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”

[GAFreedom]

IANAL, but wouldn’t the continuous use of the property for the past 100 years create some kind of property easement?

State by state basis, and not in Nevada, unfortunately for Bundy.

[GAFreedom]

The imposition of fees was unlawful.

Grazing fees are unlawful? This is new to me. According to who, exactly?

[GAFreedom]

There is NO reason whatsoever for the federal government to own any more land than is absolutely necessary to construct and maintain those types facilities, and only those types of facilities, enumerated in the constitution. Your argument is really nothing more than acquiescence to an unnecessary expansion of power by the federal government - and I oppose ALL unnecessary expansions of the federal government.

Makes sense. I'll look to see that case made before the court and for the ownership of land given by treaty to the federal government be made unConstitutional. Let us know when that happens.

[GAFreedom]

If you want to play real estate law, then since the Treaty with Mexico was signed under duress after a questionably legal war, the land actually belonged to Mexico under the Land Grants from Spain. Since contracts signed under duress are not valid

Uh, international law and treaties DO NOT follow contract law at all. Duress is not a problem in a treaty. No consideration is not a problem in a treaty. You might want to read up on that a bit before making claims.

At any rate when the government allows free use of land for over 100 years, the precedent that is set requires that the government show good cause as to why they are rescinding the grazing rights and since Mr. Bundy has been paying for grazing rights for over 100 years, he does have a property interest in the land and the government would have to compensate him for it.

Nope, he stopped paying them in 1993. And his family would have only been paying grazing rights since 1937 or thereabouts. I think two decades of no grazing fees and grazing anyway presents a bit of "gibsmedat" problem, don't you agree?

[Scoutmaster]

That has to do with an unwillingness to fight a current invasion. I don’t see how it has anything to do with the questionable legality of the Mexican War affecting the enforceability of the Treaty.

The invasion of this country by Hispanic illegal aliens, not just Mexican nationals, would be in red alert mode regardless of the legality of the Mexican War. I fail to see how questionable legality made our government gutless against and complicit with the invasion.

By the way, I appreciate your willingness to discuss matters such as these.

[sport]

My guess would be, behind the scene pulling the strings. I also have a feeling that when the dust settles That Harry Reis will be owning what once was the Bundy’s land and the Bundys will be either in the graveyard or prison.

[AppyPappy]

Well, it’s my girlfriend. Does your husband know about us?

[xzins]

The illegal cows are there only as an act of love for their calves. And Bundy is part of the cow safe sanctuary movement, so we know the government won’t go after him.

[bert]

Amen

But it will not stop this from being a Terry cause.

[xzins]

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

Great post, Phil.

They kill agents and hundreds of Mexican citizens with their Fast and Furious scheme, the kill ambassadors and seals with their Manpads scheme and then run a disinformation campaign against US the American people, they fine and torment conservative groups with their IRS schemes, and they steal our money with their ObamaCare scheme.

The cops should be focused there.

But here we are with the nation's ultimate crisis: some farmer raising cows on land his family has viewed as open range for generations. He's not a crazy. I've seen him on TV a couple times and he's a careful talker and reasonable thinker.

But we've got military equipment, snipers, shooters, SWAT teams, helicopters, and furiously working legal teams focused on THIS GUY who hasn't done anything yet that hurts a single person.

His cows are eating grass. Bring in the death squads!

I'm tired of this crap.

[Triple]

So there never were grazing rights?

Just that the government started leasing land to bundy, that it always owned. Bundy never owned any rights to the land?

[xzins]

Disagree. They have the history of the open range, and they have the fact that they were permitted to make personally paid for improvements with no reimbursement.

That pretty well settles it for me.

It is unowned land and it has been improved. They have a range claim.

The Fed is responsible for the land within our borders. They are not PROPERTY OWNERS.

If they were, shouldn’t they be paying property taxes to the states/counties, the same as other property owners within those states.

[bert]

——They are not PROPERTY OWNERS-—

Yes it is. The government bought and paid for the land in question with US$. The seller was Mexico.

The remaining land is essentially that which was not homesteaded with actual deeds to the homesteader. Additionally, large acreages were transferred to the railroads and promoted the westward advancement.

Much of Utah is owned by the government and was under BLM management. This land, against the consent of the State Of Utah was declared to be a park and removed from the possibility of development. The park is the Grand Stair case Escalante.

Then there is Wyoming.....

[kelly4c]

I’ll tell you what...the government doesn’t get to decide that you need to pay them for services they either aren’t providing or are using against you and the government doesn’t get to decide that it will take people’s private/personal property.

[kelly4c]

Out founding fathers wouldn’t have let it get this far. Our founding fathers had a fighting spirit. The spiritual condition of today’s people isn’t that robust. Subserviant little creatures Americans have become.

[kelly4c]

“At the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848, Mexico and the U.S. signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which granted title to that land to the U.S., for which the U.S. paid Mexico $15 million.”

From what source does the US government get their millions?

[kelly4c]

Why does the federal government need that land? Tell me, what was the federal government created for? Do they have a military installation or national park on said land? If not, they can go pound sand.

[AppyPappy]

Seriously. You weren’t aware that the government can sell your property on the courthouse steps for non-payment of taxes?

[xzins]

We also “bought” Louisiana all the way up to Wyoming.

Does the government “own” Louisiana?

It’s just a crazy notion that the federal government is a property owner within our system. Even about that “Louisiana Purchase” Jefferson said that he just bought it and probably didn’t have constitutional authorization for the Fed to make the purchase.

That ties in nicely with the Constitutional statement about what it did authorize the Fed to buy.

And guess who gets what the constitution doesn’t specifically authorize? 10th Amendment: the states or the people.

I simply don’t understand this failure by conservatives to recognize that our federal government is not the crown with crown properties. The Fed is not a monarchy with changing leaders.

Why would a conservative cede such power and ownership to a transitioning body of elected officials and continuing civil servants? It absolutely amazes me.

In your mind, during the westward expansion what was “open range”?

[ohioman]

How long have you worked for the BLM?