Gov. & Cattle
You can't have one
without the
ooooother
http://news.yahoo.com/u-agency-ends-...6278.html?vp=1
Millionaire rancher stops paying required fees for grazing trespassing moocows on what is technically public land, is supported by militiamen who force the BLM to continue the conflict in court at greater expense to taxpayers who are already owed a million or so for the upkeep of the land in question. Tsk tsk tsk
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
*shrugs* Flash mob gets in the way of law enforcement. It happens. The government will collect the money owed and the expenses incurred, just in a different venue. Them being armed is certainly a cause for alarm locally, and heightens the need to make sure things de-escalate but the change in approach would have been called for regardless.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Goddamn moochers, living on the expense of the state
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
While I'm generally disappointed the Feds aren't standing their ground and hope they collect the money otherwise, this seems to be somewhat specific issue where locals contest that the Federal government even owns this land.
Naturally, Federal judges disagree. And, naturally, the locals don't accept the jurisdiction of the Federal judges.
There's nothing "natural" about this situation, Dread. Other cattle ranchers recognize federal jurisdiction, the Bureau of Land Management, and pay their taxes/fees. If they have a dispute, and lose their challenge in court, they don't usually ignore rulings for decades. When an enforcement agency comes....other cattle ranchers don't put militiamen in sniper positions, or position women and children in front so when teh evil gummint feds come, they'll be on camera shooting women and children.Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
No, there's nothing "natural" here. Even the media coverage is unusual. Fox News has been covering this under "Alert" banners, with Hannity et al 'reporting' this as conservatives asserting their Freeeedom.
Are the locals paying for the upkeep of said land?
This "family ranch" was violating federal and state laws. They'd been grazing cattle on "public" land for decades, without paying their domestic dues (taxes) at state or national levels.
We could treat them like any other bad international actor -- and freeze their domestic bank assets, and transaction abilities. Right?
thats what the court would allow.
until then the cattle were being rounded up much like animal services would round up stray dogs and cats that wonder a neighborhood. Which is basically what this farmer was doing.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
They weren't just letting stray/feral/wild animals roam public lands....they were using commodity animals and public land for their own profits.
It was not terribly different from a logging protest. Different segment of society and I'll readily grant the availability of guns is a cause for concern but really, there was nothing going on here that you don't see with the more common types of activism, just a different set of players. I understand why conservative activism, particularly on an anti-tax platform, is offensive and even scary to you considering your own politics but that doesn't justify hypocrisy. This was a sit-in. That's all it was.
Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 04-17-2014 at 04:56 PM.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Logging protests on federal land are usually against the company cutting timber, and/or the federal agency that gave them permits/licenses to cut the timber. They don't show up with armed militiamen who make overt threats. It would only be similar to a logging sit-in if Bundy et al had chained themselves to the cattle, and refused to move.
Bundy doesn't acknowledge the legitimacy of the federal government, or the BLM. He says that land "belongs" to his family because they've been grazing cattle there for years, and he doesn't recognize modern legal title or property lines. He was found liable for unpaid grazing fees in law suits....but refused to acknowledge the validity of the court, let alone their verdict.
I'm not scared or offended by conservative anti-tax activism
It would only be identical to an anti-logging sit-in like that. As it is, it's still similar and remains in the category for sit-ins, sit-down strikes, etc. Denial of access activist protest.
No he doesn't. He says it belongs to the county and has, in fact, tried to pay the owed taxes to the county. The county refused it because the Feds claim the land ownership of the grazing rights.Bundy doesn't acknowledge the legitimacy of the federal government, or the BLM. He says that land "belongs" to his family
It's definitely not vigilantism because that's about taking the execution of the law into one's own hand which is not what's going on here. I'm perfectly willing to consider it radical extremism but you might wish to consider that union-organizing, anti-war protests, and the entire 60s-70s left-wing activist movement were also considered radical and extremist when they started. Radical is, in fact, synonymous with the protest movements of the 60s-70s.I'm not scared or offended by conservative anti-tax activism
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
It's a different beast when protesters are armed, put women and children on the front lines, and goad authorities.
A distinction without a difference. Federal laws trump local/county/state laws. He may not like the laws, but he can't use that as an excuse to ignore or defy them. Perhaps you should hit up youtube to see Bundy denouncing teh evils of the federal gummint.No he doesn't. He says it belongs to the county and has, in fact, tried to pay the owed taxes to the county. The county refused it because the Feds claim the land ownership of the grazing rights.
