Things at Nevada cattle ranch intensifying! Agenda 21 - (VIDEO)

page: 1
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 09:26 AM
link   
AGENDA 21!

The standoff between a Nevada family and federal agents intensified Wednesday when a violent altercation occurred.

This episode looks to get a lot uglier and fast. Please see below for info from Ben Swann.


Wednesday, things intensified as family members and protesters saw a BLM convoy with dump trucks and backhoes. The family became suspicious that there may be dead cattle in the dump truck or that the feds were burying cattle after killing them during capture, so they stopped the convoy. The feds became combative and began to assault the protestors, throwing a 57-year-old woman who is a Bundy family member that is recovering from cancer to the ground. When another family member came to her aid he was tazed. A pregnant woman was also attacked by a K-9 during the altercation. The protestors stood their ground and refused to be intimidated. Finally, the BLM retreated when it became clear that the protestors were not going to stand down.





Source




posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by freakjive
 

Oh Hell yeah!!

That's how you protest!! Wild West!!

Too bad there aren't any trees out there ... because you know what happens to cattle rustlers.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by freakjive
 


*sigh*
the tortis and the hare...brained



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   
There was another thread on this already. The man had no right to let his cattle graze on that land because he stopped paying grazing fees back in the 90's. Just another deadbeat crying because he isn't allowed to break the law.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


he had beneficial use rights going back to the 1800's


Beneficial use
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Beneficial use is a legal term describing a person's right to enjoy the benefits of specific property, especially a view or access to light, air, or water, even though title to that property is held by another person. [1] This may also be termed "beneficial enjoyment". Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Pocket ed. 2001 pg. 236.

Compare this with a "beneficial interest", where a beneficiary has an interest in a thing ("res" Res (disambiguation)) (such as a trust or estate) but does not own the underlying property. Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Pocket ed. 2001 pg. 64. This usually entitles the beneficiary to some of the income from the underlying property.

Also, compare this to beneficial owner where specific property rights ("use and title") in equity belong to a person even though legal title of the property belongs to another person. Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Pocket ed. 2001 pg. 508.
en.wikipedia.org...
edit on Thuam4b20144America/Chicago57 by Danbones because: (no reason given)


+13 more 
posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   

buster2010
There was another thread on this already. The man had no right to let his cattle graze on that land because he stopped paying grazing fees back in the 90's. Just another deadbeat crying because he isn't allowed to break the law.


As I understand it, the family has grazed livestock on the land as far back as the 1870's well before eminent domain was used (abused) to declare open rangeland "public" land - the rancher refuses to pay for what he considers his rightful use of the fodder on that land.

I can certainly say agree or disagree with the ranchers plight but do you take no offense at the Federal tactics of abridging 1st amendment rights along with gestapo like treatment of the protestors?

May eminent domain visit you soon since it is after all the law as you put it - go smiling!




posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by freakjive
 



Once again this makes me cry, I have seen the comments on the forum pro and con, but can't the "PEOPLE" win once and a while.

sad



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by freakjive
 


Breach of Peace


breach of the peace n. any act which disturbs the public or even one person. It can include almost any criminal act causing fear or attempting intimidation, such as displaying a pistol or shouting inappropriately.


Who is breaching the peace, those protesters standing up against federal aggressors, or the federal aggressors waving tazers while using threats of violence against the protesters?



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix
 




gestapo like treatment of the protestors?


All I saw was the professional-wrestler-size man being tased when he abruptly approached the officers. Nothing more than defensive protocol. You really think they were assaulting people who "got back" as they asked?



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Danbones
reply to post by buster2010
 


he had beneficial use rights going back to the 1800's


He still had to pay grazing fees which he didn't do.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Phoenix

buster2010
There was another thread on this already. The man had no right to let his cattle graze on that land because he stopped paying grazing fees back in the 90's. Just another deadbeat crying because he isn't allowed to break the law.


As I understand it, the family has grazed livestock on the land as far back as the 1870's well before eminent domain was used (abused) to declare open rangeland "public" land - the rancher refuses to pay for what he considers his rightful use of the fodder on that land.

I can certainly say agree or disagree with the ranchers plight but do you take no offense at the Federal tactics of abridging 1st amendment rights along with gestapo like treatment of the protestors?

May eminent domain visit you soon since it is after all the law as you put it - go smiling!



First go learn what eminent domain is because you clearly don't know what it is. He doesn't own the land so it can't be used against him.

Eminent domain
The power of the government to take private property and convert it into public use. The Fifth Amendment provides that the government may only exercise this power if they provide just compensation to the property owners.

The man doesn't own the land and it never belonged to him or his family no matter how long his family had grazed on the land.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   

buster2010

Danbones
reply to post by buster2010
 


he had beneficial use rights going back to the 1800's


He still had to pay grazing fees which he didn't do.


that was imposed and not necessarily legit consdidering the BUR
sorry i added an edit, above...my internet is all screwy today..had to reboot



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by freakjive
 


What the hell is going on in this country????

This is just an example of what the GOV is doing to it's own people.

Something has to give. I am not sure what their end game is but I suspect the people of the AMERICA aren't going to continue to sit by while they kill us.

