Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues The Legal Forum Let's check in on the cattle abusers, deadbeat grazers, wildlife squatter Bundys

That, my friend, has no application to how the law actually works. For example, let's take something that everyone knows about: OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder. That did not prevent the families from obtaining a civil judgement for wrongful death. Slander, defamation, and libel are all civil actions with a much different standard of proof.

It's been many years since I had any involvement with beef production (I'm FROM Missouri, and went to school with a lot of farmers, in farm country). My experience was not with ranchers, but farmers who keep some head of cattle for personal consumption and a hedge for poor crop years. I did some research to refresh my recollection, but the numbers seem close to the same, ratio-wise. (A lot of inflation since my youth.)

It takes about a year to a year and a half to raise a calf to slaughter. A weaned calf sells for about $150/cwt. At, say, 400 lbs, about $600/head. A full grown head of cattle is 1000+lbs bigger. So, the profit is made between slaughter prices and costs of raising. For ranchers it's a little different, because they generally breed the cattle, meaning they don't buy, but sell the calves. Their costs are in silage, vet fees, etc. Grazing on leased land is a small percentage of the cost but it's a trade-off - low feed costs, but higher losses. Typically 82-85% of the herd makes it to market.

The Bundys are basically operating like Trump - stiffing the contractors to make more money. In this case, the government is the contractor (leased land/grazing fees). Even at $1.69 AUM ($1.69 per month per head) that's only about $12-17 per head for grazing for the year. That's an extremely small percentage of the cost/value for raising a head of cattle (average sale price for slaughter beef was $120+/- per cwt last week). So, buy a calf for $600, sell for $1650=$1050/head. Of that $15 is "grazing fees." Who's getting ripped off here?

Usually when a defamation case goes to court it is the party injured by slander that sues the other party. In the OJ Simpson case it was the other way around, wasn't it? He was sued into paying them off to shut up about how his wife died.

I still hold to the innocent until proven guilty principle. Cliven Bundy has not been proven guilty in a court of law yet, has he? We should do good on our commitment to truth and fair procedure and not call him a terrorist. He was not even accused by the prosecution of terrorism, was he? So he's not even an alleged terrorist, he is merely an alleged criminal.

Bundy objected to the Federal government demanding to be payed the grazing fees, he claimed it would be the right of the state of Nevada or the local community. Not, as I understand, the level of the fees.

rporter claims that makes his stance political and therefore an act of terrorism. I can see how an argument that it is a political point made by Bundy, and not just fiscal resentment. But if the federal definition of terrorism comes that conclusion, the federal definition needs to be looked at and perhaps mitigated some.

The fees may be reasonable, NW Ponderer's calculation point in that direction, but it does not really have any bearing on who should have the right to collect the fee.
In many farmers experience the fees themselves are not a true indication of what the costs to operate the business are. Getting quite OT here.

There is a court order for Bundy to get his cattle off of public land. That is the result of him having been proven guilty of violating the terms of his lease by the courts.

When the federal officers came to enforce the court order by removing his cattle, because Bundy wouldn't do it, he and his gang resisted via armed confrontation and prevented the officers from carrying out a court order. That act is one of sedition and terrorism, according to the definitions. No one disputes that it happened and it is very well documented.

Therefor, to call Bundy a terrorist is merely the statement of obvious facts, and thus is not libel. Bundy would have to prove that the facts are incorrect and then show damage in order to win a libel suit. He already lost his grazing rights, so no possible damage there, and the facts have not been disputed.

look ... I can only go by the law and legal definitions and proven facts of a case. I can not make up definitions or speculate how the law should be written or deny proven facts.

I think that is precisely what I said previously.

The problem is he believes the federal government is an illegitimate authority. Note the key word ... BELIEVES. He believes it because he rejects 230 years of history i.e. he does not believe the Constitution applies to him. I can't argue with someone who believes in a delusion. I am a citizen of the US and am accorded protections emanating from the Constitution, as well as all laws passed by the federal government.

incorrect ... I have to ask ... how did you misinterpret what I said?

I said his actions make him a terrorist not his belief the federal government is illegitimate.

This is of course further complicated since all citizens are afforded the protections of the Constitution which includes the 1st amendment. Is a sovereign citizen still a citizen of the United States? I can argue on both sides of the question but that doesn't matter. What matters is what Bundy believes. If he says he is still a citizen of the United States, then he broke the law. If he says he is not a citizen of the United States, then the federal government can deport him to any country willing to accept malcontents (he has no legitimate or justifiable argument to reject the authority of the federal government).

You clearly reject the applicable federal laws in this case, as that is the only way you can hold your position. If you reject those laws, then I should be able to reasonably conclude you reject the authority of the federal government as well (it is a long argument).

So when you watched the Bundy Gang threaten federal officers from carrying out a lawful court order, either you deny it happened, or you believe the court order was unlawful and ergo the court system is illegitimate and ergo the federal government has no authority over its own citizens.

Swede, it gets difficult/tiresome when you make stuff up you don't know or deflect and don't respond to the actual point. The point I was making is that there are different standards of proof for CIVIL cases than CRIMINAL cases. They should NEVER be confused.

A criminal case is stacked heavily, and appropriately, against conviction. I have worked on both sides of that process. That is why the vast majority of criminal cases never go to trial, because proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" is hard to prove. Civil cases, on the other hand, only require a "preponderance of the evidence" - e.g., "more likely than not." Defamation, libel and slander are at that standard as is wrongful death (the Goldman case). In a civil case, one is not "guilty" but "liable."

He is 1) an alleged criminal, 2) a found lawbreaker and 3) a definitional terrorist. Let me clarify - his trial for criminal activities was thrown out on "a technicality" as has been said by some; he has been found liable for violating a federal law and owes over a million dollars in civil fees; he has admittedly violated a Federal District Court order and trespassed - which can lead to criminal contempt prosecution (just ask Joe Arpaio); and his activities, and particularly those of his sons, meet the definitional standards for "terrorism". I seriously doubt he could win a defamation case for making such an allegation because he faces two hurdles: proving malice, and "the truth" defense.

Following your logic, however, let's try this question: Was Osama Bin Laden a terrorist? He admitted to it (as has Bundy), he did it for ideological reasons (as has Bundy), he advocated violence against the U.S. government (as has Bundy), and he was never convicted. Please distinguish. I don't think, by the way, that Osama Bin Laden would win a defamation argument, either.

I seem to recollect Mr Swede is a L Rockwell fan.

Yes, the U.S. Government is Illegitimate


I'll allow the reader to figure out the problems with Rozeff's arguments.

I wrote the word stance meaning it includes his belief and his actions, so we do not really disagree. You just don't want to understand or agree.

We're all square on that. But you are dodging my view on the comparison with Simpson.