Armed protest against government not a civil rights issue?

[Frank Ettin]

...Just like a drunken bar fight.
Two loud moth bullies disagree and next thing you know the whole bar is throwing punches....

More like one guy defying two court orders.

Links to the court papers:

1. The Government's motion for summary judgment.
   
   
2. Bundy's response (pro se).
   
   
3. The Court Order granting judgment to the Government.

It doesn't look like Bundy did himself much good representing himself instead of getting a good lawyer.

From the government's motion for summary judgement:

• Page 7:

  ...Defendant Bundy did not comply with the 1998 Order to remove his livestock from the Bunkerville Allotment by November 30, 1998. As a result, the United States brought a motion to enforce the injunction in 1999 based on evidence of continuing trespass. This Court granted the United States’ motion, ordered Defendant Bundy to remove his livestock as previously directed, and ordered him to pay a modified level of damages to the United States. Bundy I, Docket No. 45, Order dated September 17, 1999.
  
  Defendant Bundy acknowledges he has not complied with the Court’s orders to remove his cattle from the former Bunkerville Allotment. Ex. 4, Excerpts of Bundy Deposition (“Depo.”), pp. 99:20-100:6. Nor did Defendant Bundy ever comply with the order to pay damages. Ex. 2, Rugwell Declaration ¶ 25. ...

  
  
• Page 10:

  ...The United States has reached out to Defendant Bundy in different ways to try to bring his trespass to a close. As described below, those efforts have included letters, an overture to speak with him in person or by telephone, scheduling a meeting (that was subsequently canceled), contact with him to discuss safety concerns caused by his trespassing livestock, working through local law enforcement personnel, and an offer to provide him the proceeds from the sale of his cattle if impounded. All of these efforts were to no avail. Defendant Bundy refuses to cooperate....

  
  
• Pages 14 to 15:

  ...At his deposition, Defendant Bundy made clear his position that he does not feel bound by and does not intend to comply with federal law or orders that might be issued by this Court to enforce federal law:
  
  

  Q. Now, let’s go back to the question. Let’s assume the federal authorities have the authorization to present themselves on land, whether you call it your ranch or the former Bunkerville Allotment, or for that matter the new trespass lands, and they’ve got the authorization in hand to remove cattle that belongs to you and they literally, physically, take the steps necessary to accomplish that right there and you're standing by. Are you going to undertake any effort to physically stop that?
  
  A. Yes.
  
  Q. What efforts would that be?
  
  A. Whatever it takes.
  
  Q. Okay. Would that include -- when you say “whatever it takes,” would that include the soliciting, the assistance of neighbors, friends, family, supporters of yours to do whatever it takes in the scenario I just described?
  
  A. Yes.​

  
  Ex. 4, Bundy Depo. at 99:1-19. As attested to in his deposition, and in his communications with the United States, Defendant Bundy has indicated that he does not rule out a physical confrontation with the federal government...

From the Court Order:

• Page 5:

  IV. CONCLUSION
  
  IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment (#18) is GRANTED.
  
  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Cliven Bundy’s Motion to Dismiss (#28) is DENIED as moot.
  
  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bundy is permanently enjoined from trespassing on the New Trespass Lands.
  
  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States is entitled to protect the New Trespass Lands against this trespass, and all future trespasses by Bundy.
  
  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bundy shall remove his livestock from the New Trespass Lands within 45 days of the date hereof, and that the United States is entitled to seize and remove to impound any of Bundy's cattle that remain in trespass after 45 days of the date hereof.
  
  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States is entitled to seize and remove to impound any of Bundy's cattle for any future trespasses, provided the United States has provided notice to Bundy under the governing regulations of the United States Department of the Interior...

​

Bundy can't reasonably expect that the BLM will simply not enforce the court orders.

 

[JimDandy]

So I have to ask myself does this really have anything to due with frees, monies owed or grazing right or is the nothing more than big brother publicly flexing their muscle and creating a situation by which more over reaching laws can be enacted because a US citizen (Right or wrong) stood up to big brother.