People are starting to wake up and the SHEEPLE pool is starting to run LOW. what will they do when the rest of SHEEPLE wake up

example:
ATS -
Man shot and killed for watering his lawn

Homeless man shot and killed for no reason

this is just 2 but we all know the examples go on and on

edit on 10-4-2014 by tow69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   

buster2010
There was another thread on this already. The man had no right to let his cattle graze on that land because he stopped paying grazing fees back in the 90's. Just another deadbeat crying because he isn't allowed to break the law.


Pull yer head out of that dark place and look around you buster yer way off the mark here.....
These are Federal troops taking somebodys rights away....
Why because they simply decided that turtles and cows don't get along so the people who have ranched there for 100 yrs or so must go.....
WHERE IS THE SHERRIFF AND WHY DOESNT THE LOCAL LEOS HANDLE THIS



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


If "ownership" is your supporting ideal then why isn't the rancher being forced to pay the native Indian tribe? Just how do you figure the federal government owns it? because they said so in 1946 or so?



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 


Our government are the terrorist, instill terror keep people frightened.

Just like Waco

"Toe the line"



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Phoenix
As I understand it, the family has grazed livestock on the land as far back as the 1870's well before eminent domain was used (abused) to declare open rangeland "public" land - the rancher refuses to pay for what he considers his rightful use of the fodder on that land.



What eminent domain? People keep repeating this--show me!

All of the lands of the western states were originally acquired through treaty or purchase by the United States federal government. Not the states, not individuals.

Federal land ownership began when the original 13 states ceded their “western”
lands (between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River) to the central
government between 1781 and 1802. Substantial land acquisition in North America
via treaties and purchases began with the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 and culminated
with the purchase of Alaska in 1867. In total, the federal government acquired 1.8
billion acres in North America.

Congressional Research Service

The 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act specifically authorizes:

=Title IV: Range Management= - Requires the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to study the value of grazing on the lands under their jurisdiction in the 11 Western States with a view to establishing a fee for domestic livestock grazing on such lands.

Specifies a formula for the determination of grazing fees.

Directs that 50 percent of all moneys received as fees for grazing domestic livestock on public lands and on lands in the National Forest System be credited to a separate account in the United States Treasury for the purpose of range rehabilitation, protection, and improvement.

Places a ten year limit on permits and leases for domestic livestock grazing. Grants to a holder of an expiring permit or lease first priority for receipt of the new permit or lease. Requires that all grazing permits and leases incorporate an allotment management plan.

Directs the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to establish at least one grazing advisory board for each Bureau of Land Management district office and National Forest headquarters office in the western States having jurisdiction over more than 5,000 acres of land subject to commercial livestock grazing.


This measure began in the 94th Congress, Senate as S.507. Once out of committee, it passed by a vote of 78-11, and was sent to the House. The similar House bill called H.R. 13777 passed with a vote of {169-155).
Incidentally, H.R. 13777 was co-sponsored by the Representative from Nevada.

Finally, the legislation passed conference, H. Rept. 94-1724 with a vote of (393-0), and was signed in law as Public law 94-579 by President Ford.

This law, which can be found as USC Title 43, Chapter 35, Sub-chapter 1701 (in Thomas) also has a "Savings Provision":


(a) Nothing in this Act, or in any amendment made by this Act [see Short Title note above], shall be construed as terminating any valid lease, permit, patent, right-of-way, or other land use right or authorization existing on the date of approval of this Act [Oct. 21, 1976].


Meaning, if Mr. Bundy truly had some legal claim to the land in question, when this law went into effect, he would have been protected. He has been in court several times over the past 20 years--if I can dig up this info in an hour, surely with his vested interest, he could have done the same.

I suspect he does not have any legal title, lease, etc--except his ancestral usage of the land; but then again, so do other people, such as the Piute.
I truly wish for this situation to come to a fair and peaceful resolution, before any others are injured.




edit on 4/10/2014 by Olivine because: (no reason given)
edit on 4/10/2014 by Olivine because: clarity
edit on 4/10/2014 by Olivine because: (no reason given)
edit on 4/10/2014 by Olivine because: rampant typos



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix
 


Your representatives in Congress passed legislation that says so.

The solutions have to come from the voting ballots, not violent confrontations....just my lone opinion.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   

stirling

buster2010
There was another thread on this already. The man had no right to let his cattle graze on that land because he stopped paying grazing fees back in the 90's. Just another deadbeat crying because he isn't allowed to break the law.


Pull yer head out of that dark place and look around you buster yer way off the mark here.....
These are Federal troops taking somebodys rights away....
Why because they simply decided that turtles and cows don't get along so the people who have ranched there for 100 yrs or so must go.....
WHERE IS THE SHERRIFF AND WHY DOESNT THE LOCAL LEOS HANDLE THIS


They are taking no rights away from anyone. He didn't pay his fees so he had no rights. The feds police their lands so there is no need for the local Leos and if they were there they would have backed the feds. So maybe it's time you pulled your head out of that dark place and look to see what is really happening instead crying the usual feds are in the wrong cry.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Phoenix
reply to post by buster2010
 


If "ownership" is your supporting ideal then why isn't the rancher being forced to pay the native Indian tribe? Just how do you figure the federal government owns it? because they said so in 1946 or so?





Native Indian tribe? Don't you mean Native American tribe? The federal government got this land through a treaty with the natives that lived on that land.





new topics




 
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join