Gov. & Cattle

[Aimless]

Is trespassing a criminal offense?

[Loki]

Yeah, it's not like refusing to pay taxes is a felony or anything...

[Aimless]

Taxes are just the tip of the iceberg He's refused to pay grazing fees and refused to pay fines. He's violated numerous court orders. His cattle were trespassing. They should have sold off the cattle they'd already rounded up, instead of giving them back.

[Loki]

I'm really struggling to understand the rationale of Fuzzy et al. here. Here's a man who has made a mockery of the judicial system, consistently ignoring the wishes of the courts. Time after time, the courts have attempted to get the guy to follow the law. He ignored each of those attempts. Most recently, he has explicitly threatened to use force against the US government. That in itself is a felony. Why the hell should the government allow these actions to stand or ignore its own laws in order to resolve this situation in a way that is acceptable to this criminal?

[Veldan Rath]

Politics perhaps. Election coming up and don't want this front and center?

[LittleFuzzy]

Is trespassing a criminal offense?

A person trespassing may be committing a misdemeanor (possibly a felony in some rare cases involving heightened restrictions, i.e. military bases and such). Cattle "trespassing" are not because animals have no criminal liability. If an animal's owner is not maintaining proper stewardship their property rights might be considered forfeit but that's not a criminal matter.

Yeah, it's not like refusing to pay taxes is a felony or anything...

Nope, it's not. Evading taxation is a felony but tax evasion is about misreporting, hiding funds, and other forms of fraud. Non-payment is not a felony. Bundy is disputing taxes, not evading them. It is a civil-law issue, not a criminal-law issue.

I'm really struggling to understand the rationale of Fuzzy et al. here. Here's a man who has made a mockery of the judicial system, consistently ignoring the wishes of the courts. Time after time, the courts have attempted to get the guy to follow the law. He ignored each of those attempts. Most recently, he has explicitly threatened to use force against the US government. That in itself is a felony. Why the hell should the government allow these actions to stand or ignore its own laws in order to resolve this situation in a way that is acceptable to this criminal?

Minx's article suggests otherwise, actually. That he's actually on the right side of a particular brand of civil "statute of limitations." And no, threats are not a felony either, against people or against the government. It would have to fall afoul of the modifications of Schenk's "clear and present danger" rule as presented in Brandenburg v Ohio's "imminent lawless action" standard and that standard's clarification five years later in Hess v Indiana. It is, in fact, practically a textbook example of what Hess declared to be insufficient to override the protections on free speech.

[Loki]

Nope, it's not. Evading taxation is a felony but tax evasion is about misreporting, hiding funds, and other forms of fraud. Non-payment is not a felony. Bundy is disputing taxes, not evading them. It is a civil-law issue, not a criminal-law issue.

You don't dispute taxes by doing nothing. You dispute them by going through the courts. Has he done that? Last I checked, ignoring courts orders gets one jailed. There was just a story in the NY Times about hospital patients being arrested for not paying court-mandated funds. How is Bundy better than those people?

Minx's article suggests otherwise, actually. That he's actually on the right side of a particular brand of civil "statute of limitations." And no, threats are not a felony either, against people or against the government. It would have to fall afoul of the modifications of Schenk's "clear and present danger" rule as presented in Brandenburg v Ohio's "imminent lawless action" standard and that standard's clarification five years later in Hess v Indiana. It is, in fact, practically a textbook example of what Hess declared to be insufficient to override the protections on free speech.

You know how you prove that law is on your side? By going through the courts. If you refuse to take part in the legal process, then you're wrong by default.

Except Bundy made clear threats. Please tell me which part of the terroristic threat definition he does not meet. I can certainly find examples of people getting arrested for less.

[GGT]

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.

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 but that's not what this is. Unless you think it's a conservative principle to selectively ignore laws, then use a posse of armed militiamen (who want to make some anti-gummint point about "sovereign individuals") pointing guns at federal agents. That's not conservatism, that's vigilantism...and radical extremism.

[LittleFuzzy]

You don't dispute taxes by doing nothing. You dispute them by going through the courts. Has he done that? Last I checked, ignoring courts orders gets one jailed. There was just a story in the NY Times about hospital patients being arrested for not paying court-mandated funds. How is Bundy better than those people?

