The Kooks are Back

[D Chapman]

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

Grazing rights are real property. You own them. You can sell them. You can borrow money against them.

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

Jesus fucking christ. Are you dumb or just stupid?

The grazing fees are 1961.40 a year.

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.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/...ed-in-takeover-of-oregon-wildlife-refuge.html

 

[D Chapman]

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?

You are basically correct. Scott confuses them and attempts to use apples and orange to prove his misguides point. It's rather funny.

In other words, the feds say they own the land, the federal court(s) agree, but the feds have tried and failed to convict the Bundy's of any crime or wrongdoing. It would appear the constitution is on the Bundy's side. We'll see. In the end, I have a feeling the Supreme Court will make a ruling on whether or not the feds have as much control over the land as they say.

 

[emmodg]

What do you care?

I'm wondering why a seemingly intelligent man has any interest in mere tabloid "news" about inconsequential people. What's the answer?

 

[D Chapman]

I'm wondering why a seemingly intelligent man has any interest in mere tabloid "news" about inconsequential people. What's the answer?

I don't believe it to be tabloid news nor are the Bundy's "inconsequential people".

They've achieved much more than you have in your life, so what does that say about you?

 

[emmodg]

I don't believe it to be tabloid news nor are the Bundy's "inconsequential people".

They've achieved much more than you have in your life, so what does that say about you?

You have little t NO idea what I have or have not achieved. None. Zero. Here's the difference between me and your heroes. I'm not in trouble with the law. You really are a hard headed dude. Again - what do you care about the Bundy's?

 

[emmodg]

And again Daniel - I've never made personal attacks against you. I have no idea what you have done or haven't, what you've achieved or haven't. From what I've seen, you have done well for yourself. Try not to take things so personally. Try to be a gentleman - or at the very least - try and talk as if your a friend.

 

[SGaynor]

You are basically correct. Scott confuses them and attempts to use apples and orange to prove his misguides point. It's rather funny.

In other words, the feds say they own the land, the federal court(s) agree, but the feds have tried and failed to convict the Bundy's of any crime or wrongdoing. It would appear the constitution is on the Bundy's side. We'll see. In the end, I have a feeling the Supreme Court will make a ruling on whether or not the feds have as much control over the land as they say.

Good grief!

YOU are the one conflating all the cases.

Ray just pointed out that the Bundy's have lost their argument about grazing (AKA, who owns the land), but then you say they haven't been convicted of any wrong doing. The whole point is the tresspass - they were found guilty of that.

The feds haven't lost the Nevada case about the armed "protesters." ITS ONGOING. But then you start talking about Oregon.

That's three SEPARATE cases.

Then, you talk about the Supreme Court ruling on whether or not the feds have control of the land. Jesus Christ! That was ruled on in the first case - Bundy lost. (and owes $1MM). That was why the feds were removing the cattle. He lost that and every appeal.

But now, I assume, that you are saying if Bundy wins this trial - WHICH IS ABOUT THREATENING/ASSAULTING FEDERAL AGENTS, not about grazing rights - that somehow, somehow, that is going to prove that the Feds don't own the land - WHICH WAS THE FIRST DAMN CASE. not this one.

The case about who owns the land is over and done with. Bundy lost. This on going case is about threatening federal agents. Nothing more, nothing less (See the indictment).

And a fair number of those people involved in Oregon and the Nevada standoff have gone to jail - As Dan pointed out earlier.

 

[D Chapman]

You have little t NO idea what I have or have not achieved. None. Zero. Here's the difference between me and your heroes. I'm not in trouble with the law. You really are a hard headed dude. Again - what do you care about the Bundy's?

What are they "in trouble" for? Burning grass?

 

[1920SF]

You are basically correct. Scott confuses them and attempts to use apples and orange to prove his misguides point. It's rather funny.

In other words, the feds say they own the land, the federal court(s) agree, but the feds have tried and failed to convict the Bundy's of any crime or wrongdoing. It would appear the constitution is on the Bundy's side. We'll see. In the end, I have a feeling the Supreme Court will make a ruling on whether or not the feds have as much control over the land as they say.

My understanding is the only way the SC can rule is if there is a case before them that pertains, so unless the Bundy's appeal one of the rulings associated with the grazing rights past where they've stalled in the appeals courts (and the SC accepts the case), that isn't really something that can happen.

That's why I'm trying to parse out what is still active, and what isn't.

 

[D Chapman]

But now, I assume, that you are saying if Bundy wins this trial - WHICH IS ABOUT THREATENING/ASSAULTING FEDERAL AGENTS, not about grazing rights - that somehow, somehow, that is going to prove that the Feds don't own the land - WHICH WAS THE FIRST DAMN CASE. not this one.

