Gov. & Cattle

[Wraith]

I haven't been following this issue extremely closely, and my attempts to catch up with it have left me with a question that I haven't gotten a satisfactory answer to, so maybe someone here can help me out: Why are conservatives rallying around this guy? Aren't Republicans typically the law & order party? He's in flagrant violation of the law, due process has been carried out and he's continuing to resist, and it's not even a remotely unjust law - even if he paid his damn taxes he'd still be profiting greatly off the use of public land. So why is it a good idea to form an armed posse and threaten use of force to protect this man? Is it just that some people look at it, think second amendment rights, and start ignoring everything else?

[Aimless]

They don't know what the tragedy of the commons is, don't believe there's any point to the BLM, don't trust the federal govt., don't know or understand or accept that he's in the wrong legally, and oh yeah he wears a cowboy hat and goes "yee haw" and says things about negroes.

[LittleFuzzy]

I haven't been following this issue extremely closely, and my attempts to catch up with it have left me with a question that I haven't gotten a satisfactory answer to, so maybe someone here can help me out: Why are conservatives rallying around this guy? Aren't Republicans typically the law & order party? He's in flagrant violation of the law, due process has been carried out and he's continuing to resist, and it's not even a remotely unjust law - even if he paid his damn taxes he'd still be profiting greatly off the use of public land. So why is it a good idea to form an armed posse and threaten use of force to protect this man? Is it just that some people look at it, think second amendment rights, and start ignoring everything else?

I know for the internet pundit class of conservatives, a lot of it has to do with Harry Reid somehow but I haven't been able to make heads or tails of that. The Tea Party types aren't the typical "law and order" conservatives either and they seem to be the strongest supporters.

[Khendraja'aro]

It's probably the combination of "I luv mah guns!" and "Big government is baaa-aaad!" which disables the higher brain-functions (what's left of them, anyway).

[Veldan Rath]

No, most 'conservatives' I've been watching, really see no winners in this.

The douchbag should pay the fees/taxes, and the BLM chose poorly in the manner to get its recompense.

We are for law and order, he lost his day in court and it really reduced to being a crazy coot, but somehow got elevated.

[GGT]

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.

BLM was following the court's mandate -- round up the cattle trespassing (using private contractors) and sell them to cover Bundy's fees and fines. The ruling didn't apply to cows on Bundy's own property, or other "assets" like vehicles/buildings or bank accounts. Presumably because the goal wasn't to put him out of business force him into bankruptcy....but to stop just the illegal grazing AND collect legal fines/fees.

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?

You said yourself the grazing fees could be seen as a "tax"....and plenty of people have been jailed for "tax evasion" (from mobsters to Wesley Snipes). IIRC, Bundy wasn't prosecuted for "tax evasion" because that falls outside BLM purview and onto other agencies, like the IRS.

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.

BLM had fencing and signage marking federal land boundaries, and Bundy had plenty of notification about modifications. He not only ignored new restricted grazing perimeters, but continued to violate court orders to pay up. Since he could be held in jail indefinitely for contempt-of-court....whether this is 'criminal' or 'civil' is a technicality over which agency should have sued Bundy, but there's no question he broke laws, aka committing crimes.

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.

And obstruction of justice can extend to mean 'interfering with law enforcement agents in active line of duty' (paraphrased).

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.

And grounds for arrest. IMO, the BLM was being cautious and lenient, almost to a fault, because they knew the climate surrounding the issue was contentious, a powder keg they didn't want to explode.

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.

"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.

Not according to the real modern jurisprudence.

The "real" modern legal environment is post-Ruby Ridge, Waco, McVeigh bombing a federal building....post-9/11, Dept. Homeland Security, all manners of 'terrorism'....along with rising numbers of extreme fringe groups (including anti-government militia groups)....political polarization....and 300 million legal guns in circulation.

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."

SCOTUS also says that (some) speech can be prosecuted as Hate Crimes, and (some) speech can be 'imminent' threats when arms are involved. You can do all the research, and cite all sorts of statutes and precedents...but so can computers. The larger contexts are just as important...especially when they have political or cultural undertones.

This "debate" isn't just about the Rule of Law, or how govt' agencies interpret law...but the dance between laws and justice, and how people view them. The media is part of the waltz, but you're wrong to imply my viewpoint is based on 'media bytes'....and you're stuck in an academic bubble of arrogance and denial if you can't/don't recognize the seriousness of this particular scenario.

