Who was an injustice perpetrated against?
It’s off-topic, but why would you think removing the fees is somehow going to lessen the financial burden on you?
As Robot Arm mentioned, those parks don’t take care of themselves. If user fees don’t pay the costs, then general taxes do. (Even if you don’t maintain the trails and have rangers, forest fires and grass fires are a fact of life in the west, and they’re not going to stop magically at the park boundary. Somebody’s going to be paying to fight the fires; somebody’s going to be paying for rescue services; somebody’s going to be paying for law enforcement. Who should that somebody be?)
In Bundy’s case, other ranchers are paying the fees to use the common ground, but he isn’t. He’s no different than somebody who taps into the city’s water line and takes all he needs without paying. Somebody ELSE can pay for the pumps and laying the lines and water purification and whatnot–he just gets to reap the rewards.
At the Bundy standoff, I would say that no injustice had occurred (but I’m not a lawyer). The federal officers were operating under a legal court order.
FYI -
What is INJUSTICE?
The withholding or denial of justice. In law, almost invariably applied to the act, fault, or omission of a court, as distinguished from that of an individual. See Ilolton v. Olcott. 58 N. II. 598; In re Moulton. 50 N. II. 532. “Fraud” is deception practiced by the party; “injustice” is the fault or error of the court. They are not equivalent words in substance, or in a statute authorizing a new trial on a showing of fraud or injustice. Fraud is_ always the result of contrivance and deception; injustice may be done by the negligence, mistake. or omission of the court itself. Silvey v. U. S., 7 Ct. CI. 324. Injustum est, nisi tota lege inspecta, de una aliqua ejus particula proposita judieare vel respondere. 8 Coke, 1176. It is unjust to decide or respond as to any particular part of a law without examining the whole of the law.
The second ruling was an enforcement action. There is no third case. The issues are settled.
As an off-topic response, I didn’t say it would lessen the financial burden on myself. I point out that the same process could remove the fee. And since the removal was accomplished under the same process, and the process is the process, Robot Arm (fyi - user names are in bold) wouldn’t have any complaint.
In Bundy’s case, something else is at work here. I suspect Bundy’s clout is greater than the BLM’s. Or maybe Bundy simply receives a lot of support from people in very high places who reject the federal governments confiscation of state land?
OK, then Bundy’s cattle are no longer on federal land, the back fees have been paid, and federal agents were only practicing their rodeo skills when they rounded up Bundy cattle in order to give the cattle back to Bundy.
In the real world, there is a disconnect between what the courts have ordered, and the actual situation that continues to exist today.
Those are political issues, as I already pointed out.
So what point, exactly, are you trying to make? Cliven Bundy BROKE (and is STILL breaking, as far as I know) the law! The degree to which he’s breaking it (if such a thing can be ascertained), or the importance of that law to you, is of no consequence. In THIS country those who break the law are supposed to be called to account. As others have noted, letting him get away with breaking the law sets a VERY bad precedent.
**Dropzone **explained that to you in post # 11.
I have taken the liberty of emphasizing the key part of the explanation.
The Feds should have went in guns blazing and killed or arrested anyone who tried to stop them. The government actually was too nice. They apparently did a calculation that the potential loss of life wasn’t worth the theft of the land by Bundy and let him off. Unfortunately, I think the unintended harm of that was to give some credence to Bundy’s moronic claims and embolden those who think like him. Enforcing the law in lawless areas sometimes is a political decision rather than a black and white matter. While I have laws I disagree with and would fight against, in this case, Bundy and his supporters are 100% wrong and they are harming the public who would be better served being able to use that land.
Then you need to find out why the field officers are not enforcing the court orders. The judge can demand that court orders are enforced. The LEO’s can, once again, be ordered back to BLM controlled area’s to enforce the court orders. The BLM can, once again, press forward with their demand for payment of the fee. Except they aren’t.
Maybe if Bundy were illegally selling firearms to Mexican drug cartels, the Just-Us dept. might enforce the law?
Because that kind of thing has worked out for them so well in the past?
Little Bohemia Lodge.
Have they ever done that and had it not be some kind of disaster?
I think you know why, since you seem to be defending that false patriot so much. I think it’s for the very reason that others have noted: the Feds don’t want another Ruby Ridge or Waco on their hands over a bunch of cattle even if their owner HAS been breaking the law. Now, if Cliven Bundy and his gun-totin’ “buddies” had simply stood aside (or, in the case of his “buddies”: never even shown up) when the Feds came a-callin’ then all of this probably could’ve been taken care of relatively quickly and painlessly. But since Cliven “The Patriot” Bundy chose to make an issue of it (when, I might add, he appears to have had NO legal grounds to do so)…
I’ve already stated what I would like to see: a lien placed on his property. I don’t see the need for bloodshed in this particular case. But the scofflaw “patriot” Cliven Bundy shouldn’t be allowed to thumb his nose at the U.S. Government and get away with it, either.
Are you also dropzone, that he is able to speak for you?
You’ve come in here insinuating that SDMB posters want Bundy dead. Then you allow someone else to claim that you weren’t talking about SDMB posters, but only about some nebulous “other people”. And when asked for cites for all the people who you claim have said or written that they want Bundy dead, you offer none.
Yes I’m sure they are waiting for that one piece of evidence to show up from a year ago. Don’t hold your breath.
You have no idea what I think. You state your position, and I’ll state mine.
I did not order LEO’s to return Bundy’s cattle. I didn’t issue a court order to seize Bundy’s cattle. I’m not asking my elected representatives to pursue the case against Bundy.
Armed friends of Bundy, or armed people who objected to the BLM actions, have stopped the federal government from pursuing their case against Bundy. Governors, and legislators at state and federal levels have publically supported Bundy’s position. They could make calls on Bundy’s behalf. If you believe the federal government action was called off because of Ruby Ridge, I won’t disagree with you.
You have all the response on this I am going to give you. If you have any complaints, take it up with the concierge.
Bundy and his supporters are the public who deserve to be able to use the land.
It’s no wonder your country is fucked when people like you protest against the police killing criminals in self defence, and yet call for people to be killed in cold blood for defending what’s theirs.
Unless you can explain how holding that land is necessary for the Federal government to carry out it’s duties, of course. Something no-one’s yet done.
It’s all about thetortoise.
They would be, if they paid the fee for doing so. But they didn’t, so they aren’t.
I’m certainly not in agreement with YogSosoth, but nobody with even a passing understanding of this dispute would claim that Bundy is “defending what’s his.”