Obama and BLM found in violation of federal law in Nevada

Check the 3rd picture.
http://www.hcn.org/articles/bundy-tresspass-cattle-stand-off-with-blm-feds

 

does it have to look exactly like that or can it be a a different patch or something

- - - Updated - - -

So sad your entire arguement like we told you has no merit.

 

Close. We've already ascertained the sheriff has met with Bundy. Looks like he has a friend to help him announce the BLM will cease the roundup by US RANGERS.

maximum feasible reliance.

- - - Updated - - -

maximum feasible reliance. So sad for you.

 

Maximum deflection on you being wrong yet again go figure! Or maybe it is actuall a real picture of a real person, and not a conspiracy that is confusing to people with your capacity

 

maximum feasible reliance. Its the law. Deal with it.

 

You've been listening to Fox news too much. Just sit back and see if Republican leaders or for tat matter Fox News focus on the trigger words "maximum feasible reliance" matters in real world legality.

 

Havent had the tv on all day. Nice try. maximum feasible reliance.

 

W. Cleon Skousen - right-wing radicalism:

"The county sheriff is the line in the sand. The county sheriff is the one who can say to the feds, “Beyond these bounds you shall not pass.” This is not only within the scope of the sheriff’s authority; it’s the sheriff’s sworn duty."

The sheriff backed the Fed passage. Sorry but you can't just make it up or pretend trigger words apply.

 

I'm sorry...

In which court did this occur? The court within the insane mind of Steve Stockman?

The same guy who said if you poke a hole in the earth oil and gas come out?

The same guy who said if babies had guns they wouldn't be aborted?

The same guy who was charged with drug possession and was in and out of jail for years?

 

Your quote is correct. Your use of it as an end of the subject is totally erroneous. maximum feasible reliance.

 

I voted for Obama in '08 and he lied to me.
He is a deceiver. A devil on earth.
He has practiced Black Nationalism.
He has practiced anti semitism.
He has practiced anti anyone who isn't "black".
He is the Deporter in Chief lying that he can't do anything about it. Reagan did something about it! Whose lying?

There are more Working Poor today than before Obama.

Nothing that "N Word" can say will arouse my trust.
Yes he has earned the designation of "N Word" since he proved he is all of the above.
Some Black child when to his teacher and said he wanted to be President. Teacher said, "We don't need another Black President". Teacher fired for telling the truth.

Where does the Buck Stop in the Obama administration?
Maybe we will get lucky and he will suffer the Black propensity for sudden, early cardiac death.

I have not hated a President this much since NIXON. But, NIXON did have some good points.
I see none with Obama.

And Hurrah for the Bundy-s and their supporters, Hurrah.


Moi
Yes I mean hate.
I would not administer CPR to Obama if needed and I was there.

View attachment 26701 ​

 

Not only are you folks on the right wrong in parsing the untested concept but that is a right-wing radicalism statement trying to squeeze meaning into the code which is not a proven concept. Show the court wins for that concept and I'll listen. Until then you can pretend all you want.

 

So.....I gather you cannot dispute the law cited. Correct?

 

Its the law. Get over it

 

I'm going to add this: any assistance that state or local sheriff provides to the federal government in the enforcement of federal laws is entirely voluntary. In this case the Sheriff did not opt to act but was made aware. No provision exists in U.S. Code or Code of Federal Regulations that obligates local law enforcement to devote any resources to a Federal action is there? In fact all levels of law enforcement can arrest one another or have the power of arrest for instance when observing someone acting out excessively in a protest or any other federal situation. Unless you can find a court ruling that states what is, isn't, I think I'll pass on the republican talking points. Prove it and I'll consider it as proof that what you say is valid. Pretty simple.

 

Sorry read my second post to you. Answer my questions with proof that how you all want to parse it is valid. Give me a court win on that reading.