The phrasing of the question you ask yourself has quite a bit of predisposition in it. In the first place - and this is something a lot of anti-government folks forget- you, me, and most of the people posting here ARE Big Brother.
We- and our ancestors- were Big Brother when we revolted against the Crown.

• We were Big Brother when we wrote and ratified the Constitution.
• We were Big Brother when we went to war with Mexico.
• We were Big Brother when we elected the Congress that ratified the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
• We were Big Brother when we elected the Congress than formed the Territory of Nevada.
• We were Big Brother when we passed the enabling act making Nevada a state.
• We were Big Brother when we elected every single Congress since then that hasn't deemed it good for the US to divest title to that land.
• We were Big Brother when we decided that John Q Public can use that land, but since we all own it, he should pay all of us to use it.
• And we were all all Big Brother when we elected, appointed, and confirmed the various people in the various posts who decided that by using it and not paying for it for 20 years, Bundy was committing an offense against all of us as a whole.

 

[zxcvbob]

I have not followed the particulars of this case (nor BLM kerfuffles in general) but Bundy may have had a legitimate 5th Amendment claim (Takings Clause) that the fees were invalid because he was never compensated for his ancestral water and grazing rights. 19th century open-range laws can be complicated.

I don't think he ever made that claim.

--
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BlJ2Qc0CMAA0GnM.jpg:medium

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

because I don't feel I have enough facts to make that argument.

That in itself is refreshing. This whole conversation is a microcosm of why our country is where it is today. Plenty of opinions, very little knowledge of the facts.

Some folks even say it out loud; "Expecting concrete proof from an opinion on an internet forum is asinine." Note that this is in response to a request for EVIDENCE, not "concrete proof". In other words "I've made up my mind! I don't have time to be bothered with facts!"

Every one has an opinion on any topic from war to marijuana to abortion to the Bundy cows, but look at how many can't name a single sitting senator, tell you how many senators there are, name the vice president, Secretary of State, Speaker of the House etc, but have no trouble at all telling you who won American Idol last year.

This Bundy thing... sadly, the best case scenario is usually an opinion that's based on a few minutes of news coverage. More likely, it's based on what a buddy gave from his slanted reinterpretation, based on a faulty memory of (at best) those few minutes of news coverage and very often not even that but rather on HIS buddies faulty reinterpretation of a few minutes news. Anyone who works with the public will see it all day every day.

I always thought that The Telephone Game we played in kindergarten was supposed to teach us how NOT to get information. It seems that an awful lot of folks saw it differently.

 

[madmo44mag]

JimDandy.

I see and respect the point you make.
This is you definition of “big brother” and you have the right and privilege to that definition.
It is a bit off topic and I will not be baited into that argument.

As stated I was just offering anther view point.

Cheers.

 

[JimDandy]

I have not followed the particulars of this case (nor BLM kerfuffles in general) but Bundy may have had a legitimate 5th Amendment claim (Takings Clause) that the fees were invalid because he was never compensated for his ancestral water and grazing rights. 19th century open-range laws can be complicated.

How did he get these grazing and water rights on land that wasn't his? According to the first link (of court documents I believe are public record and thus quotable?) from Frank

Defendant Bundy owns a ranch on private lands near Bunkerville, Nevada.

Prior to 1993, Defendant Bundy was
authorized to graze livestock on the Bunkerville Allotment under an ephemeral grazing permit.

The United States acquired what is now the State of Nevada in 1848 as part of the land
ceded from Mexico to the United States through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

United States v. Gardner, 107 F.3d 1314, 1318 (9th
Cir.1997) (reaffirmed that the United States has held title to the unappropriated public lands in
Nevada since Mexico ceded the land to the United States in 1848 and that the United States may
regulate grazing on those lands because it owns title to those lands).

