Wife of man murdered by FBI and Oregon State Police files suit

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The FBI's credibility is tarnished. I await with interest the outcome of this civil action. Clearly the plaintiff feels they have a case.

BTW, if the federal government remained inside its constitutional restraints, maybe so many people wouldn't feel the need to take up arms against it. From a Constitutional standpoint, it's hard to defend the BLM's claim to own so much of OUR land and then charge us for using it. It's FUBAR from the start.

The BLM absolutely broke the law when they began killing Bundy's cows. That is an illegal taking. I have stated all along that what the feds did with the Bundy's was stupid and asinine. However, Amons take over of the complex in Oregon was the stupidest thing he could have done.

Bundy's were not paying their part for the cows they were putting on BLM land. They were puttling more units on the land that was allowed, given the drought conditions. They should have rounded up all the cows, and sold them for the money owed.

Legally the BLM can't. What they should have done is put a tax lien on the bundy's so that whenever they tried to sell their beef they had the government fees taken out first. That is the proper way to handle it. The BLM sending in a bunch of armed agents was as stupid as you can get. They wanted to flex their power and they got their butts handed to them. Thankfully no one had to die in the first encounter.

But, there never should have been a first encounter.

Where does the Constitution authorize a federal agency to charge people for using their own land?

In the great cattle drives of the 19th century, all land that wasn't privately owned belonged to the PEOPLE and nobody was stupid enough to suggest that people be charged as if they were serfs. This is why the BLM was wrong from the very beginning. They have no legal right to levy these fines.

This is not the 19th Century. And if you really think that you can try one of those cattle drives now, the first farmer whose fields your cows destroy will blow your head off. As for the BLM charging for the use of the lands for operations that are for profit, they absolutely should. The fact that they also charge less than a tenth of the amount that is the going rate for grazing on private land is also a plus. As a matter of fact, the government is subsidizing the ranchers and we who eat their beef.

When we see a bunch of windmills and solar farms on BLM and Forest Service land, we will also see fees coming in that will subsidize campgrounds and other things that make recreation available for Americans.

Wrong. There's no constitutional authority for federal government to seize the people's land and then charge them for it. It can't be found in the 18 enumerated powers granted to the federal government, no matter how reasonable a dumbass like you thinks their fees are. At least Skylar is being consistent, arguing that the land belongs to the government. You floated the asinine notion that BLM is us, not the government.

On the dumb scale, that puts you at Dumb-De-Dumb-Dumb-Dumb.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The FBI's credibility is tarnished. I await with interest the outcome of this civil action. Clearly the plaintiff feels they have a case.

BTW, if the federal government remained inside its constitutional restraints, maybe so many people wouldn't feel the need to take up arms against it. From a Constitutional standpoint, it's hard to defend the BLM's claim to own so much of OUR land and then charge us for using it. It's FUBAR from the start.

The BLM absolutely broke the law when they began killing Bundy's cows. That is an illegal taking. I have stated all along that what the feds did with the Bundy's was stupid and asinine. However, Amons take over of the complex in Oregon was the stupidest thing he could have done.

Bundy's were not paying their part for the cows they were putting on BLM land. They were puttling more units on the land that was allowed, given the drought conditions. They should have rounded up all the cows, and sold them for the money owed.

Bullshit. You keep citing that as if it's true. The reality is that when the feds were asked to state how.much was owed, they refused to do.it. They arbitrairily changenthe fees, and then use that as an excuse tonseize property. It's nillegal, they know it, and that's why they have backtracked.on the whole 'they owe back grazing fees' narrative. It's a lie.

yup

the best thing that could happen is for the feds to be forced into getting out of the land owning business

Ah yes, and give it all to the Saudi's, Chinese, and Japanese. You little ideological cocksucks are such idiots.

Well, we sane Americans are not going to allow you to do that. We already see foreign owned 'Sportsman Clubs' buying up hunting rights on ranchs with tens of sections of prime hunting ground, and only the members of the Club are allowed on that property for hunting or fishing. No Americans allowed, right here in America.

the only folks i seen or heard of selling our land to foreigners are the leftist corruptocrats such as harry Reid


and of course sickly hillary with her pay for play deal selling off our Uranium mines to the Russians

so your anger is misplaced you should be pissed at your party for selling you down the river you asswipe

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL So a Canadian firm with Russian ownership bought the uranium mines in the McDermitt Caldera. They really didn't get that much. Evraz, a russian steel company got a lot more when they bought the only steel mill on the West Coast that can roll armor plate and titanium. That was done under George W.

