Ryan Bundy's Opening Statement

VivaRevolution said:
Homer, if it isn't OK for corporations to price gouge, than it isn't OK for the government Either. They were pricing them out of business with those fees.
Click to expand...

They are presumedly competing against ranchers who are grazing on their own land. If the BLM fees are too high relative to the cost to graze on rented/owned private lands is the answer not to adapt to changing market conditions move to private lands?

Is their position that the BLM fees should be set to be equivalent to the cost to graze on private lands?
 
tonni said:
my dog barked at the hills. please look at this picture of my family. yee-haw
Click to expand...

IT's better than his earlier defense...

Bundy, who is representing himself in the conspiracy case against the refuge occupiers, declares himself an “idiot of the ‘Legal Society’” and not subject to federal law, according to the documents.

“I, ryan c, man, am an idiot of the ‘Legal Society’; and; am an idiot (layman, outsider) of the ‘Bar Association’; and; i am incompetent; and; am not required by any law to be competent,” Bundy wrote in a motion filed to U.S. District Court Judge Anna Brown.

The filings are the latest in increasingly defiant and strange behavior from Bundy, including an alleged escape attempt from the Multnomah County Detention Center.

As justification for the filings separating himself from U.S. laws, Bundy filed a motion declaring himself a sovereign citizen of the “bundy society.” Within that filing, he declared himself a creation of God rather than a “person” as defined by legal dictionaries, and therefore is not subject to laws.

Bundy also wrote that his wife and children are members of the Bundy society, Brown is guilty of perjury, and that he believes his home state of Nevada and the state of Oregon are not within the United States. Instead, Bundy said both states are “sovereign union states” that are not within the jurisdiction of the U.S., which he said is limited to the District of Columbia

http://www.opb.org/news/series/burn...s/ryan-bundy-incompetent-subject-federal-law/
 
PolishHeadlock said:
IT's better than his earlier defense...

Bundy, who is representing himself in the conspiracy case against the refuge occupiers, declares himself an “idiot of the ‘Legal Society’” and not subject to federal law, according to the documents.

“I, ryan c, man, am an idiot of the ‘Legal Society’; and; am an idiot (layman, outsider) of the ‘Bar Association’; and; i am incompetent; and; am not required by any law to be competent,” Bundy wrote in a motion filed to U.S. District Court Judge Anna Brown.

The filings are the latest in increasingly defiant and strange behavior from Bundy, including an alleged escape attempt from the Multnomah County Detention Center.

As justification for the filings separating himself from U.S. laws, Bundy filed a motion declaring himself a sovereign citizen of the “bundy society.” Within that filing, he declared himself a creation of God rather than a “person” as defined by legal dictionaries, and therefore is not subject to laws.

Bundy also wrote that his wife and children are members of the Bundy society, Brown is guilty of perjury, and that he believes his home state of Nevada and the state of Oregon are not within the United States. Instead, Bundy said both states are “sovereign union states” that are not within the jurisdiction of the U.S., which he said is limited to the District of Columbia

http://www.opb.org/news/series/burn...s/ryan-bundy-incompetent-subject-federal-law/
Click to expand...
"i am incompetent, an idiot and not a person"
 
It's an interesting argument, that they own rights to access the land dating back to the 19th century under state law. But if the federal law has since invalidated those state laws then he's SOL. I guess the question there would be if the state and/or individuals were properly compensated for the eminent domain taking (all assuming his claim of access rights being true and accurate).

But even if it's true and even if the rights weren't properly accounted for...how does any of that change the trespass and illegal possession of the federal refuge since he is freely admitting that they don't own the land?
 
VivaRevolution said:
That isn't really what the law says. By his family using it for so long, he has legal rights there.
Click to expand...

He claims rights of access but not rights of possession. Which are very different things and what he and his family did is attempt to illegally possess the refuge, not just illegally access it.
 
panamaican said:
It's an interesting argument, that they own rights to access the land dating back to the 19th century under state law. But if the federal law has since invalidated those state laws then he's SOL. I guess the question there would be if the state and/or individuals were properly compensated for the eminent domain taking (all assuming his claim of access rights being true and accurate).

But even if it's true and even if the rights weren't properly accounted for...how does any of that change the trespass and illegal possession of the federal refuge since he is freely admitting that they don't own the land?
Click to expand...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff

His arguments for the land seem completely made up.

