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

a reply to: links234

Nay was a partner in the water rights.

Understanding Cliven Bundy (not an oxymoron)

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 kept reading, waiting on the punchline, but it never came...Surely I thought this was a satire post, but maybe not.

You must not have heard his interview with infowars, where he said he doesnt even have any guns, and think people should call the police instead of use guns for self defense... How does that in any way make him a "gun wielding prick"?

a reply to: xuenchen

I keep saying, and will continue to, Grandfather Clause. It covers him for all of this.

He came first, that's a fact, by blood. His family, in generations was there, long before the BLM or anything ever existed.

The problem was, he represented himself in court, and may have been ignorant of the Grandfather Clause. Why is this a problem? Because in a court of law, especially one that has been proven albeit by hindsight, to be biased for Harry Reid, the judge is not required to inform you of your rights, possible choices you have not explored, or other legal options. He is to rule on the evidence before him. Trust me, the judge, if biased, is not there to help, and won't. I found this out the hard way.

Allow me for a moment, a short explanation.

My son went to court without an attorney on a traffic citation for wreckless driving. The incident that occurred was, someone was tailgaiting him. He turned on his blinker as he was going to stop at a convenience store for cigarettes and gas. The tailgaiter must have been 'distracted driving', for whatever reason. My son braked several times in warning, while his blinker was on, slowing down coming up to his approaching turn. As he slowed to take the right turn, the distracted tailgaiter almost hit him, and had to slam on his brakes. He followed my son to the convenience store, and accused him of "brake checking" him. They had a verbal confrontation in the store, where he threatened to kill my son in front of the clerk. The clerk called the police.

The police arrived, spoke to the tailgaiter first. Then, my son. The officer ticketted him for wreckless driving. He went to court the first time. The judge refused to let him speak, told him he MUST have an attorney, gave a new court date. I went with him on the new court date, familiar with the laws in my state, the police cannot ticket wreckless driving unless the officer witnesses it.

Again, the judge refused to let us speak. Stated we MUST hire an attorney, and if he returned to the next court date without an attorney, he would face jail over contempt.

I was forced to pay 1k for an attorney, who was not even aware that law existed. I brought my state code book with me and showed him the code. He left the room, came back 5 minutes later, case dismissed, thanks for the easy grand. Bye!

Judges are not there to help. If a judge is aware of a miscarriage of justice, they will usually not alert you if you don't know.

Knowing your rights and laws is YOUR responsibility, do not depend on someone else, ever, to stand in your defense. Do your homework, because you never know who's hand is in someone elses back pocket.

a reply to: Libertygal

What grandfather clause?

Unless one is written into a law then there isn't one.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Libertygal

What grandfather clause?

Unless one is written into a law then there isn't one.

Seriously? The Grandfather Clause was one of the major Constitutional Amendements that allowed black voting rights.

There is more than one law written based on Granfather Clauses.

To make it simple, if a circumstance exists before a law is written, the person, or circumstance, is Grandfathered in. Meaning, the law does not apply to that person, or circumstance.

It is used very often in contract law and licensing, and permitting.

dictionary.law.com...


www.law.cornell.edu...

en.m.wikipedia.org...

An example.

Where I work, when I was hired, I was a smoker. My employer, two years later, deemed they would no longer hire smokers.

As I was hired prior to this new enactment, I have been Grandfathered in, as they will not, and can not, force me to quit to keep my job.

a reply to: Libertygal

Here's another opinion....

vested rights, not privileges.” The Examiner explains:

Private rights in federal lands were recognized in an 1866 water law. It says, “… whenever, by priority of possession, rights to the use of water have vested and accrued, and the same are recognized and acknowledged by the local customs, laws, and the decisions of courts, the possessors and owners of such vested rights shall be maintained and protected in the same.”

Needed: Realistic Resolutions To The Bundy Ranch Standoff

a reply to: Libertygal

I understand what they are but they are not automatic. They have to be written into a law.

a reply to: xuenchen

It is saying the same thing I am. To fight it in court, the vested and accrued rights are his, and he is thereby Grandfathered In. You cannot just come along after something has been a way for X number of years, write a law, and expect that by rule of law, to adjudicate that person out of their place. Especially when it pertains to their livelihood.

If it is true that Judicial Watch has picked this case up and are going to represent him, mark my words, you will see the term in the documents.

Another great example is Homeowners' Associations. If they have a set of bylaws, for example, no clothes lines in the back yard, and someone violates that bylaw for two years, the Homeowners' Association cannot suddenly just start fining the person, nor can they enact any laws to force them to take it down.

Simply because, their failure to act within a reasonable amount of time, ie: a month or two, and allowed the clothes line to exist for two years, the person is now Grandfathered In, and no rule of law can be used against them. This was due to the failure of the Association to act, though it may have originally violated the bylaws, failure to act was what enacted the Grandfather Clause.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Libertygal

I understand what they are but they are not automatic. They have to be written into a law.