Then either the NYT is reporting poorly or you misunderstood it. You can get held in contempt for ignoring a court order but that's not criminal. There is no charge, no criminal statute being violated. Contempt is a one of the rare examples of actual judicial power and I'll grant that it's hard to fit into the framework but being detained for contempt is no more a working of the criminal system than being detained as a PoW.

You know how you prove that law is on your side? By going through the courts. If you refuse to take part in the legal process, then you're wrong by default.

Then apparently the US government is wrong, by default according to your declaration, because they're not doing that. They did it a while ago but did not follow through and now are apparently avoiding it to keep from getting the whole thing dismissed on procedural grounds.

Except Bundy made clear threats. Please tell me which part of the terroristic threat definition he does not meet. I can certainly find examples of people getting arrested for less.

Go read the rulings. Threats of violence at some point in the future, determinant on conditions which have not come to pass, were held to not be incitement of "imminent lawless action" and as such did not present a clear and present danger. Since they do not present a clear and present danger they are protected speech and any attempt to criminalize them is unconstitutional. I'm sure you can find examples of people getting arrested for less. One can find loads and loads of unlawful arrests, and there have certainly been plenty of "lawful" arrests that were nonetheless unconstitutional. Loki, your constant attempts to substitute your logic chains for actual jurisprudence is tiresome. It may fly in your classrooms because there are no standards there but that doesn't excuse your regular ignorance of the actual legal and constitutional material which applies.

[LittleFuzzy]

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.

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.

Bundy doesn't acknowledge the legitimacy of the federal government, or the BLM. He says that land "belongs" to his family

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.

I'm not scared or offended by conservative anti-tax activism but that's not what this is. Unless you think it's a conservative principle to selectively ignore laws, then use a posse of armed militiamen (who want to make some anti-gummint point about "sovereign individuals") pointing guns at federal agents. That's not conservatism, that's vigilantism...and radical extremism.

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.

[GGT]

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.

It's a different beast when protesters are armed, put women and children on the front lines, and goad authorities.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[LittleFuzzy]

It's a different beast when protesters are armed, put women and children on the front lines, and goad authorities.

The guns are unusual. Neither of the others is.

A distinction without a difference.

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.

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.

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.

He is directly violating court verdicts.

And this has what bearing on anything I've said?

Vigilantism became part of the equation when he used armed militiamen to threaten federal agents.

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.

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?

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.

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?

[GGT]

WTF? I can't figure out what you're trying to say, Fuzzy. Are you comparing Bundy's anti-government stance with the Arab Spring in the middle east?

Are you saying Bundy is legally wrong, but only in a narrow context...and extraneous players he elicited on his behalf aren't legally complicit? How does that work? Ignorance of law is not a legitimate excuse for breaking law. Denying law isn't a legitimate reason, either.

[Veldan Rath]

What laws did the protesters break?

[LittleFuzzy]

WTF? I can't figure out what you're trying to say, Fuzzy. Are you comparing Bundy's anti-government stance with the Arab Spring in the middle east?

Are you saying Bundy is legally wrong, but only in a narrow context...and extraneous players he elicited on his behalf aren't legally complicit? How does that work? Ignorance of law is not a legitimate excuse for breaking law. Denying law isn't a legitimate reason, either.

No, I'm saying you're lying to yourself and us and this is about your fear of domestic conservative activism.

Bundy was wrong not to pay back in the day and his assertions that the land belongs to the country and not the Feds are completely groundless. There's a good chance that he's in the legal right now though (for the non-payment) because of a period of federal inaction in the matter after an early set of rulings in their favor. And no, any extraneous protesters that got involved on his behalf have no liability for his actions and since none of them have broken any laws they have generated no liability against themselves or against him as an inciter. Ignorance of the law is not a legitimate excuse for breaking the law (though do note, ignorance of the consequences of one's actions can be. With no mens rea, no intent for an action which happens to break the law, can mitigate or obviate the offense). Ignorance of the law is also not an excuse for charging or convicting someone who hasn't broken the law, which is what you're trying to insist on. All that happened was that they sat around on a ranch. There were no altercatons, no forcible resistance. The government didn't want to risk any escalation so it opted not to force things to a point where violence (which would have been criminal) might have occurred. Note that the Occupy movement was engaged in illegal activity, they were illegally on public property and trespassing on private property and for the most part the government did nothing because, again, it did not want things to escalate into violence and forcible resistance. Here they were on private land to which they'd been invited and welcomed.

