Bundy Caught Lying about "Ancestral Rights"

[Nutz]

What is right is figuring out how the ranchers can go back to ranching rather than blindly running them all out of business to save some turtles who are being displaced by a federally funded Chinese solar farm.

Not paying grazing fees is right? Seems to me you are rationalizing a reason to support the Bundy's and ignoring the core issue.

Not true.

You say the core issue is bundy not OBEYING the law.

I say the core issue is ABUSIVE laws and regulations implemented by our government, which were in this case, designed to purposefully run all the ranchers out of Business to make a deal with china and some "greenies" who demanded the feds save the desert turtles if they do the deal with china.

Who is defending the right of the American citizen to not have their jobs displaced by it's own damn government?

So if I think that a law is abusive, I will get your support when I refuse to obey it?

You say the core issue is abusive laws. You claim the government is trying to run off the ranchers...eventhough the Bundy's haven't paid grazing fees for how long and their land still has not been taken away.

I'm sorry, your position isn't making much sense to me. I understand you believe the laws are abusive. Can you be specific and tell me which laws are abusive and how it justifies Bundy not paying grazing fees like every other rancher? Again, I am not flaming or trying to be obtuse...I want to fully understand your position because I can't fathom the idea of selectively obeying laws. You do believe in law and order, right?

 

[RKMBrown]

I gotta say, with so much extra work last week, I pretty much ignored this story, so this is all really fresh for me to read.

So, I just wiki'd this:

Bundy standoff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The dude has been in a dispute with the BLM for 20 years over this and has 1 million in unpaid fees yet to pay. Every time he went to court about this, he lost.

Now, if there were cases of other ranchers who were given preferential treatment by the BLM over him, I think I could understand his anger, but this doesn't appear to be the case.

So, what do we have:

-We have a dude who has been deliberately letting his cattle graze on land that is not his. I bet that most of us know what would have happened to him had he done this during the days of the "Wild West".

-We have a dude who refuses to pay back-fees that he owes.

-We have a dude who was literally PROHIBITED from having his cattle graze on federal lands starting in 1998, because of the ongoing dispute from 1993. So, after that and almost 16 years of warnings, the feds took his cattle.


The Wiki says this about Rangelands:




So, why did the dude never pay his fees? It's not his land, the land where he has been letting his cattle graze. He has been blatantly, and I mean, blatantly breaking the law for 20 years now.

Were the dude a Leftie, I bet the Right would be screaming "deadbeat", "OWS" and all that jazz.

Face it: the dude is a full-loser and he is going to lose this battle when all is said and done.

All he had to do was to pay his fees - or - find other land for his cattle to go graze.

It ain't rocket science, really. Legally, Bundy is clearly in the wrong.

But for people who think the Gubbermint is nothing but ZOG evil, he is like a big hero.

Once again, the Right is looking for a "cause celebre" to show 'look, here's a rugged individual who shares our values". You know, like Joe the Plumber. Oh, wait, he now took a job with the Auto industry...

Since you are new to the issue I'll hold off on cursing at you for a sec. There were 61 ranchers. They ran off 60 of the ranchers to supposedly mitigate prime desert turtle land that was being used to build a Chinese solar power farm at another location. This 1 rancher is the last man standing.

If you send me links to all the information you can, I am more than willing to look at all of it. I never said that what the man did is morally wrong. I am saying that he is legally wrong, and indeed, he is.

Many times the morally correct thing to do is break the damn law.

 

[peach174]

You get comfy with discomfort. You and all the other progressive pukes who stand by and watch people be abused.

Me, I'll still stand for what is right.

What is right? Can you explain to me how the Bundy's are right in this situation. No flaming, just trying to understand both sides. Please keep it relevant, if you choose to reply.

The Bundy's is not right. The Bundy's have done it the wrong way.
This is about corruption in the agencies.

Chief Judge Robert C. Jones of the Federal District Court of Nevada said he found that “the government and the agents of the government in that locale( Gold Butte), sometime in the ’70s and ’80s, entered into a conspiracy, a literal, intentional conspiracy, to deprive the Hages and all of the Ranchers in that area of not only their permit grazing rights, for whatever reason, but also to deprive them of their vested property rights under the takings clause, and I find that that’s a sufficient basis to hold that there is irreparable harm if I don’t … restrain the government from continuing in that conduct.”

In fact, Judge Jones accused the federal bureaucrats of racketeering under the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations) statute, and accused them as well of extortion, mail fraud, and fraud, in an effort “to kill the business of Mr. Hage.”

They got rid of 53 other Ranchers and put them out of business. Only the Hage's and
Bundiy's remain plus a small amount of others.

The Hage's did it the right way and it took 30 years of court battles, but got no media coverage, nor any reports of the abuses the agency's were and still are doing.