 

[Old Rocks]

The BLM absolutely broke the law when they began killing Bundy's cows. That is an illegal taking. I have stated all along that what the feds did with the Bundy's was stupid and asinine. However, Amons take over of the complex in Oregon was the stupidest thing he could have done.

Bundy's were not paying their part for the cows they were putting on BLM land. They were puttling more units on the land that was allowed, given the drought conditions. They should have rounded up all the cows, and sold them for the money owed.

Legally the BLM can't. What they should have done is put a tax lien on the bundy's so that whenever they tried to sell their beef they had the government fees taken out first. That is the proper way to handle it. The BLM sending in a bunch of armed agents was as stupid as you can get. They wanted to flex their power and they got their butts handed to them. Thankfully no one had to die in the first encounter.

But, there never should have been a first encounter.

Where does the Constitution authorize a federal agency to charge people for using their own land?

In the great cattle drives of the 19th century, all land that wasn't privately owned belonged to the PEOPLE and nobody was stupid enough to suggest that people be charged as if they were serfs. This is why the BLM was wrong from the very beginning. They have no legal right to levy these fines.

This is not the 19th Century. And if you really think that you can try one of those cattle drives now, the first farmer whose fields your cows destroy will blow your head off. As for the BLM charging for the use of the lands for operations that are for profit, they absolutely should. The fact that they also charge less than a tenth of the amount that is the going rate for grazing on private land is also a plus. As a matter of fact, the government is subsidizing the ranchers and we who eat their beef.

When we see a bunch of windmills and solar farms on BLM and Forest Service land, we will also see fees coming in that will subsidize campgrounds and other things that make recreation available for Americans.

Wrong. There's no constitutional authority for federal government to seize the people's land and then charge them for it. It can't be found in the 18 enumerated powers granted to the federal government, no matter how reasonable a dumbass like you thinks their fees are. At least Skylar is being consistent, arguing that the land belongs to the government. You floated the asinine notion that BLM is us, not the government.

On the dumb scale, that puts you at Dumb-De-Dumb-Dumb-Dumb.

You dumb fuck. The Bundy's only own 160 acres. Nobody seized that land. Not yet, anyhow. And the land that they were grazing the cows on was free range until the BLM took it over. The BLM and Forest Service took over a lot of land that had been free range, because it was overgrazed almost to the point of being useless for rangeland.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Bundy's were not paying their part for the cows they were putting on BLM land. They were puttling more units on the land that was allowed, given the drought conditions. They should have rounded up all the cows, and sold them for the money owed.

Legally the BLM can't. What they should have done is put a tax lien on the bundy's so that whenever they tried to sell their beef they had the government fees taken out first. That is the proper way to handle it. The BLM sending in a bunch of armed agents was as stupid as you can get. They wanted to flex their power and they got their butts handed to them. Thankfully no one had to die in the first encounter.

But, there never should have been a first encounter.

Where does the Constitution authorize a federal agency to charge people for using their own land?

In the great cattle drives of the 19th century, all land that wasn't privately owned belonged to the PEOPLE and nobody was stupid enough to suggest that people be charged as if they were serfs. This is why the BLM was wrong from the very beginning. They have no legal right to levy these fines.

This is not the 19th Century. And if you really think that you can try one of those cattle drives now, the first farmer whose fields your cows destroy will blow your head off. As for the BLM charging for the use of the lands for operations that are for profit, they absolutely should. The fact that they also charge less than a tenth of the amount that is the going rate for grazing on private land is also a plus. As a matter of fact, the government is subsidizing the ranchers and we who eat their beef.

When we see a bunch of windmills and solar farms on BLM and Forest Service land, we will also see fees coming in that will subsidize campgrounds and other things that make recreation available for Americans.

Wrong. There's no constitutional authority for federal government to seize the people's land and then charge them for it. It can't be found in the 18 enumerated powers granted to the federal government, no matter how reasonable a dumbass like you thinks their fees are. At least Skylar is being consistent, arguing that the land belongs to the government. You floated the asinine notion that BLM is us, not the government.

