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”

[kelly4c]

I think that if you don’t like what the government is doing with YOUR money you should not have to give them any more. I really do believe that. We shouldn’t just let them waste our hard-earned money on stupid crap or just pocketing it. It’s not fair or right.

[cyn]

Yep. They should be shot, and their spring calves left to die in the desert.

[kelly4c]

Of course I know that. And I think it’s wrong. I don’t care for the American way of doing things in this regard but I’m stuck here for now because I started a family when I was young and before I knew how jacked up things were in this system.

[kiryandil]

See my post #331 on taxcontrol, the noble "Constitutional" Horatio:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3142500/posts?page=331#331

Beat him over the head with the Declaration of Independence if you want to leave him speechless.

It's an uncomfortable topic for his ilk.

[kiryandil]

This isn't about "grazing fees" or "Federal property".

It's about "First Amendment areas", and beatings, and swarms of officers harassing and eating out the substance of the taxpayers & Cliven Bundy.

[Lou Budvis]

You cannot have a prescriptive easement on federal lands. Plus, the memo shows that he had been trespassing for many years and has lost his court battles.

[taxcontrol]

This should have been handled by someone local. The Sheriff would have likely only send a half a dozen deputies at most. This is why I favor taking away para-military forces from federal agencies and requireing them to use the local sheriff’s office for on the ground man power for any raids or other direct action.

[taxcontrol]

Correct, Bundy only owns about 150 acres. The 600,000 acres in question have been owned by the US Government since the US/Mexico war back in the early 1800’s. Bundy was leasing the grazing rights to that land and then decided to stop paying those fees yet still use that land.

[taxcontrol]

Yes there is a national park on the land. The land in question is a small part of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. That is the lake that is formed behind Hover Dam.

[taxcontrol]

I have never worked for BLM.

[bert]

What is a “ first amendment area”?

There seem to be two clearly different types of property involved. That owned by the rancher in fee simple, 150 acres or so and perhaps the remnant of an old homestead of 160 acres.

The rest is property owned by the government and not homesteaded or other wise conveyed since acquired in the 1840’s. Over time, methods were evolved for using the property that did not involve actual ownership. It is this contract evolution that is at issue. It appears that the rancher allowed the contract to lapse.

[LowOiL]

I agree with you Tax. This one is not one to hang your hat upon. If it was his land (outright owned like he does his 150 acres), and they suddenly said “you can’t raise cattle there anymore”, I would be up in arms. But that ain’t the case.

Yes folks, the government owns too much land. Yes, the government usually is a bully, but in this case I think the bully is the cattle rancher that just got pissed at having to pay a range tax that he thought was unfair.

[rolling_stone]

you are correct, time does not run against the king.

[kiryandil]

Truer words were never spoken, yet look at many of the responses on this thread.

[kiryandil]

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.

Truer words were never spoken, yet look at many of the responses on this thread.

[kiryandil]

What is a “ first amendment area”?

The King's Men set this up for the peasants in the middle of "nowhere near the Despotic brutalities".

If you want to get tased and beaten, go outside the "First Amendment area".

Interestingly, when a Roman citizen was arrested back in the day, he wasn't beaten, made to crawl before the Emperor's Men, eat dirt and he wasn't curbstomped...

We've progressed a lot since the Roman Republic.

[kiryandil]

It appears that the rancher allowed the contract to lapse.

It appears that the government began conspiring to lock up the land and kick all the ranchers off of it shortly after Bill Clinton's first election victory.

[xzins]

Thanks, kiryandil.

What is important in this story?

1. The Fed brought an atomic bomb to kill a cow.

2. The Fed tazes first, talks laterorders around

3. This rancher believes he's right, and there are some points clearly on his side.

[ohioman]

“I have never worked for BLM.”

You could have fooled everyone here with that statement. If you did work for the BLM, I would recommend you get a raise for your faithful spouting of the Government Party line. Great job Comrade!

[rolling_stone]

recent land court battle in California goes back before treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo..

.......The original owner of the property was Jose Maria Alviso, who received a provisional land grant from the Mexican government in the late 1830s. He later transferred the property to his brother, Jose Antonio Alviso, whose rights to the property were upheld under the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which settled the Mexican-American War. The U.S. government challenged Alviso’s land patent, but the Supreme Court confirmed Alviso’s ownership in 1859.

All that complicated history led Buchwald to a basic conclusion: The nation’s high court exempted this property from the full reach of California law.

“What the Supreme Court was saying was that a claim exactly like the one being made here now was extinguished,” Buchwald said. “And it doesn’t matter that the claim is being made all these years later.”............

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_24380282/vinod-khosla-wins-key-martins-beach-battle

EVERYONE SHOULD VIEW THIS VIDEO FOR BACKGROUND ON NEVADA LAND AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:

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