The Bundy's did it the wrong way but they got the media coverage and finally the States themselves to see what they can do to get control over the land in each of their States and maybe stop this abuse.

 

[Asclepias]

I think this bears repeating. The provision in the Nevada State constitution that invalidates any claims by Bundy.

“Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States;

That clearly places it in the Feds hands.

 

[RKMBrown]

Not paying grazing fees is right? Seems to me you are rationalizing a reason to support the Bundy's and ignoring the core issue.

Not true.

You say the core issue is bundy not OBEYING the law.

I say the core issue is ABUSIVE laws and regulations implemented by our government, which were in this case, designed to purposefully run all the ranchers out of Business to make a deal with china and some "greenies" who demanded the feds save the desert turtles if they do the deal with china.

Who is defending the right of the American citizen to not have their jobs displaced by it's own damn government?

So if I think that a law is abusive, I will get your support when I refuse to obey it?

You say the core issue is abusive laws. You claim the government is trying to run off the ranchers...eventhough the Bundy's haven't paid grazing fees for how long and their land still has not been taken away.

I'm sorry, your position isn't making much sense to me. I understand you believe the laws are abusive. Can you be specific and tell me which laws are abusive and how it justifies Bundy not paying grazing fees like every other rancher? Again, I am not flaming or trying to be obtuse...I want to fully understand your position because I can't fathom the idea of selectively obeying laws. You do believe in law and order, right?

You are not paying attn. or simply being obtuse then claiming you are not being obtuse.
60 of 61 ranchers were run out of business. One left.

The one left was told he would only be able to graze a very small percentage of his cows. So small a percentage that the lone rancher would be left with no choice but to fold up.

Thus the law effectively tried to stop Bundy from ranching. Needless to say he told them to go to hell. I would have done the same thing. But I'm not the type to cower from bullies, not even if they work for obscure federal agencies and hire contractors with guns.

This is not the case of bundy breaking the law. This is the case of a rancher fighting a tyrannical government.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can it be that the Bundy family lived in the freaking area since the 1870's without incurring the wrath of the picky lefties?

Nope. Already been mentioned that they bought the land near this in 1948.

^ Not the issue

 

[RKMBrown]

I think this bears repeating. The provision in the Nevada State constitution that invalidates any claims by Bundy.

“Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States;

That clearly places it in the Feds hands.

The feds work for us ya dumb ass. This is a case of libards (china basd solar farm lovers, and turtle lovers) against ranchers. Yeah you libtards are just hiding behind "fed" cover. Nothing new. Cowards never do their own dirty work, they hide behind brownshirts and contractors.

 

[Nutz]

You get comfy with discomfort. You and all the other progressive pukes who stand by and watch people be abused.

Me, I'll still stand for what is right.

What is right? Can you explain to me how the Bundy's are right in this situation. No flaming, just trying to understand both sides. Please keep it relevant, if you choose to reply.

The Bundy's is not right. The Bundy's have done it the wrong way.
This is about corruption in the agencies.

Chief Judge Robert C. Jones of the Federal District Court of Nevada said he found that “the government and the agents of the government in that locale( Gold Butte), sometime in the ’70s and ’80s, entered into a conspiracy, a literal, intentional conspiracy, to deprive the Hages and all of the Ranchers in that area of not only their permit grazing rights, for whatever reason, but also to deprive them of their vested property rights under the takings clause, and I find that that’s a sufficient basis to hold that there is irreparable harm if I don’t … restrain the government from continuing in that conduct.”

In fact, Judge Jones accused the federal bureaucrats of racketeering under the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations) statute, and accused them as well of extortion, mail fraud, and fraud, in an effort “to kill the business of Mr. Hage.”

They got rid of 53 other Ranchers and put them out of business. Only the Hage's and
Bundiy's remain plus a small amount of others.

The Hage's did it the right way and it took 30 years of court battles, but got no media coverage, nor any reports of the abuses the agency's were doing.

The Bundy's did it the wrong way but they got the media coverage and finally the States themselves to see what they can do to get control over the land in each of their States and maybe stop this abuse.

Okay, the Hages are not the Bundy's. Any claim that the situations are 100% the same would certainly need to be backed up...wouldn't you agree. I am not saying that it is not 100% the same situation, but I am saying I will leave at as a false equivalency without any evidence to the contrary. At that, I am not a lawyer, but if the situations were 100% the same, wouldn't legal precedence work in the favor of the Bundy's?

Either way, can someone go into detail as to the corruption and conspiracies...(legitimate).

The way I interpret it so far is that the Hage's were able to win their battle in court, but the Bundy's lost. If the Hages won and the Bundy's experienced the exact same situation, precedence would prevail. Did/ do the Hage's pay grazing fees?

But wait, the Bundy's have full control over their land, right?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marty is spot on.