On the dumb scale, that puts you at Dumb-De-Dumb-Dumb-Dumb.

You dumb fuck. The Bundy's only own 160 acres. Nobody seized that land. Not yet, anyhow. And the land that they were grazing the cows on was free range until the BLM took it over. The BLM and Forest Service took over a lot of land that had been free range, because it was overgrazed almost to the point of being useless for rangeland.

The unconstitutional "grazing fees" is what started the confrontation.

You dumb fuck.

 

[whitehall]

Let me get this right, the FBI that couldn't find two Russian terrorists in Boston before they bombed the Marathon and dropped the case against the Florida mass shooter just before he went viral are now offering a reward for a guy with too many wives? I hope Trump fires every FBI drone on his first day on the job.

 

[bodecea]

The BLM absolutely broke the law when they began killing Bundy's cows. That is an illegal taking. I have stated all along that what the feds did with the Bundy's was stupid and asinine. However, Amons take over of the complex in Oregon was the stupidest thing he could have done.

Bundy's were not paying their part for the cows they were putting on BLM land. They were puttling more units on the land that was allowed, given the drought conditions. They should have rounded up all the cows, and sold them for the money owed.

Legally the BLM can't. What they should have done is put a tax lien on the bundy's so that whenever they tried to sell their beef they had the government fees taken out first. That is the proper way to handle it. The BLM sending in a bunch of armed agents was as stupid as you can get. They wanted to flex their power and they got their butts handed to them. Thankfully no one had to die in the first encounter.

But, there never should have been a first encounter.

Where does the Constitution authorize a federal agency to charge people for using their own land?

In the great cattle drives of the 19th century, all land that wasn't privately owned belonged to the PEOPLE and nobody was stupid enough to suggest that people be charged as if they were serfs. This is why the BLM was wrong from the very beginning. They have no legal right to levy these fines.

This is not the 19th Century. And if you really think that you can try one of those cattle drives now, the first farmer whose fields your cows destroy will blow your head off. As for the BLM charging for the use of the lands for operations that are for profit, they absolutely should. The fact that they also charge less than a tenth of the amount that is the going rate for grazing on private land is also a plus. As a matter of fact, the government is subsidizing the ranchers and we who eat their beef.

When we see a bunch of windmills and solar farms on BLM and Forest Service land, we will also see fees coming in that will subsidize campgrounds and other things that make recreation available for Americans.

Wrong. There's no constitutional authority for federal government to seize the people's land and then charge them for it. It can't be found in the 18 enumerated powers granted to the federal government, no matter how reasonable a dumbass like you thinks their fees are. At least Skylar is being consistent, arguing that the land belongs to the government. You floated the asinine notion that BLM is us, not the government.

On the dumb scale, that puts you at Dumb-De-Dumb-Dumb-Dumb.

Ok..tell us who owned that land before the Feds?.....Name the owners.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Bundy's were not paying their part for the cows they were putting on BLM land. They were puttling more units on the land that was allowed, given the drought conditions. They should have rounded up all the cows, and sold them for the money owed.

Legally the BLM can't. What they should have done is put a tax lien on the bundy's so that whenever they tried to sell their beef they had the government fees taken out first. That is the proper way to handle it. The BLM sending in a bunch of armed agents was as stupid as you can get. They wanted to flex their power and they got their butts handed to them. Thankfully no one had to die in the first encounter.

But, there never should have been a first encounter.

Where does the Constitution authorize a federal agency to charge people for using their own land?

In the great cattle drives of the 19th century, all land that wasn't privately owned belonged to the PEOPLE and nobody was stupid enough to suggest that people be charged as if they were serfs. This is why the BLM was wrong from the very beginning. They have no legal right to levy these fines.

This is not the 19th Century. And if you really think that you can try one of those cattle drives now, the first farmer whose fields your cows destroy will blow your head off. As for the BLM charging for the use of the lands for operations that are for profit, they absolutely should. The fact that they also charge less than a tenth of the amount that is the going rate for grazing on private land is also a plus. As a matter of fact, the government is subsidizing the ranchers and we who eat their beef.

When we see a bunch of windmills and solar farms on BLM and Forest Service land, we will also see fees coming in that will subsidize campgrounds and other things that make recreation available for Americans.

