Cliven Bundy Situation

[mmw194287]

As several have suggested Bundy just fight them in court, I ask would that be a fair fight??? Even financially possible?? So could a rancher afford to pay seriously expensive attorneys to go into a Federal court in front of a federal judge and battle a federal agency and expect a fair shake?? That's just naïve.

People challenge federal agencies in federal courts literally (almost) everyday. Some of them win. Some of them settle. Some of them lose.

The problem is that Bundy doesn't have any sort of constitutional/legal framework with which he can make a credible case. Just because he can't win in court doesn't mean that the deck is stacked against him--that's just how our legal tradition has worked for the past few hundred years.

 

[Darren Best]

Court of law is a sham heavily in favor of the rich and well connected.

He who has the most expensive lawyer usually wins. Since the gov has unlimited funds in the form of tax paying citizens, your chances of beating them are slim at best.

Spend a decade or two getting your butt drug through court and you will learn this hard truth.

 

[gelton]

Fair trail in a federal courtroom arguing against a federal land grab? About as fair as two wolves and one sheep arguing over what's for dinner!
Interesting that many of those for Bundy are coming from east of the Rockies while most of those arguing against him are from out west. I guess growing up in states where 80% or more of the land is federally "owned" changes ones idea of states rights when it comes to instances like these. I see it as an interesting example in sociology.

 

[PA 5-0]

Fair trail in a federal courtroom arguing against a federal land grab? About as fair as two wolves and one sheep arguing over what's for dinner!
Interesting that many of those for Bundy are coming from east of the Rockies while most of those arguing against him are from out west. I guess growing up in states where 80% or more of the land is federally "owned" changes ones idea of states rights when it comes to instances like these. I see it as an interesting example in sociology.

You may be on to something here Sir. I started the same thread on an Alaska hunting forum. Although the thread was mysteriously closed 2 pages into it, the prevailing response was crushing Mr. Bundy. I would have thought the exact opposite would come from a lot of folks living off grid. Fascinating stuff.

 

[sneaky]

I can say one thing that is 100% true. No one on this forum, or any other internet discussion forum, knows all of the facts in this matter. Where it has already been tried though is in the court of public opinion, how many times is that ever right?

 

[weaver]

The thing that gets me is all his armed supporters. They have to believe they are standing for something worth fighting for, right? Can't believe they would do that for a lowlife cheating rancher.

 

[Clarktar]

Reminds of "Sagebrush Rebellion"

 

[Lukem]

Now if only the BLM would round up Spain's horses for not paying any grazing fees...

 

[wyelkhunter]

Now if only the BLM would round up Spain's horses for not paying any grazing fees...

+1, very good

 

[Hardstalk]

The thing that gets me is all his armed supporters. They have to believe they are standing for something worth fighting for, right? Can't believe they would do that for a lowlife cheating rancher.

I read a decent article on the militias behalf. In short, majority of the militia believe and fight for the constitution. There are over 1300 militias country wide heavily armed and ready to stand against ANYONE who crosses that line. They were fueled heavily by the viral videos of the bundy son getting stungunned. And the concept of having a "area" to protest. They felt that if the feds did want to recreate a waco and have blood on the streets that it was easily achieved by penning up protesters and offing them. Ill try to find the article. It was pretty interesting.

Add: another note in that article stated that while marching to seize the cattle from the feds, the militia spoke to the women and children in the group. They explained that the women and children will stay in front. And if/when the feds decided to open fire it would instantly fuel all other militias into action. Interesting tactic! A viral video of women and children getting shot down by there own government would create alot more than a range war.

 

[gelton]

The thing that gets me is all his armed supporters. They have to believe they are standing for something worth fighting for, right? Can't believe they would do that for a lowlife cheating rancher.

Just remember that the Bundy ranch was surrounded by BLM snipers for several days before the "militia" ever showed up. Its the Feds that brought the guns to collect a debt, the "militia" showed up days afterwards. Also in the video that shows Bundy supporters marching towards the cattle, most of them were unarmed while those that were armed stood back for support if needed. It wasnt just a bunch of crazies over there either - here is a State Representative that I would vote for any day:

[video=youtube_share;PrwVDYjlTe4]http://youtu.be/PrwVDYjlTe4[/video]

 

[sneaky]

I read a decent article on the militias behalf. In short, majority of the militia believe and fight for the constitution. There are over 1300 militias country wide heavily armed and ready to stand against ANYONE who crosses that line. They were fueled heavily by the viral videos of the bundy son getting stungunned. And the concept of having a "area" to protest. They felt that if the feds did want to recreate a waco and have blood on the streets that it was easily achieved by penning up protesters and offing them. Ill try to find the article. It was pretty interesting.