Bundy's ancestors had grazing rights long before the BLM existed. Big Government has continuously changed the rules in order to drive the benefits of property to its cronies.

Thats what happens. Rules change. Amendments get added to the constitution. Nothing stays stagnant. Get comfortable with the idea of being uncomfortable. The world is constantly changing.

IOW, you advocate for Mob Rule and getting rid of the Constitution. Thanks for clearing that up.

Laws change. That is not mob rule. No one is for getting rid of the Constitution. Common sense states we follow it.

Just because you don't like it, does really mean anything.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Can it be that the Bundy family lived in the freaking area since the 1870's without incurring the wrath of the picky lefties?

They did not come until much, much later.

The Bundys bought the ranch in 1948.

 

[Nutz]

Not true.

You say the core issue is bundy not OBEYING the law.

I say the core issue is ABUSIVE laws and regulations implemented by our government, which were in this case, designed to purposefully run all the ranchers out of Business to make a deal with china and some "greenies" who demanded the feds save the desert turtles if they do the deal with china.

Who is defending the right of the American citizen to not have their jobs displaced by it's own damn government?

So if I think that a law is abusive, I will get your support when I refuse to obey it?

You say the core issue is abusive laws. You claim the government is trying to run off the ranchers...eventhough the Bundy's haven't paid grazing fees for how long and their land still has not been taken away.

I'm sorry, your position isn't making much sense to me. I understand you believe the laws are abusive. Can you be specific and tell me which laws are abusive and how it justifies Bundy not paying grazing fees like every other rancher? Again, I am not flaming or trying to be obtuse...I want to fully understand your position because I can't fathom the idea of selectively obeying laws. You do believe in law and order, right?

You are not paying attn. or simply being obtuse then claiming you are not being obtuse.
60 of 61 ranchers were run out of business. One left.

How where they run out of business? Just saying something about China and greenies doesn't prove a point to me. I need specifics. I am not looking it up myself because it is your argument and you are the one who says this justifies the Bundy's not paying grazing fees which is my principle issue.

The one left was told he would only be able to graze a very small percentage of his cows. So small a percentage that the lone rancher would be left with no choice but to fold up.

And that was because of turtles? Do you have a link?

Thus the law effectively tried to stop Bundy from ranching. Needless to say he told them to go to hell. I would have done the same thing. But I'm not the type to cower from bullies, not even if they work for obscure federal agencies and hire contractors with guns.

what law?

This is not the case of bundy breaking the law. This is the case of a rancher fighting a tyrannical government.

Again, I see no tyranny at this point and cannot understand why you are calling it so. I understand there is a lot to this 'issue'. I don't understand why one man's lawful debt to the US Government is tyranny and is a powder keg for an armed insurrection.

 

[Statistikhengst]

You get comfy with discomfort. You and all the other progressive pukes who stand by and watch people be abused.

Me, I'll still stand for what is right.

What is right? Can you explain to me how the Bundy's are right in this situation. No flaming, just trying to understand both sides. Please keep it relevant, if you choose to reply.

The Bundy's is not right. The Bundy's have done it the wrong way.
This is about corruption in the agencies.

Chief Judge Robert C. Jones of the Federal District Court of Nevada said he found that “the government and the agents of the government in that locale( Gold Butte), sometime in the ’70s and ’80s, entered into a conspiracy, a literal, intentional conspiracy, to deprive the Hages and all of the Ranchers in that area of not only their permit grazing rights, for whatever reason, but also to deprive them of their vested property rights under the takings clause, and I find that that’s a sufficient basis to hold that there is irreparable harm if I don’t … restrain the government from continuing in that conduct.”

In fact, Judge Jones accused the federal bureaucrats of racketeering under the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations) statute, and accused them as well of extortion, mail fraud, and fraud, in an effort “to kill the business of Mr. Hage.”

They got rid of 53 other Ranchers and put them out of business. Only the Hage's and
Bundiy's remain plus a small amount of others.

The Hage's did it the right way and it took 30 years of court battles, but got no media coverage, nor any reports of the abuses the agency's were and still are doing.

The Bundy's did it the wrong way but they got the media coverage and finally the States themselves to see what they can do to get control over the land in each of their States and maybe stop this abuse.

I would like to see any links you can share about this. That would be helpful.

 

[Asclepias]

I think this bears repeating. The provision in the Nevada State constitution that invalidates any claims by Bundy.

“Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States;

That clearly places it in the Feds hands.

The feds work for us ya dumb ass. This is a case of libards (china basd solar farm lovers, and turtle lovers) against ranchers. Yeah you libtards are just hiding behind "fed" cover. Nothing new. Cowards never do their own dirty work, they hide behind brownshirts and contractors.

