Oregon Protest

[pinstripers]

must be a far different leasing system than what the state of Kansas uses

[Play Angry]

must be a far different leasing system than what the state of Kansas uses

Here is a brief discussion of the federal leasing rates.

[pinstripers]

I wonder how much of that is true. It's insane if it is.

[pinstripers]

FARM GROUND FOR RENT: The Pratt Airport Authority is seeking sealed bids for 647 acres on the Pratt Regional Airport, south portions of sections 16 and 17, T 27 S, R 13 W. 175 acres irrigated, 472 acres dry land. Vacating tenant owns pivot, motor and propane tank and would sell system to new tenant. Well and pump belong to the Authority. Pump diversion rate not to exceed 1,145 GPM, quantity not to exceed 316 acre ft/yr. Interested parties should contact the Authority offices at 620-672-7571. Sealed bids with contact information must be received by 5:00 PM, February 10, 2016. Mail bids to Pratt Airport Authority, P.O. Box 867, Pratt, KS 67124. Bids will be opened February 11, 2016 at 4:00 PM at the Pratt Municipal Building, 117 W. 3rd.

[pinstripers]

“Agriculture is the first and most important of all arts; so it is also the first and true riches of States.”
--Pope Pius VII

[rrshock]

I didn't think that they've served any time yet upon appeal. They just entered prison this week.

I thought i read that one served 3 months and the other 12. So does their 5 years happen minus the time served? And i believe the federal judge that sentenced them said that 5 yrs was cruel and unusual punishment.

Let me ask this question. If a firefighter starts a burn trying to stop a fire and it jumps to another property and destroys someone elses land, is it arson?

[Kung Wu]

The average person siding with ranchers on so many of these issues actually equates refusal by the government to renew a grazing lease (which the average rancher kills it on the rental rate for these to the tune of an average discount of more than 90% less than private party fair market value), which in reality is basically a government handout, to somehow depriving them of their God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness because it means they have to relocate or sell their herd.

I think this is a little over the top, and I don't think that's true of the "average person siding with ranchers". Well maybe, but I doubt it. Well, okay, maybe probably sorta almost.

In reality these guys are just pissed that they can't continue to get the deal of the century to use land almost-for-free on property for which they pay zero property taxes.

I think this pretty much sums it up.

[ShockdaWorld]

Damn you guys!!! I so badly wanted to side with the ranchers. After reading this thread, I can't. Thanks for ruining my silver lining. :p

[pinstripers]

The average person?

[SB Shock]

A constitutional lawyer on Oregon

https://youtu.be/T424sWq1SkE

[shock]

Damn you guys!!! I so badly wanted to side with the ranchers. After reading this thread, I can't. Thanks for ruining my silver lining. :p

Well you could, but, ironically, you would be about as naive as Bernie supporters.

[Play Angry]

A constitutional lawyer on Oregon

https://youtu.be/T424sWq1SkE

Here is a concise and much more accurate analysis of the Property Clause by a conservative constitutional lawyer.

Ms. Hall was fired unfairly but she has a nasty habit of reading only half of the clauses relevant to her argument and ignoring a century or two of case law on the interpretation of those clauses. I have heard her speak about the constitutionality of the income tax before and it is not pretty.

[Kung Wu]

This case isn't even really about federal ownership of land -- even though Bundy tried to get creative in that regard (I don't think it was his primary argument).

His real claim was that Nevada has an open range statute that permits only "established" folks to graze federal lands. Successors are grandfathered in under that Nevada state law, if you can show that your ancestry has been grazing the land since 5 years before 1930 or 1931 or prior (cant remember the date), then you can freely graze on federal land that is not fenced.

He was either not able to convince the court of his "establishment", or the U.S. court did not recognize Nevada's law, or both -- I am not sure which. Once that argument lost, the rest of his arguments were Hail Mary attempts to not lose his case. At least this is how I see it.

[ShockTalk]

NY Times: The Larger, but Quieter Than Bundy, Push to Take Over Federal Land

[SB Shock]

It looks like some of they guys in the Oregon thing are stolen valor guys. Pretending to be prior service.