Wrong. There's no constitutional authority for federal government to seize the people's land and then charge them for it. It can't be found in the 18 enumerated powers granted to the federal government, no matter how reasonable a dumbass like you thinks their fees are. At least Skylar is being consistent, arguing that the land belongs to the government. You floated the asinine notion that BLM is us, not the government.

On the dumb scale, that puts you at Dumb-De-Dumb-Dumb-Dumb.

Ok..tell us who owned that land before the Feds?.....Name the owners.

The people.

 

[Skylar]

Legally the BLM can't. What they should have done is put a tax lien on the bundy's so that whenever they tried to sell their beef they had the government fees taken out first. That is the proper way to handle it. The BLM sending in a bunch of armed agents was as stupid as you can get. They wanted to flex their power and they got their butts handed to them. Thankfully no one had to die in the first encounter.

But, there never should have been a first encounter.

Where does the Constitution authorize a federal agency to charge people for using their own land?

In the great cattle drives of the 19th century, all land that wasn't privately owned belonged to the PEOPLE and nobody was stupid enough to suggest that people be charged as if they were serfs. This is why the BLM was wrong from the very beginning. They have no legal right to levy these fines.

This is not the 19th Century. And if you really think that you can try one of those cattle drives now, the first farmer whose fields your cows destroy will blow your head off. As for the BLM charging for the use of the lands for operations that are for profit, they absolutely should. The fact that they also charge less than a tenth of the amount that is the going rate for grazing on private land is also a plus. As a matter of fact, the government is subsidizing the ranchers and we who eat their beef.

When we see a bunch of windmills and solar farms on BLM and Forest Service land, we will also see fees coming in that will subsidize campgrounds and other things that make recreation available for Americans.

Wrong. There's no constitutional authority for federal government to seize the people's land and then charge them for it. It can't be found in the 18 enumerated powers granted to the federal government, no matter how reasonable a dumbass like you thinks their fees are. At least Skylar is being consistent, arguing that the land belongs to the government. You floated the asinine notion that BLM is us, not the government.

On the dumb scale, that puts you at Dumb-De-Dumb-Dumb-Dumb.

You dumb fuck. The Bundy's only own 160 acres. Nobody seized that land. Not yet, anyhow. And the land that they were grazing the cows on was free range until the BLM took it over. The BLM and Forest Service took over a lot of land that had been free range, because it was overgrazed almost to the point of being useless for rangeland.

The unconstitutional "grazing fees" is what started the confrontation.

You dumb fuck.

Not unconstitutional according to the judiciary. See, you're making the same mistake that Bundy and his ilk made: you're assuming that your interpretations of the Constitution are authoritative. And that the courts and law are beholden to what you believe.

But they're not. As you have no judicial power. Nor are you delegated any power by the Constitution to interpret the meaning of the Constitution.

The issue was thoroughly adjucated. And Bundy was found to be tresspasing.

That you disagree has no relevance to the law or Bundy's culpability under it. As the law still applies even when you ignore it. As Bundy is reminded every morning he wakes up in a concrete box.

 

[Skylar]

Legally the BLM can't. What they should have done is put a tax lien on the bundy's so that whenever they tried to sell their beef they had the government fees taken out first. That is the proper way to handle it. The BLM sending in a bunch of armed agents was as stupid as you can get. They wanted to flex their power and they got their butts handed to them. Thankfully no one had to die in the first encounter.

But, there never should have been a first encounter.

Where does the Constitution authorize a federal agency to charge people for using their own land?

In the great cattle drives of the 19th century, all land that wasn't privately owned belonged to the PEOPLE and nobody was stupid enough to suggest that people be charged as if they were serfs. This is why the BLM was wrong from the very beginning. They have no legal right to levy these fines.

This is not the 19th Century. And if you really think that you can try one of those cattle drives now, the first farmer whose fields your cows destroy will blow your head off. As for the BLM charging for the use of the lands for operations that are for profit, they absolutely should. The fact that they also charge less than a tenth of the amount that is the going rate for grazing on private land is also a plus. As a matter of fact, the government is subsidizing the ranchers and we who eat their beef.

When we see a bunch of windmills and solar farms on BLM and Forest Service land, we will also see fees coming in that will subsidize campgrounds and other things that make recreation available for Americans.

