Bundy Ranch Conspiracy Debunked

I still think, you have residual hurt and pain deep inside of you, due to your own battle with the BLM. You said if you only had enough money, you could have won in the unjust battle they waged against you. I think if you had won, you'd be singing a different tune in this case.

Actually you are quite wrong. I look back at that and almost owe them a thank you. I moved my business 30 miles away and no longer have to deal with them. Nor do I have to pay a bunch of lawyers. Also, business is way better now than it was....

Also, think logically. Why would I defend BLM's position if I have so much residual angst towards them? Makes no sense does it? The reason I defend their position is because they are quite right in this case and the courts have backed them up. They were wrong in mine but that does not cloud my ability to look at an individual case vs. lumping it all together. Call it a non emotive approach.

I also live in Ranch Country and get along quite well with all of them. We have families where I am that came here on the Donner party, vote Republican and still ride horse to deal with their cattle.

Gotta love ATS.

JewelOfDenial
It's more like you own a house and the government takes hold of your house but says you can live and work there, then after 100 years tells you to leave.

Then the rightful thing to do is leave right...? Maybe they want to play on the land for a little bit. He is lucky him and his stupid cattle got to use the land for this long. It's 2014 not early 1900s. Their are many uses for land in that area.

3u40r15m

JewelOfDenial
It's more like you own a house and the government takes hold of your house but says you can live and work there, then after 100 years tells you to leave.

Then the rightful thing to do is leave right...? Maybe they want to play on the land for a little bit. He is lucky him and his stupid cattle got to use the land for this long. It's 2014 not early 1900s. Their are many uses for land in that area.

Yes, like desert turtles, mountain biking (big revenue generator there), and Chinese owned green energy projects brokered by the son of the Senate Majority Leader.

burntheships
reply to post by buster2010

 

Really, then I suppose you are going to take a stand against the BLM for
going beyond the law as they killed cattle, destroyed protected Desert
Tortoise burrows...destroyed property without a legal ground to stand on?

On a Friday night conference call, BLM officials told reporters that "illegal structures" on Bundy's ranch -- water tanks, water lines and corrals -- had to be removed to "restore" the land to its natural state and prevent the rancher from restarting his illegal cattle operation.

However, the court order used to justify the operation appears only to give the agency the authority to "seize and impound" Bundy's cattle.

"Nowhere in the court order that I saw does it say that they can destroy infrastructure, destroy corrals, tanks ... desert environment, shoot cattle," Houston said.

url


www.sfgate.com...

edit on 16-4-2014 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

Were these structures on federal land or Bundy's land? Bundy likes to claim this land as his which it isn't but if it was on federal land then they have a right to tear them down without court order. You may want to reread your second link because it in no way supports Bundy.

reply to post by buster2010



Read it again,...The Court Order did not grant the right to shoot Cattle, kill Desert Tortoise,
and destroy property...it only granted the gather.

And its so curious to see those sure to be right here, when the battle is not over
yet, even Reid said so. There is a reason the BLM did this dirty provocation
time will bring it to light.

They know they are in the wrong, and know also Bundy does have rights.

reply to post by burntheships


AFAIK no cattle were shot.

UxoriousMagnus
The Federal Government can not legally own land other than for military forts, compounds and buildings for the establishment of organizations that they need (Courts, Congress, USPS, etc)

They can and do legally own the Federal lands out west. Your constitutional interpretation is outdated, so says the Supreme Court. Do you not recognize the constitutional authority of the Supreme Court, either?

But Bret Birdsong, a professor at the Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and an expert on public land and natural resources litigation, said Bundy's legal arguments that federal rangers and BLM staff have no jurisdiction over the federal lands he uses for ranching "are based on interpretation of the Constitution which has been debunked by the Supreme Court for many years."
"That is clearly not the law," he said.

Source

UxoriousMagnus
you are missing the point...

Bundy is sticking up for what is right......he doesn't care what the Government is saying is legal or not.....this is why he is a hero

Just because I disagree with Mr. Bundy and his actions does not mean I am missing the point. I get his point--he believes that the state should have sovereignty over that land. I understand the collective frustrations of his supporters--the general hate for the federal government. I do get it.

But I don't agree he is sticking up for "what is right".
His disregard for the authority of the BLM over federal lands only serves his self interests,; i.e. keeps money in his pocket.

How does it further state & county rights over federal? It doesn't.