No criminal law has been broken. There has been no criminalized speech and non-payment is not a crime. It's a civil offense and the legal response lies in seizing assets, not arrest.

[Aimless]

To be fair, people in Syria were probably being oppressed a little more severely than Bundy is.

[GGT]

No, I'm saying you're lying to yourself and us and this is about your fear of domestic conservative activism.

Bullshit. The only people "lying" are those who don't recognize this as domestic criminality, or make excuses for law-breakers like Bundy and try to call it Patriotism.

Bundy was wrong not to pay back in the day and his assertions that the land belongs to the country and not the Feds are completely groundless. There's a good chance that he's in the legal right now though (for the non-payment) because of a period of federal inaction in the matter after an early set of rulings in their favor. And no, any extraneous protesters that got involved on his behalf have no liability for his actions and since none of them have broken any laws they have generated no liability against themselves or against him as an inciter. Ignorance of the law is not a legitimate excuse for breaking the law (though do note, ignorance of the consequences of one's actions can be. With no mens rea, no intent for an action which happens to break the law, can mitigate or obviate the offense). Ignorance of the law is also not an excuse for charging or convicting someone who hasn't broken the law, which is what you're trying to insist on. All that happened was that they sat around on a ranch. There were no altercatons, no forcible resistance. The government didn't want to risk any escalation so it opted not to force things to a point where violence (which would have been criminal) might have occurred. Note that the Occupy movement was engaged in illegal activity, they were illegally on public property and trespassing on private property and for the most part the government did nothing because, again, it did not want things to escalate into violence and forcible resistance. Here they were on private land to which they'd been invited and welcomed.

Bundy can't claim "ignorance of the law" after more than one law suit and due process took its course (which is often a long, drawn-out process that favors the defendant). You're just wrong, Fuzzy. Bundy was grazing cattle on federal land without proper permits/fees. Militiamen were on public land (roads and bridge overpasses) with guns aimed at federal agents.

No criminal law has been broken. There has been no criminalized speech and non-payment is not a crime. It's a civil offense and the legal response lies in seizing assets, not arrest.

BLM was trying to seize those "assets" (the cattle) in accordance with court orders! There were 'altercations and forcible resistance' from the Bundy family and their "invited" *armed* activists which led to *one* person being tased. BLM agents were trying to protect themselves without using deadly force (something many local police don't do), and backed down in order to de-escalate the situation.

FFS, even private repo-men trying to legally seize assets (like cars or boats) have legal authority to protect themselves against physical violence from the asset 'holder' violating court orders. BLM agents are no exception to that rule.

If you're comparing this with the Occupy protests, at least be consistent. Hundreds of Occupy people were hauled to jail in handcuffs, went through the judicial process, paid fines/fees, and got new 'criminal' records for civil violations. If they were armed, or openly goading enforcement agents (police) with imminent physical danger/death, they faced criminal charges.

How many of the armed militiamen posted on over-passes have been charged accordingly? As far as I know, none.

[LittleFuzzy]

Bullshit. The only people "lying" are those who don't recognize this as domestic criminality, or make excuses for law-breakers like Bundy and try to call it Patriotism.




Bundy can't claim "ignorance of the law" after more than one law suit and due process took its course (which is often a long, drawn-out process that favors the defendant). You're just wrong, Fuzzy. Bundy was grazing cattle on federal land without proper permits/fees. Militiamen were on public land (roads and bridge overpasses) with guns aimed at federal agents.

Bundy's refusal to pay is not criminal. It does not violate any such statute or general principle. It is a matter of civil law, not criminal law. Your allegation that the protestors who joined him are tresspassing is a new claim that I haven't seen anywhere else and I'm going to need you to actually cite any claim of criminal conduct on their part because your "perception" of things is no kind of source and has been repeatedly shown on here to be almost invariably wrong, certainly with respect to anything pertaining to criminal law.

BLM was trying to seize those "assets" (the cattle) in accordance with court orders!

BLM seized 300 cattle and wanted to seize more. They ended up releasing the 300 they did manage to grab. And they weren't seizing them as assets. They were trying to seize them as animals that frequently weren't where they should be and whose owner refused to keep them under control.

There were 'altercations and forcible resistance' from the Bundy family and their "invited" *armed* activists which led to *one* person being tased. BLM agents were trying to protect themselves without using deadly force (something many local police don't do), and backed down in order to de-escalate the situation.

