collect the fees. As I understand it they barely and usually don't cover the cost of upkeep on the land. The guy is a moocher. No better than the welfare cheats. If he hates the government so much he should quit using the government land and go buy his own. That is his right. This aint the oklahoma land rush. He can't just go plant a flag in public lands and proclaim his own kingdom. If I were the feds I'd just go in with the national gaurd and take the cows out. Then garnish his bank account for what he owes, sell the cows and apply that too. Then send him a check or bill for what is left minus all the court costs and law enforcement expenditures. This guy acting like davey crocket at the alamo is going to cost a small fortune there est of us will have to pay for his little last stand.

Anyone for "due process"? Yes, he appears to be in default, but is it right for the government, "men with guns" to confiscate what the government claims is due?
Lets just kill everyone the government says is doing something wrong.

JB3 · #2 04-20-2014, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Anyone for "due process"? Yes, he appears to be in default, but is it right for the government, "men with guns" to confiscate what the government claims is due?
Lets just kill everyone the government says is doing something wrong.

Confiscating the cattle is the end result of 20 years of due process. 2 years ago he prevented a peaceable removal and since then declared a "range war", prompting the more recent removal with overwhelming force. Between then and now, yet another judge made a ruling against him. He has lost every single appeal, because after all, hes using public land for free to graze a far larger herd than his own land can actually support. Once again, due process has shown him to be entirely in the wrong.

Additionally, confiscation of the animals is pretty darn standard. Thats exactly how herd size is enforced. Back in my fish industry days, fish and game officials confiscating illegal sized catch was a monthly occurance. Its one of the only ways to protect wild stock. You grab stuff too small, you are gonna lose it.
Regarding his herd size, in order to protect the local habitat and his land size, hes limited to 150 head. Nothing prevents him from aquiring more land elsewhere and expanding his herd legally, but no, raising a far larger herd on public land is somehow his right, even though he was paying a fee 20 years ago and decided to stop.

The issues here are very clear and very simple.

cmbdiesel · #3 04-20-2014, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Anyone for "due process"? Yes, he appears to be in default, but is it right for the government, "men with guns" to confiscate what the government claims is due?
Lets just kill everyone the government says is doing something wrong.

Geezus man.... The guy has been in default for 20 years....
Try actually reading the court cases and judgements, and then following the timeline. The BLM has long been worried about Bundy getting violent. He has repeatedly threatened armed resistance to the feds moving his cattle off the land or confiscating them.'
Bundy is responsible for the escalation of this issue.
Read the reports, do some research... you will find that your assumptions are wrong.

'Men with guns'.... what else can you expect after not complying with court orders, especially for such an extended time, and while spreading such violent rhetoric???
Imagine what he owed was child support... He refuses to pay. Refuses to acknowledge or respect court orders requiring him to pay. He expresses his willingness to resist violently...
That guy would be cuffed face down in the dirt by as many armed LEO's as it took, and you would probably be the first one to cheer their actions.

MS Fowler · #4 04-20-2014, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Geezus man.... The guy has been in default for 20 years....
Try actually reading the court cases and judgements, and then following the timeline. The BLM has long been worried about Bundy getting violent. He has repeatedly threatened armed resistance to the feds moving his cattle off the land or confiscating them.'
Bundy is responsible for the escalation of this issue.
Read the reports, do some research... you will find that your assumptions are wrong.

'Men with guns'.... what else can you expect after not complying with court orders, especially for such an extended time, and while spreading such violent rhetoric???
Imagine what he owed was child support... He refuses to pay. Refuses to acknowledge or respect court orders requiring him to pay. He expresses his willingness to resist violently...
That guy would be cuffed face down in the dirt by as many armed LEO's as it took, and you would probably be the first one to cheer their actions.

I'll grant that he has had his day in Court. But still, is there some room between the Sheriff saying, " You owe money", and the huge military force descending on the man's home?
It seems like a huge escalation, and for what? If its the money, then there are people who owe more money but aren't being threatened with military action. If its the desert tortoise--well, the feds killed more of them than anyone.
I just don't see the need for the overt, massive use of force. Hell, we didn't provide this level of support for our diplomatic mission in Benghazi!

Something stinks.

cmbdiesel · #5 04-20-2014, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I'll grant that he has had his day in Court. But still, is there some room between the Sheriff saying, " You owe money", and the huge military force descending on the man's home?
It seems like a huge escalation, and for what? If its the money, then there are people who owe more money but aren't being threatened with military action. If its the desert tortoise--well, the feds killed more of them than anyone.
I just don't see the need for the overt, massive use of force. Hell, we didn't provide this level of support for our diplomatic mission in Benghazi!

Something stinks.

Cliven Bundy has a long history of violent anti-government rhetoric. It was his overt statements that he would give armed resistance to enforcement of the court orders which prompted the BLM to send armed rangers.
It was the amassing of bubba militias that caused them to escalate the size of their force.

I'm baffled why our law-and-order crew here is so adamant about placing this violent and delusional criminal upon a pedestal...

Please don't continue with the BS about the feds killing desert tortoises.... try actually reading the link you posted, and you will hopefully understand what a crock that statement is.

I see you decided not to address the question about armed police officers enforcing court orders on a deadbeat dad.... Why is that?
My take is that you are in favor of armed enforcement, but only on the people you want to see it used on....

cmbdiesel · #6 04-20-2014, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolf_walker

Have you been able to determine how much he paid prior to 1993 or so when
the BLM started trying to buy him out and he refused? I haven't in moderately casual research. I'm curious specifically what he paid prior to that, when the payments started, and if they were (going to be) raised after he declined to sell them his grazing rights. These seem like important things to know and nobody seems to. Only that he "quit paying".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

I would wait for those numbers to come out before making such an
Assumption. If they just raised them a reasonable amount to keep up with inflation or even a little more then you are correct. If OTOH, they raised them out of sight then that would indicate they were trying to run him off so they could line their pockets due to some other plan.