The “New Trespass Lands”
are lands in southern Nevada, in the vicinity of Lake Mead and within an area known as Gold
Butte. They are owned by the United States and administered by BLM and NPS as BLM Lands
and NPS Lands, respectively

Defendant Bundy has never held a permit and has never been authorized to graze
livestock on BLM Lands or NPS Lands that constitute the New Trespass Lands.

Defendant Bundy has never had authorization to construct, use or maintain range
improvements on the BLM portion of the New Trespass Lands

I understand that to mean, his ranch - assuming it's the source of these ancestral claims you suggest he had - is his. The land he's being kicked off of isn't his, and was never his. The Federal Government only has the "unappropriated public lands" - if he had these rights, based on an ancestral claim prior to 1848, he'd have the land, too, wouldn't he?

Some of the land he's using he's never been authorized to use. I'm no lawyer, but I would hope you can't generate grazing and/or water rights on land you're not authorized to be on.

Just found this: Washington Post Article that says his family homesteaded the landin 1877, 29 years after the Government claimed title to all unappropriated public lands.

 

[zincwarrior]

Oh, come on, what a cop out. Are you too lazy to go back and read the posts about liens and etc. Heck even the news outlets I have been able to find that have written about this have mentioned those same things that were mentioned in previous posts.

Liens only matter if you try to sell the underlying asset. Putting liens on property is difficult if you didn't have a secured claim. The BLM is effectively an unsecured creditor and Bundy could file bankruptcy. Meanwhile he continues to commit trespass in open and notorious fashion.

 

[Buzzcook]

The movie "The Battleship Potemkin" has a very powerful scene call the Odessa Steps in which women and and children are gunned down by Tsarist troops.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship_Potemkin#The_Odessa_Steps_sequence

While the movie is broadly based on history, that particular scene is fiction. But as I said it is a very powerful scene and just about anyone who sees it has the urge to take up arms and overthrow the Tsar.

Well it looks as if there were some plans to recreate that scene in Nevada.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2014/04/16/dont-make-me-a-target/

“It was a tactical plot that I was trying to get them to use,” Mack said in comments flagged by The Raw Story. “If they’re going to start killing people, I’m sorry, but to show the world how ruthless these people are, women needed to be the first ones shot.”

Using human shields even if they are voluntary is not a tactic that we would expect from a legitimate militia.
It is what I would expect from a political "romantic" that sees their acts as having some greater historic meaning.
It is the basis of the so called militia movement and it's hubris on a nearly sociopathic level.
Just remember when you start waving the red flag, these are the kinds of people you're making common cause with.

 

[Dreaming100Straight]

I have not followed the particulars of this case (nor BLM kerfuffles in general) but Bundy may have had a legitimate 5th Amendment claim (Takings Clause) that the fees were invalid because he was never compensated for his ancestral water and grazing rights. 19th century open-range laws can be complicated.

I don't think he ever made that claim.

You cannot demand compensation for the taking of something you never owned.

We keep hearing about what Bundy claims his ancestors did, but I haven't seen any proof. Have you?

 

[Dreaming100Straight]

This article seems to pretty well document some of the problems with Cattle Grazing and the Feds over cattle grazing rights.

 

[jrinne0430]

I hope this is the end of it but, some may not feel that way.

“They’re nothing more than domestic terrorists,” Reid said, according to the paper. “I repeat: what happened there was domestic terrorism.”

“They had sniper rifles in the freeway. They had weapons, automatic weapons. They had children lined up. They wanted to make sure they got hurt first … What if others tried the same thing?” he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ers-nevada-rancher-bundy-domestic-terrorists/

 

[Dreaming100Straight]

Bundy and supporters had the early public relations advantage, but information about the threat the feds faced is now coming out. See the photo of the militiaman sniper on the bridge and other pictures released by NBC.

 

[Tom Servo]

See the photo of the militiaman sniper on the bridge and other pictures released by NBC.

Those guys in the faux fatigues have badges reading "Praetorian Guard." For the record, the Praetorian guard protected emperors. When they felt they weren't being paid enough, they were known for killing the men they served. Really disingenuous.