[LittleFuzzy]

BLM was following the court's mandate -- round up the cattle trespassing (using private contractors) and sell them to cover Bundy's fees and fines. The ruling didn't apply to cows on Bundy's own property, or other "assets" like vehicles/buildings or bank accounts. Presumably because the goal wasn't to put him out of business force him into bankruptcy....but to stop just the illegal grazing AND collect legal fines/fees.

Again, cite? I've seen no credible factual reporting (as opposed to editorial opining) indicating any intent to use the seizure to pay Bundy's debt. Just that the court ordered the seizure of the trespassing cattle to put a stop said trespassing.

You said yourself the grazing fees could be seen as a "tax"....and plenty of people have been jailed for "tax evasion" (from mobsters to Wesley Snipes). IIRC, Bundy wasn't prosecuted for "tax evasion" because that falls outside BLM purview and onto other agencies, like the IRS.

Well no, they can't be viewed as a tax but that's neither here nor there. As I pointed out earlier, tax "evasion" is a misnomer. What it actually means is tax fraud. Which means hiding assets, deliberate misreporting, etc. I have seen nothing making the barest hint of a suggestion that Bundy has been engaged in fraud. He wasn't prosecuted for it because he never committed it and no one with any information or intelligence claims he did. What he's been doing is called tax resistance which is considered a form of civil disobedience, and "willful failure to pay" is a civil offense, with a civil penalty. It is not a crime.

BLM had fencing and signage marking federal land boundaries, and Bundy had plenty of notification about modifications. He not only ignored new restricted grazing perimeters, but continued to violate court orders to pay up. Since he could be held in jail indefinitely for contempt-of-court....whether this is 'criminal' or 'civil' is a technicality over which agency should have sued Bundy, but there's no question he broke laws, aka committing crimes.

Doesn't matter that they marked federal land boundaries. They weren't marked as forbidding general trespass which means crossing onto (or using) that land doesn't even meet the requirements for civil trespass. Bundy did violate a court order forbidding him from letting his cattle on the land but violating a court order is not civil or criminal trespass either, it's indirect civil contempt. It is not in the least bit a technicality whether it is criminal or civil. Contempt is an exercise of pure judicial power which has nothing whatsoever to do with either civil or criminal law. It does not come from the workings of the executive or the legislature, it is one of the very few forms of real judicial power in this country. As I've said, contempt is weird and isn't easily understood in our legal framework because it's kinda outside our legal framework. It doesn't even look like criminal law because "the key to the cell" is in the offender's hands (providing the court chooses to use imprisonment as their retaliatory or remedial tool) and the person held in contempt is completely free of any burden as soon as s/he complies with the demand(s) of the court. And for the nth time, breaking laws is not synonymous with committing crimes. Breaking criminal statutes is synonymous with committing crimes. If you withhold wages from an employee, you are not committing a crime. If you violate a noise or zoning ordinance, you are not committing a crime. If you fail to adhere to the terms of your rental contract, you are not committing a crime. If you infringe on someone's patent, you are not committing a crime (in the US anyway). If you are honest about your taxes but nonetheless refuse to pay them, you are not committing a crime.

And obstruction of justice can extend to mean 'interfering with law enforcement agents in active line of duty' (paraphrased).

Not federal obstruction, not after active court proceedings have concluded, except with reference to the interfering with a court order sub-offense I finally located. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/te...t-I/chapter-73 The only thing there which fits in the slightest anything which was going on with this brouhaha is 1509, Obstruction of Court Orders.

The "real" modern legal environment is post-Ruby Ridge, Waco, McVeigh bombing a federal building....post-9/11, Dept. Homeland Security, all manners of 'terrorism'....along with rising numbers of extreme fringe groups (including anti-government militia groups)....political polarization....and 300 million legal guns in circulation.

You're confusing politics and law again. That's the political and cultural backdrop in which the law is applied but the jurisprudence here has not changed. Maybe it will sometime in the future but it hasn't yet.

SCOTUS also says that (some) speech can be prosecuted as Hate Crimes, and (some) speech can be 'imminent' threats when arms are involved. You can do all the research, and cite all sorts of statutes and precedents...but so can computers. The larger contexts are just as important...especially when they have political or cultural undertones.

