Gov. & Cattle

[GGT]

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

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.

Your "defense" of Bundy is imprecise and vague. Cite legal precedent. When did shouting "FIRE" in a crowded room, after setting off incendiary devices, become "protected" speech?

[LittleFuzzy]

Your "defense" of Bundy is imprecise and vague. Cite legal precedent. When did shouting "FIRE" in a crowded room, after setting off incendiary devices, become "protected" speech?

How so? He doesn't pay his taxes and the courts will seize assets. But he's not going to face any charges or be "apprehended" the way Loki suggested, as his actions weren't criminal. And no matter how loudly you yell otherwise, he did not yell fire in a crowded theater, before or after an incendiary device went off. The furthest the "threats" of violence actually went was them being prepared to shoot back if attacked and making that clear to the authorities. And laying out conditions under which violence "should" happen in the future doesn't meet the imminent standard, as per the Hess decision. Your "fire" rule is part of Schenck and the "clear and present danger standard" set in 191-something. Brandenburg substantially modified that in 1969 and Hess provided the further clarification relevant here about what constitutes imminent (and how conditional depending on an uncertain future aren't "imminent") in 1973. Neither of the latter decisions is generally taught in high school as they don't represent landmark cases establishing major new points of jurisprudence but that doesn't keep them from being controlling.

GGT, I'm starting to get the impression that you've got nothing relevant to say and are just posting to have the last word. What you wrote above is getting awfully close to "I know you are but what am I" territory as a response.

[Loki]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5206516.html I'm sure he's resisting Obama because of a carefully considered legal defense.

[Wraith]

How so? He doesn't pay his taxes and the courts will seize assets.

And when he decides not to let that happen peacefully? Wasn't this started because he was resisting a court order for the twentieth time or so? What is the proper way to resolve this, since he's in flagrant violation of the law and multiple court orders?

[Veldan Rath]

Seize his bank account. Kinda hard to shoot a wire transfer.

[Aimless]

Seize his bank account. Kinda hard to shoot a wire transfer.

His bank account rumbles around on four legs trespassing on public lands that he has appropriated for himself

[Veldan Rath]

Really, every dime is in the cattle? How does he buy fuel, pay his employees, etc? Barter system?

[Ominous Gamer]

Land rich and cash poor. But not even the land is his

[LittleFuzzy]

And when he decides not to let that happen peacefully? Wasn't this started because he was resisting a court order for the twentieth time or so? What is the proper way to resolve this, since he's in flagrant violation of the law and multiple court orders?

Rath points out one example. We all have a fair proportion of assets in non-physical form these days, or even in physical form at distributed locations. Seize bank accounts, stop incoming payments and fund transfers, heck grab cattle at points of transfer.

[Khendraja'aro]

Right. "Grab cattle at points of transfer".

I'd like to point out that a similar method didn't work out so well. Non-physical assets are most likely the only ones the feds will get without him turning violent.

[Aimless]

Really, every dime is in the cattle? How does he buy fuel, pay his employees, etc? Barter system?

Sure, I guess he might have a million or so in his name lying around in a bank account somewhere and maybe the govt will be able to just take that money without an expensive legal battle over the course of which his hoard of cash will inexplicably dwindle

[Ominous Gamer]

Seize bank accounts, stop incoming payments and fund transfers, heck grab cattle at points of transfer.

single man/family cattle rancher. How would these effect check cashing, cash, or the common and preferred money order (especially when purchasing new stock)?

[Veldan Rath]

Sure, I guess he might have a million or so in his name lying around in a bank account somewhere and maybe the govt will be able to just take that money without an expensive legal battle over the course of which his hoard of cash will inexplicably dwindle

The court had already made its decision and if the IRS gets involved, good freaking luck holding on to any cash.

For transfer points, when he goes to sell any cattle is when to take them. If it gets 'violent' then purchasers may change their minds...thus really screwing over Bundy.

[Loki]

If it gets violent, then our judicial system has been pandering to a violent felon.

