The 5th amendment (Bundy)

a reply to: seasoul

Man, she got told.

That woman wasn't the brightest bulb. Probably why she's a politician.

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: beezzer

Well...yeah. The round-up was supposed to occur in 2012.

With the pipe bombs found in Nevada during the 1990's and the increasing number of armed militia's promising to show up if the BLM showed up what do you think the feds should've done?

Two years ago, the BLM threatened to send in contractors to remove the animals. But Cliven Bundy made veiled threats of violence.

W-O-W that guy was sure mean and nasty wasn't he LOL

What we are seeing is the "Two can play at that game" strategy as also seen with that "women in front" thing.

Brilliant indeed !!

It's working because the BLM has been plagued by multiple boondoggles in their failed efforts.

Their errors have multiplied exponentially.

a reply to: links234

I certainly do. It was an injunction from a Nisi Prius court. Show me the writ warrento, notorized, without exception or casting ANY doubt, the cause of action against the man's cattle. Where is the warrent, with an Oath, or affirmation, in writing, to seize his cattle?

This should be easy for you. All of that is public record.

Otherwise, this is a violation against 4th amendment protections, gauranteed by the Constitution. Did you want to open a dialog on the homestead act, and how this smells like a post facto law too?

The wheels of justice are beginning to spin. People are looking at the law because of this situation. Yes, even congress, and they are answerable to we the people. I would look over all those codes i listed, if i were you.

Note: Whistleblowers are protected.

Didn't you get the memo? We are an oligarchy now. You expect me, and others, to believe the courts, are somehow immune?

Speaking of that Nisi Prius injunction, you may find that the original 13th amendment, titles of nobility, is entering the hive mind. Thanks to the internet, documents were found recently proving that it was ratified in Virgina, thus making it the Supreme rule of the land.

Heart beating a little faster?

Enjoy your Easter.

For those looking for it Order to Enforce Injunction on Bundy. After the order in 1998, the BLM went back to court a couple times because Bundy kept expanding to other govement lands that were not noted the in the first case. It took until 2013 after trying to work out a deal with guy to go ahead and get the court order. To some it up

On November 3, 1998, the Court issued an Order permanently enjoining Bundy from grazing his livestock on the former Bunkerville Allotment (“the Allotment”), and ordering him toremove his livestock from the Allotment by no later than November 30, 1998, and pay damages tothe United States in the amount of $200 per day per head for any remaining livestock on theAllotment after November 30, 1998. Doc. #19. On September 17, 1999, after Bundy failed tocomply with the Court’s first Order, the Court issued a second Order directing Bundy to complywith the 1998 Permanent Injunction and modifying the trespass damages owed to the United States. Doc. #46. Notwithstanding the Court’s Orders, Bundy continues to graze his cattle on theAllotment.

Courts have inherent authority to enforce a permanent injunction where the enjoined partycontinues to engage in conduct that violates the injunction.

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526
III. Discussion
Here, uncontested evidence demonstrates that Bundy continues to violate the Court’s 1998Permanent Injunction. Bundy himself admits to grazing his cattle on lands both inside and outsidethe Allotment in contravention of the Court’s Orders. Doc. #50, Ex. 4, Oct. 23, 2011 BundyDeposition. In addition to his own admissions, the United States has presented an abundance of evidence documenting Bundy’s continued grazing on the Allotment. Doc. #50, Ex. 2, Ex. 5, Ex. 6,Ex. 7, Ex. 8, Ex. 9, Ex. 13. In light of such flagrant and continuing violations, the Court finds thatit has the authority to undertake whatever measures it deems necessary to ensure Bundy’s futurecompliance with the 1998 Permanent Injunction. Specifically, if Bundy fails to comply with theCourt’s Orders, the Court has the explicit authority to direct that compliance be achieved—atBundy’s expense—by the BLM and/or NPS

TextMoreover, in its 1998 Order, the Court acknowledged that the BLM is explicitly authorizedto impound and dispose of the unauthorized livestock after written notice to Bundy of its intent toimpound. Doc. #19, p. 10 (citing 43 C.F.R. §§ 4150.2, 4150.4, 4150.4-1, 4150.4-2;

Finally, the Court finds that Bundy’s objections to the United States’ Motion, many of which have been disposed of in prior proceedings, are without merit. The Court has stated

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the United States’ Motion to Enforce Injunction (Doc.#50) is hereby GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bundy is permanently enjoined from trespassing on theformer Bunkerville Allotment.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States is entitled to protect the former Bunkerville Allotment against this trespass, and all future trespasses by Bundy.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bundy shall remove his livestock from the former Bunkerville Allotment within 45 days of the date hereof, and that the United States is entitled toseize and remove to impound any of Bundy’s cattle that remain in trespass after 45 days of the datehereof.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States is entitled to seize and remove toimpound any of Bundy’s cattle for any future trespasses, provided the United States has compliedwith the notice provisions under the governing regulations of the United States Department of theInterior.

a reply to: MrSpad

Yes, seems the OP set off on a little rant without heeding their own advice.