I don't see what hate crimes have to do with anything here and SCOTUS has not and WILL NOT support the prosecution of anyone for a hate crime consisting of nothing but speech. And sure, threats can be imminent with arms involved. They can be imminent without arms involved too. They just have to actually be, you know, imminent as the court has chosen to define the term. In Hess v Indiana. Which I've cited repeatedly and which you keep ignoring. Because according to the ruling in Hess, what happened at and around the Bundy Ranch wasn't "imminent." I note that while you've acknowledged I can research and cite things and apparently "computers" somehow can as well, you seem singularly unable to do so. I wouldn't worry too much about it though because even if you had the really very basic abilities required, you wouldn't be able to do so in a way you desire in this case because the research, when conducted, just does not back you up.

This "debate" isn't just about the Rule of Law, or how govt' agencies interpret law..

Apparently it isn't about either of those but rather your obstinate refusal to recognize reality, the law, English, common sense, or the idea that most of what you type is just flat wrong.

[Loki]

No, most 'conservatives' I've been watching, really see no winners in this.

The douchbag should pay the fees/taxes, and the BLM chose poorly in the manner to get its recompense.

We are for law and order, he lost his day in court and it really reduced to being a crazy coot, but somehow got elevated.

Since when do law-and-order conservatives want the judiciary and police to show restraint when dealing with law breakers? Or is that only against minorities?

[Veldan Rath]

Oooo, the race card!

Loki, must be running out of real arguments.

[GGT]

Again, cite? I've seen no credible factual reporting (as opposed to editorial opining) indicating any intent to use the seizure to pay Bundy's debt. Just that the court ordered the seizure of the trespassing cattle to put a stop said trespassing.

Didn't you read Enoch's link? Is there any one "source" we can all agree on....when even the court's findings are "editorialized"?

Well no, they can't be viewed as a tax but that's neither here nor there. As I pointed out earlier, tax "evasion" is a misnomer. What it actually means is tax fraud. Which means hiding assets, deliberate misreporting, etc. I have seen nothing making the barest hint of a suggestion that Bundy has been engaged in fraud. He wasn't prosecuted for it because he never committed it and no one with any information or intelligence claims he did. What he's been doing is called tax resistance which is considered a form of civil disobedience, and "willful failure to pay" is a civil offense, with a civil penalty. It is not a crime.

Jesus, what IS a crime using that kind of ass hair braiding?

You're confusing politics and law again. That's the political and cultural backdrop in which the law is applied but the jurisprudence here has not changed. Maybe it will sometime in the future but it hasn't yet.

OMG, it's already changed. Why can't you see that?

I don't see what hate crimes have to do with anything here and SCOTUS has not and WILL NOT support the prosecution of anyone for a hate crime consisting of nothing but speech. And sure, threats can be imminent with arms involved. They can be imminent without arms involved too. They just have to actually be, you know, imminent as the court has chosen to define the term. In Hess v Indiana. Which I've cited repeatedly and which you keep ignoring. Because according to the ruling in Hess, what happened at and around the Bundy Ranch wasn't "imminent." I note that while you've acknowledged I can research and cite things and apparently "computers" somehow can as well, you seem singularly unable to do so. I wouldn't worry too much about it though because even if you had the really very basic abilities required, you wouldn't be able to do so in a way you desire in this case because the research, when conducted, just does not back you up.

Gah, this is kinda like defining "pornography", only you don't give credence to the average persons' ability to see the differences between moral or legal standards?

Bundy violated explicit and implied laws. He's a "criminal" posing as a "patriot". He exploited political groups for his own purpose, in an endeavor to avoid court orders. He's mooching off other tax payers. He's a "welfare" cowboy.

Apparently it isn't about either of those but rather your obstinate refusal to recognize reality, the law, English, common sense, or the idea that most of what you type is just flat wrong.

Oh, please....spare me the lecture. I might take you more seriously (about law) if we didn't have an insanely high prison rate for non-violent "crimes". The highest in the world. While white collar crimes (eh, pun intended) are abrogated to "fines" that can be paid without jail time....but can be hard to collect. Especially from cowboys using guns.

[Loki]

Oooo, the race card!

Loki, must be running out of real arguments.

I'm not referring to you in particular, but I find it hard to believe that if we were talking about a single armed black man, let alone a dozen of them, certain people wouldn't be complaining about a violent response from the government.

Here's a scenario for you:

A group of armed (legally) young black men (let's call them a gang) take over an unused government plot of land in a city. The city tries to reason with them peacefully, but they ignore all attempts at negotiations. When the police come to evict them, the men threaten to shoot any "pig" that tries. Are we seriously supposed to believe that the same people defending Bundy wouldn't be calling for the massive use of force against said men? These are the same people who think the police should be free to frisk any black man in a project, but wouldn't be calling for the use of force in this situation? Come on.