I have no seen any altercation that the BLM agents didn't instigate. Nor have I seen any cited except here by you, lacking any source and with your aforementioned "perception." Including the incident where a dog was loosed onto someone in Bundy's family and then the guy got tazed while trying to fend off the dog.

If you're comparing this with the Occupy protests, at least be consistent. Hundreds of Occupy people were hauled to jail in handcuffs, went through the judicial process, paid fines/fees, and got new 'criminal' records for civil violations.

Yep, a number of people did. And you vehemently objected to that and repeatedly declared it unlawful and ranted about how awful it was for police to move against them that way. Not because it was but because you agreed with what they were protesting. Most of the Occupy sit-down was illegal but, like most mass events, it wasn't worthwhile to take action against it.

[GGT]

Bundy's refusal to pay is not criminal. It does not violate any such statute or general principle. It is a matter of civil law, not criminal law. Your allegation that the protestors who joined him are tresspassing is a new claim that I haven't seen anywhere else and I'm going to need you to actually cite any claim of criminal conduct on their part because your "perception" of things is no kind of source and has been repeatedly shown on here to be almost invariably wrong, certainly with respect to anything pertaining to criminal law.

Bundy's refusal to comply with court orders IS a criminal offense. Everything else is moot. You need to take a look at youtube -- and see the video documentation of armed militiamen making threats against federal agents. That type of activity, conducted by an Arab or Muslim, would be considered "domestic terrorism" by those white, male, 'Christian' activist toting guns.

Yep, a number of people did. And you vehemently objected to that and repeatedly declared it unlawful and ranted about how awful it was for police to move against them that way. Not because it was but because you agreed with what they were protesting. Most of the Occupy sit-down was illegal but, like most mass events, it wasn't worthwhile to take action against it.

If they had legal permits for their public protests, yes--I thought it was heavy handed to arrest them. If they had permission from the private land owners to congregate and 'occupy' over an extended period, yes--it was awful for police to arrest them anyway. The Occupy protestors even tried to organize waste disposal and sanitary toilets so they wouldn't be impacting public services negatively.

Bad comparison, and you know it.

[LittleFuzzy]

Bundy's refusal to comply with court orders IS a criminal offense. Everything else is moot. You need to take a look at youtube -- and see the video documentation of armed militiamen making threats against federal agents. That type of activity, conducted by an Arab or Muslim, would be considered "domestic terrorism" by those white, male, 'Christian' activist toting guns.

Refusing to comply with a court order is not criminal*. It's contempt. Contempt and criminality are two very different things. Repeating yourself won't make you any less wrong.

And it doesn't matter if those militia would look at an Arab or Muslim acting the same way as domestic terrorism (and thank you, by the way, for demonstrating your own completely ignorant prejudice and bigotry. You just provided ample support for my assertion that what's going on here is your own fear of conservative activism) because their opinions don't determine what constitutes a valid criminal charge, anymore than your own does.

If they had legal permits for their public protests, yes--I thought it was heavy handed to arrest them. If they had permission from the private land owners to congregate and 'occupy' over an extended period, yes--it was awful for police to arrest them anyway. The Occupy protestors even tried to organize waste disposal and sanitary toilets so they wouldn't be impacting public services negatively.

Very few of the Occupy protests on public land had legal permits to be there. None of the extended ones did. The owners of Zucotti certainly wanted the protesters out, they began complaining very quickly about how the protesters there for Occupy Wall Street were refusing to cooperate with them to try and maintain the land or follow the park's rules, including keeping it clean and sanitary. Their New Year's Eve altercation with police, trying to force their way into the park after they were kicked out, is a demonstration of what can actually get you arrested. Nothing like that happened in Nevada. Maybe it would have if the protestors didn't have guns but I don't see how things not escalating that far is something we should be upset about.

GGT, you want to back something up, don't tell me to "go look for yourself." I, like others, watched your clothes-washing thread. I saw everyone involved entreating with you to provide one single source to back up your position. We all know that you won't, that you can't, and that you think if you just say it often enough it'll get you off the hook.

*Most of the time. There are some violations or types of orders where it can be a crime. If a criminal court issues a restraining order, for instance, willfully violating the terms of it can be cause for criminal charges. Non-payment of taxes or similar fees, even when ordered to do so by a court, is not dealt with as a criminal matter. It is dealt with by civil seizure.