Is everyone aware this is the second time in 2 years that the BLM attempted to remove his cattle from the Gold Butte area?
This was Cliven's response then:

In an interview Wednesday with the Progress, Bundy said that he had been willing to defend his rights at all costs. If asked whether the matter might have come to violence he said, “Why not? I’ve got to protect my property. I have a right to life, liberty and property.”

Moapa Valley Progress 2012

He is savvy at garnering support at times critical to his livelihood.
The feds back off because of threats of violence, things quiet down, he continues profiting.


The debate whether all the lands currently administered by the federal government might be better managed by state or local government is a valid one. I just don't see how his actions are making any meaningful changes in the law.

Mamatus
Keep in mind I am no fan of BLM as I got screwed over by them pretty hard myself, to the tune of 80k. I am still trying to recover and had I the extra cash I would have eventually won in Court as a local rancher conspired with BLM to remove my legally (and permitted) business from the area. I unlike Bundy did get screwed over. However, the facts remain the same in this case. Bundy has no rights to that land and never did.

edit on 16-4-2014 by Mamatus because: Gwammer and speeeeling

I think this is more about the fact that you are angry that nobody came to your aid when you needed it and less about the legality of what Bundy does or doesn't have the right to. You saw the response for this rancher and it angered you to no end. It is obvious because in every thread you do nothing but attack everyone that is supporting this guy. Never mind that people are actually making a stand.

reply to post by SpaDe_


I think you should read the post at the top of this page before making silly ASSumptions.....
Epic fail on your part.

reply to post by Mamatus


Ok, we all think you have an uneducated opinion of law. Thats probably why you cannot find a way to express your opinion inlegal terms other than claiming its your opinion. Probably why you lost your own case.
So far after reading all the actual opinions from both sides where legal points were made and applied in making their case in expressing an opinion, you don't, I feel the Bundys make more legal sense than you have in supporting your..... opinion.your chosen title betrays the claim you make once you attempted to support it. I think the onlyclaim debunked in this thread is yours....you claiming you debunked something from making an opinion that is based on someone elses opinion

John B. Wells had an interesting interview with a self-described "left-wing activist" who was at the protest at the Bundy Ranch. It makes for an interesting listen because she shows how much the politicians have sought to divide the country into "right-winger" and "left-wingers" in order to keep the two groups from talking with each other about mutual concerns.
Here's a link I found on YouTube which contains the interview. The first part of the show concerns chemtrails but the interview with PM Beers starts at about 1:50:00 into the video.
www.youtube.com...
See, the pols and their willing lapdogs, the corporately owned MSM, don't want people from different viewpoints getting together and actually discussing the problems....no indeedy, they want us to war against each other---thus their emphasis on the "militia movement" coming to the support of Mr. Bundy. So how about turning off CNN and FOX with their facist leanings and their obligations to their corporate sponsors? I'll take the words of people like John B. Wells and his efforts to find the truth any day because he is funded by people who want him out there working to find people to speak fearlessly and truthfully without having to worry about losing their job because some executive got his behind in a crack.

Mamatus
reply to post by SpaDe_

 

I think you should read the post at the top of this page before making silly ASSumptions.....
Epic fail on your part.

edit on 16-4-2014 by Mamatus because: added politeness

edit on 16-4-2014 by Mamatus because: added politeness

With a reply like that, I stand firmly by my statement. Stay classy!

reply to post by Kali74


I don't know, looks kind of shot to me.





Bundy Ranch FaceBook page

here is a nice summary of the events:

Gradually, the real back story has emerged. The original bullhocky story about the cattle endangering desert tortoises fell apart when the truth was discovered that only recently the BLM had gerrymandered the boundaries of endangered habitat and created a mitigation area needed to replace habitat where Harry Reid’s son and a Chinese energy company planned to build a 5 billion dollar solar energy project.

The federal subsidies for that project have yet been fully discovered. The BLM web site has been scrubbed of details except for some limited images that got reproduced by Free Republic and now abound on the internet.

However, it takes more than a few days to develop a plan for a 5 billion dollar solar farm covering more than 5000 acres. It is now known that in order for “Non-Governmental Organizations” (the Chinese) to move forward with development of the “Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone” that project will destroy desert habitat in the Zone.

Therefore an “offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development” area needed to be established. Those exact words remain available on the reproduced sections of the BLM web pages.What that means is, the developers needed to replace one habit with another.

