This is from Wikipedia.
Lloyd D. George (born February 22, 1930) is a United States federal judge.
Born in Montpelier, Idaho, George was raised in Las Vegas, and was the class president of the 1948 class of Las Vegas High School. He received a B.S. from Brigham Young University in 1955 and, after serving in the U.S. Air Force from 1955 to 1958, received a J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law in 1961. He was in private practice in Las Vegas, Nevada from 1961 to 1974, and was also a justice of the peace for Clark County, Nevada from 1962 to 1969. He was U.S. Bankruptcy Judge for the District of Nevada from 1974–1984, serving on the Ninth Circuit U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panels from 1980 to 1984.
George was a federal judge on the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. George was nominated by President Ronald Reagan on April 18, 1984, to a seat vacated by Roger D. Foley. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on April 30, 1984, and received his commission on May 3, 1984. He served as chief judge from 1992-1997. He assumed senior status on December 1, 1997.
George is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He served as a missionary in Washington and Oregon for the Church. The Lloyd D. George Federal Courthouse in Las Vegas, Nevada is named in his honor.
So, the judge making this decision has an extremely conservative background and yet the Bundy family has no respect for his decision after hearing all the evidence. I suppose Ronald Reagan was never President either.
...In an order dated November 3,1998,this court permanently enjoined Bundy from grazing his livestock within a different area,the Bunkerville Allotment,and ordered Bundyto remove his livestock from the Allotment before November 30,1998.U.S.v. Bundy,No.CV-S-98-531JBR(RJJ(D.Nev.Nov.4,1998).The court also ordered that the United States was entitled to trespass damages from Bundy for livestock left on the Bunkerville Allotment after such date....
This is about trespass. This is not about the ESA, except, they are occurring at the same time and only perhaps by coincidence. Degraded land can be worthless not only to cows, but, also wildlife that depends on it for habitat. The judge clearly stated this is about trespassing, not the ESA.
... Moreover,Bundy is incorrect in claiming that the Disclaimer Clause of the Nevada Constitution carries no legal force,see Gardner,107 F.3dat1320; that the Property Clause of the UnitedStates Constitution applies only to federal lands outside the borders of states,see id.at 1320; that the United States‘ exercise of owner shipover federal lands violates the Equal Footing Doctrine,see id.at 1319; that the United Statesis basing its authority to sanction Bundy for his unauthorized use of federal lands on the Endangered Species Act as opposed to trespass,see Compl.at ¶¶ 1,3,26-39; and that Nevada’s “Open Range” statute excuses Bundy’s trespass.See e.g., Gardner,107 F.3dat 1320(under Supremacy Clause state statute in conflict with federal law requiring permit to graze would be trumped).
There is even speculation the cattle aren't even Bundy's. What does that mean? Are they feral cattle and/or stolen. Is Bundy a liar? Are these not his cows? Who branded them if he claims they aren't his cows?
...Nor is there a legitimate dispute that Bundy has grazed his cattle on the New Trespass Lands without federal authorization.The United States has submitted Bundy’s deposition excerpts indicating that Bundy has grazed livestock on the New Trespass Lands and further evidence of the trespass of Bundy’s cattle in those areas. Not withstanding Bundy’s contentions that the observed cattle bearing his brand may not in fact be his own,such a denial does not controvert Nevada law regarding prima facie evidence of ownership of branded cattle. In sum,in this most recent effort to oppose the United States’ legal process,Bundy has produced no valid law or specific facts raising a genuine issue of fact regarding federal ownership or management of public lands in Nevada,or that his cattle have not trespassed on the New Trespass Lands....
If the unwitting public is injured by feral or wandering trespassing cattle who is responsible? Bundy? If someone decides they are going to take pity on the cattle for the bones showing on their bodies and attempts to remove them to a rescue or to an SPCA location, then what? Mad men with military style weapons will chase them down and accuse them of theft? Then what happens, vigilante justice?
The public interest is best served by having the federal lands managed without the presence of trespassing cattle on lands that are closed to grazing.The public interest is also best served by removal of trespassing cattle that cause harm to natural and cultural resources or pose a threat to the health and safety of members of the public who use the federal lands for recreation.The court finds that the public interest is negatively affected by Bundy’s continuing trespass.
The Bundy family can have their own opinions, but, not their own facts. The Bundy's opinion is proven not to be legal.
I am quite sure the people involved from all over the USA 'believes' the sky is falling. They are sadly deceived and used for propaganda by right wing political agendas they will never benefit from. The Murdoch Media Maniacs are million/billionaires. They care little about what occurs within the lives of those so willing to be a spectacle on Murdoch's massive political dogmatic media network.
The FCC is actually going to stand by while federal employees are threatened with their lives. The FCC is going to stand by while Rupert Murdoch reaps millions and billions as well as leveraged political preferences to insure those millions and billions at the expense of the safety of our federal employees.
Murdoch is backing up anarchists advocating the deaths of federal employees. Where does this have to go the World Court?
