Nope. He stopped paying the fees when the government turned the land into a conservation zone for desert tortoises.
First of all, thank you for finally being honest enough to admit that he did pay the fees.
Second, you're correct. When the federal government claimed jurisdiction over this land in order to turn it into a conservation zone, the state of Nevada stopped receiving grazing fees for that parcel of land.
Which is disputed by KLAS' research into the matter.
And their research is disputed by research done by numerous other sources, including first hand accounts and interviews with Bundy, Sheriff Mack, and their spokesmen.
You keep saying that. It's not supported by any of the reporting I've seen thus far.
Maybe you're going to the wrong sources for your news.
If you graze cattle on federal land and refuse to pay fees assessed, you're a freeloader.
And if you graze cattle on land the federal government does not have jurisdiction over and is, in fact prohibited from owning by the Enclave Clause of the Constitution, but pay fees to the state and then make a good faith effort to pay, in spite of the fact that the state has no mechanism to accept payment, you're not a freeloader.
The cattle were seized as payment for the fines that Bundy had refused to pay.
First of all, if that's true, that they were seized for payment, why were several heads killed for no reason? How did the government expect to get money out of dead cattle?
Second,
why they were seized is irrelevant. It's that the government seized them
illegally that is the issue.
You realize Wikipedia isn't a credible source, right?
Traveling to Bunkerville and asking a cattle rancher to pay fees that he owes the government does not a Nazi make.
I agree. But they did not merely "ask". They brought a militarized law enforcement agency, stole his cattle, assaulted his family, all in in violation of the 4th and 10th Amendments.
I see no reporting that confirms that.
Again, look at the sources you're going to for your news.
Yes, he did say what he said. The problem is that, just as the press did later with Bundy's comments about the plight of blacks, "what he said" was taken out of context and he has explained himself several times.
So forgive me if I give more weigh to his words than to your explanation of his words.
They were not "minding their own business" but trespassing on federal land and refusing to pay grazing fees.
First of all, they weren't trespassing on federal land because the Enclave Clause of the Constitution prevents the federal government from owning that land.
Second, they were paying their grazing fees up until the time the state told them there was no mechanism available for them to pay and, even after that, continued to make a good faith effort to pay.
The cattle were seized to pay off the debt Bundy owned for years of trespassing on federal property.
First of all, if that's true, that they were seized for payment, why were several heads killed for no reason? How did the government expect to get money out of dead cattle?
Second,
why they were seized is irrelevant. It's that the government seized them
illegally that is the issue.
It's not federal officials who had drawn beads on people trying to do their jobs
Actually, it is. The federal troops were the ones who brought a militarized police force.
And, second, as I pointed out to you before, the Nuremberg Defense is not a valid defense.
or trying to use women and children as shields.
"Shields" against what, exactly?
The more you try to defend Bundy, the more clear it is that you just don't have the facts straight.
...says the guy who gets his facts from
Wikipedia.