Add: another note in that article stated that while marching to seize the cattle from the feds, the militia spoke to the women and children in the group. They explained that the women and children will stay in front. And if/when the feds decided to open fire it would instantly fuel all other militias into action. Interesting tactic! A viral video of women and children getting shot down by there own government would create alot more than a range war.

It would also make the militias look like a bunch of cowards. Who puts women and children in harms way? Insurgents and cowards. I wouldn't want to be lumped into either category.

 

[Hardstalk]

not sure the link will work but here is the article. It was published by the sunday.

http://www.ifoldsflip.com/i/298083/0

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

I read a decent article on the militias behalf. In short, majority of the militia believe and fight for the constitution. There are over 1300 militias country wide heavily armed and ready to stand against ANYONE who crosses that line. They were fueled heavily by the viral videos of the bundy son getting stungunned. And the concept of having a "area" to protest. They felt that if the feds did want to recreate a waco and have blood on the streets that it was easily achieved by penning up protesters and offing them. Ill try to find the article. It was pretty interesting.

Add: another note in that article stated that while marching to seize the cattle from the feds, the militia spoke to the women and children in the group. They explained that the women and children will stay in front. And if/when the feds decided to open fire it would instantly fuel all other militias into action. Interesting tactic! A viral video of women and children getting shot down by there own government would create alot more than a range war.

I have not personally contacted someone with boots on the ground there but have heard a few reports that this was suggested by sheriff mack but never actually employed.

 

[Hardstalk]

I have not personally contacted someone with boots on the ground there but have heard a few reports that this was suggested by sheriff mack but never actually employed.

In the link I posted above the journalist spent several days following and mingling with the militias. He was the source I read about and mentioned it did happen. I wasn't there. And it is a journalist. So I take it with a grain of salt.

The article starts on page 12 of the link.

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

In the link I posted above the journalist spent several days following and mingling with the militias. He was the source I read about and mentioned it did happen. I wasn't there. And it is a journalist. So I take it with a grain of salt.

The article starts on page 12 of the link.

Ya I read your link but same as you I don't put a lot of faith in journalists. I'll email someone that was actually there and ask them if it really happened tomorrow and I'll let you know. This info makes me loose a lot of respect for the whole situation and had I been there, I would have walked away and washed my hands of it at that point. If it did happen the men using these women and children as shields are cowards and it should be made known.

 

[PA 5-0]

I watched most, if not all, of the videos of these incidents. Its pretty well documented on video. I did not see any women and children shield activity. There was one dorky sounding guy that put up a video that was saying put the women up front during one heated confrontation. But that was one guy. I think two people got tased, both men, so they were obviously up front. The big show down at the gate looked to be 40-50 cowboys on horses. As far as the very organized militia men, they were all armed, some heavily, and were pointing loaded weapons at federal agents. For or against, that takes big balls so I don't know if the term "coward" applies. And one thing to keep in mind, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people rallied up to support this situation. It's not like Mr. Bundy was guiding every movement and confrontation of every group of these people.

 

[JWP58]

The thing that gets me is all his armed supporters. They have to believe they are standing for something worth fighting for, right? Can't believe they would do that for a lowlife cheating rancher.

Honestly I don't think they really care. Those types of folks are merely chomping at the bit for some type of insurrection. They don't care what its about, or who it involves, just as long as the "bad guy" is the U.S. Government......I refer to these folks as the "Tapco Army".

Trust me, I could fill a few pages on the illegal, unconstitutional stuff the Feds get away with. And Mr. Bundy's issue would be the LAST thing I would think of.........or care about.

 

[JWP58]

Just remember that the Bundy ranch was surrounded by BLM snipers for several days before the "militia" ever showed up. ]

Do you have any photos showing those "snipers". I've seen a pic showing two individuals atop a hill, however I certainly cant make out any weapons...MAYBE a spotting scope.

And furthermore I find it funny that Bundy got upset when the BLM showed up in force....I mean he stated there was going to be a "range war". Did he think he would be the only one with weapons?????

 

[gelton]

Do you have any photos showing those "snipers". I've seen a pic showing two individuals atop a hill, however I certainly cant make out any weapons...MAYBE a spotting scope.

And furthermore I find it funny that Bundy got upset when the BLM showed up in force....I mean he stated there was going to be a "range war". Did he think he would be the only one with weapons?????

This has been going on now for several weeks so it's hard to sort through and verify photos but it should be noted that the Feds started their cattle round up several days before the militia started showing up. It is during this time that "fee speech zones" were set up by the Feds. Cliven bundys son was tazed, they had police dogs everywhere and both bundy, his son, and supporters reported snipers being stationed around the ranch (probably for the safety of those rounding up his cattle) but here is a picture that claims to show those snipers: