|
|
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 840
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 840 |
Take your time on the argument.
As to the case you cited, it's no binding law. It's a dead case and without any legal merit at this point, just like the trial court decisions in Heller and McDonald that tried to say that the Second Amendment was not an individual right. It simply doesn't exist, legally.
Further, the trial judge that you "like" is discredited in numerous appeals court rulings to a degree that I've never seen before. He simply isn't trusted and his rulings are biased to a degree that the higher courts won't back him at all. Whether you "like" him or not, he's not a valid arbiter of fact or law. Curious question? Please explain how this decision to overrule was NOT Biased? Because it was in favor of the Government it gets a pass on Bias? Honestly I'm not sure I have ever read a case where a Justice was not Personally Biased in what Arguments, Testimony and Evidence were allow to affect a Case...Honestly...have you? They wouldn't even allow argument against it. "The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument as to Appellant and Wayne N. Hage. Fed. R. App." This is probably one of the most biased denials of Due Process in favor of the Government I think I have read yet. Please humor me and put the shoe on the other foot for couple minutes and read it again. There really are some unjust discrepancies in their argument for this decision. https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/13-16974.pdfI have been very busy here with responsibilities but if you don't mind I am going to put our original discussion aside for a bit and try to stay with this particular action. Now that you shared this current decision I am locked in with curiosity and find myself breaking this one down in detail. Without a Staff I can only concentrate on one Case at a time.  Seriously...the Timeline of actions they use in this concerning the Statute of Limitations is Inaccurate. They could have probably also successfully done this without twisting these facts. I contend that this was a wrong decision based on even their own reasoning and assertions. I think they stepped on their own feet in this if we want to argue bias...
Last edited by Bugout4x4; 02/10/16.
When I no longer have the right to protect my own person or property...my person and property have become public property in common.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
Take your time on the argument.
As to the case you cited, it's no binding law. It's a dead case and without any legal merit at this point, just like the trial court decisions in Heller and McDonald that tried to say that the Second Amendment was not an individual right. It simply doesn't exist, legally.
Further, the trial judge that you "like" is discredited in numerous appeals court rulings to a degree that I've never seen before. He simply isn't trusted and his rulings are biased to a degree that the higher courts won't back him at all. Whether you "like" him or not, he's not a valid arbiter of fact or law. Curious question? Please explain how this decision to overrule was NOT Biased? Because it was in favor of the Government it gets a pass on Bias? Honestly I'm not sure I have ever read a case where a Justice was not Personally Biased in what Arguments, Testimony and Evidence was allow to affect a Case...Honestly...have you? They wouldn't even allow argument against it. "The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument as to Appellant and Wayne N. Hage. Fed. R. App." This is probably one of the most biased denials of Due Process in favor of the Government I think I have read yet. Please humor me and put the shoe on the other foot for couple minutes and read it again. There really are some unjust discrepancies in their argument for this decision. https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/13-16974.pdfI have been very busy here with responsibilities but if you don't mind I am going to put our original discussion aside for a bit and try to stay with this particular action. Now that you shared this current decision I am locked in with curiosity and find myself breaking this one down in detail. Without a Staff I can only concentrate on one Case at a time. Seriously...the Timeline of actions they use in this concerning the Statute of Limitations is Inaccurate. They could have probably also successfully done this without twisting these facts. I contend that this was a wrong decision based on even their own reasoning and assertions. I think they stepped on their own feet in this if we want to argue bias... When the judges rulings were counter to established law and court procedure, and the multitude of other factors that the Appeals Court (on different cases, with different reviewing judges and panels) cited not only in their recent decision but in other decisions overruling that judge for the several egregious breaches of judiciary conduct, the bias is easily established. It's not about which party is preferentially treated by a biased ruling; it's that there was a preferential treatment that goes against the established rules, procedures, and case law. The Appeals Court decision that you say is a denial of Due Process had nothing to do with Due Process at all. A denial of Due Process means that the aggrieved party had no opportunity to voice their case before a fair, unbiased arbiter. In the multitude of Hage cases, the Hages have had numerous opportunities to have their cases heard at the Administrative level, trial level, and several appellate levels. If anything, they've had substantial Due Process for their claims. The Appeals Court found that the trial judge was unduly biased and his rulings were counter to the rules of Civil Procedure (and entire area of law unto itself), court procedure, and standing law. Any judge that does that on any case, regardless of which party benefits or is harmed, will have their ruling overturned. This judge clearly does it on a regular basis. In fact, the Appeals Court decision is yet another opportunity for Due Process. The case is being remanded to a different judge, one that hopefully will avoid bias toward/against either party and apply the established rules and standing law fairly on the facts presented. The Hages haven't lost; they simply have to present their case to a neutral (and not biased) arbiter. In other words, they (and the other party) actually get the Constitutional guarantee of Due Process. Take your time on the discussion; there's no rush.
