THE BUNDY DAUGHTER SPEAKS OUT ON GOVERNMENT TERRORISM AGAINST HER FAMILY! (Nevada Rancher)

America's Freedom Fighters ^ | Apr 9, 2014 | Clark Kent

[xzins]

By SHIREE BUNDY COX:

I have had people ask me to explain my dad’s stance on this BLM fight.

Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much to it, but here it is in a nut shell.

My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972.

These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars.

These rights to the land use is called preemptive rights.

Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment which was to be use to pay the BLM wages and to help with repairs and improvements of the ranches.

My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve.

Instead they began using these money’s against the ranchers.

They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with their own grazing fees.

When they offered to buy my dad out for a penence he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren’t doing their job.

He quit paying the BLM but, tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down.

So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes.

In essence the BLM was managing my dad out of business.

Well when buying him out didn’t work, they used the indangered species card.

You’ve already heard about the desert tortis.

Well that didn’t work either, so then began the threats and the court orders, which my dad has proven to be unlawful for all these years.

Now they’re desperate.

It’s come down to buying the brand inspector off and threatening the County Sheriff.

Everything they’re doing at this point is illegal and totally against the constitution of the United States of America.

Now you may be saying,” how sad, but what does this have to do with me?” Well, I’ll tell you.

They will get rid of Cliven Bundy, the last man standing on the Bunkerville allotment and then they will close all the roads so no one can ever go on it again.

Next, it’s Utah’s turn. Mark my words, Utah is next.

Then there’s the issue of the cattle that are at this moment being stolen. See even if dad hasn’t paid them, those cattle do belong to him.

Regardless where they are they are my fathers property. His herd has been part of that range for over a hundred years, long before the BLM even existed.

Now the Feds think they can just come in and remove them and sell them without a legal brand inspection or without my dad’s signature on it.

They think they can take them over two boarders, which is illegal, ask any trucker. Then they plan to take them to the Richfeild Auction and sell them.

All with our tax money.

They have paid off the contract cowboys and the auction owner as well as the Nevada brand inspector with our tax dollars.

See how slick they are?

Well, this is it in a nut shell. Thanks”

[SpeakerToAnimals]

This may escalate to violence. I always thought the spark would be over something trivial and stupid. The government is acting stupid over something trivial - unless on is named Bundy. Losing a way of life enjoyed by generations is not trivial.

[redgolum]

She admits he no longer is paying the grazing fees, and therefore no longer has the rights to graze. He has been stealing from the owners for twenty years. No that doesn’t mean he should die, but he doesn’t have the law on his side.

[DaxtonBrown]

[Now you are getting down to the nitty gritty. Reid made his millions off from getting BLM lands turned over to be developed around Vegas. Then, he got kick backs for each lot sold.

AND THAT my friend, is a fact.]

It is many levels worse. My keg of Reid corruption is so big it overflows. http://www.futurnamics.com/reid.php

[Scoutmaster]

Thank you for that article. It’s in my reading queue.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Slow poke. I once drove from DFW to Cincy in 11 hours. ;p

[BuckeyeTexan]

I meant to ping you to this post. Apologies.

[VerySadAmerican]

I predict a big decline in tin foil sales.

[GladesGuru]

“When he stopped paying grazing fees, the federal government sold his grazing rights to the Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.”

Given that the grazing rights far predated BLM’s creation, the “range fee” would not be a grazing fee - indeed the justification was to pay for range advice from Big Gubment.

As Jefferson said, “Were we to be told by Washington when to sow and when to reap we should soon want for bread.”

Same for beef.

The question seems to hinge on the sale of the range rights.

Whatever.

In any case, there seems no way for America to avoid the coming war between Libturd and Conservative, producer and taker, private citizen and Gubment trough feeders.

Too bad, as I am a bit old for such needless 4th Gen warfare.

[RoosterRedux]

She must be really mad...hence the speaking in all “bold.”

[Scoutmaster]

I've never thought of applying the concept of contracts signed under duress to a treaty; I'm certain it would be a case of first impression.

