Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Bundy Water Rights (and possible grazing rights) Discovered !!

page: 1
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+3 more 
posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 01:42 AM
link   
It seems Bundy may have some vested water and grazing rights after all.

Some government documents show up .....

Bundy does in fact have some "Vested Water Rights".....

put "bundy" in the owners name

then click on any on 'Bundy, Cliven D." to see the status.

(the other "Bundy's are relatives?)

__________

And to see possible grazing claims...

(just from one of several Bundy rights) One of Bundy's permits

On page 2 it refers to something "before 1890"

and the papers mention "public domain with grazing rights"

Results from "bundy" search...




posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 01:59 AM
link   
Sooooooooooooew.....If the Bundys lost in court in early 1990s how come they have water rights in 1997?????



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 02:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: stirling
Sooooooooooooew.....If the Bundys lost in court in early 1990s how come they have water rights in 1997?????


Big mystery.

It might have to do with the original problem of the Desert Tortoise being placed on the Federal Endangered Species List around 1990.

In 1993, the grazing permits were reduced to less cattle than original because of that.

THAT is when the trouble started.

And we can't confirm if Bundy ever had a lawyer.

THAT makes a government target easier to hit.

And I am having trouble locating the original Homestead records (they may exist only in the original books in Washington D.C.) It's possible his family had more land at one time.



In 1993, Bundy’s permit was subject to renewal for the fourth time since the family had settled in Nevada. The BLM lowered cattle numbers and raised grazing fees on the Bunkerville Allotment and advised Bundy of the changes. The agency also advised the rancher of potential future adjustments that would be made once Clark County, the NPS, and the BLM worked out a new desert conservation plan, which took into account, among other things, the recent listing of the desert tortoise on the Endangered Species List (United States of America v. Cliven Bundy, November 3, 1998).

good info here




edit on Apr-25-2014 by xuenchen because:




posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 02:24 AM
link   
You know I had enough of that racist, self entitled, moocher, gun wielding prick! who causally believe blacks are better off picking cotton under slavery ..his six min of fame is long past, please go away Clive enjoy your cows.
edit on 25-4-2014 by Spider879 because: just because.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 02:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: stirling

Sooooooooooooew.....If the Bundys lost in court in early 1990s how come they have water rights in 1997?????


Big mystery.

It might have to do with the original problem of the Desert Tortoise being placed on the Federal Endangered Species List around 1990.

In 1993, the grazing permits were reduced to less cattle than original because of that.

THAT is when the trouble started.

And we can't confirm if Bundy ever had a lawyer.

THAT makes a government target easier to hit.

And I am having trouble locating the original Homestead records (they may exist only in the original books in Washington D.C.) It's possible his family had more land at one time.




In 1993, Bundy’s permit was subject to renewal for the fourth time since the family had settled in Nevada. The BLM lowered cattle numbers and raised grazing fees on the Bunkerville Allotment and advised Bundy of the changes. The agency also advised the rancher of potential future adjustments that would be made once Clark County, the NPS, and the BLM worked out a new desert conservation plan, which took into account, among other things, the recent listing of the desert tortoise on the Endangered Species List (United States of America v. Cliven Bundy, November 3, 1998).

good info here





Doesn't matter how much land he had, X. Bundy's family had
the original grant and deed to the property from just developing
the ranch; per the Homestead Act that's airtight done-deal.

After the territory got statehood the family turned over the land
to the State to join up the Federal territory with the proviso he
would have rights to the resources of the dirt forever--
even if it was magically transformed into Nevada or Croc's Venturi.
Big nasty gas hog carburetor, but I digress..

The UN changed everything when it started this sustainable deal--
and made everything but the glowing ashtrays and casinos enclaves.
I stilll never figured out how something could be called a park where
the scrub is so rough it takes 100 acres to graze one cow and her
dogie. I called BS originally when the Desert Tortoise got stuck on an
arbitrary endangered list so BLM could glom onto it. Then we all find
out developers and other parasites have other plans anyway.

It all stinks, and I'm doing my laundry tomorrow night.
I forsee no time at all soon when the MSM airs this passle honestly.
edit on 25-4-2014 by derfreebie because: Sorry about the mess...



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 02:51 AM
link   
a reply to: derfreebie

Your accurate except for the part about anybody turning over land to the State.

Nevada became a state in 1864.

Bundy's family got there a few years later.

The BLM and the grazing permit laws came in the 1930's I think.

There is an outside possibility that some grazing was granted.

Keep in mind the grazing in question only takes place on government land.

There may have been some grants on nearby land not necessarily adjacent to his current ranch.

Those records need to be found.

I bet he has them.

He needs lawyers.




posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 03:04 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen
Yeah, I can't find a primary source to support the bit about the Bundy's or their ancestors ever giving or donating land to the state. I don't think Cliven ever claimed this himself. It was not mentioned by his son in his letter to the editor either.

Some uninformed individuals are claiming this is somehow proof that Bumdy is a liar since there is no record of any such donation of land to the state.


