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

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 12:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Libertygal
You still don't get it. It is a Constitutional right.
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3.

No, an ex-post-facto law is not the same as a grandfather clause. One seeks to prosecute for previous actions and the other is an exemption to future actions, in regards to a new law.

I cited the definition of a clause. A "grandfather clause" is a type of those and those only exist written down.

Maybe you can tone down the ad homs and actually bring something to back up those claims?

ETA: I have no idea what you think you did in your following post but you didn't really answer anything.


edit on 26-4-2014 by daskakik because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 12:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Libertygal
You still don't get it. It is a Constitutional right.
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3.

No, an ex-post-facto law is not the same as a grandfather clause. One seeks to prosecute for previous actions and the other is an exemption to future actions, in regards to a new law.

I cited the definition of a clause. A "grandfather clause" is a type of those and those only exist written down.

Maybe you can tone down the ad homs and actually bring something to back up those claims?

ETA: I have no idea what you think you did in your following post but you didn't really answer anything.




If pointing out you cite my source as your own, from a source I cited after your claim is ad homs, shame on me. Called that disingenuous ad hom? Or truth? Is it an attempt at being deceptive? I think so. I'm sorry if I offend you, but that's just my opinion.

You asked where it was in the Constitution. I answered. Now, thats not good enough.

I am not going to argue the guys case on ATS. Suffice it so say, he is protected by the Grandfather Clause. I cited the reasons, and cited the Constitution.

I also asked a trivia question. Where is the second usage of the Grandfather Clause in the Constitution? It is in there, twice. Do you know? The first citation I gave refers to the actual law. The trivia question is an example of the actual USE of the Grandfather Clause in the Constitution itself. Meaning, it is an understood rule.

What I tried to do, in the second post, was to get you to do what you did in another post. Admit you may be mistaken. Were you aware you even did that? It's not a bad thing, we all make mistakes.

edit on 26-4-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 12:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Libertygal
If pointing out you cite my source as your own, from a source I cited after yor claim is ad homs, shame on me. Calked that disingenuous ad hom? Or truth? Is it an attemot at being deceptive? I think so.

Actually I meant the other ones.

I said it was my source because I looked it up on wiki after reading it somewhere else earlier this week.


You asked where it was in the Constitution. I answered. Now, thats not good enough.

No, because your answer was refering to something that was not a grandfather clause.


I am not going to argue the guys case on ATS. Suffice it so say, he is protected by the Grandfather Clause. I cited the reasons,, and cited the Constitution.

I understand that you think you know what a grandfather clause is. I am pretty sure I'm not going to change that but I am also pretty sure that the guy isn't going to win his case because of a grandfather clause.


I also asked a trivia question. Where is the second usage of the Grandfather Clause in the Constitution? It is in there, twice. Do you know? The first citation I gave refers to the actual law. The trivia question is an example of the actual USE of the Grandfather Clause in the Constitution itself. Meaning, it is an understood rule.

Why not just post it?


What I tried to do, in the second post, was to get you to do what you did in another post. Admit you may be mistaken. Were you aware you even did that? It's not a bad thing, we all make mistakes.

Yes, I do it consciously and know that it is not a bad thing.
edit on 26-4-2014 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Wait. When did this become a discussion about his case being won based on Grandfather Clause?

Seems to me the title of the thread is

Bundy WaterRights (and
possible grazing rights)
Discovered !!

And that I said, and have been saying that Grandfather Clause certainly will apply to him. Wriiten, or understood, he is grandfathered in, due to the fact his family has been there before the existance of the BLM.

I also stated that, mark my words, Grandfather Clause will appear in the documents. No where, even once, have I made the claim this will win his case. It is far, far larger than that. It is also not so small as to be negligible, either. It will be included, however, but certainly not crux of the case.

In any case, enough for tonight.

Trivia answer:

The grandfather clause was used in the Constitution in reference to the Naturally Born Citizen, and requirements to be President.

Our forefathers had to grandfather themselves in, because at the time of the writing of the Constitution, there was no United States, and certainly, no Naturally Born Citizens. So, they grandfathered themselves in, or we could have never had a first, or second President..

This was the first, Constitutionally based USAGE of the Grandfather Clause.

ETA -
[quoute] No, because your answer was refering to
something that was not a grandfather clause.

Well, then, we will just have to agree to disagree on that one.

edit on 26-4-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 01:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Libertygal
Wait. When did this become a discussion about his case being won based on Grandfather Clause?

It isn't. You made a comment and I replied to it. Seems pretty one off to me.


And that I said, and have been saying that Grandfather Clause certainly will apply to him. Wriiten, or understood, he is grandfathered in, due to the fact his family has been there before the existance of the BLM.

I also stated that, mark my words, Grandfather Clause will appear in the documents. No where, even once, have I made the claim this will win his case. It is far, far larger than that. It is also not so small as to be negligible, either. It will be included, however, but certainly not crux of the case.