[GGT]

Refusing to comply with a court order is not criminal*. It's contempt. Contempt and criminality are two very different things. Repeating yourself won't make you any less wrong.
*Most of the time. There are some violations or types of orders where it can be a crime. If a criminal court issues a restraining order, for instance, willfully violating the terms of it can be cause for criminal charges. Non-payment of taxes or similar fees, even when ordered to do so by a court, is not dealt with as a criminal matter. It is dealt with by civil seizure.

Violating federal laws and contempt of court *can* lead to criminal charges. Just ask those logging protesters you mentioned earlier. We're not talking about what Bundy does on his own ranch -- he can invite any gun-toting group of activists he wants to his private property, even put the local sheriff on the dais and demand he arrest and disarm those illegal federal BLM agents.

But that doesn't negate the fact that he was grazing cattle on federal land illegally, and BLM was in the process of seizing the cattle legally. That doesn't mean those protesters can use public roads to obstruct law enforcement....especially not using long guns and sniper scopes to threaten them.

And it doesn't matter if those militia would look at an Arab or Muslim acting the same way as domestic terrorism (and thank you, by the way, for demonstrating your own completely ignorant prejudice and bigotry. You just provided ample support for my assertion that what's going on here is your own fear of conservative activism) because their opinions don't determine what constitutes a valid criminal charge, anymore than your own does.

You missed the point: no other group of protesters, especially not minority and/or fringe groups, would be called "patriots" for organizing a stand-off with law enforcement using guns and making open threats. None. If this had been a left-wing uber environmental group protesting that BLM had not been enforcing land management regulations, was heavily armed with guns and threatened federal agents....the narrative would be entirely different.

That's not how grievances are made in a nation of laws. If you don't like a particular law, even a federal law, the challenge is made in court using the judicial system. Bundy lost, and he lost his appeal, too! His "rationale" is that the federal government has no jurisdiction, and he doesn't recognize BLM as a legal authority. Now there are Nevada elected officials singing the same tune -- in some twisted attempt to make a political point about teh evil, tyrannical, federal gummint.

Very few of the Occupy protests on public land had legal permits to be there. None of the extended ones did. The owners of Zucotti certainly wanted the protesters out, they began complaining very quickly about how the protesters there for Occupy Wall Street were refusing to cooperate with them to try and maintain the land or follow the park's rules, including keeping it clean and sanitary. Their New Year's Eve altercation with police, trying to force their way into the park after they were kicked out, is a demonstration of what can actually get you arrested. Nothing like that happened in Nevada. Maybe it would have if the protestors didn't have guns but I don't see how things not escalating that far is something we should be upset about.

Again, you're missing some important distinctions. The Occupy movements were public protests to petition the government -- to pay attention to banks/financial institutions that crashed the economy, and entailed some illegal activity. Remember the "Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Jail"? People weren't satisfied with deals and multiple billion dollar fines. This is the opposite: armed people demanding they have some "right" to ignore the government and violate federal law.

GGT, you want to back something up, don't tell me to "go look for yourself." I, like others, watched your clothes-washing thread. I saw everyone involved entreating with you to provide one single source to back up your position. We all know that you won't, that you can't, and that you think if you just say it often enough it'll get you off the hook.

Thread bleed, really? Have fun.

http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...y=Cliven+Bundy

http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...evada+protests

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nevada+BLM


http://www.bing.com/search?q=nevada+...96365030678d34

http://www.google.com/#q=nevada+protests+BLM

[LittleFuzzy]

Violating federal laws and contempt of court *can* lead to criminal charges.

Contempt of court does not lead to criminal charges. I know contempt is an odd duck but that doesn't mean you can make things up about it. And violating federal criminal statutes can lead to criminal charges sure. Non-payment doesn't violate criminal statutes. Tax fraud, commonly and misleading referred to as "tax evasion" can but there is no fraud here, just him disputing it and refusing to pay. Non-fraudulent tax resistance is a civil matter and is dealt with in a different way than a criminal offense like tax fraud would be.

Just ask those logging protesters you mentioned earlier. We're not talking about what Bundy does on his own ranch -- he can invite any gun-toting group of activists he wants to his private property, even put the local sheriff on the dais and demand he arrest and disarm those illegal federal BLM agents.

But that doesn't negate the fact that he was grazing cattle on federal land illegally, and BLM was in the process of seizing the cattle legally.