The family bought their farm near the land in 1948 and complied with the Permits as soon as they were instituted in 1954 until 1993.

It also looks like this land has always been owned by the US Government. The US bought it from Mexico as opposed to a situation like Texas where American Settlers went in, seceded, declared themselves sovereign and then joined the US.

These were always US territories that were turned into states by the US Government.
 
PolishHeadlock said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff

His arguments for the land seem completely made up.

The family bought their farm near the land in 1948 and complied with the Permits as soon as they were instituted in 1954 until 1993.

It also looks like this land has always been owned by the US Government. The US bought it from Mexico as opposed to a situation like Texas where American Settlers went in, seceded, declared themselves sovereign and then joined the US.

These were always US territories that were turned into states by the US Government.
Click to expand...


This. Whoever is arguing that that Bundy's are in the right here is a moron. They never owned this land, their grazing rights were never through the state of Nevada, because Nevada never owned the land. It was federal land from the creation of the state.

They went to court for years arguing this and lost EVERY CASE. So good old Cliven's response was to make up some bullshit about government tyranny and stop paying fees. He's already a criminal based on not paying these fees. The government came to round up his cattle which were trespassing on public land as payment for the millions of dollars in unpaid fees. It's like not paying your taxes for 20 years because you don't believe that you should. That's essentially his argument.

It's pretty sad that so many people are sticking up for scumbags like the Bundy's. They should have been convicted for what they did in Oregon. Hopefully justice will be served this time.
 
jk7707 said:
This. Whoever is arguing that that Bundy's are in the right here is a moron. They never owned this land, their grazing rights were never through the state of Nevada, because Nevada never owned the land. It was federal land from the creation of the state.

They went to court for years arguing this and lost EVERY CASE. So good old Cliven's response was to make up some bullshit about government tyranny and stop paying fees. He's already a criminal based on not paying these fees. The government came to round up his cattle which were trespassing on public land as payment for the millions of dollars in unpaid fees. It's like not paying your taxes for 20 years because you don't believe that you should. That's essentially his argument.

It's pretty sad that so many people are sticking up for scumbags like the Bundy's. They should have been convicted for what they did in Oregon. Hopefully justice will be served this time.
Click to expand...

They're responsible for the death of that Finicum guy, so I really think they should throw the book at them.
 
second sight said:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1999/07/winning-the-war-for-the-west/306233/
Click to expand...

Also it doesn't look like this Bundy character was anything like the people in your article.

https://www.scribd.com/document/299...NDY-USA-Detention-Memorandum-for-Cliven-Bundy

Nor does he bring his cattle off the public lands in the off-season to feed them when the already sparse food supply in the desert is even scarcer. Raised in the wild, Bundy’s cattle are left to fend for themselves year-round, fighting off predators and scrounging for the meager amounts of food and water available in the difficult and arid terrain that comprises the public lands in that area of the country. Bereft of human interaction, his cattle that manage to survive are wild, mean and ornery. At the time of the events giving rise to the charges, Bundy’s cattle numbered over 1,000 head, straying as far as 50 miles from his ranch and into the Lake Mead National Recreation Area (“LMNRA”), getting stuck in mud, wandering onto golf courses, straying onto the freeway (causing accidents on occasion) – foraging aimlessly and wildly, roaming in small groups over hundreds of thousands of acres includes an area formerly known as the Bunkerville Allotment). Bundy uses that entire range of land to graze his cattle unlawfully

While Bundy claims he is a cattle rancher, his ranching operation – to the extent it can be called that – is unconventional if not bizarre. Rather than manage and control his cattle, he lets them run wild on the public lands with little, if any, human interaction until such time when he traps them and hauls them off to be sold or slaughtered for his own consumption. He does not vaccinate or treat his cattle for disease; does not employ cowboys to control and herd them; does not manage or control breeding; has no knowledge of where all the cattle are located at any given time; rarely brands them before he captures them; and has to bait them into traps in order to gather them.
 
The Bundys are just a particularly egregious example of entitled welfare ranchers. And shitty ranchers at that.

Overloaded and overgrazed their land. Their cattle are disgustingly thin and sickly because the Bundys spend more time grandstanding than taking care of them.