Citation?

You cannot write into law ones' Godgiven rights.

The Constitution already addresses that. In actuality, laws must be written around Grandfathered people, not the other way around, so, I will be interested in seeing your citation.

a reply to: Libertygal

That goes back to some of my original comments when this first started.

I believe Bundy does in fact have those lawyers now.

The whole game will change.

Those guys will find all the old Homestead and vesting rights papers.

These water rights are the tip off.


Some evidence is in the way he made his most recent "statements" this morning.

He's "talking" in a different tone now (especially after yesterday)


new thread... www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Libertygal

I'm waiting for yours since you "keep saying, and will continue to, Grandfather Clause".

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Libertygal

I understand what they are but they are not automatic. They have to be written into a law.

The water rights papers mention "public domain with grazing rights".

Somebody must have "vetted" those claims before approving the water rights.

There's more to this.

originally posted by: xuenchen
The water rights papers mention "public domain with grazing rights".

Somebody must have "vetted" those claims before approving the water rights.

There's more to this.

I've seen them but that doesn't mean that the "new law wasn't written around the grandfathered people".

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Libertygal

I'm waiting for yours since you "keep saying, and will continue to, Grandfather Clause".

Horsecrap. You made the claim the grandfather laws must be written. Show the citation, or retract it.

I cited my sorces already.

a reply to: xuenchen

Lol. That!s rather ironic. I made the comparison to the Rosa Parks battle when this whole thing started, and people said, "There are laws! They must be obeyed!"

If you disagree with a law, you have the right to civil discourse and to disagree. He is doing just that, and, he has the right.

Rosa Parks was heralded for doing what she did, it changed the course of history and effected changes to laws. I believe this event, too, will have that same effect. Regardless of the naysayers and mudslingers.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: xuenchen
The water rights papers mention "public domain with grazing rights".

Somebody must have "vetted" those claims before approving the water rights.

There's more to this.

I've seen them but that doesn't mean that the "new law wasn't written around the grandfathered people".

That's why lawyers exist.

They will be clarifying soon I bet.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: xuenchen
The water rights papers mention "public domain with grazing rights".

Somebody must have "vetted" those claims before approving the water rights.

There's more to this.

I've seen them but that doesn't mean that the "new law wasn't written around the grandfathered people".

That's why lawyers exist.

They will be clarifying soon I bet.

And how can laws be written around grandfathered people if they don't exist and laws have to be written to create them?

Houston, we have a conundrum, don't we? Lol. Someone just talked themselves into a circular argument.

I am sure Judicial Watch will get the records needed via FOIA, if they have to. They have the funds and the backing to do so. Good thing they are Constitutionalists, as well. That's very important in this case. I will enjoy seeing what JW comes up with.

originally posted by: Libertygal
Horsecrap. You made the claim the grandfather laws must be written. Show the citation, or retract it.

I cited my sorces already.

Your sources did not say anything about them being automatic or them being addressed by the constitution.

They did mention that the original granfather clauses were nullified.

If Cline Bundy is hoping a contract/agreement by the federal government to stake his claim to water and grazing rights, he might as well shoot himself in the face right now. Any Indian tribe could tell you that.

What I don't get is, why now? Why all the overkill by the feds now? It can't just be Harry Reid and his backroom deal with the Chinese. From everything I've read, that deal died a while back. Think about it. The problems between BLM and Bundy started in the early 90's, supposedly when they declared the desert tortoise endangered. Bundy loses his case in court. And then....continues business as usual. For 20 years, he keeps racking up tax debt. Let's face it, when it comes to the feds, when they decide you owe them money, they will take it and everything not nailed down from you, and they will do it pretty quickly. Hell, I'm surprised they haven't seized his property already, with their track record on how they handle these things. They regularly go to extremes to co9llect from people who owe way less. Yet Bundy continued grazing for over 20 years, with little to no reaction from the feds other than an occasional disapproving grunt. So what changed in the past couple of months to make suddenly begin the assault? Why now? Why is it so necessary to get his cows off public land, when they have been grazing there the past 20 years after a court told Bundy he was wrong, and no one seemed to care?

Something has changed, something pretty significant, judging from the reaction. Note also, that they are going after Bundy's cattle, and don't seem to care about Bundy or his actual property unless he or his supporters go onto federal land and attempt to stop the round up. There is a reason they nwant that land all of the sudden, and are going near-Waco to get his cows off it, when it would be easier simply to seize his land or put a lien on it, or kick him off.

And I don't think it is reid and his Chinese friends, either.

a reply to: daskakik

I didn't know granfather clauses could be nullified. It has been a corner stone of our jurisprudence. I though it was spelled out in a way in bill of rights need to find out. I think that it goes back to the magna carta