Legal government actions (and legal private actions) prompt all kinds of civil disobedience which, by its very nature, is intended to disrupt or otherwise get in the way. Doesn't make civil disobedience a criminal matter and doesn't mean these guys ran afoul of any criminal statutes. In fact, the implication of there not being any police action taken against them, there or now when things are calming, is that they didn't. And you have dismally failed to provide any evidence, much less proof, to the contrary.

You missed the point: no other group of protesters, especially not minority and/or fringe groups, would be called "patriots" for organizing a stand-off with law enforcement using guns and making open threats.

Actually, you yourself have done so. Just only when it's all safely overseas. And plenty of people have called violent radicals in the US patriots. In fact, the US was founded on far more violent resistance, both the revolution from British rule and ten years later the restructuring of the government when the government operating under the Articles of Confederation proved so dismal in the face of events like Shay's Rebellion. The relevance of the point is unclear to me regardless. Any hypocrisy they show has no bearing on your own rampant prejudiced-based inconsistencies.

That's not how grievances are made in a nation of laws. If you don't like a particular law, even a federal law, the challenge is made in court using the judicial system. Bundy lost, and he lost his appeal, too! His "rationale" is that the federal government has no jurisdiction, and he doesn't recognize BLM as a legal authority. Now there are Nevada elected officials singing the same tune -- in some twisted attempt to make a political point about teh evil, tyrannical, federal gummint.

Civil disobedience? Sure it is. It's not necessarily good way and the authorities naturally frown on it but it's not uncommon, in the US or other countries

Again, you're missing some important distinctions. The Occupy movements were public protests to petition the government -- to pay attention to banks/financial institutions that crashed the economy, and entailed some illegal activity. Remember the "Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Jail"? People weren't satisfied with deals and multiple billion dollar fines. This is the opposite: armed people demanding they have some "right" to ignore the government and violate federal law.

No, I think I took note of the distinction. Those guys were a match for your politics and these guys aren't. That's kinda my point.

Thread bleed, really? Have fun.

http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...y=Cliven+Bundy

http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...evada+protests

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nevada+BLM


http://www.bing.com/search?q=nevada+...96365030678d34

http://www.google.com/#q=nevada+protests+BLM

I'd say search patterns aren't cites but we both know, like everyone else, that you deliberately refuse to acknowledge that. Having to put up real supporting material invalidates your determined insistence that your "feelings" are an adequate substitute for any facts and that as such your feelings should determine reality rather than the other way around.

[GGT]

Contempt of court does not lead to criminal charges. I know contempt is an odd duck but that doesn't mean you can make things up about it. And violating federal criminal statutes can lead to criminal charges sure. Non-payment doesn't violate criminal statutes. Tax fraud, commonly and misleading referred to as "tax evasion" can but there is no fraud here, just him disputing it and refusing to pay. Non-fraudulent tax resistance is a civil matter and is dealt with in a different way than a criminal offense like tax fraud would be.

He's not been charged with tax evasion, even though he's refused to pay grazing fees (which can be interpreted as a "tax"). His charges revolved around criminal trespass. ie, using someone else's land, in this case federally owned land, without permission. And he wasn't just walking around, or camping....but letting his cattle consume the land for his personal profits.

His cows ate the vegetation, drank any available water, trampled the ground, and dropped their manure without permission from the legal landowner.

Legal government actions (and legal private actions) prompt all kinds of civil disobedience which, by its very nature, is intended to disrupt or otherwise get in the way. Doesn't make civil disobedience a criminal matter and doesn't mean these guys ran afoul of any criminal statutes. In fact, the implication of there not being any police action taken against them, there or now when things are calming, is that they didn't. And you have dismally failed to provide any evidence, much less proof, to the contrary.

<snip>

You're taking an "anti-law" approach that sounds a lot like the militiamen. I'm surprised and a bit shocked, since you're a jurisprudence geek, and usually defend the Rule of Law in our nation OF laws, even when/if you disagree with them. I never thought you'd be defending people who use threats of lethal force to protest a grievance for laws they don't like. Any other group you want to defend that same way? Folks who disagree with eminent domain laws and property seizures should just show up with pistols, rifles, and assault weapons to get their way?

I'd say search patterns aren't cites but we both know, like everyone else, that you deliberately refuse to acknowledge that. Having to put up real supporting material invalidates your determined insistence that your "feelings" are an adequate substitute for any facts and that as such your feelings should determine reality rather than the other way around.

