Feds seize another ranch, this time in New Mexico.

eXia7

ParanoidAmerican
reply to post by gladtobehere

 

I am confused this story is from 2004.....even old than the Bundy dispute...

Still very relevant to today's times.. perhaps a story that was ignored and forgotten.

fast-forward to today, and we still see a similar trend.

And what trend would that be?

This thread needs to be in the trash bin.

reply to post by eXia7


This unfortunately is more common than many realize, California has a huge problem with land grabs by Sheriffs. Why did it take till now for people to get disgusted? Why till now to hold a large protest? There is more to the Bundy issue than they are letting on. It ain't about cows, tortoises, or grazing fees.....

Some call it Agenda 21...I see it as 'legal' thievery.

Taupin Desciple

eXia7

ParanoidAmerican
reply to post by gladtobehere

 

I am confused this story is from 2004.....even old than the Bundy dispute...

Still very relevant to today's times.. perhaps a story that was ignored and forgotten.

fast-forward to today, and we still see a similar trend.

And what trend would that be?

This thread needs to be in the trash bin.

I dunno, the trend of forgotten infringements to rights by government?

ParanoidAmerican
reply to post by eXia7

 

This unfortunately is more common than many realize, California has a huge problem with land grabs by Sheriffs. Why did it take till now for people to get disgusted? Why till now to hold a large protest? There is more to the Bundy issue than they are letting on. It ain't about cow, tortoises, or grazing fees.....

Some call it Agenda 21...I see it as 'legal' thievery.

edit on 13-4-2014 by ParanoidAmerican because: (no reason given)

I think people have been angry for a long time, and all it takes is a few key moments that people realize that they are getting the shaft and are tired of it. I say why not now? Now is a better time than never.

reply to post by MrSpad

"Corporate" ranchers as opposed to the big factory farms that take over these ranchers when they go or are put out of business as claimed?

Yeah, "corporate"...

ParanoidAmerican
reply to post by gladtobehere

 

I am confused this story is from 2004.....even older than the Bundy dispute...

edit on 13-4-2014 by ParanoidAmerican because: (no reason given)

Indeed. This one and others are ongoing for years, some are updated stories. There is a '13 update on this one in particular.

This is why documents known as deeds are filed on kept on record. Guess we'll never see that data.

reply to post by Taupin Desciple

This thread needs to be in the trash bin.

Yeah, why?
whats your reasoning?

This is not only about ranchers and there cattle.

Without the ranchers and there cattle the government can close the land to all public use and turn it into wilderness areas.

We have seen this happen in the Calif desert for the last 30 years since they got rid of most of the ranchers and cattle.

Unity_99
They're trying to steal crown land, the land that belongs to the people. I knew this was agenda 21. And destroy cottage industry farmers, ie the people's farms.

Ya sound like it

Agenda 21

gladtobehere

First off, theres just way too much "federal land". Even if someone agrees with the idea of the government "owning" this land and "allowing" us to use it, it should be handled on the state level.

Mr. Bundy had an agreement in place with the state of Nevada but the federal ogres refused to recognize it.

Theres no reason for the power hungry Feds to be involved.

Main key points here:
1. Land ownership is a LIE
2. If you pay property tax you DON'T OWN the land
3. Property tax is a form of RENT to the government
4. You don't pay your property tax they take your land.

Now that we are clear, you understand why the government (federal, state, or otherwise) treats people the way they do regarding land - whether it be Forest Service, BLM, Eminent Domain, or anything similar.

They already know that YOU DON'T REALLY OWN the land.