Wrong. There's no constitutional authority for federal government to seize the people's land and then charge them for it. It can't be found in the 18 enumerated powers granted to the federal government, no matter how reasonable a dumbass like you thinks their fees are. At least Skylar is being consistent, arguing that the land belongs to the government. You floated the asinine notion that BLM is us, not the government.

On the dumb scale, that puts you at Dumb-De-Dumb-Dumb-Dumb.

Ok..tell us who owned that land before the Feds?.....Name the owners.

The people.

Bundy isn't 'the people'. Nor are you. So what gives you or Bundy the authority to use the land without the people's permission?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Where does the Constitution authorize a federal agency to charge people for using their own land?

In the great cattle drives of the 19th century, all land that wasn't privately owned belonged to the PEOPLE and nobody was stupid enough to suggest that people be charged as if they were serfs. This is why the BLM was wrong from the very beginning. They have no legal right to levy these fines.

This is not the 19th Century. And if you really think that you can try one of those cattle drives now, the first farmer whose fields your cows destroy will blow your head off. As for the BLM charging for the use of the lands for operations that are for profit, they absolutely should. The fact that they also charge less than a tenth of the amount that is the going rate for grazing on private land is also a plus. As a matter of fact, the government is subsidizing the ranchers and we who eat their beef.

When we see a bunch of windmills and solar farms on BLM and Forest Service land, we will also see fees coming in that will subsidize campgrounds and other things that make recreation available for Americans.

Wrong. There's no constitutional authority for federal government to seize the people's land and then charge them for it. It can't be found in the 18 enumerated powers granted to the federal government, no matter how reasonable a dumbass like you thinks their fees are. At least Skylar is being consistent, arguing that the land belongs to the government. You floated the asinine notion that BLM is us, not the government.

On the dumb scale, that puts you at Dumb-De-Dumb-Dumb-Dumb.

Ok..tell us who owned that land before the Feds?.....Name the owners.

The people.

Bundy isn't 'the people'. Nor are you. So what gives you or Bundy the authority to use the land without the people's permission?

Government isn't the People.

 

[Skylar]

This is not the 19th Century. And if you really think that you can try one of those cattle drives now, the first farmer whose fields your cows destroy will blow your head off. As for the BLM charging for the use of the lands for operations that are for profit, they absolutely should. The fact that they also charge less than a tenth of the amount that is the going rate for grazing on private land is also a plus. As a matter of fact, the government is subsidizing the ranchers and we who eat their beef.

When we see a bunch of windmills and solar farms on BLM and Forest Service land, we will also see fees coming in that will subsidize campgrounds and other things that make recreation available for Americans.

Wrong. There's no constitutional authority for federal government to seize the people's land and then charge them for it. It can't be found in the 18 enumerated powers granted to the federal government, no matter how reasonable a dumbass like you thinks their fees are. At least Skylar is being consistent, arguing that the land belongs to the government. You floated the asinine notion that BLM is us, not the government.

On the dumb scale, that puts you at Dumb-De-Dumb-Dumb-Dumb.

Ok..tell us who owned that land before the Feds?.....Name the owners.

The people.

Bundy isn't 'the people'. Nor are you. So what gives you or Bundy the authority to use the land without the people's permission?

Government isn't the People.

Government is delegated power by the people. The Judicial Power, for example.

And the issue of the Bundy's trespass on the land was thoroughly adjudicated. Bundy lost.

As neither you nor Bundy are delegated any judicial power by the people, you lack the authority to overturn the rulings of the judiciary.....who are delegated the judicial power by the people.

 

[whitehall]

She obviously ain't gonna get much support from the liberal media. It should be noted that the FBI sniper who shot Randy Weaver's wife in the head while she was holding an 18 month child in her arms was indicted by an Idaho Grand Jury for manslaughter. He never stood trial because the feds managed to dismiss the charges.

 

[Old Rocks]

Legally the BLM can't. What they should have done is put a tax lien on the bundy's so that whenever they tried to sell their beef they had the government fees taken out first. That is the proper way to handle it. The BLM sending in a bunch of armed agents was as stupid as you can get. They wanted to flex their power and they got their butts handed to them. Thankfully no one had to die in the first encounter.