The case about who owns the land is over and done with. Bundy lost. This on going case is about threatening federal agents. Nothing more, nothing less (See the indictment).

This is where you start losing your shit. It's lost in trying to explain it to you.

 

[D Chapman]

My understanding is the only way the SC can rule is if there is a case before them that pertains, so unless the Bundy's appeal one of the rulings associated with the grazing rights past where they've stalled in the appeals courts (and the SC accepts the case), that isn't really something that can happen.

That's why I'm trying to parse out what is still active, and what isn't.

That has been covered already. Pages ago.

 

[D Chapman]

And again Daniel - I've never made personal attacks against you. I have no idea what you have done or haven't, what you've achieved or haven't. From what I've seen, you have done well for yourself. Try not to take things so personally. Try to be a gentleman - or at the very least - try and talk as if your a friend.

Why do you keep editing your posts?

 

[emmodg]

Why do you keep editing your posts?

What the fuck are you talking about Daniel? I didn't edit that post or the one before that or the one before that. For the life of me - Why can't you just tell people what it is about these fools that interests you? Are you having a bad day or something? I'm sorry if you are - that kinda shit sucks but damn dude...

 

[SGaynor]

My understanding is the only way the SC can rule is if there is a case before them that pertains, so unless the Bundy's appeal one of the rulings associated with the grazing rights past where they've stalled in the appeals courts (and the SC accepts the case), that isn't really something that can happen.

That's why I'm trying to parse out what is still active, and what isn't.

Ray - I'm going to provide you the direct links to the court rulings (the whole list can be found here)

The Bundys have lost every appeal on their claims to grazing rights. Way back in 1999. Then reaffirmed in 2013:

Bundy principally opposes the United States? motion for summary judgment on the
ground that this court lacks jurisdiction because the United States does not own the public
lands in question. As this court previously ruled in United States v. Bundy, Case No. CV-S-
98-531-JBR (RJJ) (D. Nev. Nov. 4, 1998), ?the public lands in Nevada are the property of the
United States because the United States has held title to those public lands since 1848, when
Mexico ceded the land to the United States.? CV-S-98-531 at 8 (citing United States v. Gardner,
107 F.3d 1314, 1318 (9th Cir. 1997)). Moreover, Bundy is incorrect in claiming that the
Disclaimer Clause of the Nevada Constitution carries no legal force,

The current case is about assault:

Cliven Bundy's charges:
Count One: Conspiracy to commit and offense against the US
Count Two: Assault on a Federal Officer by use of dangerous and deadly weapon
Counts Three and Five: Use and carry of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence
Count Four: Interference of commerce by extortion
Count Six: Obstruction of the administration of Justice

Don't see anything in there about grazing rights. Or who owns the land.

Of course the Bundy's (and their supporters - Dan) want to make it about land rights - that the Bundy's were the rightful owners of the ability to graze, not the federal government, so therefore, the Bundy's were just standing up for themselves and defending their rights from those big bad bully feds.

Which is why the cases keep getting conflated. And why people like Dan scream bloody murder when the judge says the defendants can't talk about their "state of mind" when confronting the police.

 

[1920SF]

That has been covered already. Pages ago.

Right, so at present there is no vehicle for this to get in front of SCOTUS to determine land ownership. Without a case it will never get there.

 

[D Chapman]

What the fuck are you talking about Daniel? I didn't edit that post or the one before that or the one before that. For the life of me - Why can't you just tell people what it is about these fools that interests you? Are you having a bad day or something? I'm sorry if you are - that kinda shit sucks but damn dude...

When I reloaded the page your last 2 posts ran together making it look like 1 post.

I?m having a bad day? I?m sitting in the sunshine on a 70* November day looking at the mountains doing a little reading between reading these dweb liberal posts. Not a bad day at all. Not for me at least.

 

[D Chapman]

Right, so at present there is no vehicle for this to get in front of SCOTUS to determine land ownership. Without a case it will never get there.

They?re trying to reopen the stalled case. Probably will not move forward for another 3 months.

 

[D Chapman]

Of course the Bundy's (and their supporters - Dan) want to make it about land rights - that the Bundy's were the rightful owners of the ability to graze, not the federal government, so therefore, the Bundy's were just standing up for themselves and defending their rights from those big bad bully feds.

Which is why the cases keep getting conflated. And why people like Dan scream bloody murder when the judge says the defendants can't talk about their "state of mind" when confronting the police.

For a case that has nothing to do with land rights, there sure is a lot of talk about land rights in the court room the last 2 weeks.

 

[SGaynor]

They?re trying to reopen the stalled case. Probably will not move forward for another 3 months.

Reopen an 18 year old case? Good luck with that one.

 

[D Chapman]

Reopen an 18 year old case? Good luck with that one.

Like I said, the government has been hiding a lot that has now been discovered.