HomerinNC

MrSpad
They should just sell that land to a developer. They get a nice bit of income from a new tax base and as a private owner the developer could just shoot the cows and the rancher when they came onto their property and ATS would be cheering them on for using the second amendment to give it to these corporate ranchers.

edit on 13-4-2014 by MrSpad because: (no reason given)

Youre so pro govt it reeks.
If they wanted to do that, they could have, they were apparently very happy ranching, whats wrong with that?>

I am pro consistancy. Why does this guy get special access to land he does not own and nobody else does? Why does this guy get to ignore the law and not pay his feas? If this was private land the owner could shoot him and the cows for coming on his property and ATS would cheer. Yet for some reason the Governmrent can not even collect and take the cows off its own land without people screaming about the evil guberment. It is a little thing called hypocrisy. Either you think it is ok for anybody to whatever they wish on any property no matter who owns it or you think that if you own a property that you can keep and defend it.

reply to post by MrSpad

The federal guberment shouldn't be able to own over 90 percent of the land in Nevada or utah. That's ridiculous. They shouldn't be able to just "claim" land as their own at their discretion whenever they feel like it, period. Wft is wrong with you? Is your logic circuit malfunctioning?

We pay the government taxes. They expand territories and land. They let farmers use it for years without problem.
Some official has a different purpose for the land now(which I would like to know) and now our government uses more of our taxes to threaten ranchers with armed thugs.
Interesting,not. And the government wonders why the Citizens are fed up with their nonsense.

reply to post by MrSpad


The rancher claims he owns the land and in all honestly even if the courts ruled in the government's favor their ruling seems to be based on corruption and lies so it's up to the people to take a stand and say no to an over stepping bureaucracy. If the government and courts were actually concerned about justice and the rule of law then many banksters, ceo's and politicians would be doing life in prison. The justice system is so flawed its blatantly obvious that people in high positions with money play by a different set of rules.

Now I see the Light. This is a movement about getting Federal Lands. This Bundy thing, it is all about getting land from the Federal Government. Fools. Don't you know when you give it to the rich man, who is manipulating this whole thing, the fences and no trespassing will go up for their own personal use? Like Fiefdom England. Good god, why do people feel so sorry for a rich man who wants everything his way.

MrSpad
They should just sell that land to a developer. They get a nice bit of income from a new tax base and as a private owner the developer could just shoot the cows and the rancher when they came onto their property and ATS would be cheering them on for using the second amendment to give it to these corporate ranchers.

edit on 13-4-2014 by MrSpad because: (no reason given)

Your pro-government attitude in every thread I see you in is disgusting.

You're just part of the problem.

reply to post by gladtobehere


Why shouldn't the fed own so much of the land? There's more than enough land for sale in the US per capita. I side with the fed on this, I don't want a bunch of people cutting up my land just to sit on for the next century. We've got undeveloped land, developing land and over developed land all across the nation, why is this not enough? These people have to pay their grazing fees or sell some of their livestock. What's the big deal? People are rallying over this against the government overstepping it's boundaries but really this is one thing that we actually need the fed to do. Give that land to the states and they'll just sell it off when there's already more than enough space to go around as it is. Find a real cause like legalizing marijuana! I'm with the fed on this one. This is an ownership issue, if you don't own it you have to pay rent because that's how America works.

Silicis n Volvo

MrSpad
They should just sell that land to a developer. They get a nice bit of income from a new tax base and as a private owner the developer could just shoot the cows and the rancher when they came onto their property and ATS would be cheering them on for using the second amendment to give it to these corporate ranchers.

edit on 13-4-2014 by MrSpad because: (no reason given)

Your pro-government attitude in every thread I see you in is disgusting.

You're just part of the problem.

The FED isn't the problem, the FED is a solution and a reason this country hasn't destroyed itself already. Remember history and all the domestic conflicts in America before the FED? It's a direct correlation. Sure it has pros and cons but I side with my boys on this, the FED is the best part of the government left, the rest is a sham or a wildly inefficient waste for the most part. I used to be a lolbertarian but I've wised up to the fact that people when left unchecked tend to suck so hard that it causes huge problems. The FED and big corporate does that checking that confines the sucking. Still a libertarian idealist but some people need to grow up. But then again I agree with you in disagreeing with auctioning off the land because I think that the FED needs to stay hard for the nations best interests. It's like, the empire, man, but in this case they're actually doing a lot of good and stopping a lot of bad. The US isn't ready to be freed, it has to be fixed first.