In what manner do you think the questionable legality of the Mexican War affects the enforceability of the Treaty?

[BuckeyeTexan]

Most of what taxcontrol wrote were actually my words. (S)He copied and pasted the text from another thread. So, I will try to answer your question.

Let me understand your logic, so the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo gave all this land to US Government and anyone on the land can be removed?

The U.S. paid $15 million for the land acquired under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. Nevada disclaimed all rights and title to the land when it became a state in 1864 under the provisions of the Nevada Statehood Act. When Congress admitted Texas into the Union, it allowed the state to retain ownership of all unappropriated land within its borders. I haven't yet researched the provisions of California's admission to statehood.

With that said, there is a valid argument that Nevada's disclaim was unconstitutional under the Equal Footing Doctrine. See the details here.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Question then becomes, who the hells land is it? Answer, if the state of Nevada never gave that land to the federal government, then it is the state of Nevadas land.

The problem with that logic is that the federal government purchased the land from Mexico 16 years before Nevada became a state. When Nevada did become a state, it disclaimed all right and title to the land.

[mountainbunny]

What's missing is the "why". This administration, by it's own admission, only enforces the laws it wants to. What's making them want to enforce this one so badly?

Because 21 years of being in court with this guy who isn't paying rent is long enough. This has been in the courts since 1993.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/04/10/rancher-nevada-public-lands/7540911/

And before 1993, in 1986, President Reagan set the fee schedule for grazing on federal land with an executive order. It has been followed since then, and hasn't been raised a single cent per head of cattle.

It has been $1.35 per head per month since 1986. http://www.kcet.org/news/redefine/rewild/commentary/2014-public-land-grazing-fee-the-same-as-2013-and-2012-and-2011.html

[taxcontrol]

Hold up a min. Grazing rights were created in 1934 and the Department of Interior established the grazing service at that time. The Grazing Service was merged with the General Land Office in 1946 to form the Bureau of Land Management. So when the BLM was created is irrelevant. When the Taylor grazing act was passed (1934) is what is relevant.

Section 3 of the Taylor Grazing Act concerns grazing permits issued on public lands within the grazing districts established under the Act. It gave leasing preference to landowners and homesteaders in or adjacent to the grazing district lands. The permittees are required to pay a fee, and the permit cannot exceed ten years but is renewable. Further, under extraordinary conditions, the permits can be revoked (such as severe drought)

[Kackikat]

I agree this is not trivial for the Bundy family.
As an owner of family land going back to the 1800s too, I understand some of the Nevada mess although very different, and I have had my own battles...so far so good. I don’t raise cattle but there is a special ^*&%^$&^% (best left unsaid) that complicates things. I’m not in the West. Let’s just say taxes are being paid on unusable land.

I’m reminded of the firefighters who weren’t allowed to use a backhoe to save thousands of acres of land during a forest fire, to dig a ditch to prevent fire from spreading and destroying so many trees...maybe 15 years ago. All over a bug on a creek bank, it was WA or CA, I think.

Common sense...a thing of the past. Oy vey, it’s always something when control freaks get involved.

[Biggirl]

I have heard on a talkradio show that the fed government bought that land because of an endangered tortose animal? Just wondering.

[trisham]

Well said by this brave girl.

[Kackikat]

Misuse of power, much like the misuse of taxpayer dollars for fancy trips, caviar, and lobster dinners...enough to feed a small country.

I believe the dems think they are entitled to one big continuous party jetting around the world! The fees here are to cover admissions wherever they go, I guess. Those signs do make one upset at the abuse of power, what lands were supposed to be available to the public.

[crz]

Then all the land from New England to the west coast including Alaska is the same.
Again; Article one “1” Section eight “8” the 17th enumerated power.

Then comes the “tenth” if it is not under the e-n-u-m-e-r-a-t-e-d Powers.

[crz]

Question to you. Then you are for the rules and regs the EPA has put out which pertains to pools, ponds and creeks?

So if there is, even a seasonal pond, pool or creek on your land it belongs to the federal government. Right? After all, those polls, ponds and creeks were there before your state was created right?