The Kooks are Back
- Thread starter SGaynor
- Start date
I feel like I'm in the twilight zone.
Scott, if you want Nancy Grace to try your murder case (which you didn't commit) go right ahead.
For the learning impaired - they WANT to graze their cattle on federal land and pay NOTHING.
Want something (grazing) for NOTHING.
See the court rulings from 1994, 1998 and 1999 in the link below. Bundy (and dad) had paid grazing fees since the 50s until 1992, then stopped. They were ordered off federal lands.
http://www.hcn.org/articles/cliven-bundy-documents
And for the people who have no idea what this case, or any case dealing with the Bundy's is about, that's not exactly true. Cliven tried to pay his grazing fees in 1993 to Clark County; the check was returned.
And you're right, the US District courts ruled in favor of the Feds. A few times. Big surprise there.
But it comes down to this. What crime has Cliven or the other Bundy's committed? Why are the Bundy's being acquitted by We The People? The Feds are saying "you owe us this money", "get your cow off our land", yet they can't get a guilty verdict in the courts. There is no law that has been proven broken to date. Lord knows the feds are trying, but so far it has not worked.
Then there's this little issue about water rights. Were the Bundy's trying to get water rights for nothing as well?
Wake me when the Bundy's are guilty of something.
When the Bundy's are acquitted, again, I hope this case goes to the Supreme Court. Going to get super interesting at that point. And if the Feds lose there, too, that changes everything.
So according to the people sitting in the court room, apparently the Feds fucked up Tuesday in court and let it slip out that there were some video tapes no one turned over to the defense. This has happened time-and-time again in these trials. In fact it has become common and so far has only worked to the advantage of the Bundy's. Why are the feds holding evidence from the defense? What are they hiding? What are they trying to cover up?
I'm not the only one who wants to know. The judge gave the feds 1-hour to produce this latest video Tuesday and apparently it's pretty fucking damming. It's a video showing how the feds were trying to brib one of the Bundy cousins. Ooops. Now they're saying that with this newly discovered evidence Greg Burleson may get a new trial due to what was said, on tape, by the feds. It just keeps getting better and better.
I'm not the only one who wants to know. The judge gave the feds 1-hour to produce this latest video Tuesday and apparently it's pretty fucking damming. It's a video showing how the feds were trying to brib one of the Bundy cousins. Ooops. Now they're saying that with this newly discovered evidence Greg Burleson may get a new trial due to what was said, on tape, by the feds. It just keeps getting better and better.
Tell me - what would happen if you insisted on paying your federal taxes (income, payroll) only to the county, all while saying the federal government has no right to collect those taxes? How long until your business(es), property are seized?
Ummm...guilty of tresspass. You know - that whole illegal cattle grazing thing.
http://www.hcn.org/articles/1998.11.4_BundyCourtJudgment.PDF
Well, I guess you're woke, because you answered your own question --->
So, please explain to me how if they are acquited, the case goes to the Supreme Court? (Hint: It doesn't)
Citation? How do you know what is in a (purported) video that hasn't been made public yet? 4Chan? clairvoyancey? Or do you have a special connection with inside knowledge?
Same principle: Owe the federal government money, but insist on paying the county.
Tell me how that works?
I never said that.
But that begs the question: So you think the courts (and it wasn't just the district court, it was the Circuit court and the appeals courts as well) go it wrong? You think Bundy should be able to graze for free?
Reminds me of the trump travel ban.
I don?t think the Bundys are asking to graze for free. It?s less than $2000 a year. Do you honestly think Cliven cannot afford that? It?s not about the money. It?s who the money is paid to. And until the Supreme Court hears the case there are going to be questions and acquittals.
We?ll know more at the end of this current trial. I promise.
That's exactly what they are saying.
"We own the grazing rights. We own the water rights on that area, and we don't pay rent for something we own,'' he said in an hourlong opening statement as the federal trial continued in the April 2014 armed standoff near his father's ranch.
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2017/11/ryan_bundys_opening_statement.html
And he owes more than $1MM. That's a bit more than $2k a year.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-cliven-bundy-fines-20160107-story.html
Shit, even Breitbart agrees with me - Bundy is full of shit.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ance-to-government-land-grabs-know-the-facts/
Can you please make a statement based in reality? With facts to back them up? It's really too easy to disprove every statement you've made.
Do you know how the courts work? If the Bundys are acquitted (found not guilty at trial), they can't be retried; the verdict can't be "appealed" by the prosecution. It's called double jeopardy.
The case can only get to the supreme court if the Bundy's are found guilty by the jury, and every appeals court they go to.
But then, they wouldn't have been acquitted - they'd have been found guilty.
Correct me if I'm wrong:
-The Bundy's stopped paying grazing fees, and have lost that case in various levels of the courts various times.
-The Bundy's (+) also participated in something ranging from expressing freedom of speech to civil insurrection depending on perspective; those court cases are ongoing but the gov't hasn't fared well there.
These are not the same case-while the issues are linked by the common Bundy factor the reality is that they haven't changed legal precedence with regard to who owns/administers the land-but they are faring well in the aftermath of the (armed) protests about it. (Except for Lavoy).
What am I missing about the relationship here?
-The Bundy's stopped paying grazing fees, and have lost that case in various levels of the courts various times.
-The Bundy's (+) also participated in something ranging from expressing freedom of speech to civil insurrection depending on perspective; those court cases are ongoing but the gov't hasn't fared well there.
These are not the same case-while the issues are linked by the common Bundy factor the reality is that they haven't changed legal precedence with regard to who owns/administers the land-but they are faring well in the aftermath of the (armed) protests about it. (Except for Lavoy).
What am I missing about the relationship here?