But, there never should have been a first encounter.

Where does the Constitution authorize a federal agency to charge people for using their own land?

In the great cattle drives of the 19th century, all land that wasn't privately owned belonged to the PEOPLE and nobody was stupid enough to suggest that people be charged as if they were serfs. This is why the BLM was wrong from the very beginning. They have no legal right to levy these fines.

This is not the 19th Century. And if you really think that you can try one of those cattle drives now, the first farmer whose fields your cows destroy will blow your head off. As for the BLM charging for the use of the lands for operations that are for profit, they absolutely should. The fact that they also charge less than a tenth of the amount that is the going rate for grazing on private land is also a plus. As a matter of fact, the government is subsidizing the ranchers and we who eat their beef.

When we see a bunch of windmills and solar farms on BLM and Forest Service land, we will also see fees coming in that will subsidize campgrounds and other things that make recreation available for Americans.

Wrong. There's no constitutional authority for federal government to seize the people's land and then charge them for it. It can't be found in the 18 enumerated powers granted to the federal government, no matter how reasonable a dumbass like you thinks their fees are. At least Skylar is being consistent, arguing that the land belongs to the government. You floated the asinine notion that BLM is us, not the government.

On the dumb scale, that puts you at Dumb-De-Dumb-Dumb-Dumb.

You dumb fuck. The Bundy's only own 160 acres. Nobody seized that land. Not yet, anyhow. And the land that they were grazing the cows on was free range until the BLM took it over. The BLM and Forest Service took over a lot of land that had been free range, because it was overgrazed almost to the point of being useless for rangeland.

The unconstitutional "grazing fees" is what started the confrontation.

You dumb fuck.

Silly ass. Show my where and why it is unconstitutional for our government to charge a for profit operation using our common held land a profit for using that land. And the charges for the grazing fees are less than a tenth of what private land owners charge per unit. So the ranchers are getting a bargain.

Virtually all the ranchers in the US pay their fees. In fact, the amount of fees owed by the Bundy's exceeds all the fees that are late for all the rest of the ranchers in the US. Bundy is a crook, and is where he belongs right now.

 

[westwall]

The BLM absolutely broke the law when they began killing Bundy's cows. That is an illegal taking. I have stated all along that what the feds did with the Bundy's was stupid and asinine. However, Amons take over of the complex in Oregon was the stupidest thing he could have done.

Bundy's were not paying their part for the cows they were putting on BLM land. They were puttling more units on the land that was allowed, given the drought conditions. They should have rounded up all the cows, and sold them for the money owed.

Legally the BLM can't.

They had a court order that said that they could 'seize and impound' any cattle that were on US government land. The only possible caveat was that for 'future trespass' that they could seize and impound the cattle if they had met notification requirements.

Are you claiming that the BLM didn't meet such notification requirements? Because otherwise, I can't see how the seizure of the cattle was illegal.

BLM agents, took cattle from, and killed cattle on BUNDY land. That is the very definition of an Illegal Taking. They were absolutely violating the law when they initiated that raid.

All the sources I've seen say that the cattle were taken off of Federal land. Do you have verifiable sources that contradict this?

These folks have a vested interest and have been keeping a close eye on things. You'll notice the cow was shot in one of the chutes. These are not on public lands, these are on the Bundy property proper.

Graphic Photos Show What The BLM Really Did To Bundy's Cows

 

[westwall]

Ruby Ridge and Waco were crimes. What occurred in Oregon wasn't, other than what the moronic Bundy's and Co. committed.

The FBI's credibility is tarnished. I await with interest the outcome of this civil action. Clearly the plaintiff feels they have a case.

BTW, if the federal government remained inside its constitutional restraints, maybe so many people wouldn't feel the need to take up arms against it. From a Constitutional standpoint, it's hard to defend the BLM's claim to own so much of OUR land and then charge us for using it. It's FUBAR from the start.

The BLM absolutely broke the law when they began killing Bundy's cows. That is an illegal taking. I have stated all along that what the feds did with the Bundy's was stupid and asinine. However, Amons take over of the complex in Oregon was the stupidest thing he could have done.

Bundy's were not paying their part for the cows they were putting on BLM land. They were puttling more units on the land that was allowed, given the drought conditions. They should have rounded up all the cows, and sold them for the money owed.