He is directly violating court verdicts. He has thumbed his nose at legislative and judicial branches of government. He wants to "do his own thing" regardless of laws. Vigilantism became part of the equation when he used armed militiamen to threaten federal agents. Historically, any time activists used arms, whether bombs or guns or incendiary devices.....it was treated as "domestic terrorism". Why should this incident be any different?It's definitely not vigilantism because that's about taking the execution of the law into one's own hand which is not what's going on here. I'm perfectly willing to consider it radical extremism but you might wish to consider that union-organizing, anti-war protests, and the entire 60s-70s left-wing activist movement were also considered radical and extremist when they started. Radical is, in fact, synonymous with the protest movements of the 60s-70s.
The guns are unusual. Neither of the others is.
A distinction with a very real difference. He's wrong, but what you said still wasn't true, on a meaningful level. He has not disputed that money is owed and has in fact professed willingness to pay the government. Just not the correct one.A distinction without a difference.
As I said above, and in my first post in the thread, he's wrong, and he's going to lose. That's not what this discussion today has been about though.Federal laws trump local/county/state laws. He may not like the laws, but he can't use that as an excuse to ignore or defy them.
And this has what bearing on anything I've said?He is directly violating court verdicts.
No it did not. He has made no effort to enforce the law (or his vision of it) on anyone else. You are once again inventing meanings for words which they do not possess.Vigilantism became part of the equation when he used armed militiamen to threaten federal agents.
Nonsense. The idea of domestic terrorism and that sort of application of it is a fairly recent thing, historically. More importantly, there has been no violence. No crimes have been committed. Nothing has happened so far beyond an activist "denial" protest. You can go on until you're blue in the face but that's all that has happened.Historically, any time activists used arms, whether bombs or guns or incendiary devices.....it was treated as "domestic terrorism". Why should this incident be any different?
By the by, you didn't call any of the protest movements in the Middle East domestic terrorism, and those have involved quite a few guns, even active warfare in some cases. Makes a difference when it's your own proverbial back-yard, doesn't it? Not as fond of social media when it enables and strengthens things like this, hmm?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
A sit-in by men with guns who were threatening to use those guns if they were challenged.
Hope is the denial of reality
I don't really have a dog in this particular fight, nor have I been following too closely, but doesn't it strike anyone else that this was an escalation of the governments making? It seems like it was done in such a way to force what would otherwise be a fairly mundane process into something far more dangerous and confrontational. Put a lien on his property and/or a court order to garnish his wages/bank accounts - don't show up with a small army that will in all likelihood ultimately cost the tax payers far in excess of what was due.
That someone might be armed, that they might use a weapon if they are armed, is always a consideration. This just happened to be a situation where it was a known factor rather than a possible one. And I said the firearms at hand were a cause for concern but it did not change the event into something else.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Yeah, enforcing the law is a major escalation.
Hope is the denial of reality
Enforcing the law with armored vehicles, helicopters, SWAT teams and snipers does seem like an escalation to me, yes. Liens and garnishments aren't nearly as impressive a show of force, or as fun for the BLM boys I'm sure, but they would probably be more effective. Unless, of course, you expect that all BLM enforcements are handled this way.
I know it's wishful thinking, but I would expect the government to be the grownup in these situations.
the OP article doesn't go into this, do you have a link of the timeline that shows this much force being used to round up cattle before this farmer and his armed supporters started pushing back?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Ignoring the part about just how long the person in question has been ignoring the law. How exactly do you enforce compliance if the person refuses to recognize the jurisdiction of the courts?
Hope is the denial of reality
You realize of course that liens and garnishments don't require the impacted person to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the courts, right? They also wouldn't require a platoon of armed federal agents and a cattle roundup that likely exceeds the cost of the withheld taxes.
Except they explicitly threatened to use those weapons. That in itself is a crime. People get jailed for "terroristic threats" for less.
Hope is the denial of reality
And how do you seize anything with those liens?
Hope is the denial of reality
Liens aren't for seizing Loki, they would prevent the sale of the property until the debt has been discharged. Any seizures would require a court ordered garnishment from my understanding, but IANAL. Either seems preferable to me to the BLM's chosen course.
But the guy has no intention of selling anything...
You mean not enforcing the law is preferable to enforcing it? Right.
Hope is the denial of reality
Are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you not recognize that there are two different components here. The first would be the lien, and the second would be a garnishment.The lien would prevent him from selling his property and walking away, the garnishment would freeze his financial assets until he was able to pay. Again, neither requires the expense, risk, or force that the BLM has used in this matter.
But he doesn't intend to sell.
Hope is the denial of reality
So what you are contending is that he isn't trying to sell his cattle, and that his ranching is something he is doing for what? Fun? Sport? Altruism, maybe?But he doesn't intend to sell.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote