Bundy vs. BLM

Al is a liberal, protected by MSNBC now as an employee.

 

That Judge George, what a Communist... wait, he was nominated by Reagan?

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=834&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na

 

Reagan was part of the federal government, therefore a big suckwad. He was only cool when was governor.

 

Except for the part when Reagan signed a ban on carrying loaded weapons in public, though, to be fair, that's because only black people were doing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

 

And besides, he'd probably refuse to pay the liens because they would come from the federal government.

 

Reagan also appointed a Sagebrush Rebel to his cabinet. That would be former Secretary of the Interior James "I have a black, I have a woman, two Jews and a cripple" Watt.

 

If they really wanted to get the money he owes the BLM and in fines, they'd seize the 150 acres he actually owns. Of course, with the assorted tin foil militia members milling around there now that would be impossible because SOVEREIGN CITIZEN!

 

Wouldn't the judge be more likely to side with Bundy if he was a Communist?

I'm also guessing the BLM's record in court is probably pretty close to undefeated.

 

The State of Nevada did not exist in the 1880s. It was a territory, essentially owned and operated lock, stock and barrel, by the Federal Guvvmint.

 

Federal law allows the filing of tax liens for tax debts. In this case, the Court did not enter a judgment for a dollar amount due but ordered that the U.S. is entitled to seize and remove to impound any of Bundy's cattle that remain in trespass or trespass in the future. So no, the government could not file a lien.

 

The government couldn't solve this beef with a lien, so it instead went after the lean beef AMIRITE?????

 

If Bundy really is the only rancher left, in an area that used to have dozens of ranchers, then I think we do need to ask if the BLM's policies have effectively shut down a way of living for people in the West, instead of helping them to manage the land, as they are supposed to.

Is that the intent? If it's not the intent, why has it happened, and should the policies be changed?