Really?
Lloyd D. George (born February 22, 1930) is a United States federal judge.
Born in Montpelier, Idaho, George was raised in Las Vegas, and was the class president of the 1948 class of Las Vegas High School. He received a B.S. from Brigham Young University in 1955 and, after serving in the U.S. Air Force from 1955 to 1958, received a J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law in 1961. He was in private practice in Las Vegas, Nevada from 1961 to 1974, and was also a justice of the peace for Clark County, Nevada from 1962 to 1969. He was U.S. Bankruptcy Judge for the District of Nevada from 1974–1984, serving on the Ninth Circuit U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panels from 1980 to 1984.
George was a federal judge on the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. George was nominated by President Ronald Reagan on April 18, 1984, to a seat vacated by Roger D. Foley. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on April 30, 1984, and received his commission on May 3, 1984. He served as chief judge from 1992-1997. He assumed senior status on December 1, 1997.
George is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He served as a missionary in Washington and Oregon for the Church. The Lloyd D. George Federal Courthouse in Las Vegas, Nevada is named in his honor.
So, the judge making this decision has an extremely conservative background and yet the Bundy family has no respect for his decision after hearing all the evidence. I suppose Ronald Reagan was never President either.
...In an order dated November 3,1998,this court permanently enjoined Bundy from grazing his livestock within a different area,the Bunkerville Allotment,and ordered Bundyto remove his livestock from the Allotment before November 30,1998.U.S.v. Bundy,No.CV-S-98-531JBR(RJJ(D.Nev.Nov.4,1998).The court also ordered that the United States was entitled to trespass damages from Bundy for livestock left on the Bunkerville Allotment after such date....
This is about trespass. This is not about the ESA, except, they are occurring at the same time and only perhaps by coincidence. Degraded land can be worthless not only to cows, but, also wildlife that depends on it for habitat. The judge clearly stated this is about trespassing, not the ESA.
... Moreover,Bundy is incorrect in claiming that the Disclaimer Clause of the Nevada Constitution carries no legal force,see Gardner,107 F.3dat1320; that the Property Clause of the UnitedStates Constitution applies only to federal lands outside the borders of states,see id.at 1320; that the United States‘ exercise of owner shipover federal lands violates the Equal Footing Doctrine,see id.at 1319; that the United Statesis basing its authority to sanction Bundy for his unauthorized use of federal lands on the Endangered Species Act as opposed to trespass,see Compl.at ¶¶ 1,3,26-39; and that Nevada’s “Open Range” statute excuses Bundy’s trespass.See e.g., Gardner,107 F.3dat 1320(under Supremacy Clause state statute in conflict with federal law requiring permit to graze would be trumped).
There is even speculation the cattle aren't even Bundy's. What does that mean? Are they feral cattle and/or stolen. Is Bundy a liar? Are these not his cows? Who branded them if he claims they aren't his cows?
...Nor is there a legitimate dispute that Bundy has grazed his cattle on the New Trespass Lands without federal authorization.The United States has submitted Bundy’s deposition excerpts indicating that Bundy has grazed livestock on the New Trespass Lands and further evidence of the trespass of Bundy’s cattle in those areas. Not withstanding Bundy’s contentions that the observed cattle bearing his brand may not in fact be his own,such a denial does not controvert Nevada law regarding prima facie evidence of ownership of branded cattle. In sum,in this most recent effort to oppose the United States’ legal process,Bundy has produced no valid law or specific facts raising a genuine issue of fact regarding federal ownership or management of public lands in Nevada,or that his cattle have not trespassed on the New Trespass Lands....
If the unwitting public is injured by feral or wandering trespassing cattle who is responsible? Bundy? If someone decides they are going to take pity on the cattle for the bones showing on their bodies and attempts to remove them to a rescue or to an SPCA location, then what? Mad men with military style weapons will chase them down and accuse them of theft? Then what happens, vigilante justice?
The public interest is best served by having the federal lands managed without the presence of trespassing cattle on lands that are closed to grazing.The public interest is also best served by removal of trespassing cattle that cause harm to natural and cultural resources or pose a threat to the health and safety of members of the public who use the federal lands for recreation.The court finds that the public interest is negatively affected by Bundy’s continuing trespass.
The Bundy family can have their own opinions, but, not their own facts. The Bundy's opinion is proven not to be legal.
I am quite sure the people involved from all over the USA 'believes' the sky is falling. They are sadly deceived and used for propaganda by right wing political agendas they will never benefit from. The Murdoch Media Maniacs are million/billionaires. They care little about what occurs within the lives of those so willing to be a spectacle on Murdoch's massive political dogmatic media network.The FCC is actually going to stand by while federal employees are threatened with their lives. The FCC is going to stand by while Rupert Murdoch reaps millions and billions as well as leveraged political preferences to insure those millions and billions at the expense of the safety of our federal employees.
Murdoch is backing up anarchists advocating the deaths of federal employees. Where does this have to go the World Court?
Really?