 

I think there are millions of Americans that share those feelings. I too had hopes that he would be someone that could make a change for better even though I didn't vote for him, but he is without a doubt the most arrogant divisive leader that was ever elected to office. He can't even take responsibility for the blatant lies that come out of his mouth. I'm surprised he didn't blame Bush for moving his lips

 

once again the right cant back up their conspiracies so it a blame Obama thread how very usual of you all.

 

No it is not voluntary on public lands. It is to be contracted to meet maximum feasible reliance.
THE LAW

(c) Contracts for enforcement of Federal laws and regulations by local law enforcement officials; procedure applicable; contract requirements and implementation
(1) When the Secretary determines that assistance is necessary in enforcing Federal laws and regulations relating to the public lands or their resources he shall offer a contract to appropriate local officials having law enforcement authority within their respective jurisdictions with the view of achieving maximum feasible reliance upon local law enforcement officials in enforcing such laws and regulations. The Secretary shall negotiate on reasonable terms with such officials who have authority to enter into such contracts to enforce such Federal laws and regulations. In the performance of their duties under such contracts such officials and their agents are authorized to carry firearms; execute and serve any warrant or other process issued by a court or officer of competent jurisdiction; make arrests without warrant or process for a misdemeanor he has reasonable grounds to believe is being committed in his presence or view, or for a felony if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony; search without warrant or process any person, place, or conveyance according to any Federal law or rule of law; and seize without warrant or process any evidentiary item as provided by Federal law. The Secretary shall provide such law enforcement training as he deems necessary in order to carry out the contracted for responsibilities. While exercising the powers and authorities provided by such contract pursuant to this section, such law enforcement officials and their agents shall have all the immunities of Federal law enforcement officials.

 

When the Secretary determines that assistance is necessary in enforcing Federal laws and regulations relating to the public lands or their resources he shall offer a contract to appropriate local officials having law enforcement authority within their respective jurisdictions with the view of achieving maximum feasible reliance upon local law enforcement officials in enforcing such laws and regulations. The Secretary shall negotiate on reasonable terms with such officials who have authority to enter into such contracts to enforce such Federal laws and regulations. In the performance of their duties under such contracts such officials and their agents are authorized to carry firearms; execute and serve any warrant or other process issued by a court or officer of competent jurisdiction; make arrests without warrant or process for a misdemeanor he has reasonable grounds to believe is being committed in his presence or view, or for a felony if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony; search without warrant or process any person, place, or conveyance according to any Federal law or rule of law; and seize without warrant or process any evidentiary item as provided by Federal law. The Secretary shall provide such law enforcement training as he deems necessary in order to carry out the contracted for responsibilities. While exercising the powers and authorities provided by such contract pursuant to this section, such law enforcement officials and their agents shall have all the immunities of Federal law enforcement officials.

So what part of this is vague? The Sheriff was notified and approved the action without sending sheriff. Do you think he does not have that right of refusal?

 

To bad the courts disagree with you on every point. Bundy has had two court cases and lost.

 

Where is the maximum feasible reliance?
The whole idea behind this law is to use local law enforcement instead of federal. Presumably local LE have a better grip on the reality of the situation and originally our founders wanted as weak a federal government as possible. They didn't like the idea of a federal force to be created and amassed against the citizenry. Remember?
Hence "maximum feasible reliance"
On public lands the federal govt is supposed to contract local LE to enforce laws and regulations. It is not supposed to have a standing army for use against the citizenry.
You might not like that. Its the law.

 

Hmmmmmm.....

[video=youtube;Tt2yGzHfy7s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s[/video]

 

I think what you guys are missing is the Sheriff was contacted and approved the Fed action. The codes do not require the Sheriff of any state to accept a contract request any more than the Feds can demand the Sheriff participate. Whether the Secretary thought this required a contract or not is anyone's guess but one would likely be correct to assume that since the Sheriff was notified and approved it, the right wing view is simply an interesting concept likely without a single higher court win to test their theory on.

 

You are correct Im sure. The Sheriff need not accept contractual hire. The Sheriff of course is not the only LE in a state. Maximum Feasible Reliance.
How long before those three words acquire meaning in your brain?