Such a new site would need to be far enough away from the toxic solar energy farm to attract the occasional migrating southwestern willow flycatcher ( a bird more commonly found in southern California and Arizona ). Do flycathers eat flies? Yes. Do cow patties attract flies? Usually.
But ignoring all the developments since 1993, a critical issue still remains. The United States government – we the people – gave 1870′s settlers a promise of an open range for cattle if they would homestead and ranch on the land recently annexed from Mexico.

The Bundy family answered that call and have honored their part of the contract ever since. In 1993 the Clinton administration unilaterally decided to completely rewrite the original promise conditions and, like so many treaties the U.S. has signed with so many, we simply threw the original promises in the trash and told the Bundy family to take it or leave it! In this case one and only one rancher, Bundy, told the government he was holding the government to its word.

What we have seen then since 1993 is that the word of our government isn’t worth a damn. It seems those 1870′s settlers were told, “If you like your ranch you can keep it.”

www.greeleygazette.com...

at that link you will find also the story of the henderson land grab...
its lookin like its a sad case of: "if you like your home , you can keep it "
haha...ha...h....hey?!

aw hell here is the henderson land grab story:

Today, the alternative media has begun to cover another BLM land grab. In Texas, rancher Tommy Henderson is being told the government is confiscating his 90,000 acre ranch along the Red River. Henderson is also told that once the BLM takes his ranch for public land, he might be able to arrange a grazing contract; you know, like Cliven Bundy and his neighbors used to have in Nevada.
Henderson has a clear deed to his land in the state of Texas. He has no back taxes or fines or other issues pending. So how is the BLM taking his family ranch? The BLM has decided to declare that his land is now in Oklahoma and therefore his Texas deed became invalid when the Red River moved its banks south.

from the link above

Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Mamatus

 

I looked into this situation the first day it came up and came to the same conclusions you did.

I just didn't see the point of posting here when the vast majority of people have their minds made up that Bundy is some kind of hero. He's sucking off the federal teat and not paying for it (like every other rancher does). Hmmm... I thought most of his supporters would be upset about that, but they seem to support him 100%.

Agreed, it's almost as if welfare is OK as long as it's rich white ranchers getting it... it kills me when I heard someone mention they were thinking about leaving their house which is in foreclosure if they could get a ride, to go and support this elite greedy mofo...sigh.

reply to post by seaez

this elite greedy mofo

I wonder if anyone has found him employing illegal immigrants. All elite greedy mofos do that. I haven't even heard the question surfaced yet.

reply to post by jadedANDcynical


Those could be pictures from anywhere. Bundy isn't exactly an honest dude. However, if any feds shot any cows, that's absolutely wrong.

reply to post by buster2010


Wrong. Go try buying a house that the current owner has leased out, and just try to have them thrown out. It will not happen, because it is illegal, until the contract time is up. His contract time was forever, no end. If it was legal, anytime a landlord wants someone they are leasing to out of their house for no reason, they could just sell to their buddy, have their buddy throw them out, and buy it right back.

Property changing hands, does not dissolve previous contracts or agreements on said land.

NavyDoc

schuyler

Granite
reply to post by Mamatus

 

Facts:
1. In 1870's, Bundy homestead on open high desert with Virgin river frontage.
2. In 1910, state of Nevada formed...Bundy deed their land to the state in return for services (Sheriff protection from "wild west" types). He pays taxes, grazing fees to Nevada.

Don't be re-writing history...especially American history.

3. In 1848 the Treate of Guadalupe_Hidalgo ceded what is now the State of Nevada to the US Government. The US owned the land well before Bundy's family ever got there.

Don't be re-writing history...especially American history.

Land that they legally owned after establishing a homestead in 1870 in accordance with federal law. (See homestead acts) Re-writing history indeed.

Actually NO. Per millionaire Cliven's own addled words himself, his only problem is with recognizing Nevada ceding land too the U.S. during its joining the union in 1864 ... so quit pulling acts out of your... which is insane since he just woke up one day 20 years ago and said hey I want to make more money, over graze the land and stop paying fees. Him and anyone supporting him are shills of the corporate elite. Deny Ignorance.

per Glenn "left wing" Beck

the important part:

Based on the conversation on the radio show, Bundy’s fundamental issue isn’t with an out of control government taking control of his personal land, but that he disagrees with how that land became federal land when Nevada was founded in 1864.

quote from Beck who allows grazing on his lands as well:

“That is a different point of view than everybody else that is a rancher that I know,” Glenn said.