+1 more 
posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 04:05 AM
link   
The best thing Bundy needs is an Army of Attorneys.

A single farmer is not going to be able to take on the USA in a court of law without it.

And when you take this story:
HOAX EXPOSED: Full Clip of Bundy’s Non-Racist, Pro-Black, Pro-Mexican, Anti-Government Remarks Vs. NYTs Edits
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It smells, smells bad and it smells of Harry Reid.

TIME FOR THE TAR AND FEATHERS as this has gone to the Level of Treason against the citizens of the USA~!
edit on 4/25/2014 by anon72 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen
wiki Larry Klayman

Founder of Judicial Watch is now Cliven Bundy's attourney since yesterday.

He represents families of Seal Team 6 "victims".

There is whole public task force at the ranch coordinating all family concerns.
edit on 25-4-2014 by Granite because: sp
edit on 25-4-2014 by Granite because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spider879
You know I had enough of that racist, self entitled, moocher, gun wielding prick! who causally believe blacks are better off picking cotton under slavery ..his six min of fame is long past, please go away Clive enjoy your cows.


I suggest you go down to Anon72 post on page 1 here and rethink this statement. Apparently this is a smear job by the NYT and harry reid.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Great find Xue!

I am fairly certain that water rights are held seperate
from land rights, same as mining rights. That is how
ole Dingy Harry kept his land, the mining rights.

Great news to hear Bundy has a good attorney!

I bet Harry needs some antacid big time now.




posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Spider879




You know I had enough of that racist, self entitled, moocher, gun wielding prick! who causally believe blacks are better off picking cotton under slavery - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Before you make comments like this, you would do well to check your information out more thoroughly.
The comments aired on TV were edited greatly. Mr. Bundy was talking about what the government did to destroy an ethnic race, and his ENTIRE statement is NOTHING like what the media portrayed.

I think most of us are interested in facts, and what the truth is. Is Bundy taking advantage of the government, or is someone trying to rail-road one more person for their personal gain?

Name-calling won't uncover any useful information, but thanks for sharing you partially informed opinion.


(post by th3dudeabides removed for a manners violation)

posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spider879
You know I had enough of that racist, self entitled, moocher, gun wielding prick! who causally believe blacks are better off picking cotton under slavery ..his six min of fame is long past, please go away Clive enjoy your cows.


Apparently you didn't research the facts, are you one of the sheeple? One of the news media put out an edited version of the original video- witch was out of context, you should go back and listen to the whole 3min + video (original), you will probably rethink your statement...



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

I was reading about something like this the other day, although it doesn't pertain necessarily to this case. People used to claim a mine on property, even though they never planned to really work it as a mine, and then would build vacation homes, businesses, etc. on the land. I think they eventually put a stop to that though. Not really the same thing that you were saying, but similar.

I know that on our property we don't own the mineral rights, which means that the money from the oil wells in the area go to the lawyers whom we bought the property from. But I believe we do have the water rights, if there is such a thing, unless you automatically can dig a well if you own the property.

Get this though...the government, although maybe it's just the state of Texas, is actually trying to make people pay for the water the get from their own wells. In fact, up the road is a church and they just dug a well on their own property...They actually have to pay the county for their well water, because the government says that a church is a "business." How dumb is that?

So where this relates to this thread is that it seems to me that these types of incidents should not occur. The rights to any private property should not be divided up, piecemeal, like they seem to be now. Public property may be a bit different though.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spider879
You know I had enough of that racist, self entitled, moocher, gun wielding prick! who causally believe blacks are better off picking cotton under slavery ..his six min of fame is long past, please go away Clive enjoy your cows.


Racist, self entitled, moocher, gun wielding pricks also have rights in America.

Just sayin'



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spider879
You know I had enough of that racist, self entitled, moocher, gun wielding prick! who causally believe blacks are better off picking cotton under slavery ..his six min of fame is long past, please go away Clive enjoy your cows.


What was said by him was certainly twisted around to make it sound like something else. We need to remember he is a man from another era really and the way he expresses things may be different because of that.

He was clearly saying that slavery was never abolished for the black population because the government after declaring them free did not implement measures to assure they progressed to REAL freedom but instead tried to lay them low in ways that manipulate the whole population and are responsible for a great injustice!



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

While this is a piece of the puzzle, I'm not sure what this proves other than how long ago the Bundy family aquired certain water and grazing rights.

As to the question of why they still have water rights, the obvious answer would be that those rights were not in dispute.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Who's Keith Nay and why does Cliven Bundy have all of his water rights? Or the other way around, why does Cliven Bundy have all of Keith Nay's water rights?

This doesn't really seem to prove much either way though. Bundy's still wrong and until a court of law says otherwise, I'm sticking to that story.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spider879
You know I had enough of that racist, self entitled, moocher, gun wielding prick! who causally believe blacks are better off picking cotton under slavery ..his six min of fame is long past, please go away Clive enjoy your cows.


I don't hink you are correct....click here





new topics

top topics



 
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join