Mountain Project Logo

Access Fund Will Sue Federal Government to Defend Bears Ears National Monument

Tony B · · Around Boulder, CO · Joined Jan 2001 · Points: 24,665
Ray Pinpillage wrote:

So were the Jim Crow laws, the war on drugs, and Vietnam occupation. The color of law isn't always moral or just. In this case the scope of BENW was reduced pursuant to federal law or at least that is what it claims. We'll see how it goes in court as soon as the AF files suit or joins one of the others. 

A shrewd debater would have avoided bringing Jim Crow laws into a debate about if or not a Federal Government aught to have the power or historical precedent to interfere with a state's right to pass or enforce certain laws of it's own.  You may or may not have a point, but you are pretty poor at making it.

Those would be Federal Marshals enforcing a federal decision about the limits of a State's "Rights" 
jg fox · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2015 · Points: 5
Tony B wrote:

A shrewd debater would have avoided bringing Jim Crow laws into a debate about if or not a Federal Government aught to have the power or historical precedent to interfere with a state's right to pass or enforce certain laws of it's own.  You may or may not have a point, but you are pretty poor at making it.

Those would be Federal Marshals enforcing a federal decision about the limits of a State's "Rights" 

The Jim Crow laws got Federal approval when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of racial segregation in 1896 (Plessy vs Ferguson).  The Federal government reversed its position and ruled it unconstitutional 58 years later.

Ray Pinpillage · · West Egg · Joined Jul 2010 · Points: 180
Tony B wrote:

A shrewd debater would have avoided bringing Jim Crow laws into a debate about if or not a Federal Government aught to have the power or historical precedent to interfere with a state's right to pass or enforce certain laws of it's own.  You may or may not have a point, but you are pretty poor at making it.

Those would be Federal Marshals enforcing a federal decision about the limits of a State's "Rights" 

Ad Hominem isn't generally a shrewd debating tactic either but that hasn't stopped you and others that disagree with me in this thread. My point was made fine, you just don't like it. 

Ray Pinpillage · · West Egg · Joined Jul 2010 · Points: 180
Morgan Patterson wrote:

Then why are they paying lobbyists and paying politicians hundreds of thousands of dollars to remove protections?

Look, I think I've been a pretty good sport with you guys. I'm getting questions from four or five people at once and it's kind of unreasonable to be demanding. I think I've answered that a page back if you would like to look. 

Ray Pinpillage · · West Egg · Joined Jul 2010 · Points: 180

Here is an interesting current event that highlights the Federal government's inability to manage land and to act unethically when called to task. Forgive me for not believing we're better off handing control of land from one imperfect agency to another even less perfect agency. 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/08/charges-against-rancher-cliven-bundy-three-others-are-dismissed.html

I know some won't like the source but it was the first reporting on it.

Fat Dad · · Los Angeles, CA · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 60
Ray Pinpillage wrote:

Here is an interesting current event that highlights the Federal government's inability to manage land and to act unethically when called to task. Forgive me for not believing we're better off handing control of land from one imperfect agency to another even less perfect agency. 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/08/charges-against-rancher-cliven-bundy-three-others-are-dismissed.html

I know some won't like the source but it was the first reporting on it.

Ray, you're right.  We're much off with Cliven Bundy than the BLM.  Solid argument.  You've convinced me.  

Ray Pinpillage · · West Egg · Joined Jul 2010 · Points: 180
Fat Dad wrote:

Ray, you're right.  We're much off with Cliven Bundy than the BLM.  Solid argument.  You've convinced me.  

You were never going to change your mind. As unsympathetic as the Bundys are at least they aren't a lying corrupt bureaucracy which is what you're advocating. 

Fat Dad · · Los Angeles, CA · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 60
Ray Pinpillage wrote:

You were never going to change your mind. As unsympathetic as the Bundys are at least they are a lying corrupt bureaucracy which is what you're advocating. 

Not true.  I am persuaded by evidence all the time.  You just haven't presented any that's relevant or persuasive.  Also, are you really arguing that the Bundy's are better than the BLM, or was that just an attack of verbal diarrhea?!  

Ray Pinpillage · · West Egg · Joined Jul 2010 · Points: 180
Fat Dad wrote:

Not true.  I am persuaded by evidence all the time.  You just haven't presented any that's relevant or persuasive.  Also, are you really arguing that the Bundy's are better than the BLM, or was that just an attack of verbal diarrhea?!  

I don't think I really have to, a federal judge just said as much. The lead BLM agent got busted dealing in stolen native artifacts and the lead prosecutor was fired for prosecutorial misconduct. Or are you saying that's how it should work?

Given you're the one crying about the reduction of BENM, it seems there's more than a few people that see it somewhat similar to me. Strange that you're the one stomping your feet making demands as it would appear your "side" is a bit on the ropes. Shouldn't you over on the taco anyway? That's gotta be a bit more comfortable echo chamber for your sensitivities. 

Edit: Want to guess which BLM office worked on the BENM project? You guessed it, the one that's chief got busted with stolen native artifacts who was also involved with the Bundy shit show in Nevada. 

Fat Dad · · Los Angeles, CA · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 60
Ray Pinpillage wrote:

I don't think I really have to, a federal judge just said as much. The lead BLM agent got busted dealing in stolen native artifacts and the lead prosecutor was fired for prosecutorial misconduct. Or are you saying that's how it should work?

Given you're the one crying about the reduction of BENM, it seems there's more than a few people that see it somewhat similar to me. Strange that you're the one stomping your feet making demands as it would appear your "side" is a bit on the ropes. Shouldn't you over on the taco anyway? That's gotta be a bit more comfortable echo chamber for your sensitivities. 

