It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Straight Look at the Recent Nevada Land Dispute

page: 3
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: OpinionatedB

Strange indeed.

Both of those refer to "permits", and Bundy's refer to "rights".

Maybe this is where Bundy seems to be confused.

He's certainly one big p.i.t.a. all the way around.

He's redefined the meaning of "NO" I would say.

I guess the water authorities don't verify or certify the information given on applications.

They must simply "assume" and deal with it later if needed.




posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I would have just figured that was simply Bundy's way of talking, since most write like they talk.

and yeah... lol... you are correct that he redefines the meaning of no.


edit on 28-4-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Mamatus

Oath Keepers still have the call out for more support. Reinforcements if you will.

Ongoing Support Needed For Bundy Ranch

And it looks like they're getting more help and support from the Constitutional Sheriff's and Peace Officers Association.

Many of you have called or emailed regarding the storm brewing between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the BLM. We all know how we feel about the all-too-frequent bullying of individual citizens by various Feds with their usurped, unconstitutional powers. It’s an epidemic that must be stopped.Well, we want you to know we ARE doing something about it

Constitutional Sheriff's and Peace Officers Association



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: deadeyedick

"Possession is nine-tenths of the law" come and take it




That kind of attitude in a situation like this can lead to a lot of innocent people getting killed. Do you think a person illegally grazing cattle is worth getting killed over? Or killing someone else?
Sure i'm game. I have enough of a rebellious attitude to stand up for someone that was born and raised on land that his forefathers settled. He is hurting no one and i have yet to see any bills from them. You are full of it if you think anyone is out to rip off the feds for some grass. Sure i could hide behind some bs facts about the law this and that but the blm has no right to have guns or to kick him off the grounds. Show me a legitimate need for the land and i may change my mind.

Truth be told i love steaks and value animal rights at the same time. Personally i'm headed in a fish and fowl direction and can start to see a world without all the mass cow producers and the needs will change along with our attitudes. It will take time but if the matter is forced on me i would have the feeling or need to retaliate in a negative manner. It is called human nature. I see a future where the bundy land has solar panals trees in a reasonable amount that would provide shade for the animals and plants to grow. A sort of corporation between all and not a bully type system. It would be through partnership that this comes about. Nothing makes my blood boil more than someone claiming to be the final say in these matters except GOD.
edit on 28-4-2014 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Bassago

That is strange to me, since the BLM took over 20 years to enforce something... to the extent they even got served with a notice of intent to to sue if they didn't start doing their job where concerned wildlife and endangered species management.

Perhaps you overlooked this:

www.biologicaldiversity.org...


Sixty-Day Notice of Intent to Sue the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service and Clark County, Nevada Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act For Failure to Implement The Terms and Conditions of Biological Opinion for the Clark County MSHCP, Incidental Take Permit, and Implementing Agreement; and Notice of Violation of the MSHCP and the Incidental Take Permit TE034927-0.

This letter is to provide you with notice that the Center for Biological Diversity intends to file suit, pursuant to the citizen suit provision of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C.§ 1540(g), to challenge the failure to comply with and implement the mandatory terms and conditions of the biological opinion for the Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (“MSHCP”), Incidental Take Permit (“ITP”) and the Implementing Agreement.


While you complain that the government is "overreaching" you have others who are complaining that the BLM refuses to do its job. There is a whole 7 pages to read there. Perhaps you should realize its not the government over-reaching, in fact, they have been exceedingly lenient and given a lot in order to allow Bundy his proper day in court.

Not only that, it was Clark County Nevada, NOT the BLM who purchased the Bundy grazing permit when Bundy refused to renew his permit after many years, in order to turn it into endangered wildlife habitat. I suppose the county had the right to purchase a permit no one else wanted to purchase.

I don't see government overreach by any stretch of the imagination, at least not any by the Feds, and any you believe are there should be dealt with in different, and more proper, channels.
edit on 28-4-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

Well, his forefather was his dad, who purchased - not settled - that land, all 160 acres, in 1948. After the creation of the BLM. Sure that's a bit of time for the same 160 acres to be in your family... kind of cool that. But hes no homesteader by any stretch of the imagination.

www4.8newsnow.com...


edit on 28-4-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: deadeyedick



Well, his forefather was his dad, who purchased - not settled - that land, all 160 acres, in 1948. After the creation of the BLM. Sure that's a bit of time for the same 160 acres to be in your family... kind of cool that. But hes no homesteader by any stretch of the imagination.



www4.8newsnow.com...



Any chance to discredit anyone will be taken here. nice job. I was speaking of the nevada area in general and all those willing to stand with him. There is some song i am reminded of it goes "this land is your land this land my land". Let's not fight cause no one is gonna back down.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: OpinionatedB



I don't see government overreach by any stretch of the imagination, that should not be dealt with in different, and more proper, channels.


250 militarized feds that brutalize protesters and then rustle someone's cattle isn't overreach? Maybe Bundy and his supporters should have just got a posse together and handled these rustler's like they used to in to in the old days. Personally I think he showed great restraint.

The Center for Biological Diversity seems like a bunch of environmentalists who like to use lawyers, so what? Cows have been grazing on this land since the late 1800's.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

But here is the problem. This land is OURS. Its not one man's personal kingdom .... its for all of us, because the land in question belongs to the public domain.

In the American public, you have people with differing opinions of what should be done with that land... we have environmentalists, people who want to see it used to go to clean energy and jobs, others who want it to go to natural habitat and others who want to see it grazed or used for mineral rights.

If the environmentalists bring out guns and say only my way, I would say they are wrong, same as I think the people who want it only for Bundy's kingdom and try to force that with guns are wrong... the job of all of us is to figure out how to keep the public's best interest at heart, and since we all have a say, and usually a stance, then there needs to be balance.

