Bundy versus the BLM (renter, crime, eviction)

[sargentodiaz]

Everyone needs to remember, the Bundy family grazed the land before the BLM even existed!

They have faithfully paid their taxes to the proper government agency - Clark County.

As for those who are doing their best to defend Dingy Harry, just remember that the current head of the BLM is a major campaign donor of out homespun Senator. Is he having his agents do this to others in other states who are in similar situations? If so, tell me where!

[1watertiger]

Funny how the govt. Worries about this rancher and his land , while at the same time this country's land is being over-run by 20,000,000+ illegal mexicans...

[Bideshi]

The MSN is still ignoring this historical event.

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by sargentodiaz

Everyone needs to remember, the Bundy family grazed the land before the BLM even existed!

They have faithfully paid their taxes to the proper government agency - Clark County.

As for those who are doing their best to defend Dingy Harry, just remember that the current head of the BLM is a major campaign donor of out homespun Senator. Is he having his agents do this to others in other states who are in similar situations? If so, tell me where!

Will you stop with the lies?

Bundy pays no one for the allotment and has not for 20 years. It is not at issue. He says he has not paid anyone.

He does say if he pays anyone it will be Clark County. But only if he pays.

The Bundy grazing rights do precede the BLM. The do not precede the US government.

The head of the BLM is an ex Harry Reid staffer. I doubt very much a major contributor.

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by 1watertiger

Funny how the govt. Worries about this rancher and his land ....

It is not and has never been his land.

[orphaned]

[aedubber]

Originally Posted by lvoc

It is not and has never been his land.

[orphaned]

Do you live in America or a different country? Your perspective seems way off... In the article it states why he stopped paying BLM. It also stated way before BLM even existed the fees they paid and the work they did. Get over yourself already.

[orphaned]

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by aedubber

Do you live in America or a different country? Your perspective seems way off... In the article it states why he stopped paying BLM. It also stated way before BLM even existed the fees they paid and the work they did. Get over yourself already.

He has never owned the land and has never claimed to own the land.

[orphaned]

[swagger]

Originally Posted by aedubber

Let me ask this and lets see how you people answer this.

If you are bind in a lease agreement that you will pay X amount for Z services , but Z services have not been presented/fulfilled, would you feel it is appropriate to keep paying X amount when you are not getting what the lease agreement was agreed upon?

I mean its pretty straight forward, why would you pay a maid in your house every week if she is not providing the services that were agreed upon...

If the government was in breach of contract ("services not fulfilled"), then Bundy had every right to exit the contract. If he makes that choice, however, he must vacate the property in question. He doesn't just get to continue to use the land, RENT FREE, because of some disagreement over the terms of the contract.

Call your cell phone company and tell them that you don't agree with the two year term (or some other provision in the contract), so you're no longer going to pay them, but you're demanding they continue to provide you with service. Let us know how that goes.

[aedubber]

Originally Posted by swagger

If the government was in breach of contract ("services not fulfilled"), then Bundy had every right to exit the contract. If he makes that choice, however, he must vacate the property in question. He doesn't just get to continue to use the land, RENT FREE, because of some disagreement over the terms of the contract.

Call your cell phone company and tell them that you don't agree with the two year term (or some other provision in the contract), so you're no longer going to pay them, but you're demanding they continue to provide you with service. Let us know how that goes.

Well according to him the services were not fulfilled, this is nothing like cell phone contracts. So do you think it is fair that you should pay your cell phone provider a monthly fee if you dont have service for that month?

He was paying them until they decided to just take his rent money and do away with it. He mentioned they stopped the maintenance that they were suppose to provide deemed per contract. I am sure BOTH parties could have done things a bit differently and possibly worked something out but there was no need for military style force.I am pretty sure this also runs deeper then just a pay check for rent.

The problem you people keep missing is that his family did pay into the lands. There was a thread about this already in the forums.

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by aedubber

Well according to him the services were not fulfilled, this is nothing like cell phone contracts. So do you think it is fair that you should pay your cell phone provider a monthly fee if you dont have service for that month?

He was paying them until they decided to just take his rent money and do away with it. He mentioned they stopped the maintenance that they were suppose to provide deemed per contract. I am sure BOTH parties could have done things a bit differently and possibly worked something out but there was no need for military style force.I am pretty sure this also runs deeper then just a pay check for rent.

The problem you people keep missing is that his family did pay into the lands. There was a thread about this already in the forums.

Uh sorry. He may well have made improvements for the sake of his cattle. He is doing nothing for the sake of the land.

He is using property without paying. He if basically a thief.

He is quite clear about it. He considers the US Government to be non-existing. Gone. Nada. That is clearly a figment of his imagination and has lost multiple times in court. He has had his day in court.