That said, I've seen the pictures of the wannabe sniper on the bridge, the one who's muzzling a whole crowd of people. I wouldn't be very happy to have him "protecting" me.

The takeway to this whole thing is this: if I don't like a decision the government makes, right or wrong, I just have to get a bunch of my friends to show up with guns to deter enforcement. I really don't like where that leads us.

 

[steve4102]

The takeway to this whole thing is this: if I don't like a decision the government makes, right or wrong, I just have to get a bunch of my friends to show up with guns to deter enforcement. I really don't like where that leads us.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, but...

Would you have the same opinion if the Government "decision" was to round up US Citizens instead of Cattle? Round them up for violating "Common Sense" gun control laws similar to the situation brewing in NY and CT?

 

[Dreaming100Straight]

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, but...

Would you have the same opinion if the Government "decision" was to round up US Citizens instead of Cattle? Round them up for violating "Common Sense" gun control laws similar to the situation brewing in NY and CT?

Try staying on topic, but whether or not the government should be permitted to seize cattle under court orders following due process is far from rounding up people for violating gun laws which have so far withstood constitutional scrutiny. That you feel the need to divert the argument to the situation in NY and CT suggest you are unable to defend the conduct of the protestors and militia in Nevada.

 

[steve4102]

That you feel the need to divert the argument to the situation in NY and CT suggest you are unable to defend the conduct of the protestors and militia in Nevada.

You are correct, I am unable to defend their conduct. I think they are either Wrong or Mislead and protesting something they know little or nothing about.

BTW it is "Protester" not "protestors"

 

[Tom Servo]

Would you have the same opinion if the Government "decision" was to round up US Citizens instead of Cattle?

Those are two very different things, and that's part of the problem here.

We're not talking about Germany in 1939. This guy refused to pay taxes and fees, and the government decided to seize some of his property. Am I going to refuse to pay for a car because gas got expensive, then confront the repo man at gunpoint? No.

Bundy isn't some downtrodden crusader for our rights. He's a guy who flunked basic civics, took advantage of property that wasn't his, then called his friends in to interfere with a legitimate law-enforcement operation with the force of arms. That's mob justice, and condoning it leads us down some pretty dismal paths.

Not everyone who waves a gun around and chants the right slogans is our friend.

 

[kilimanjaro]

When they start rounding up Jews or Christians or whatever, we'll all show up to stop that from happening.

Rounding up cattle grazing in trespass? I'll pick my battles a bit more carefully.

 

[LogicMan]

Those guys in the faux fatigues have badges reading "Praetorian Guard." For the record, the Praetorian guard protected emperors. When they felt they weren't being paid enough, they were known for killing the men they served. Really disingenuous.

That said, I've seen the pictures of the wannabe sniper on the bridge, the one who's muzzling a whole crowd of people. I wouldn't be very happy to have him "protecting" me.

The takeway to this whole thing is this: if I don't like a decision the government makes, right or wrong, I just have to get a bunch of my friends to show up with guns to deter enforcement. I really don't like where that leads us.

But Bundy didn't do that. The militia forces came in after seeing the militaristic actions on the part of the feds, who IMO have no business showing up in the blatantly militarized manner that they did. My takeaway is that if you're the government and you want to enforce the law, depending on whom you're dealing with, there are more peaceful ways to go about doing it. You don't treat like a terrorist a guy who refuses to remove cattle from land.

As for the wannabes in this situation, I'd say a good chunk of them were the federal government. You'd have thought they were preparing to invade an armed compound or something. Regarding the militiamen, a lot of them may well be the real deal, as the Oathkeepers were there who consist of military and law enforcement.

People are tired of the overreach by the government regarding using militarized law enforcement to enforce things that do not require such force.

 

[LogicMan]

When they start rounding up Jews or Christians or whatever, we'll all show up to stop that from happening.

Rounding up cattle grazing in trespass? I'll pick my battles a bit more carefully.

That's not what they did. They showed up in a heavily militarized fashion to "round up" those cattle. If the people had folded, then actions like this by the government will only increase.