[Video] Bundy town hall meeting, "this is a lot bigger than Cliven Bundy".

InverseLookingGlass
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

 

Redress is through the courts? WTF are you implying? That the courts are honest and that they are controlled by honest administrators in DC? ROFLMAO. The entire system is corrupt so how you going to get justice when the criminals in DC can change the law at will? And then their court enforcers are forced to follow the DC criminals legal changes. And then the criminal police thugs are forced to follow the DC criminal legal changes. We have seen time and time again massive abuses of the justice system, you can't honestly believe that things have changed when the abuses continue daily.

You can't be serious LOL, I hope that "redress" comment was sarcastic - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm not implying anything. Courts are the only vehicle to resolve this in a way that the USG will accept. The courts are influenced by public opinion to some extent. These cowboys aren't the only ones to ever be stuck with something they feel is unfair. Almost everyone has. Resolving something with violence is always temporary and therefore is a waste of time. Not paying taxes/fees for 20 years and this guy thinks he's free and clear? And others are willing to give all in an impromptu tax revolt?

Doesn't it make more sense to pay?

it would make more sense to pay nothing in way of taxes and licenses until the government becomes what it is supposed to be and not simply the representative's of corporations and the politicians criminal handlers.

BTW, I have to wonder why the military used to say that violent solutions were too permanent.

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by ThichHeaded

Anyone with facts please post them here.. I do not want to see natural news, infowars, and the likes.. I want straight sources...

I state above because they are as bad as the tabloid news papers you see in the supermarket.

Unfortunately, Mainstream media is just as bad. Buddy, if you want a straight source, you won't find any. Everything seems to be a runaround no matter where it comes from.

I will tell you what is concerning me about this.

I will start by saying no, I have not read every message in every thread, I don't have the time to dedicate to that. Been a lot of threads and a LOT of messages, so I will just get to the point.

Nowhere in any post, message, video, or news story, not even Alex Jones, have I seen anyone address what seems to me to be the simplest of answers.

Bundy was around before BLM even existed. Since then, he has been fighting them over grazing fees.

Why has no one even mentioned...

The Grandfather Clause? He should be grandfathered in, and not have to pay, IMO. Perhaps this is part of his defense before this whole thing went public, I don't know, but it should be the simplest of answers.

He came first. He should be grandfathered in and not have to be held to new rules.

Just my opinion.

ETA -

The term grandfather clause in its current application refers to a legislative provision that permits an exemption based upon a preexisting condition. For example, through the application of grandfather clauses, certain prerogatives are extended to those regularly engaged in a particular profession, occupation, or business that is regulated by statute or ordinance. Such a clause might allow an individual, who has been in continuous practice in a particular profession for a specific period, to circumvent certain
licensing requirements.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

The only reason I can see them denying this perfectly legal standing based onlaw, is becauseof the findings of Harry and his sons' involvement. Most certainly, they would find some way of exclusion for their beneifit.

reply to post by ThichHeaded


To be fair, so is the MSM. A lot of what I have seen posted all over the internet has been using infowars as their primary source. This worries me, as so far as I can tell digging into this, infowars is the one and only source who claims that the feds were threatening to shoot people for instance. Why is it no one has that on camera if it happened? What is there for infowars to gain by making it up?

reply to post by TKDRL


Like i said tabloid...

Also noticed alot of people with phone cameras.. Where are these peoples videos and their own accounts on what happened..

Also What Liberty girl stated... But someone is going to say something like bl bla grazing fine he didn't pay bla bla..

Supposedly his family has been there since 1884? yes? so that would make the government who supposedly owns the land wrong.. See that supposed thing.. They dont own the land, those people I referred to in an earlier post own the land.. all of them..

So I want to know if what and why... An informed shot at something.. BLM? Chinese?, whatever.. cause if we almost came to a flash point at least in every Americans eyes they deserve a concrete answer as to the specifics on things..

reply to post by ThichHeaded


What I want to know, that family donated that land, in exchange for grazing rights forever. Why is it the state of NV is not putting their foot down and defending that generous family? And what of all the other ranchers, I am sure those families had a whole lot of history as well. It seems the state of NV just don't care about their people..... What kind of kickbacks is the state recieving for this, I would assume they have to be getting something to turn their backs like that. Without people like the Bundys the state of NV would have never existed afterall.

TKDRL
reply to post by ThichHeaded

 

What I want to know, that family donated that land, in exchange for grazing rights forever. Why is it the state of NV is not putting their foot down and defending that generous family? And what of all the other ranchers, I am sure those families had a whole lot of history as well. It seems the state of NV just don't care about their people..... What kind of kickbacks is the state recieving for this, I would assume they have to be getting something to turn their backs like that. Without people like the Bundys the state of NV would have never existed afterall.

edit on Mon, 14 Apr 2014 16:17:49 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

The US Government honor a land contract with people who where there before them?

Thats almost funny if it wasn't so true.

States are starting to chafe from the federal collars, some are starting to do something about it.