But balance does not come from the barrel of a gun, nor does it come from saying my way is the only way. Its got to be from all of us working together...because its all of ours. That is what public domain means.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: OpinionatedB
So unarm the blm,ssa and other fed agencies that play no law enforcement role and let's get over all this. Sell the guy the land and let's start putting people to work building and putting in solar panels on some other of the 85% of illegally owned fed land.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I certainly can appreciate all the work and effort on your part to document this issue. What I would really like to see is a thread describing why Bundy is the last rancher to graze on public lands in the entire county. One has to wonder? The BLM has an agenda, what is it? Since they euthanize hundreds of desert tortoise surely it cant be to save them? Is it overgrazing by the tortoise? Hopefully the true facts behind the BLM agenda can also be discovered. I look forward to more of your thread.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Those look like applications that Bundy or an assignee filled out themselves and then filed. I, or you, can fill out any sort of paper with the information that we want it to say and file it (with, apparently, a fifty dollar filing fee), and it will get rubber stamped by some bureaucrat and filed. We can file a claim that we were born on the surface of Arcturus, and have it entered as a legal document if we are required only to say so and have a Notary stamp it. All the Notary stamp means is that the Notary saw us sign it.

If we are required to provide no supporting evidence other than our statement, and if no one challenges it, then we are on record as having been born on Arcturus.

I believe the BLM just issued a challenge to the claimed (but not proven) "grazing rights" by the expedient of getting Bundy's cattle off of the land in question. It also appears that Bundy's couter-claim involved no legal fight, but an attempted physical one - meaning, to me, that he realizes the claim is bunk, and he has no legal challenge he can issue that will stand.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 10:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: OpinionatedB

I guess the water authorities don't verify or certify the information given on applications.

They must simply "assume" and deal with it later if needed.



Correct. The claimant swears to something - anything at all - and it is "fact" until proven otherwise. Many legal documents have a section beginning "The Courts finds the following facts" and a list of "facts", most of which are nothing more than the swearing of one claimant or another, which has either gone unchallenged or has yet to be challenged.

Until challenged in court, it is a "finding of fact", regardless of the flimsiness of the basis.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: deadeyedick
"Possession is nine-tenths of the law" come and take it


That kind of attitude in a situation like this can lead to a lot of innocent people getting killed. Do you think a person illegally grazing cattle is worth getting killed over? Or killing someone else?


Nobody would get killed if Bundy obeyed the law, but Bundy thinks he IS the law. He doesn't recognize the federal government.

You start a gun fight, you better expect return fire. You want to die for the right to trash land, have at it. Just don't come crying to me when you take two to the head.

If you let Bundy get away with his crimes, it will start a series of copycat criminals. I rather not see the United States degrade into Somalia.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

That's the conclusion I came too.

Bundy's applications have "statements" not verified by him or the authorities involved with water rights.

And as far as the grazing rights, all of the permits were reduced and later placed "out of service" some years back (in the 90's) for at least two reasons. One being that Bundy refused to re-apply and another because Clark County bought all existing permits from the BLM and then "retired" them in favor of the need for an environmental area for the Tortoises.

All that is on other threads and link to actual BLM statements (I think). I'll find some and re-post.

here's some background...



In December 1998, Clark County bought grazing rights to the Bunkerville allotment for $375,000 and retired them for benefit and protection of the threatened desert tortoise.


Clark County used to own the land before selling it to the BLM. Clearly, Bundy has a major problem with the U.S. government and refuses to listen to the pin heads in Washington D.C..



This article links to the other important story inside ^^^^ .....
April 11, 2012 - BLM puts Gold Butte cattle roundup on hold



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick

Sure i'm game. I have enough of a rebellious attitude to stand up for someone that was born and raised on land that his forefathers settled.



I don't know if he was "born and raised" there or not - I don't know his birthdate. I DO know that the land only came into his family in 1948, so saying that his "forefathers settled" the land is a bit of a reach.





Sure i could hide behind some bs facts about the law this and that but the blm has no right to have guns or to kick him off the grounds. Show me a legitimate need for the land and i may change my mind.



The BLM owns the land. They can have any damned thing on it they want. I own land. I will have any damned thing on it that I want. I don't need to demonstrate a "legitimate need" - I OWN the land, and will do with it and on it any damned thing I want to do, as I please. Same goes for the BLM on land they own.



edit on 2014/4/28 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Note that Bundy at the moment has deeded land in Clark County, and this is not to be confused with the BLM land. Obviously the next step is to seize his deeded land to pay the fine. At that point, Clark County will be in charge and Bundy won't be able to make up silly defenses about jurisdiction. The BLM is doing Bundy a great favor simply by removing his cattle. They haven't gone to court to seize his property to pay his fine.

Also, if you have water rights and grazing rights, you can use the water on the BLM property. You don't have to bring your cattle back to the deeded land. There are all sorts of watering holes set up around the Central Nevada range on BLM land. Some natural water flow, but most with windmills.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick

I was speaking of the nevada area in general and all those willing to stand with him. There is some song i am reminded of it goes "this land is your land this land my land". Let's not fight cause no one is gonna back down.



It's my understanding that his "forefathers settled" the Arizona area, not "the Nevada area in general" at all.

Perhaps he should be making his "ancestral rights" claims in Arizona instead?



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:09 PM
link   
all I hear about on this forum is whining about the govt and freeloading racist. why doesn't any pay attention or stand up to the American Farmers who are having their land taken away by Canadian oil corp under eminent domain. they are in court fight over their land and no body gives a f ....you're all phoney



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

Who owns the BLM?

That land belongs to "We the People".

So, really unlike land you own. The BLM should be accountable to the People.

I could care less about Bundy. But, the BLM just manages the land.

I should say that's the way it is supposed to work.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join