[GGT]

How so? He doesn't pay his taxes and the courts will seize assets. But he's not going to face any charges or be "apprehended" the way Loki suggested, as his actions weren't criminal. And no matter how loudly you yell otherwise, he did not yell fire in a crowded theater, before or after an incendiary device went off. The furthest the "threats" of violence actually went was them being prepared to shoot back if attacked and making that clear to the authorities. And laying out conditions under which violence "should" happen in the future doesn't meet the imminent standard, as per the Hess decision. Your "fire" rule is part of Schenck and the "clear and present danger standard" set in 191-something. Brandenburg substantially modified that in 1969 and Hess provided the further clarification relevant here about what constitutes imminent (and how conditional depending on an uncertain future aren't "imminent") in 1973. Neither of the latter decisions is generally taught in high school as they don't represent landmark cases establishing major new points of jurisprudence but that doesn't keep them from being controlling.

The BLM tried to seize assets (the cattle) per court order, but were confronted by an angry, armed mob on federal land/publicly owned property. *The confrontation did not happen on Bundy's ranch!* And those protesters and militiamen only showed up after Bundy enticed/incited them over the internet to help him "fight the government".

You keep saying Bundy did nothing "criminal".....but people are convicted and jailed for the very things he's done: failure to pay fees/taxes/fines, trespassing, molesting public property, obstruction of justice, threatening federal agents. You continue to say civil disobedience is protected speech, as if that's the end of it, when there are clearly extenuating circumstances. The "Shouting Fire" precedent was a reminder that "Free Speech" has limitations, especially when human life is at risk.

Granted, Bundy wasn't one of the militiamen positioned on a public freeway overpass with a sniper rifle aimed at federal agents.....but he was complicit in stoking up mob behavior, and escalating the situation to a very dangerous place.

GGT, I'm starting to get the impression that you've got nothing relevant to say and are just posting to have the last word. What you wrote above is getting awfully close to "I know you are but what am I" territory as a response.

I'm asking why you think nothing "criminal" happened in Bunkerville, and why you don't think Bundy will (or should?) face any criminal charges. More importantly, I'm asking you to explain how you chalk this up to 'nothing more than civil disobedience'.....when you know damn well the situation was quite serious. Since there were armed people ready to consider any action taken by BLS as an "attack"....and they were even filming themselves saying bring it on -- how can you dismiss that as non-imminent threats? Seriously.

[Ominous Gamer]

For transfer points, when he goes to sell any cattle is when to take them. If it gets 'violent' then purchasers may change their minds...thus really screwing over Bundy.

You're suggesting 24/7 surveillance, and all the resources that requires, to gather cattle... when the complaint that started this "other options" debate was an unverified claim of the government using:

armored vehicles, helicopters, SWAT teams and snipers

to gather said cattle.

So... where is the difference in waste, and why is the prolong harassment better than a quick use of force?

[Veldan Rath]

Ask the Feds. They seemed to rethink their idea...and according to some of the links above...the seizing of cattle was their first go to...instead of garnishment or seizing of accounts...

And I'm kinda astonished that you would rather use force...

[Ominous Gamer]

you would rather use force...

as i said, it was thrown out there without source. but yeah I'd rather a quick operation against cattle on government land instead of a prolonged campaign of harassment against a citizen on his own property.

[LittleFuzzy]

Sure, I guess he might have a million or so in his name lying around in a bank account somewhere and maybe the govt will be able to just take that money without an expensive legal battle over the course of which his hoard of cash will inexplicably dwindle

He runs a ranch with at least 1000 head of cattle. That is not a pure family operation. I guarantee he has some decent size business accounts. Maybe not enough to cover all he owes right off, but then again, they might be more than sufficient. I have a rough idea of what some of the expenses might be like from the local dairies and my ag. teacher in high school. Back in the '90s, you could expect to pay ~$400 a year to feed a single cow. Granted Bundy isn't paying for grazing rights but more than half the cost comes from winter feed, during those months when pasturage isn't sufficient. That's $400k and it's just one expense. And I know prices are higher now than they were back then.

single man/family cattle rancher. How would these effect check cashing, cash, or the common and preferred money order (especially when purchasing new stock)?