I didn't cite any one news source or media outlet on purpose: you'd try to turn the debate into whether or not that source was "legitimate", and if the facts were being spun in a political washing machine. I presumed you would at least scan the images....and see the armed people on public roadways threatening law enforcement, in obvious violation of several criminal statutes. But that would mean taking your head out of whatever ass bubble you're living in, so I was wrong.

[LittleFuzzy]

He's not been charged with tax evasion, even though he's refused to pay grazing fees (which can be interpreted as a "tax"). His charges revolved around criminal trespass. ie, using someone else's land, in this case federally owned land, without permission. And he wasn't just walking around, or camping....but letting his cattle consume the land for his personal profits.

His cows ate the vegetation, drank any available water, trampled the ground, and dropped their manure without permission from the legal landowner.

No, he hasn't been charged with tax evasion because that's a misnomer for tax fraud and there's nothing fraudulent here. And it's not criminal trepass. Land trespass (with some exceptions as I pointed out to Minx earlier in the thread) is something actionable which is a way of saying it's dealt with via tort relief/injunction. I.e. it's civil, not criminal. Which is exactly what you would expect given that all the court action has been arguing whether the state or the feds own the land, the leveling of fines, and injunctions against Bundy grazing his cattle on that lands in question. Federal criminal trespass is a misdemeanor and does not apply to open land, only unlawfully entering or "surreptiously remain(ing)" in a building or occupied structure. I can tell you're just making things up and throwing them at the wall to see if they'll stick, now. Just stop.

You're taking an "anti-law" approach that sounds a lot like the militiamen. I'm surprised and a bit shocked, since you're a jurisprudence geek, and usually defend the Rule of Law in our nation OF laws, even when/if you disagree with them. I never thought you'd be defending people who use threats of lethal force to protest a grievance for laws they don't like. Any other group you want to defend that same way? Folks who disagree with eminent domain laws and property seizures should just show up with pistols, rifles, and assault weapons to get their way?

I'm taking a law approach. I am a jurisprudence geek. I am not and have been a "law and order" person however. I don't agree with Bundy or his supporters, but I don't particularly care about their actions as long as no one gets hurt. I've pointed out repeatedly that any threats or incitement made fell on the safe side of modern jurisprudence criminalizing dangerous speech and that's all I need. I'm big on leaving speech as unrestricted as possible.

I didn't cite any one news source or media outlet on purpose: you'd try to turn the debate into whether or not that source was "legitimate", and if the facts were being spun in a political washing machine.

You don't cite because you never cite when challenged and haven't for years. Because you've learned that you're never right. You're not going to let being wrong stop you but it's safer for you to simply never provide any back-up and, where necessary, Alber-argue to try and shift the topic around to something so vague and general that it's no longer possible for anything to be right or wrong. So in this case you just did things like type "Clive Bundy" or "Nevada BLM" into any search field you can find and linked the results.

I presumed you would at least scan the images....and see the armed people on public roadways threatening law enforcement, in obvious violation of several criminal statutes. But that would mean taking your head out of whatever ass bubble you're living in, so I was wrong.

Cite things directly or go away.

[Aimless]

I thought you were allowed to shoot trespassers on sight

[LittleFuzzy]

If someone is standing on your lawn and you go grab a gun and shoot them, you're going to get arrested. Even in Florida.

[GGT]

Cite things directly or go away.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-stand/360587/

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us...st.html?ref=us

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A3G26620140417

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...stitution.html



There are plenty of other articles all over the web, take a look at realclearpolitics.com to find a source you "like". Some even express "sympathy" for western states like Nevada (where a large percentage of land is owned by the federal government), and delve into nuanced differences between state and federal gov't powers and rights. But none of them claim Bundy has a legitimate legal leg to stand on.

If you're taking a legal approach to this....you can't limit this to Bundy's refusal to pay federal grazing fees as civil disobedience/Free Speech. His grievance was reviewed in the proper legal avenue -- the courts -- and he lost. His "legal" rationale is whacky. He keeps insisting that he only recognizes the State of Nevada (as a sovereign legal entity), conveniently denying the fact that Nevada became a state (part of the Union) before his family lived there, while citing his US Constitutional "right" to Free Speech/civil disobedience.

Now it's your turn to cite something, Fuzzy. What's the legal precedence for refusing to DO something, as required by law and adjudicated in court, that justifies DOING something that provokes/elicits/incites violence, or threats of violence?