Last edited by 4ager; 02/10/16.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,566
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,566 |
Part of the frustration is that you can't have much hope of success in litigation when all the rules are made by the feds, all the courts, judges and enforcement are feds as well.
And the feds have no cap limits on what they will spend to fight a case. Especially when it would set a precedent that's not in their favor, thus invoking more litigation from others.
Private citizens don't have that kind of money for litigation. They are ruined, and all is lost either way.
Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 840
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 840 |
Take your time on the argument.
As to the case you cited, it's no binding law. It's a dead case and without any legal merit at this point, just like the trial court decisions in Heller and McDonald that tried to say that the Second Amendment was not an individual right. It simply doesn't exist, legally.
Further, the trial judge that you "like" is discredited in numerous appeals court rulings to a degree that I've never seen before. He simply isn't trusted and his rulings are biased to a degree that the higher courts won't back him at all. Whether you "like" him or not, he's not a valid arbiter of fact or law. Curious question? Please explain how this decision to overrule was NOT Biased? Because it was in favor of the Government it gets a pass on Bias? Honestly I'm not sure I have ever read a case where a Justice was not Personally Biased in what Arguments, Testimony and Evidence was allow to affect a Case...Honestly...have you? They wouldn't even allow argument against it. "The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument as to Appellant and Wayne N. Hage. Fed. R. App." This is probably one of the most biased denials of Due Process in favor of the Government I think I have read yet. Please humor me and put the shoe on the other foot for couple minutes and read it again. There really are some unjust discrepancies in their argument for this decision. https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/13-16974.pdfI have been very busy here with responsibilities but if you don't mind I am going to put our original discussion aside for a bit and try to stay with this particular action. Now that you shared this current decision I am locked in with curiosity and find myself breaking this one down in detail. Without a Staff I can only concentrate on one Case at a time. Seriously...the Timeline of actions they use in this concerning the Statute of Limitations is Inaccurate. They could have probably also successfully done this without twisting these facts. I contend that this was a wrong decision based on even their own reasoning and assertions. I think they stepped on their own feet in this if we want to argue bias... When the judges rulings were counter to established law and court procedure, and the multitude of other factors that the Appeals Court (on different cases, with different reviewing judges and panels) cited not only in their recent decision but in other decisions overruling that judge for the several egregious breaches of judiciary conduct, the bias is easily established. It's not about which party is preferentially treated by a biased ruling; it's that there was a preferential treatment that goes against the established rules, procedures, and case law. The Appeals Court decision that you say is a denial of Due Process had nothing to do with Due Process at all. A denial of Due Process means that the aggrieved party had no opportunity to voice their case before a fair, unbiased arbiter. In the multitude of Hage cases, the Hages have had numerous opportunities to have their cases heard at the Administrative level, trial level, and several appellate levels. If anything, they've had substantial Due Process for their claims. The Appeals Court found that the trial judge was unduly biased and his rulings were counter to the rules of Civil Procedure (and entire area of law unto itself), court procedure, and standing law. Any judge that does that on any case, regardless of which party benefits or is harmed, will have their ruling overturned. This judge clearly does it on a regular basis. In fact, the Appeals Court decision is yet another opportunity for Due Process. The case is being remanded to a different judge, one that hopefully will avoid bias toward/against either party and apply the established rules and standing law fairly on the facts presented. The Hages haven't lost; they simply have to present their case to a neutral (and not biased) arbiter. In other words, they (and the other party) actually get the Constitutional guarantee of Due Process. Take your time on the discussion; there's no rush. I just can't help but feel that "Something just ain't right" in how this came about so I am compelled to keep digging. I will indeed have the integrity to admit I am wrong if I cannot find it. Watch...I predict the new Judge will indeed be loyal and Biased in favor of .gov or they are going to keep doing this until they find one that is. Restacking the Deck until the House wins or bankrupts these folks. In all this I have to question who is FUNDING all this? The Hages now have to come up with fees to fight it again. The Government has unlimited taxpayer's dollars to spend without worry or care. Now this I truly have a problem with, .gov is going to keep spending my Tax Dollars on this until they break these folks and end up with everything they own. And I truly think this is the plan and agenda behind it from the beginning.