Edit: Want to guess which BLM office worked on the BENM project? You guessed it, the one that's chief got busted with stolen native artifacts who was also involved with the Bundy shit show in Nevada. 

One, I believe you should probably look more into the specifics of why the Bundy claim was dismissed.  It was before the prosecution withheld evidence that, from what I understand, didn't appear to be particularly relevant to the facts of the case.  Not that the prosecutor should withhold evidence.  If so, sanctions or dismissal can be an appropriate remedy.  As you point out in your own reply, the BLM agent busted with artifacts has nothing to do with the Bundy's actions.  You're blending different issues from unrelated matters.  Stupid people will do that.  Our president does it daily.  

Two, no one on this thread agrees with you re Bears Ears, let alone "more than a few".  Imaginary friends don't count.    

Ray Pinpillage · · West Egg · Joined Jul 2010 · Points: 180
Fat Dad wrote:

One, I believe you should probably look more into the specifics of why the Bundy claim was dismissed.  It was before the prosecution withheld evidence that, from what I understand, didn't appear to be particularly relevant to the facts of the case.  Not that the prosecutor should withhold evidence.  If so, sanctions or dismissal can be an appropriate remedy.  As you point out in your own reply, the BLM agent busted with artifacts has nothing to do with the Bundy's actions.  You're blending different issues from unrelated matters.  Stupid people will do that.  Our president does it daily.  

Two, no one on this thread agrees with you re Bears Ears, let alone "more than a few".  Imaginary friends don't count.    

It was ruled a mistrial specifically because of withheld evidence. Dismissed with prejudice. Hard to win a case when your chief agent got sacked for selling illegal artifacts. The same chief behind the BENM study. LOL. 

You got hammered and the best you have is a strawman and a Trump dig. No wonder you're so sour faced.

Ray Pinpillage · · West Egg · Joined Jul 2010 · Points: 180
JKeller wrote:

Maybe this is a good reason to support monument status, no?

To protect BE from the BLM! 

ed esmond · · The Paris of VT... · Joined Jan 2010 · Points: 0
Ray Pinpillage wrote:

You were never going to change your mind. As unsympathetic as the Bundys are at least they aren't a lying corrupt bureaucracy which is what you're advocating. 

I'll admit, I haven't read all 15 pages of this scintillating topic...

But... if we want to talk about being a "lying corrupt" entity...

The Bundy's (willingly, and without coercion) signed a contract with the BLM.  And, after signing a valid, legal contract, they refused to uphold their part of the contract.

The BLM held up their end of the deal...

The Bundy's didn't...

So, tell me, who's the "lying, and corrupt" party in this deal?

ed "just the facts, m'am..." e

Ray Pinpillage · · West Egg · Joined Jul 2010 · Points: 180
ed esmond wrote:

I'll admit, I haven't read all 15 pages of this scintillating topic...

But... if we want to talk about being a "lying corrupt" entity...

The Bundy's (willingly, and without coercion) signed a contract with the BLM.  And, after signing a valid, legal contract, they refused to uphold their part of the contract.

The BLM held up their end of the deal...

The Bundy's didn't...

So, tell me, who's the "lying, and corrupt" party in this deal?

ed "just the facts, m'am..." e

The Bundy's can defend themselves, I'm not advocating for them or implying they are good people. It sounds like they lucked into a government case that made their decades old bad behavior look angelic compared to the government's. It was asked if I thought the Bundy's are better than the BLM. A federal judge says they are, at least within the scope of the case. The government's case was so bad the charges were dismissed with prejudice due to prosecutorial misconduct. The judge started by declaring a mistrial and ended up dismissing the charges with prejudiced because the government refused to produce discovery. During the trial the chief agent from the SLC, UT BLM branch was dismissed when he was caught with illegal artifacts. After the mistrial the prosecutor was fired. Coincidentally, the Bundy's were acquitted in Oregon too. Also coincidentally, the FBI agents involved in the Oregon Bundy shooting were arrested over the incident. 

Who is the corrupt party? That's an odd question when this thread is about taking state land to  give to the federal government. Perhaps if we start giving national monuments to the Bundy's we can worry about how their behavior ranching is relevant to public land management in Utah.   

bus driver · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Aug 2009 · Points: 1,516

It wasn’t ever state land. 

Morgan Patterson · · NH · Joined Oct 2009 · Points: 8,945
bus driver wrote:

It wasn’t ever state land. 

'member those logical inconsistencies I spoke of?

Tony B · · Around Boulder, CO · Joined Jan 2001 · Points: 24,665
Ray Pinpillage wrote:

Ad Hominem isn't generally a shrewd debating tactic either but that hasn't stopped you and others that disagree with me in this thread. My point was made fine, you just don't like it. 

So you are calling the point I made an Ad Hominem attack.
Well, actually I had a point, and your turning that into something else is an Ad Hominem attack.

Irony abounds.

Max Supertramp · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Mar 2008 · Points: 95

anybody wanna drive 4x4 across the Continental Divide with me to go protest the O&G development in the canyon country?

Tony B · · Around Boulder, CO · Joined Jan 2001 · Points: 24,665
Max Supertramp wrote:

anybody wanna drive 4x4 across the Continental Divide with me to go protest the O&G development in the canyon country?

I would, but we'd have to stop and charge every 200 miles or so.

Hamish Hamish · · Fredericksburg, VA · Joined May 2017 · Points: 15
bus driver wrote:

It wasn’t ever state land. 

Yep, thought the majority of the land was managed at the federal level prior to becoming a national monument, but got deflected a few pages back after the “states rights” nonsense.  

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

General Climbing
Post a Reply to "Access Fund Will Sue Federal Government to Defe…"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.