They don’t have a leg to stand on. Better hope they get off on jury nullification again.
 
second sight said:
they pushed some of the ranchers out with endangered species, others they tried with shutting them out of water, they charging the Bundy's with terrorism from a controlled burn... had the Bundy's not resisted how far along with the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone Solar Project do you think they would be?

maybe harry reid will testify
Click to expand...
He lit fires on federal land that damn near killed firefighters. Go read the court transcripts. There was a burn ban, you can't light a fire if its "controlled" or not.
 
PolishHeadlock said:
Also it doesn't look like this Bundy character was anything like the people in your article.

https://www.scribd.com/document/299...NDY-USA-Detention-Memorandum-for-Cliven-Bundy

Nor does he bring his cattle off the public lands in the off-season to feed them when the already sparse food supply in the desert is even scarcer. Raised in the wild, Bundy’s cattle are left to fend for themselves year-round, fighting off predators and scrounging for the meager amounts of food and water available in the difficult and arid terrain that comprises the public lands in that area of the country. Bereft of human interaction, his cattle that manage to survive are wild, mean and ornery. At the time of the events giving rise to the charges, Bundy’s cattle numbered over 1,000 head, straying as far as 50 miles from his ranch and into the Lake Mead National Recreation Area (“LMNRA”), getting stuck in mud, wandering onto golf courses, straying onto the freeway (causing accidents on occasion) – foraging aimlessly and wildly, roaming in small groups over hundreds of thousands of acres includes an area formerly known as the Bunkerville Allotment). Bundy uses that entire range of land to graze his cattle unlawfully

While Bundy claims he is a cattle rancher, his ranching operation – to the extent it can be called that – is unconventional if not bizarre. Rather than manage and control his cattle, he lets them run wild on the public lands with little, if any, human interaction until such time when he traps them and hauls them off to be sold or slaughtered for his own consumption. He does not vaccinate or treat his cattle for disease; does not employ cowboys to control and herd them; does not manage or control breeding; has no knowledge of where all the cattle are located at any given time; rarely brands them before he captures them; and has to bait them into traps in order to gather them.
Click to expand...

This is an Internet forum, so it makes sense that not many folks know much about cattle raising or public land issues in the West.

People don’t get that Bundy isn’t an actual rancher with a productive operation. They all have other jobs. He’s a guy with cattle that he allows to run feral to make his point. Cattle are the pawn they use to push their anti-Federal Land agenda.
 
JohnnySagebrush said:
This is an Internet forum, so it makes sense that not many folks know much about cattle raising or public land issues in the West.

People don’t get that Bundy isn’t an actual rancher with a productive operation. They all have other jobs. He’s a guy with cattle that he allows to run feral to make his point. Cattle are the pawn they use to push their anti-Federal Land agenda.
Click to expand...

Yeah the more I'm digging into this story the more I'm realizing this has nothing to do with anything he claims.

It seems like he's just part of this Sovereign Citizen/Anarchist movement.
 
PolishHeadlock said:
Yeah the more I'm digging into this story the more I'm realizing this has nothing to do with anything he claims.

It seems like he's just part of this Sovereign Citizen/Anarchist movement.
Click to expand...

It’s similar. The Bundy clan are Mormons that have long ties to the region. Their ideology is common to Mormons in the Great Basin. They have some pretty loony views. The core is that they refute the ability of the Federal government to own and hold land.

Just don’t make the mistake of thinking the Bundys are poor, persecuted ranchers. They are Mormon ideologues who leverage their ranching as political capital. They purposely breach the terms of their contracts specifically to antagonize the BLM in an attempt to draw a response. Why do you think they allow their cattle to wander far off their alottment into a National Monument? It’s by design.They are showmen.
 
The Bundy's are a bunch of white trash stealing welfare.
 
second sight said:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1999/07/winning-the-war-for-the-west/306233/
Click to expand...
What are you pointing out here exactly, just curious, as I worked very closely with this situation? I can definitely add that there were a lot of exaggerations on both sides of this fight. The article was a little misleading In particular the damaed fencing was nowhere near 100k, actually more like 10k. I worked as a warden with the state. I worked for the Wyomimg game and fish department. My father was the head wildlife biologist for the state at that time as well and they work closely though contentiously at times with the BLM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,714
Messages
55,436,727
Members
174,775
Latest member
Ruckus245

Share this page

Back
Top