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]

Since you did not factually address or refute anything in my statement, I’m not sure what your response is supposed to mean. Do you think the federal government should have unlimited power to own real estate?

I think, in accordance with existing law, that the federal government owns real estate signed to it by treaty that has not been homesteaded and/or claimed by the state the property resides in. Since no title of ownership has been filed on this land by a private individual, since the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, it's the Fed's land. Since the State of Nevada hasn't claimed the land, it's the Fed's land. That's what I think and that's what the law thinks. If you want the law to think different, as you proposed, you have to prove in court why that's unConstitutional.

[GAFreedom]

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.

The court cases and legal judgments referenced just don't support that assumption. What the BLM is doing is much nicer than what I'd be doing if someone didn't pay me grazing fees for 20+ years on my land.

[GAFreedom]

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.

That don't settle it in a court of law and that's what matters.

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

Then they need a court judgment saying that.

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

Well, the law has disagreed on that for a couple of centuries now. If you want that viewpoint to be law, you need to have it recognized as law.

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

Actually, no. Federal property is exempt from property taxes. So is state property and municipal property. It varies a little from state to state, but you can check your local real estate laws for that.

[xzins]

At this point, there are a couple of items of interest in this case.

1. What do you think of the Harry Reid connection?

2. What does misrepresenting the tortoise endangerment do to past court rulings that utilized those assumptions?

3. What does BLM overkill do to their case; i.e., bringing snipers and heavy artillery to a cow ranch?

4. What do the “1st amendment zones” say about the Fed’s opinions of the American people?

[Triple]

:-)

[Scoutmaster]

.

[GAFreedom]

1. What do you think of the Harry Reid connection?

Since it comes from Alex Jones, I ignore it until it comes from a reputable source. Jones is a loon. Believes the Bushes and Clintons are lizard people, like David Icke. He's always talking something crazy.

2. What does misrepresenting the tortoise endangerment do to past court rulings that utilized those assumptions?

Not a thing until that misrepresentation is proven in court.

3. What does BLM overkill do to their case; i.e., bringing snipers and heavy artillery to a cow ranch?

Nothing. If there's no law against it, overkill is purely a matter of opinion - and has no legal bearing.

4. What do the “1st amendment zones” say about the Fed’s opinions of the American people?

Well, since "free speech zones" have existed since 1988 and have been discussed and approved by the Supreme Court in Edwards v. South Carolina, Brown v. Louisiana, Cox v. Louisiana, and Adderley v. Florida, I don't have much of an opinion about 'em. Does it pass the 4-part TPM test that was set up by the Court? If it does, then it's legal. *shrugs* If we don't want them to exist, we need to outlaw them.

But I don't see what that has to do with the material bearing on the case.

[xzins]

1. Harry Reid involvement: I didn't get it from Alex Jones. I got it on Free Republic from a post by Daxton Brown, a freeper who has been on Free Republic about 2 years, also the author of a book about Harry Reid. His was the first Harry Reid connection that I saw. Also, my memory of a free republic thread says that Alex Jones picked it up from Free Republic, but my memory could be wrong. Daxton Brown's summary: (http://www.futurnamics.com/reid_bundyranch.php

2. Tortoise misrepresentation. You say it means nothing until proven in court. That's not true, really. You know they are exterminating tortoises and have been for a while, and you know that those restrictions are eased for developers wanting areas. What I hear you telling me is that you measure truth based on its being upheld in court. Would you say the same about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ?

3. Sniper overkill? You have no opinion on that action and how it impacts your evaluation of truth, overreach, etc? Interesting.

4. 1st amendment zones? Despite broad censure by many Americans this is still just a matter of "truth by Court decision?" It makes no difference to you in terms of freedom, of the American values of independence, free speech, and free press? And this has no bearing on your evaluation of what's going on in this case.

I'm disappointed at your handle, GAFreedom. I expected some intensity regarding freedom.

[P-Marlowe]

GAFreedom
Since Mar 10, 2014

[xzins]

Yep, newbie.

GAFreedom
Since Mar 10, 2014

[P-Marlowe]

Well, since "free speech zones" have existed since 1988 and have been discussed and approved by the Supreme Court in Edwards v. South Carolina, Brown v. Louisiana, Cox v. Louisiana, and Adderley v. Florida, I don't have much of an opinion about 'em. Does it pass the 4-part TPM test that was set up by the Court? If it does, then it's legal. *shrugs* If we don't want them to exist, we need to outlaw them.

You should be ashamed of your handle. The Entire United States of America is supposed to be a FREE SPEECH ZONE.

What are you doing on a website called FREE REPUBLIC when you are promoting tyranny and limitations on the rights of the people?

GATyranny is a better handle. Change it.

[P-Marlowe]

Where do these people come from?

This is supposed to be a conservative forum and we get these government lackeys that come on here with conservative names and then they spout the liberal talking points.

[xzins]

GAFreedom is a misnomer. I thought it meant Georgia Freedom, but perhaps it’s Government Accountability Freedom...iow, no freedom at all.

In any case, I don’t think he/she realizes that freedom is not based on the judiciary’s decisions on Free Republic.

After all, the judges say that killing babies is OK.

[editor-surveyor]

According to the Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty, under which the lands were joined to the U.S.

Private interests were to be protected.

[wastoute]

reading your post at 300 or so. Logic aside, let us start at “When will you do something?” When they are putting you in cattle cars? Remember reading that? Remember reading Churchill’s, “Will we fight when we can be reasonably assured of victory at losses not too precious...or will we begin to fight only when there is slim hope of victory at a very great cost.” (pardon the paraphrase.) The point I am making here is this. Even in the face of particulars that make this sound worse and worse for the Fed Gov, I say this, we have to fight somewhere. We may not get the “virgin bride raped at wedding” level of dishonor we might hope for. Anne Barnhardt says this may not be the hill to die on. I respect here and those that hold this view. Fact is we better pick a hill and damn fast and this one will do as well as any.

[DaxtonBrown]

I’ve actually been on FR since 1998, under various handles.

[DaxtonBrown]

Yup. Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord.

[ctdonath2]

We can’t abide a government demanding people’s money just to use that money to drive them out. Kinda like requiring you to pay property taxes, and using what you pay to drive/buy you out of your home in a lose-lose offer.

[ctdonath2]

Problem is, the BLM doesn’t want payment, they want Bundy off that land.

[xzins]

Glad to have you back, then. :>)