[Veldan Rath]

So the means to even the field is to curb stomp everyone?

I would suggest that we not get into a firefight with anyone if there was a better less violent means to achieve the stated goal.

Appears you want everyone to get steamrolled, instead of holding the federal government to a higher standard.

[Ominous Gamer]

The government has put up with 20 years of trespassing from this guy. Thats a pretty high fucking standard. He claims that God is telling him to destroy government property and to strip government workers of their guns. I'm highly doubtful he is going to allow this issue to resolve in any matter without "fighting on the ground," something he already has admitted he is willing and prepared to do.

[Loki]

So the means to even the field is to curb stomp everyone?

I would suggest that we not get into a firefight with anyone if there was a better less violent means to achieve the stated goal.

Appears you want everyone to get steamrolled, instead of holding the federal government to a higher standard.

And yet that is the exact opposite of the approach used to confront gangs in inner cities, which conservatives tend to say is not severe enough of a response.

Come on. A large portion of conservatives thought that the killing of Trayvon Martin was at least partially justified because he might have been a threat. If one unarmed black boy is a threat, then aren't a dozen well-armed men?

[Veldan Rath]

Yes, gangs in inner cities are just protesters.

Care to cite an equivalent example to the numb nuts in Nevada?

[Enoch the Red]

And yet that is the exact opposite of the approach used to confront gangs in inner cities, which conservatives tend to say is not severe enough of a response.

Come on. A large portion of conservatives thought that the killing of Trayvon Martin was at least partially justified because he might have been a threat. If one unarmed black boy is a threat, then aren't a dozen well-armed men?

I think you are ignoring a large reason why people dislike gangs in inner cities, which is they pose a very real threat to the safety and well being of those around them, including individuals who are not associated in any way to their criminal enterprise. If the 'gangs' in your example spent generations living on this plot as quiet, well behaved, productive members of society, all the while taking care of the property they were occupying I don't think there would be public support to have them dealt with violently, do you?

[Veldan Rath]

Of course he is. He has to 'win' this discussion.

[LittleFuzzy]

Didn't you read Enoch's link? Is there any one "source" we can all agree on....when even the court's findings are "editorialized"?

Which one? It's always possible I missed one, he's posted a number.

Jesus, what IS a crime using that kind of ass hair braiding?

At the Federal level? Primarily an act violating any of the myriad statutes of the Federal criminal code, i.e. US Code Title 18. There are some scattered in other Titles which are linked back to sections in 18, and there are a few other sources of federal criminal law which do not apply generally *like the UCMJ for the armed forces* but primarily it's Title 18. So anything from release of certain information held by a state DMV to genocide. It's not your perception of severity which governs whether something is in the federal criminal code or not.

[quote[OMG, it's already changed. Why can't you see that?[/quote]

No, it has not. The jurisprudence governing criminalizing dangerous speech has not changed. I can't see that because it hasn't happened. You see it because you're under the misapprehension that everything you see under the sun is actually the specific subtopic you're addressing at the time somehow.

Gah, this is kinda like defining "pornography",

I think you mean obscenity, that was the topic being addressed by Justice Hugo Black when he said "I'll know it when I see it." And no, it's not. The earlier Brandenburg ruling was kinda like that, which is why it prompted the clarifications in Hess four years later.

only you don't give credence to the average persons' ability to see the differences between moral or legal standards?

I'd maybe give a bit more credence if you'd actually go take a look at the legal standards. Hard to see a difference when you've got no flipping idea what one of them is.

Bundy violated explicit and implied laws. He's a "criminal" posing as a "patriot". He exploited political groups for his own purpose, in an endeavor to avoid court orders. He's mooching off other tax payers. He's a "welfare" cowboy.

He hasn't violated any explicit criminal laws and there are very, very few "implied" (which I assume means common law) criminal offenses anymore. I don't think there are any at the federal level. WRT criminal law, the US has switched almost entirely over to a codified collection of statutes rather than the old English common law system, though common law still predominates for procedure. You can put quotation marks around whatever words you want, either be quiet or take responsibility for your errors and many flatly-wrong statements and assertions.

Oh, please....spare me the lecture. I might take you more seriously (about law) if we didn't have an insanely high prison rate for non-violent "crimes". The highest in the world. While white collar crimes (eh, pun intended) are abrogated to "fines" that can be paid without jail time....but can be hard to collect. Especially from cowboys using guns.