Thats right the feds work for us and not the ranchers. We say get off the land if you dont want to pay like everyone else.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Can it be that the Bundy family lived in the freaking area since the 1870's without incurring the wrath of the picky lefties?

Nope. Already been mentioned that they bought the land near this in 1948.

^ Not the issue

Then how would you answer his question?

 

[Asclepias]

If Bundy was so adamant about the Feds not owning the land why did he pay fees to them prior? Sounds like a snow job to me. The guy is full of contradictions.

 

[RKMBrown]

So if I think that a law is abusive, I will get your support when I refuse to obey it?

You say the core issue is abusive laws. You claim the government is trying to run off the ranchers...eventhough the Bundy's haven't paid grazing fees for how long and their land still has not been taken away.

I'm sorry, your position isn't making much sense to me. I understand you believe the laws are abusive. Can you be specific and tell me which laws are abusive and how it justifies Bundy not paying grazing fees like every other rancher? Again, I am not flaming or trying to be obtuse...I want to fully understand your position because I can't fathom the idea of selectively obeying laws. You do believe in law and order, right?

You are not paying attn. or simply being obtuse then claiming you are not being obtuse.
60 of 61 ranchers were run out of business. One left.

How where they run out of business? Just saying something about China and greenies doesn't prove a point to me. I need specifics. I am not looking it up myself because it is your argument and you are the one who says this justifies the Bundy's not paying grazing fees which is my principle issue.


And that was because of turtles? Do you have a link?

Thus the law effectively tried to stop Bundy from ranching. Needless to say he told them to go to hell. I would have done the same thing. But I'm not the type to cower from bullies, not even if they work for obscure federal agencies and hire contractors with guns.

what law?

This is not the case of bundy breaking the law. This is the case of a rancher fighting a tyrannical government.

Again, I see no tyranny at this point and cannot understand why you are calling it so. I understand there is a lot to this 'issue'. I don't understand why one man's lawful debt to the US Government is tyranny and is a powder keg for an armed insurrection.

Troll.

 

[RKMBrown]

I think this bears repeating. The provision in the Nevada State constitution that invalidates any claims by Bundy.



That clearly places it in the Feds hands.

The feds work for us ya dumb ass. This is a case of libards (china basd solar farm lovers, and turtle lovers) against ranchers. Yeah you libtards are just hiding behind "fed" cover. Nothing new. Cowards never do their own dirty work, they hide behind brownshirts and contractors.

Thats right the feds work for us and not the ranchers. We say get off the land if you dont want to pay like everyone else.

You don't speak for me, Jerk.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The Feds had an injunction and declarative relief since the Judge's decision and order in early 2013.

Under that order, they were lawfully authorized to seize the damn cattle.

I have looked at the various papers and the replies, etc. I am not at all sure that if WE had done the same thing, we would have reached a different conclusion than the judge.

Still, if there is an appeal remaining (one that has been or can yet be filed in a timely fashion), it seems a bit rash of the Federal Government to act as it did.

That said, as much as my political preferences would normally gravitate toward team Bundy, I am not buying his "arguments." And I am really displeased that at the same time that he is denying the legitimacy of the U.S. government, he is using their court system. He would be more than happy to stand on the judge's ruling if it went in his favor, no doubt. But when the judge rules AGAINST him after all these years, he doesn't even accept the legitimacy of the judiciary?

This case is sickening from either angle.

 

[RKMBrown]

I-Team: Bundy's 'ancestral rights' come under scrutiny - 8 News NOW

Bundy explained his "ancestral rights" to the I-Team."I've lived my lifetime here. My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley here ever since 1877. All these rights that I claim, have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and the water and the access and range improvements," Bundy said.
Clark County property records show Cliven Bundy's parents moved from Bundyville, Arizona and bought the 160 acre ranch in 1948 from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt.

Budy's maternal grandparents, are John and Christena Jensen. They homesteaded right next to the land in question. Here is the friggin census data showing his grandparents as farmers on the land in question pre BLM:
http://www3.8newsnow.com/docs/2014/bundy/1940_mesquite.jpg

 

[Asclepias]

I-Team: Bundy's 'ancestral rights' come under scrutiny - 8 News NOW

Bundy explained his "ancestral rights" to the I-Team."I've lived my lifetime here. My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley here ever since 1877. All these rights that I claim, have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and the water and the access and range improvements," Bundy said.
Clark County property records show Cliven Bundy's parents moved from Bundyville, Arizona and bought the 160 acre ranch in 1948 from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt.

Budy's maternal grandparents, are John and Christena Jensen. They homesteaded right next to the land in question. Here is the friggin census data showing his grandparents as farmers on the land in question pre BLM:
http://www3.8newsnow.com/docs/2014/bundy/1940_mesquite.jpg

The Nevada State Constitution predates the Jensens. Bundy loses on all fronts.