Last edited by Bugout4x4; 02/10/16.
When I no longer have the right to protect my own person or property...my person and property have become public property in common.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
Take your time on the argument.
As to the case you cited, it's no binding law. It's a dead case and without any legal merit at this point, just like the trial court decisions in Heller and McDonald that tried to say that the Second Amendment was not an individual right. It simply doesn't exist, legally.
Further, the trial judge that you "like" is discredited in numerous appeals court rulings to a degree that I've never seen before. He simply isn't trusted and his rulings are biased to a degree that the higher courts won't back him at all. Whether you "like" him or not, he's not a valid arbiter of fact or law. Curious question? Please explain how this decision to overrule was NOT Biased? Because it was in favor of the Government it gets a pass on Bias? Honestly I'm not sure I have ever read a case where a Justice was not Personally Biased in what Arguments, Testimony and Evidence was allow to affect a Case...Honestly...have you? They wouldn't even allow argument against it. "The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument as to Appellant and Wayne N. Hage. Fed. R. App." This is probably one of the most biased denials of Due Process in favor of the Government I think I have read yet. Please humor me and put the shoe on the other foot for couple minutes and read it again. There really are some unjust discrepancies in their argument for this decision. https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/13-16974.pdfI have been very busy here with responsibilities but if you don't mind I am going to put our original discussion aside for a bit and try to stay with this particular action. Now that you shared this current decision I am locked in with curiosity and find myself breaking this one down in detail. Without a Staff I can only concentrate on one Case at a time. Seriously...the Timeline of actions they use in this concerning the Statute of Limitations is Inaccurate. They could have probably also successfully done this without twisting these facts. I contend that this was a wrong decision based on even their own reasoning and assertions. I think they stepped on their own feet in this if we want to argue bias... When the judges rulings were counter to established law and court procedure, and the multitude of other factors that the Appeals Court (on different cases, with different reviewing judges and panels) cited not only in their recent decision but in other decisions overruling that judge for the several egregious breaches of judiciary conduct, the bias is easily established. It's not about which party is preferentially treated by a biased ruling; it's that there was a preferential treatment that goes against the established rules, procedures, and case law. The Appeals Court decision that you say is a denial of Due Process had nothing to do with Due Process at all. A denial of Due Process means that the aggrieved party had no opportunity to voice their case before a fair, unbiased arbiter. In the multitude of Hage cases, the Hages have had numerous opportunities to have their cases heard at the Administrative level, trial level, and several appellate levels. If anything, they've had substantial Due Process for their claims. The Appeals Court found that the trial judge was unduly biased and his rulings were counter to the rules of Civil Procedure (and entire area of law unto itself), court procedure, and standing law. Any judge that does that on any case, regardless of which party benefits or is harmed, will have their ruling overturned. This judge clearly does it on a regular basis. In fact, the Appeals Court decision is yet another opportunity for Due Process. The case is being remanded to a different judge, one that hopefully will avoid bias toward/against either party and apply the established rules and standing law fairly on the facts presented. The Hages haven't lost; they simply have to present their case to a neutral (and not biased) arbiter. In other words, they (and the other party) actually get the Constitutional guarantee of Due Process. Take your time on the discussion; there's no rush. I just can't help but feel that "Something just ain't right" in how this came about so I am compelled to keep digging. I will indeed have the integrity to admit I am wrong if I cannot find it. Watch...I predict the new Judge will indeed be loyal and Biased in favor of .gov or they are going to keep doing this until they find one that is. Restacking the Deck until the House wins or bankrupts these folks. In all this I have to question who is FUNDING all this? The Hages now have to come up with fees to fight it again. The Government has unlimited taxpayer's dollars to spend without worry or care. Now this I truly have a problem with, .gov is going to keep spending my Tax Dollars on this until they break these folks and end up with everything they own. And I truly think this is the plan and agenda behind it from the beginning. The Hages have been suing and fighting the Feds for more than two decades, and much of it over rehearings of cases in which neither side won on all issues. They've had many different judges on different cases, and thus far the ONLY judge that either side has had that was overturned like THAT on appeal is the one in this specific case. Both sides have had judgments overturned on appeal on various areas of law or on applications thereof, but only in this one instance is the ruling specifically due to the overwhelming bias of the judge involved. There hasn't been a stacking of the deck; there's only been the overturning of a judge who is, it seems, no longer fit to hear cases.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 840
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 840 |
Part of the frustration is that you can't have much hope of success in litigation when all the rules are made by the feds, all the courts, judges and enforcement are feds as well.