People are not saying that Bundy is wrong just to parrot the MSM.

a reply to: links234

Not to get into the middle or take sides but I have to ask a few questions of the informed.
Just curious because I do not know much about what's going on. Has the Federal Government purchased a solar power plant to place in said territory?

Second, has the Federal Government granted lease of public lands or "territories" to mentioned energy companies?

a reply to: Nephalim

Without further specifics, based on what I've read and researched, the answer to both questions is 'no.'

There's speculation and conjecture on both of those subjects but I've seen no hard evidence that either has occurred.

a reply to: links234

Peaceful resolutions then. Nevada seems to be big state. Is there nowhere the man can graze his cattle that would be ok with all parties involved and suited for? assuming the man pays his fees.

I guess Im just curious to know why it all came to this big mess.

originally posted by: Nephalim
a reply to: links234

Not to get into the middle or take sides but I have to ask a few questions of the informed.
Just curious because I do not know much about what's going on. Has the Federal Government purchased a solar power plant to place in said territory?

Second, has the Federal Government granted lease of public lands or "territories" to mentioned energy companies?

There is much speculation but the answer is "not yet" for a direct energy installation.

The facts are that the BLM areas in question (Gold Butte Conservation areas) have been used in the past to offset environmental impacts on other land that has been developed for city expansions and energy projects.

The most recent official referral to a solar project is in a BLM report published last month.

The Gold Butte area is being used to offset environmental impacts caused by the "Dry Lake" solar project that has solar panels going onto land about 40 miles away from the Bundy Ranch.

The BLM report is linked in another thread .....
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The entire issue with Bundy is complicated because multiple government agencies have been involved and those agencies have made errors that always created others issues as well.

Well, cattle graze is a seasonal act of sorts. The cattle will tend to roam and eat the grass down to a wee bit and move on. Its actually good for property, not the opposite. That generally explains the wandering of the cattle off of his property. Ranchers know this. Its general intention is not to tresspass its just knowing that the cattle go to where the food is. Knowing that which is a natural act- men built these things called fences. heh Fences dont hold much of anyone or anything back which is also why we have "cowboys" these people are herdsmen. Shepards of sorts.

if a company has the intention of building an installation, they know this too. It would explain why cattle are not wanted on the area, specifically if solar panels are involved. Which is fine, neither bundy nor the company (if it exists) would want property damaged. Soalr installs are going to be the collections of extreme heat.

The question for me regardless is can both parties (whomever they may be) simply come to an agreement that is fair to both. I dont see how anyone would be interested in guesswork let alone pitting civilian against officer. Doesnt make much sense.

just listening to bundy on jones
he said he has never nor do his cowboys need guns to work the farm
his point is that the sherrif is the constitutional protection from the tyranical feds
which is what happened...the standoff ended as soon as the sherrif FINALLY stood up

bundy has always stood for the fact that the county sherrifs are the ones who should have been dealing with this all along,
so bundy being threatening is very unlikely.
considering that the protestors were un armed when they were threatened with DEATH for questioning what turns out to be the digging of mass graves for cattle with those back hoes.

he is standing up against the arming of everything that makes the bureaucracy a bigger army then the army..
remember when obama said he was going to create a massive JACKBOOT civilian army...

well bundy is correct:
Against "WE THE PEOPLE":
obamas 2008 campaign speech says that EXACTLY...an civilian army of mercs and tards
just as big as the real army.

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

www.law.cornell.edu...

bundy says if he owes the money he WILL PAY the money to the APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY WHICH IS THE STATE...
not to somemone who has usurped authority, which is what the feds have done

Too many people stirring it up.

Peaceful resolution in this area could simply be the people of nevada and by default the state putting money together and buying large tracts of land from the Federal Government or State, whichever owns and granting Mr. Bundy grazing rights if they chose. At which point the monies gathered from grazing rights after could go toward local treasuries. aka community property. This would be a grazing tax. Could be used for education or whatever they all agree to. But it would help towards conservation as well.

OR
The federal Government could forgive those fees and acknowledge that grazing is actually a form of natural upkeep. Most hooved Animals (such as goats, bulls, cattle ect) are natural lawnmowers and fertilizers. In which case they would be performing a service for the people.

Its going to be agreements of those sorts that prevail where common sense fails usually. No use throwing more mud at mud is there?

originally posted by: Danbones
bundy says if he owes the money he WILL PAY the money to the APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY WHICH IS THE STATE...
not to somemone who has usurped authority, which is what the feds have done

They don't want the money. They want him to stop using the land.

That is obvious because they gave him back his cattle. It wasn't about taking the cattle in payment.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Danbones
bundy says if he owes the money he WILL PAY the money to the APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY WHICH IS THE STATE...
not to somemone who has usurped authority, which is what the feds have done

They don't want the money. They want him to stop using the land.

That is obvious because they gave him back his cattle. It wasn't about taking the cattle in payment.

That and the fact they waited 20 years to do something. Even when he kept expanding to more and more land. Even building structures, piping, etc. And if they really wanted the money they could just place a lien on his ranch and foreclose on it. Something the legally could have done all along. All they really want is the cows off the land.

a reply to: MrSpad

LOL.

"Start with Injunction".

mashable.com...