A ranch with 1000 head is not a single man/family operation.

The BLM tried to seize assets (the cattle) per court order, but were confronted by an angry, armed mob on federal land/publicly owned property. *The confrontation did not happen on Bundy's ranch!* And those protesters and militiamen only showed up after Bundy enticed/incited them over the internet to help him "fight the government".

Cattle are not Bundy's only assets. Can't be. "Seizure" isn't limited to assets with four hooves and a tail. And the BLM wasn't seizing the cattle to pay the debt either (if they were, then even a rough approximation says they were attempting to take twice as many "assets" as they should have been) they were seizing them to prevent further trespassing.

You keep saying Bundy did nothing "criminal".....but people are convicted and jailed for the very things he's done: failure to pay fees/taxes/fines,

No they're not. It may be possible to end up in contempt or court for non-payment (I kind of doubt it but I can't rule it out) but there is no criminal statute being violated. You aren't listening to me and I can't prove a negative so why don't you use that extensive lack of any knowledge about actual law and provide the statute Bundy would get charged with?

trespassing,

Some trespassing can be criminal. This wasn't. The federal statute for criminal trespass is for buildings, not open land. More generally, public land available for grazing (even if it requires paying a fee) cannot even be civil trespass, which requires public signage prohibiting trespass. Bundy violated a court order saying he and his cattle specifically no longer had permission to use the land but that's not the same thing. He could be held in contempt for it (specifically, it would be indirect civil contempt as it arises from civil proceedings and is occurring out of view of the court) and could even be held indefinitely in jail for that, but it still would not be criminal.

molesting public property,

Again, got a criminal statute to cite?

obstruction of justice,

You're actually getting closer, you gave an actual charge this time but I'm looking at the federal text. Obstruction of proceedings applies to investigations and proceedings in court, not the enforcement of rulings. Picketing and parading can be obstruction but it has to be aimed at "judge, juror, witness, or court officer" and only applies in or near the physical buildings housing the court or a building or residence occupied by one of those figures.

Obstruction of justice is about interfering in active or pending investigations of proceedings, GGT. Once a ruling is made, interference pretty much ceases to be obstruction as it is legally defined. Sorry. Maybe some state laws are written more broadly, but the federal criminal code doesn't appear to be.

edit: Ah, found it. Ok, you are right in a minimal way. There is a sub-statute for court orders and it is a fineable misdemeanor to interfere with or otherwise impede the performance of duties under a court order.

threatening federal agents.

Cited statute? The closest behavior I've seen actually cited have been declarations that they'd open fire if force was used against them. And that goes to what I've said about Brandenburg and Hess and what speech can be criminalized.

The "Shouting Fire" precedent was a reminder that "Free Speech" has limitations, especially when human life is at risk.

"Shouting fire" is a specific hypothetical example laid out in 1919 in Schenck. That ruling is no longer controlling precedent. It has been modified and limited by the other cases I've cited above. I know those cases weren't taught to you in high school, I doubt they were taught to your kids, but their rulings still happened and are still the governing jurisprudence on what dangerous speech may be criminalized.

Granted, Bundy wasn't one of the militiamen positioned on a public freeway overpass with a sniper rifle aimed at federal agents.....but he was complicit in stoking up mob behavior, and escalating the situation to a very dangerous place.

Not according to the real modern jurisprudence.

I'm asking why you think nothing "criminal" happened in Bunkerville, and why you don't think Bundy will (or should?) face any criminal charges. More importantly, I'm asking you to explain how you chalk this up to 'nothing more than civil disobedience'.....when you know damn well the situation was quite serious. Since there were armed people ready to consider any action taken by BLS as an "attack"....and they were even filming themselves saying bring it on -- how can you dismiss that as non-imminent threats? Seriously.