And the feds have no cap limits on what they will spend to fight a case. Especially when it would set a precedent that's not in their favor, thus invoking more litigation from others.
Private citizens don't have that kind of money for litigation. They are ruined, and all is lost either way. Absolutely...and as for Biased Judgments against Written Law... the U.S. Supreme Court does it all the Time. Using them for example of "unbiased" citations is truly a very poor source Example..."Shall not be Infringed". They either cannot read Written English or they are indeed guilty of Bias.
Last edited by Bugout4x4; 02/10/16.
When I no longer have the right to protect my own person or property...my person and property have become public property in common.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
Part of the frustration is that you can't have much hope of success in litigation when all the rules are made by the feds, all the courts, judges and enforcement are feds as well.
And the feds have no cap limits on what they will spend to fight a case. Especially when it would set a precedent that's not in their favor, thus invoking more litigation from others.
Private citizens don't have that kind of money for litigation. They are ruined, and all is lost either way. Absolutely...and as for Biased Judgments against Written Law... the U.S. Supreme Court does it all the Time. Using them for example of citations is truly a very poor source Example..."Shall not be Infringed". They either cannot read Written English or they are indeed guilty of Bias. The 2A case law is still evolving. There'd been DAMNED little 2A litigation until Heller that got to the SCOTUS. It's a process, and we're winning on that. If you honestly think that using standing case law, the entire basis for Western legal theory and practice, is a "very poor source" for how law should be handled, then I really have to wonder exactly what theory of law you would support. Is American jurisprudence perfect? Of course not. However, there is not a better system in existence and throughout history has not been any better system developed.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 840
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 840 |
Part of the frustration is that you can't have much hope of success in litigation when all the rules are made by the feds, all the courts, judges and enforcement are feds as well.
And the feds have no cap limits on what they will spend to fight a case. Especially when it would set a precedent that's not in their favor, thus invoking more litigation from others.
Private citizens don't have that kind of money for litigation. They are ruined, and all is lost either way. Absolutely...and as for Biased Judgments against Written Law... the U.S. Supreme Court does it all the Time. Using them for example of citations is truly a very poor source Example..."Shall not be Infringed". They either cannot read Written English or they are indeed guilty of Bias. The 2A case law is still evolving. There'd been DAMNED little 2A litigation until Heller that got to the SCOTUS. It's a process, and we're winning on that. If you honestly think that using standing case law, the entire basis for Western legal theory and practice, is a "very poor source" for how law should be handled, then I really have to wonder exactly what theory of law you would support. Is American jurisprudence perfect? Of course not. However, there is not a better system in existence and throughout history has not been any better system developed. Now you are making sense. Just because a case was Judged in favor of one party doesn't always make that Judgment the correct and truly just Judgment. We cannot assume that how a case turns out that it is not a mistake in Judgment. There is only right or wrong in everything. Interpreting a wrong to make it appear to be right doesn't actually make it right based on just morality or fairness. Or vice versa.
When I no longer have the right to protect my own person or property...my person and property have become public property in common.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
Part of the frustration is that you can't have much hope of success in litigation when all the rules are made by the feds, all the courts, judges and enforcement are feds as well.
And the feds have no cap limits on what they will spend to fight a case. Especially when it would set a precedent that's not in their favor, thus invoking more litigation from others.
Private citizens don't have that kind of money for litigation. They are ruined, and all is lost either way. Absolutely...and as for Biased Judgments against Written Law... the U.S. Supreme Court does it all the Time. Using them for example of citations is truly a very poor source Example..."Shall not be Infringed". They either cannot read Written English or they are indeed guilty of Bias. The 2A case law is still evolving. There'd been DAMNED little 2A litigation until Heller that got to the SCOTUS. It's a process, and we're winning on that. If you honestly think that using standing case law, the entire basis for Western legal theory and practice, is a "very poor source" for how law should be handled, then I really have to wonder exactly what theory of law you would support. Is American jurisprudence perfect? Of course not. However, there is not a better system in existence and throughout history has not been any better system developed. Now you are making sense. Just because a case was Judged in favor of one party doesn't always make that Judgment the correct and truly just Judgment. We cannot assume that how a case turns out that it is not a mistake in Judgment. There is only right or wrong in everything. Interpreting a wrong to make it appear to be right doesn't actually make it right based on just morality or fairness. Or vice versa. Translation? If you're saying that the ONE trial judge in the Hage cases that was overturned because of clear and evident bias and rulings against established procedure and case law was "right" because you happen to agree with his incorrect and unlawful (i.e., against the law - the thing that he is supposed to be a neutral arbiter of), then this is very much in opposition to Western jurisprudence because you are basing the determination of right/wrong on bias and not on the facts and a neutral application of the law. There are "systems of law" like that you are espousing that exist in the world today, but they are not well regarded.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,471
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,471 |
"The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument as to Appellant and Wayne N. Hage. Fed. R. App."
