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”

[Lockbox]

Interesting, thanks

[taxcontrol]

That is mostly incorrect. The US government has owned the land at the end of the US Mexico war via the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

Now does the tortoise have something to do with the US governments unwillingness to continue to lease out the grazing rights ... likely.

[taxcontrol]

Way off topic but I will address it anyway.

First, yes in the US, we have and use a tax hold system of real estate. If you don’t pay your taxes, the government puts a lien on your property and if you don’t pay long enough, the government will sell your property to pay of the lien.

That has nothing to do with the US government selling grazing leases to a rancher who decided to stop paying for the access to grazing land and now is claiming squatters rights to continue to graze his cattle on Government land.

[taxcontrol]

So the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo gave all this land to US Government - yes

and anyone on the land can be removed - No.

Parcels of that land were given out sold distributed etc. Some of that land is in private hands. The land in question has never been sold by the US government and still belongs to the US Government as part of what is now called the Lake Mead National Recreation Area.

[taxcontrol]

So the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo gave all this land to US Government - yes

and anyone on the land can be removed - No.

Parcels of that land were given out sold distributed etc. Some of that land is in private hands. The land in question has never been sold by the US government and still belongs to the US Government as part of what is now called the Lake Mead National Recreation Area.

[rolling_stone]

So the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo gave all this land to US Government - yes

WRONG

[taxcontrol]

Here is the text of Article from the treaty where it defines the boundary. I challenge you to show me where I am wrong.

ARTICLE V

The boundary line between the two Republics shall commence in the Gulf of Mexico, three leagues from land, opposite the mouth of the Rio Grande, otherwise called Rio Bravo del Norte, or Opposite the mouth of its deepest branch, if it should have more than one branch emptying directly into the sea; from thence up the middle of that river, following the deepest channel, where it has more than one, to the point where it strikes the southern boundary of New Mexico; thence, westwardly, along the whole southern boundary of New Mexico (which runs north of the town called Paso) to its western termination; thence, northward, along the western line of New Mexico, until it intersects the first branch of the river Gila; (or if it should not intersect any branch of that river, then to the point on the said line nearest to such branch, and thence in a direct line to the same); thence down the middle of the said branch and of the said river, until it empties into the Rio Colorado; thence across the Rio Colorado, following the division line between Upper and Lower California, to the Pacific Ocean.

The southern and western limits of New Mexico, mentioned in the article, are those laid down in the map entitled “Map of the United Mexican States, as organized and defined by various acts of the Congress of said republic, and constructed according to the best authorities. Revised edition. Published at New York, in 1847, by J. Disturnell,” of which map a copy is added to this treaty, bearing the signatures and seals of the undersigned Plenipotentiaries. And, in order to preclude all difficulty in tracing upon the ground the limit separating Upper from Lower California, it is agreed that the said limit shall consist of a straight line drawn from the middle of the Rio Gila, where it unites with the Colorado, to a point on the coast of the Pacific Ocean, distant one marine league due south of the southernmost point of the port of San Diego, according to the plan of said port made in the year 1782 by Don Juan Pantoja, second sailing-master of the Spanish fleet, and published at Madrid in the year 1802, in the atlas to the voyage of the schooners Sutil and Mexicana; of which plan a copy is hereunto added, signed and sealed by the respective Plenipotentiaries.

In order to designate the boundary line with due precision, upon authoritative maps, and to establish upon the ground land-marks which shall show the limits of both republics, as described in the present article, the two Governments shall each appoint a commissioner and a surveyor, who, before the expiration of one year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, shall meet at the port of San Diego, and proceed to run and mark the said boundary in its whole course to the mouth of the Rio Bravo del Norte. They shall keep journals and make out plans of their operations; and the result agreed upon by them shall be deemed a part of this treaty, and shall have the same force as if it were inserted therein. The two Governments will amicably agree regarding what may be necessary to these persons, and also as to their respective escorts, should such be necessary.

The boundary line established by this article shall be religiously respected by each of the two republics, and no change shall ever be made therein, except by the express and free consent of both nations, lawfully given by the General Government of each, in conformity with its own constitution.