Well, maybe a couple. You did imply that it was lack of knowledge of the grandfather clause that may hace caused him to lose his previous case.

You said:

The problem was, he represented himself in court, and may have been ignorant of the Grandfather Clause.



Trivia answer:

The grandfather clause was used in the Constitution in reference to the Naturally Born Citizen, and requirements to be Preaident.

Our forefathers had to grandfather themselves in, because at the time of the writing of the Constitution, there was no United States, and certainly, no Naturally Born Citizens. So, they grandfathered themselves in, or we could have never had a first, or second President..

This was the first, Constitutionally based USAGE of the Grandfather Clause.

True, but that was temporary and does not confer an automatic general grandfather clause to laws governed by the constitution. That is what I asked about.

Also, this pretty much goes against the claim that it is god given and automatic. They had to write it in.

edit on 26-4-2014 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 01:44 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik
No that part was written in for clarity, to rest assured that there was no misunderstanding when they became Presidents. As I previously stated, it was the first USAGE of the law, as defined in Article 1, which is the defintion of the law.

As to your claims per my implications, that was merely a misunderstanding on your part. I never implied he lost his case based on lack of knowledge of the Grandfather Clause, but that ignorance of the law is costly. His lack of knowledge on likely many aspects cost him his cases. All of them. This was why I posted examples. A man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client.

That is why I also stated that judges, especially biased ones, will not help you. He needs an attorney, or a few, and now that he has them, he will likely take a different turn in the courts. I am sure this will go to the Supreme Court.

As an aside, people keep asking why the government hasn't just seized his house. I also answered that. Because all he had to do was file a homestead exemption. His home, nor property, can be seized. Yet, another aspect of the case.

This is why Harry keeps yelping it isn't over. But, if he hadn't paid his taxes as Harry claimed, they would have seized his house a long time ago. Harry couldn't know, either, if he filed his taxes or not, unless he violated the law, and checked.
edit on 26-4-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 01:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Libertygal
Well you say clarity and I say requirement.

I have never seen a grandfather clause that was not backed up in writing, somewhere.

Just something else to agree to disagree on.



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 09:18 PM
link   
I'm going to come at this from another direction.

I don't care HOW you slice it... Cliven Bundy has no notion of what slavery was really like, if he thought it was a family affair. Nuff said. But that does NOT make him a racist. It just makes him a guy from an era gone by, who doesn't really have a sense of the historical experience in America of slavery. Portraying him in the media as a racist... is BS

Personally, I think the only thing he's guilty of is being a bit old fashioned, and having some flawed ideas about slavery as it was.

It is completely obvious if you watch the WHOLE video, that this is a man who cares deeply about people... REGARDLESS of their race, and he has old fashioned values.

Once you watch the entire clip... the media rolling out the conveniently edited version of the video WITHOUT showing the whole thing, it is clear it is a hatchet job.



a reply to: Spider879

edit on 26-4-2014 by dasman888 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

What you have "Discovered" is Bundy committing Perjury.

In the Notarized Document you linked, Bundy claims grazing rights dating to pre 1890. However, his family did not purchase their land until 1948 and as for Water Rights.....


Clark County property records show Cliven Bundy's parents bought the 160 acre ranch in 1948 from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt. Water rights were transferred too, but only to the ranch, not the federally managed land surrounding it. Court records show Bundy family cattle didn't start grazing on that land until 1954.

Bundy's 'ancestral rights' come under scrutiny

Theft, Lies, Racism and now Perjury!

The list of this man's achievements is growing day by day.

What a Hero!



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: BritofTexas


You do know earlier in the thread that the"racist comments" were due to creative editing right? the NYT doing harry reids bidding trying to paint him as racist when all he was doing was bashing the US government treatment of them.
PLease go back and educate yourself on that point.

As for the rest who knows the truth really after so many years.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: BritofTexas

The article also links to another story that claims his family (different names) goes back far enough to Northeast Nevada.

We have to wait for the original Homestead records to be found.

And we don't know for sure if anything was "grandfathered".

Again, why would the water rights have that information on there is it wasn't certified by some authority?

The water rights are vested.

Unless they made a mistake.

The lawyers will sort it out if this goes back to court.

Bundy had no lawyers before that can be confirmed.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
As for the rest who knows the truth really after so many years.

I think the point is that while the water and grazing rights do go back to before 1890, they are really part of the parcel and were not part of the Bundy family holdings until the late 40's.

edit on 27-4-2014 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Here's a real interesting pdf that has the 1998 court order against Bundy.

Some parts are actually funny.

This apparently is after the BLM reduced Bundy's cattle grazing.

Bundy is the "Doctor NO" !!

It cites Bundy's attempt to pay the fees to Clark County.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CLIVEN BUNDY, Defendant. CV-S-98-531-JBR (RJJ)





top topics
 
22
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join