Legally the BLM can't. What they should have done is put a tax lien on the bundy's so that whenever they tried to sell their beef they had the government fees taken out first. That is the proper way to handle it. The BLM sending in a bunch of armed agents was as stupid as you can get. They wanted to flex their power and they got their butts handed to them. Thankfully no one had to die in the first encounter.

But, there never should have been a first encounter.

Where does the Constitution authorize a federal agency to charge people for using their own land?

In the great cattle drives of the 19th century, all land that wasn't privately owned belonged to the PEOPLE and nobody was stupid enough to suggest that people be charged as if they were serfs. This is why the BLM was wrong from the very beginning. They have no legal right to levy these fines.

The bundy's entered into an agreement with the BLM to graze cattle on public lands. To do that they have to pay grazing fee's. They didn't, thus any profits from that illegal taking (of public grazing feed) is subject to Court orders.

 

[westwall]

The BLM absolutely broke the law when they began killing Bundy's cows. That is an illegal taking. I have stated all along that what the feds did with the Bundy's was stupid and asinine. However, Amons take over of the complex in Oregon was the stupidest thing he could have done.

Bundy's were not paying their part for the cows they were putting on BLM land. They were puttling more units on the land that was allowed, given the drought conditions. They should have rounded up all the cows, and sold them for the money owed.

Legally the BLM can't.

They had a court order that said that they could 'seize and impound' any cattle that were on US government land. The only possible caveat was that for 'future trespass' that they could seize and impound the cattle if they had met notification requirements.

Are you claiming that the BLM didn't meet such notification requirements? Because otherwise, I can't see how the seizure of the cattle was illegal.

BLM agents, took cattle from, and killed cattle on BUNDY land. That is the very definition of an Illegal Taking. They were absolutely violating the law when they initiated that raid.

Link? You do realize that the Bundy's had very little land?

Bundy and BLM: 10 things to know

2. The Bundy family has owned its ranch since the 1870s. The ranch is only about 160 acres, which isn’t enough space to sustain the hundreds of cattle that Bundy owns. He insists the disputed land around his ranch belongs to the state of Nevada, rather than the federal government, and he says the feds have no authority in the area. He told the Sun the government is trying to sabotage his plans to someday turn the ranch over to his son.

Read more: Bundy and BLM: 10 things to know
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

The Bundy's owe more in back grazing fees than all of the rest of the ranchers in the US put together.

Permits[edit]
Under Bureau of Land Management permits that had first been issued in 1954, Bundy grazed his cattle legally and paid his grazing fees on the Bunkerville Allotment until 1993. In that year, as a protest, Bundy did not pay renewal fees. His permit was canceled in 1994.[8][9] Although the agency made several attempts to have Bundy renew the permit, the rancher declared that he no longer recognized the BLM's authority to regulate his grazing, and he asserted that he had "vested rights" to graze cattle on the land.[3] Federal courts consistently ruled against Bundy, concluding that he was a trespasser with no right to graze on federal land. The courts authorized the BLM to remove Bundy's cattle and to levy damages for unauthorized use.[3][10]

Bundy accumulated more than $1 million of unpaid grazing fees and court-ordered fines.[11][12] The Portland Oregoniannewspaper reported in May 2014 that the amount that Bundy owed stood in "stark contrast" to the situation in Oregon, where just 45 of the state's roughly 1,100 grazing permit holders collectively owed $18,759 in past-due payments to the BLM.[13]Excluding Bundy's unpaid fees, the total of all late grazing fees owed nationwide to the BLM was only $237,000.[14]

Bundy standoff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, I understand that. However there are plenty of pictures that show dead cows on Bundy land. I have presented one of those in a link above.

 

[jon_berzerk]

it is painfully obvious the left has left out the details

of the clinton cash flow in

in the Russian uranium deal

 

[Faun]

it is painfully obvious the left has left out the details

of the clinton cash flow in

in the Russian uranium deal

... and the relevance to a dumbfucking rightard hellbent on getting himself martyred by the police is...?

 

[Esmeralda]

Festus vowed to not be taken alive. The cops shot him when he reached for his gun. Festus wasn't fast enough on his quick draw. He died with his booties on.

These right wingers think all cops are bad cops unless they are killing black men.