Gov. & Cattle

[Aimless]

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

[LittleFuzzy]

*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.

[Flixy]

Goddamn moochers, living on the expense of the state

[Dreadnaught]

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.

[RandBlade]

Are the locals paying for the upkeep of said land?

[GGT]

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?

[Ominous Gamer]

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.

[GGT]

They weren't just letting stray/feral/wild animals roam public lands....they were using commodity animals and public land for their own profits.

[GGT]

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.

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.

[LittleFuzzy]

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.

[Loki]

A sit-in by men with guns who were threatening to use those guns if they were challenged.

[Enoch the Red]

A sit-in by men with guns who were threatening to use those guns if they were challenged.

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.

[Loki]

Yeah, enforcing the law is a major escalation.

[Enoch the Red]

Yeah, enforcing the law is a major escalation.

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.

[Ominous Gamer]

Enforcing the law with armored vehicles, helicopters, SWAT teams and snipers does seem like an escalation to me

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?

[Loki]

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.

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?

[LittleFuzzy]

A sit-in by men with guns who were threatening to use those guns if they were challenged.

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.

[Loki]

Except they explicitly threatened to use those weapons. That in itself is a crime. People get jailed for "terroristic threats" for less.

[Enoch the Red]

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?

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.

[Loki]

And how do you seize anything with those liens?

[Enoch the Red]

And how do you seize anything with those liens?

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.

[Loki]

But the guy has no intention of selling anything...

You mean not enforcing the law is preferable to enforcing it? Right.

[Enoch the Red]

But the guy has no intention of selling anything...

You mean not enforcing the law is preferable to enforcing it? Right.

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.

[Aimless]

http://benswann.com/exclusive-does-c...oing-to-court/

[Loki]

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.

[Enoch the Red]

But he doesn't intend to sell.

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?

[Loki]

Let's say there's a lien on his cattle. One of his supporters tries to buy his cattle anyway. Please tell me how the government stops this operation.

[Enoch the Red]

Let's say there's a lien on his cattle. One of his supporters tries to buy his cattle anyway. Please tell me how the government stops this operation.

Well if someone is going to only make small, under the table, cash sales without reporting the income, it probably wouldn't do much - other than arouse the suspicions of the IRS. However, that is also not usually an economic model for functioning profitably as large ranchers. Furthermore, by handling this in the manner the BLM chose to, they have given the man a soap box and supporters willing to do just what you suggest that he otherwise probably would not have had.

[Loki]

I wonder if you'd be making the same point if the law breaker in question didn't have similar ideological predispositions as yourself. The guy is blatantly breaking the law. He effectively stole millions of dollars from the government. He's threatening the use of force against the government. The government is not only justified but is obligated to use any means at its disposal to apprehend the guy. Otherwise, why even bother having courts and the rule of law?

[LittleFuzzy]

And here we have the Loki in its natural habitat, puffing up to appear bigger and more threatening in the face of challenges.

Breaking the law Loki? Apprehending? The guy isn't paying one of his taxes. That's not theft. It's not a criminal offense at all. No one is seeking to "apprehend" him because non-payment isn't something you can be arrested for. It's a pure civil matter. And just to point out that making your hair stand on end does not in fact make you larger, the back-taxes are ~200,000 dollars. You're off by at least an order of magnitude. As so many others have told you before, get a grip. Histrionics don't contribute to the discussion when it's one of your usual opponents on here and they don't contribute when it's you either.