I don't agree with Bundy or his supporters, but I don't particularly care about their actions as long as no one gets hurt. I've pointed out repeatedly that any threats or incitement made fell on the safe side of modern jurisprudence criminalizing dangerous speech and that's all I need. I'm big on leaving speech as unrestricted as possible.

How does encouraging hundreds of people, armed with guns, and an expressed goal to confront law enforcement agents with force fit your definition as the "safe side" of law and/or dangerous speech?

[LittleFuzzy]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-stand/360587/

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us...st.html?ref=us

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A3G26620140417

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...stitution.html



There are plenty of other articles all over the web, take a look at realclearpolitics.com to find a source you "like". Some even express "sympathy" for western states like Nevada (where a large percentage of land is owned by the federal government), and delve into nuanced differences between state and federal gov't powers and rights. But none of them claim Bundy has a legitimate legal leg to stand on.

If you're taking a legal approach to this....you can't limit this to Bundy's refusal to pay federal grazing fees as civil disobedience/Free Speech. His grievance was reviewed in the proper legal avenue -- the courts -- and he lost. His "legal" rationale is whacky. He keeps insisting that he only recognizes the State of Nevada (as a sovereign legal entity), conveniently denying the fact that Nevada became a state (part of the Union) before his family lived there, while citing his US Constitutional "right" to Free Speech/civil disobedience.

Now it's your turn to cite something, Fuzzy. What's the legal precedence for refusing to DO something, as required by law and adjudicated in court, that justifies DOING something that provokes/elicits/incites violence, or threats of violence?

I've repeatedly said Bundy isn't in the right legally. You keep insisting it's criminal though. "Illegality" and criminality are not the same thing. Not adhering to zoning ordinances isn't in the right legally either but it's not criminal either. The law covers a lot more area than just criminal behavior and something can go against the law without being criminal. Breach of contract is a violation of contract law but is not criminal. Non-payment of wages isn't legal but is also not criminal. In that forced enema and cavity search case we were all outraged about, the behavior of the cops was unlawful but it wasn't criminal. God knows I've tried to explain it to you repeatedly in the past and I'll probably have to keep doing so in the future because you just point-blank refuse to learn or let reality challenge your preconceived notions but there really are multiple areas of law and the government's actions in them are not all the same nor should they be. Trespassing of the kind referred to in this context isn't lawful (certainly not after a court order enjoining it, with the possible prescriptive right caveat Minx linked) but it is not criminal.

None of your citations even begin to suggest otherwise. Actually, none of them address the matter at all. The Slate article lays out how Bundy's assertions about the land rights are wrong but neither I nor anyone else here has suggested otherwise (again, with the possible caveat of prescriptive rights which have arisen since the earlier court rulings against Bundy) Did you read them or are they just random links you grabbed from your search patterns to throw at me?

How does encouraging hundreds of people, armed with guns, and an expressed goal to confront law enforcement agents with force fit your definition as the "safe side" of law and/or dangerous speech?

Laying out conditions in which you will use force does not meet the Court's standards for "imminent lawless action" which justifies criminalizing speech, including threats and incitement. I already cited the specific cases and current legal standards. Post #36.

[GGT]

In other words, since you're hung up on the term "criminality", you decided the discussion/debate is moot?

Let's take another look at post #36:

And no, threats are not a felony either, against people or against the government. It would have to fall afoul of the modifications of Schenk's "clear and present danger" rule as presented in Brandenburg v Ohio's "imminent lawless action" standard and that standard's clarification five years later in Hess v Indiana. It is, in fact, practically a textbook example of what Hess declared to be insufficient to override the protections on free speech.

Feel free to inform/educate me about the legal merits of those precedents, and how your opinion better anticipates/dictates judicial decisions. Because, ya know, I'm just an idiot.

[LittleFuzzy]

In other words, since you're hung up on the term "criminality", you decided the discussion/debate is moot?

Am I hung up on it, or are you with your repeated insistence that it is, it is, it is, it is?

Feel free to inform/educate me about the legal merits of those precedents, and how your opinion better anticipates/dictates judicial decisions. Because, ya know, I'm just an idiot.

Your question is imprecise and vague. Perhaps you would care to clarify what you mean by legal merits as it pertains to. . . whatever this is? And before you cast aspersions on my opinion, perhaps you should actually go take a look at the cited cases and rulings.