[rolling_stone]

the land was “annexed” subject to existing property holders, (yes I know article 10 was not ratified)not listed as purchased but ceded by Mexico. Yes the border was set, but many persons in the area retained their property rights.....which have been subject to many disputes since 1848 and a claim of racism towards Mexican/American owners.

the treaty has been the subject of many changes and additions, see Treaty of Mesilla, Protocol of Querétaro, Gasden Purchase etc.

[PhilDragoo]

I’m screaming at the TV set “where’s your damn law on Holder being in contempt, on Benghazi, over Fast and Furious, on IRS, on 37 violations of Obamacare and list goes on and on”. Last serious accounting I saw was over 100 violations of law by this administration and many people dead! Watergate is a picnic in comparison.

So, when I see fed cops with dogs, stun guns, helicopters, snipers, MRAP’s and so on I’m thinking two things. I’m scared of my government and I am mad at my government. In my opinion that is what it’s all about out there on that stretch of desert road................namely “the misbehavior and disrespect of our laws by this Obama Administration”.......they are miscalculating the depth of the American peoples anger in a way if continued is going to lead to some people getting hurt, or worse.

IF YOU LIKE YOUR REPUBLIC
YOU CAN KEEP YOUR REPUBLIC

[rolling_stone]

interestng history of land in Nevada

http://www.c-span.org/video/?314028-1/federal-land-rights-nevada

[Daffynition]

Mr. Bundy is a sovereign human being.

God Bless him and keep him and his family safe from harm.

[Mad Dawgg]

BLM Lies it's not about the Tortoise, it's all about Fracking

[Daffynition]

IMO, this boils down to principles.

According to the government, Mr. Bundy should be content with a *half a loaf of bread, rather than none.*

[Lockbox]

Thanks for the additional information. The news reports are not clear about the grazing land which this ranch has used since 1870.

[Jimmy Valentine's brother]

Governor needs to call out the national guard. the concern would be that Zero would federalize it. Will look for your after action report.

[BlueMoose]

This is not about cattle or turtles.

http://www.piol.com/journal.pdf

This is about oil. They must get the ranchers off this land.

[BlueMoose]

http://www.nnogc.com/

[Biggirl]

Thank-you!

[GAFreedom]

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.

Except that the Gold Butte area isn't part of the Bunkerville allotment, Ms. Shiree Bundy Cox. Which means your father doesn't have the rights to the Gold Butte land.

Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management.

1930s. Federal Grazing Act.

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.

Your father cannot fire the federal government from land they received in treaty with Mexico in 1848, Ms. Bundy Cox. It doesn't work that way. He leases the grazing rights; he doesn't own the land.

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

That's because the County knows it's not their land and knows it would be illegal for them to take those fees. Again, your father just can't rewrite the laws because he feels they ain't fair to him or how he wants them to be.

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.

No, that's sovereign citizen stuff and it don't fly in the United States. Your dad's not a "Freeman on the Land" or any such. Your dad hasn't proven anything to be unlawful. He's just decided to "gibsmedat" with federal lands.

See even if dad hasn’t paid them, those cattle do belong to him. Regardless where they are they are my fathers property.

No, ranching has never worked like that. Your cattle stray, you tend to lose them. Have to keep them fenced up. Any other thinking is entitled.

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.

Well, they got:
1) law,
2) property rights,
3) and owed fees backing them up. It's rather like you not paying the IRS what you owe. They will seek recompense.

Sorry, daughter, but your dad screwed himself into this when he got the notion he didn't have to pay grazing fees at all. Now, two decades later, the bill is being presented. I don't have sympathy for debtors.

[GAFreedom]

The opinion that they are just squatters gets blown out of the water by her words. They are more than that and can’t be dismissed like that. Their family’s been there for multiple generations.

But that has no legal meaning. They can't claim adverse possession. They can't claim squatter's rights in that state. They have no title to the land and they refused to pay the fees for the rights to graze. It doesn't matter how we feel or what we think - those are the cold facts and the law must be adhered to.

Remember, to give in to emotionalism is to open the door to liberalism. Conservatism is hard and logical.