I've been saying all along that it is highly likely if not almost. Retain that there is something going on in the background that is not being made known and if so is probably soaked with corruption.

Pretty easy thing to find out if one doesn't mind using google.....
1966 - $1.23 per AUM (animal unit month)
Current - $1.35 per AUM

It would appear that the price has not even come close to keeping up with inflation.
In fact, the price is a pittance, and begs the question...'Why hasn't the price gone up...?'
Almost seems like there is something going on in the background....

P.C. · #7 04-20-2014, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

I'm baffled why our law-and-order crew here is so adamant about placing this violent and delusional criminal upon a pedestal...

No you're not. They see this whacko as some sort of wild west pioneer hero because this travesty is occurring west of the Mississippi, and a cow is involved.

Botnst · #8 04-21-2014, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P.C.

No you're not. They see this whacko as some sort of wild west pioneer hero because this travesty is occurring west of the Mississippi, and a cow is involved.

You guys inadvertently have chosen to ignore the greater point of militarized federal police to concentrate on an argument nobody has given -- supporting the perp's lawbreaking.

MTI · #9 04-21-2014, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

You guys inadvertently have chosen to ignore the greater point of militarized federal police to concentrate on an argument nobody has given -- supporting the perp's lawbreaking.

When you brandish the term "militarized federal police" . . . are you suggesting that any law enforcement agency be limited as to what resources to utilize in any situation? In my neck of the woods, we have a sheriffs department that owns a tank and an armored personnel carrier . . . and Steven Segal.

Botnst · #10 04-21-2014, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I'll grant that he has had his day in Court. But still, is there some room between the Sheriff saying, " You owe money", and the huge military force descending on the man's home?
It seems like a huge escalation, and for what? If its the money, then there are people who owe more money but aren't being threatened with military action. If its the desert tortoise--well, the feds killed more of them than anyone.
I just don't see the need for the overt, massive use of force. Hell, we didn't provide this level of support for our diplomatic mission in Benghazi!

Something stinks.

This makes sense.

All the gov had to do was wait for him to sell cattle and seize the proceeds. Repeat as necessary. Not unlike the IRS does with garnishment of wages. No helicopters, no giant enforcement presence with snipers and automatic weapons. That's just stupid.

I wonder how much the little militaristic law enforcement display cost the government. The helos cost upwards of $1,500/hour.

cmbdiesel · #11 04-21-2014, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

This makes sense.

All the gov had to do was wait for him to sell cattle and seize the proceeds. Repeat as necessary. Not unlike the IRS does with garnishment of wages. No helicopters, no giant enforcement presence with snipers and automatic weapons. That's just stupid.

I wonder how much the little militaristic law enforcement display cost the government. The helos cost upwards of $1,500/hour.

They have been waiting for years to see the cattle taken off the disputed lands...
Bundy was not decreasing the size of the herd.
That's why BLM came for the cattle.
Then Bundy escalated the issue into an armed resistance of the implementation of the court order.

I don't think anyone holds the opinion that things couldn't have been handled better, but slamming BLM for their reaction to armed resistance without acknowledging that a very large part of the responsibility lies with Bundy is not a well reasoned position.

MS Fowler · #12 04-21-2014, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

They have been waiting for years to see the cattle taken off the disputed lands...
Bundy was not decreasing the size of the herd.
That's why BLM came for the cattle.
Then Bundy escalated the issue into an armed resistance of the implementation of the court order.

I don't think anyone holds the opinion that things couldn't have been handled better, but slamming BLM for their reaction to armed resistance without acknowledging that a very large part of the responsibility lies with Bundy is not a well reasoned position.

I believe you missed the point. The government need not wait for Bundy to move his herd.
All they need to do is do what they already have made a practice of doing---taking bank accounts.
No need for armed military responses--just take his money to settle the debt.

aklim · #13 04-21-2014, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I believe you missed the point. The government need not wait for Bundy to move his herd.
All they need to do is do what they already have made a practice of doing---taking bank accounts.
No need for armed military responses--just take his money to settle the debt.

You ever tried garnishment of wages or putting a line on the account? It isn't really that simple as it sounds

cmbdiesel · #14 04-21-2014, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I believe you missed the point. The government need not wait for Bundy to move his herd.
All they need to do is do what they already have made a practice of doing---taking bank accounts.
No need for armed military responses--just take his money to settle the debt.

And that gets the cattle off the land, how...??

Botnst · #15 04-21-2014, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

They have been waiting for years to see the cattle taken off the disputed lands...
Bundy was not decreasing the size of the herd.
That's why BLM came for the cattle.
Then Bundy escalated the issue into an armed resistance of the implementation of the court order.

I don't think anyone holds the opinion that things couldn't have been handled better, but slamming BLM for their reaction to armed resistance without acknowledging that a very large part of the responsibility lies with Bundy is not a well reasoned position.

I don't know of anybody who believes that Bundy is the good guy.

If you choose to read what most reasonable people have written that superficially appears to support Bundy, you might trouble yourself to note that very few actually do. Instead, most of the ire is directed (rightly, IMO) at the extremely dangerous federal over-reaction.

As Jorn has previously argued, this has been going on for many years concerning the War on Drugs fiasco. I completely agree with him.

You and I may not be drug runners or over-grazers of cattle. What are the chances you and I have never violated federal law? Think it would be unreasonable for the IRS to show up at your home with a squad of heavily armed agents to enforce the law?

If wet let the gov do it to the least of us eventually they will do it to us.