Because unlike you, I've actually done research rather than relying on assumptions based on how I choose to interpret media bytes. Something being "quite serious" does not mean it is criminal. And I told you how I can dismiss them as non-imminent threats. I can do so because the Supreme Court ruled that those sorts of conditional statements, "threats" which themselves are dependent on actions which law enforcement have the option of not taking, do not meet their understanding of "imminent."

as i said, it was thrown out there without source. but yeah I'd rather a quick operation against cattle on government land instead of a prolonged campaign of harassment against a citizen on his own property.

Well sure, we all would. But Bundy and his friends didn't feel like letting that happen. I'm ok with there being downsides to protesting or getting in the way of lawful government action.

[Spenni]

[Flixy]

Cited statute? The closest behavior I've seen actually cited have been declarations that they'd open fire if force was used against them. And that goes to what I've said about Brandenburg and Hess and what speech can be criminalized.

Really? It is a felony to lie to a federal agent, even when he's undercover (so it could be anyone, really), but not to point a gun at them. Only in America In fact, I'd have thought threatening anyone and pointing your guns at them when they're doing nothing wrong would be a crime.

That said, primary concern is, and should be,public order and safety, so resolving this peacefully was probably the best solution. Wouldn't want another waco or something like that after all.

[Veldan Rath]

I don't think guns were actually aimed at the Feds, just carrying them around federal agents is not a crime.

[Flixy]

Fair enough, though you could make the same point about threatening violence against federal agents doing their jobs. But like I said, I do think it was wise not to escalate the situation.

[Ominous Gamer]

The stand off came about because Bundys supporters blocked up a local bridge. Don't see how that's legal. At this point the government is telling these hicks that if you show up with enough firepower the law doesn't apply to you.

[Aimless]

I guess this guy was the only one actually pointing anything

http://leftcall.com/21793/cliven-bun...sniper-cohort/

[Enoch the Red]

You're suggesting 24/7 surveillance, and all the resources that requires, to gather cattle... when the complaint that started this "other options" debate was an unverified claim of the government using:


to gather said cattle.

So... where is the difference in waste, and why is the prolong harassment better than a quick use of force?

Sorry, just saw this. Here's a source for the claim. This article doesn't go into specifics on hardware or number of agents, but it does show that there was what the article refers to as reminiscent of a military staging area well before there were an abundance of armed militia men in the area.

[Ominous Gamer]

Don't know how dozens of officers morphed into "armored vehicles, helicopters, SWAT teams and snipers" but it does show that the BLM knew what to expect from the mindset of this guy and his supporters (or that rounding up a thousand cattle requires a lot of hands).

and holy shit is that mindset a crazy one
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politic...ed?click=promo

[LittleFuzzy]

Really? It is a felony to lie to a federal agent, even when he's undercover (so it could be anyone, really),

Actually, it's not. The DoJ did try and adopt such a rule, but have since been smacked for it by the courts (I forget whether it was the Supremes or just an appellate court but if it was the latter they decided not to appeal further).

The stand off came about because Bundys supporters blocked up a local bridge. Don't see how that's legal. At this point the government is telling these hicks that if you show up with enough firepower the law doesn't apply to you.

Just like they've been telling for protesters and rioters for decades or centuries that the law doesn't apply to you if you show up in a large group. Did the guns register and make the LEOs cautious? Sure. But they wouldn't have been arresting them anyway. You pretty much have to get in an actual altercation with the cops to get arrested in this sort of situation, with or without guns.

[Enoch the Red]

Don't know how dozens of officers morphed into "armored vehicles, helicopters, SWAT teams and snipers" but it does show that the BLM knew what to expect from the mindset of this guy and his supporters (or that rounding up a thousand cattle requires a lot of hands).

Well, here you go then.

Helicopters
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...-cliven-bundy/

Militarized Police
http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/04/1...oot-americans/
http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/04/1...sco-in-nevada/

Snipers
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=107...m=most_popular

[Flixy]

Actually, it's not. The DoJ did try and adopt such a rule, but have since been smacked for it by the courts (I forget whether it was the Supremes or just an appellate court but if it was the latter they decided not to appeal further).

Ah okay, I went with what I remembered from an economist article a while back.