This is probably one of the most biased denials of Due Process in favor of the Government I think I have read yet. Please humor me and put the shoe on the other foot for couple minutes and read it again.
I think they stepped on their own feet in this if we want to argue bias...
As an initial matter- appellate courts rarely hold oral argument and even if they do, no new evidence is allowed. The purpose of the appellate court is to review the trial court's interpretation of the law and see if it was right. The facts are what the parties presented to the trial court. No do overs, or add-ons. For a bit of history of appellate court see- http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/tu_olmstead_jurisdiction.htmlIn the Hage case, no reason to hold oral argument, wasn't an issue of deciding which interpretation of the law applied. Rather the trial judge made up law that is not supported by past authority of congress and the US Supreme Court. The Statute of Limitations is not the crux of the case. Basically he conflated a drovers right to be appurtenant with the water rights. Additional reading is the companion case on whether the fencing of the creek is a taking-http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/estate-of-e-wayne-hage-v-united-states/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,471
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,471 |
Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro in Nevada on Tuesday assigned the Hage case to herself.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 44,934
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 44,934 |
Thanks, I'll try to get to that later today when I get some "chores' done. All this fun and games stuff is not conducive to getting important s--t taken care of.
Geno
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men.
In it is contentment
In it is death and all you seek
(Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
member of the cabal of dysfunctional squirrels?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 29,790
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 29,790 |
Seems the next county north (Grant) is not as welcoming as our Refuge occupiers and the Grant County sheriff initially lead us to believe. Grant County citizens speaking out.. Still have a few well contained holdouts on our Refuge, but life if beginning to get back to normal in Burns.
1Minute
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 890
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 890 |
Seems the next county north (Grant) is not as welcoming as our Refuge occupiers and the Grant County sheriff initially lead us to believe. Grant County citizens speaking out.. Still have a few well contained holdouts on our Refuge, but life if beginning to get back to normal in Burns. Yup, the folks can feel it in John Day. It doesn't help that the county/community is economically stressed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 13,234
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 13,234 |
Part of the frustration is that you can't have much hope of success in litigation when all the rules are made by the feds, all the courts, judges and enforcement are feds as well. That's exactly what I would expect to find in a federal court system. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,566
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,566 |
Part of the frustration is that you can't have much hope of success in litigation when all the rules are made by the feds, all the courts, judges and enforcement are feds as well. That's exactly what I would expect to find in a federal court system. Which is exactly why nobody ever wins against the feds. Ever. You can take Walmart to federal court and win. Same with whoever you want to drag through the process... except them. Kinda sets the pace. No?
Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 3,006
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 3,006 |
wonder when life will get back to normal for the Hammond family....??
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
[quote=sdgunslinger]wonder when life will get back to normal for the Hammond family.... [/quote
Never. The Feds were actually in negotiations with the Hammonds prior to the Bundy take over. The Bundys f'ked them royally on that, and said negotiations are "on hold".
Tell me again who actually benefited from the Bundy bunch fiasco?
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
Part of the frustration is that you can't have much hope of success in litigation when all the rules are made by the feds, all the courts, judges and enforcement are feds as well. That's exactly what I would expect to find in a federal court system. Which is exactly why nobody ever wins against the feds. Ever. You can take Walmart to federal court and win. Same with whoever you want to drag through the process... except them. Kinda sets the pace. No? Odd how the Feds actually lose on a regular basis. Is it a totally level table? Hell no. But, they do lose, often and regularly.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,471
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,471 |
Odd how rancher signs a grazing permit as 1-ucc and then blames the government for not processing the application and spends 20 years fighting over that bad decision.
|
|
|
|
|
141 members (257wthbylover, 300_savage, 5sdad, 2ndwind, 17CalFan, 21 invisible),
1,827
guests, and
971
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,190,599
Posts18,454,506
Members73,908
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