I've never hid that I have a number of objections to the workings of the US criminal justice system. I doubt they're the same as your objections since I expect most of your objections have way more to do with your vivid imagination than they do with reality but it's got nothing at all to do with this thread.

[Ominous Gamer]

, all the while taking care of the property they were occupying

If we're still referring to Bundy, the BLM hands were forced because of pending lawsuits because Bundy's unregulated grazing is considered to have so severely damaged the area that it can no longer support the endangered desert tortoise.

[Loki]

I think you are ignoring a large reason why people dislike gangs in inner cities, which is they pose a very real threat to the safety and well being of those around them, including individuals who are not associated in any way to their criminal enterprise. If the 'gangs' in your example spent generations living on this plot as quiet, well behaved, productive members of society, all the while taking care of the property they were occupying I don't think there would be public support to have them dealt with violently, do you?

None of which matters when it comes to a police response to a specific crime.

[Aimless]

I think you are ignoring a large reason why people dislike gangs in inner cities, which is they pose a very real threat to the safety and well being of those around them, including individuals who are not associated in any way to their criminal enterprise. If the 'gangs' in your example spent generations living on this plot as quiet, well behaved, productive members of society, all the while taking care of the property they were occupying I don't think there would be public support to have them dealt with violently, do you?

Unless they're gangs of illegal Mexican tomato pickers

[Enoch the Red]

If we're still referring to Bundy, the BLM hands were forced because of pending lawsuits because Bundy's unregulated grazing is considered to have so severely damaged the area that it can no longer support the endangered desert tortoise.

Are we talking damages that are so severe that only a regulated $1.35 per animal per month fee could cover the extensive environmental repairs necessary? If so, what do you think that would cover? Or are you getting at the fact that many don't want grazing at all on these lands, which would essentially signal the end of this man's livelihood.

And just so we are clear, the desert tortoise is actually listed as threatened, but that's neither here nor there.

[Flixy]

I think you are ignoring a large reason why people dislike gangs in inner cities, which is they pose a very real threat to the safety and well being of those around them, including individuals who are not associated in any way to their criminal enterprise. If the 'gangs' in your example spent generations living on this plot as quiet, well behaved, productive members of society, all the while taking care of the property they were occupying I don't think there would be public support to have them dealt with violently, do you?

Are you sure? Swat teams are regularly used for non violent suspects (not to mention innocent people) in cases where they could have just dropped by, and are allegedly responsible for at least fifty innocent people killed. http://www.economist.com/news/united...rs?frsc=dg%7Cd

Dealing with suspects with violence is apparently a-ok when the suspect is nonviolent, but not when it concerns a group of well armed men threatening use of force?

Btw, as I posted before I do think it was the right choice not to escalate the situation, but I do think you're mistaken if you don't think there is support for police force in other cases that are less violent, and notably conservatives (a bunch of the public ones anyway) seem to support a heavy handed approach there, and not here. Then again, with the polarised debates over there, what did you expect?

[Veldan Rath]

Which again Flixy, the answer is too address the over use of SWAT and militarization of our police.

[Flixy]

Which again Flixy, the answer is too address the over use of SWAT and militarization of our police.

I agree, but I think this subdiscussion started with Loki calling out the hypocrisy of certain law-and-order conservatives, who are a bit picky when they do and don't approve of heavy handed police tactics. And let's face it, he probably has a point there.

[Ominous Gamer]

Are we talking damages that are so severe that only a regulated $1.35 per animal per month fee.

$1.35 per cattle, per month, for 20 years, There is a reason this guy owes so much.

the end of this man's livelihood.

and the fines and fees won't? besides, one person's ignorance doesn't trump the environment. The BLM and similar agencies exist for a reason.

[Veldan Rath]

I agree, but I think this subdiscussion started with Loki calling out the hypocrisy of certain law-and-order conservatives, who are a bit picky when they do and don't approve of heavy handed police tactics. And let's face it, he probably has a point there.

I disagree, most conservatives think Bundy is wrong. He needs to pay his taxes and fines. And most of us also are concerned about what our police are turning into...and so are some liberals.

[Enoch the Red]

$1.35 per cattle, per month, for 20 years, There is a reason this guy owes so much.

So had he paid his grazing fees you'd be okay with the cattle destroying the environment of the desert tortoise?

[Ominous Gamer]

So had he paid his grazing fees you'd be okay with the cattle destroying the environment of the desert tortoise?

I'd be ok with him following the law and allowing the BLM to dictate the who/what/when as well as the conservation efforts of the government property his is using for his own profit.

[EyeKhan]

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

Fry him.