They still have to answer to the people that live next door, unlike the federal level...

reply to post by TKDRL


Is there proof of this? kinda straight proof? Cause you are the 1st person I heard this from..

And Benrl I definitely agree with you.

reply to post by TKDRL

Another point I would like to bring up. Squatters law and land rights. Way back when, when his family first originated the farm out there, the general rule of law was, if you squatted on Federally owned land for a certain number of years, made improvements to said lands, the property then became rightfully yours.

There is still some land in the US where this holds true. Hard to find, but it's there.

He definitely made improvements, he built a ranch, one would presume farmed it to feed his cattle, you can't graze them in the winter, so he met the rules of law. Technically, he owned that land well before the government came in and proclaimed it theirs.

The way I see it, he both owned the land, and, should be grandfathered in from any laws proposed about 'grazing fees' or any other laws. In effect, the government is forcing his land away from him, AND attempting to force him to pay fees to use his own land. I would be fighting it, too!

Now, keep in mind, if you wish to research this, you have to keep the laws then, and now, seperated. The laws now simply do not apply, hence, grandfather clause. To view this properly, one must consider the laws then, and remember that when his family likely took ownership of the that land, it was known as 'staking a claim', much the same as gold miners did.

Do not let the bad reputation of bad squatters today cloud your ability to view this from his standpoint. Back then, this is how land was claimed and owned, by simply 'staking a claim'.
I am certain they have paid their fair share of taxes in the meantime, as the laws have changed. That does not, however, allow the Federal Government to override state laws and sovereignty, and to come in and literally steal his land, and the property that he legally has there-in.

Again, the only reason I see there being any issue is due to Harry and his son, and the need to, as per the documents that were found and available since 2012 and directly naming Bundy and the need to force him off the land to close the deal with China. Who, by the way, have backed out of the deal, as I understand.

reply to post by benrl


Kind of ironic, here I am standing up for a settler's land rights eh? It's the principal I guess. What's wrong is wrong.

reply to post by ThichHeaded


I first saw the indictment of Harry and his son on AJ's show. However, he DID provide a link, directly to the BLM, who promptly started scrubbing documents. Then, the documents were still able to be found on the Google way back machine. Those documents don't lie, nor do the media stories from 2012.

You can do the research yourself and find the information on the deal with China. It's very easily verifiable. The documents naming Bundy directly are there, as well, some available as pdf's, still, as of two days ago, directly downloaded from the BLM, however, the links on their website are gone. The links were only available on the WayBack machine.

I downloaded the pdf, and I saw the link directly to the BLM.



ETA - clarification 'on their website'

reply to post by Libertygal


He owns his ranch, that is not part of the dispute. The more I look into it, the less concrete evidence I come up with. This whole thing is seeming to be convoluted. I am not seeing any good evidence brought forth by either side thus far really, in that case I have to side with the citizen. The government has already proven themselves liars and cheats over and over. Still, I would like the Bundy's to start showing some documentation, as an act of good faith toward those of us supporting them. I have seen claims of his family being there since the 1870's, then claims of his family not moving there until after Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 was established. Need some damn facts here. Only one side is telling the truth, or maybe they are both lieing.

Comment posted here

Originally from Illinois, the Mormon patriarch Abraham Bundy (born 1859) moved his young family to Mohave County, Arizona about 1897 (twenty years after the claimed 1877). Previous to that, they'd lived in Nebraska. Bundyville, a defunct town in Mohave County, Arizona, is named for this family and pretty much all of them are buried there in the Mt Trumbull Cemetery.

Cliven's father David Ammon Bundy was born in Mohave County, AZ and as late as WWII, he was still living there. He is apparently the family member who moved to Nevada, sometime between 1942 and 1996. He died there in 1996. Cliven's son Ammon (he of the bloody taser wound) is named for him.

No telling when David Ammon Bundy arrived in Clark County, Nevada, but it was at least 70 years after the claimed 1877.

For perspective, Clark County, Nevada is adjacent to Mohave County, Arizona but it is desolate land with few roads and lots of geographical formations that make traveling difficult. The 92 miles between Bunkerville, NV and Bundyville, Arizona takes over 3 hrs by car.

No sited sources of course. Trying to do searches based on that info, the only relevant tidbit I came up with was this

David Bundy

Sex: M
Born: 3 Apr 1944 in Mount Trumbull, Mohave, Arizona
Died: Stillborn
Buried: in Mount Trumbull, Mohave, Arizona

reply to post by TKDRL

I am stating that he actually owns the land that the government is claiming use of, for grazing fees. I believe, somewhere along the way, I heard this claim, as well. That he had previously staked a claim to that land, and a portion thereof, was taken from him. Then, this event, in which they went in and seized his cattle that were upon that land.

There is a reason he was originally disputing the grazing fees. What were those origins and the basis of the three lost suits in court, that he refuses to pay?

You do realize, as well, when it comes to squatters rights, and staking a claim, there is usually little to no documentation?

I also believe I heard something along the way about a courthouse fire or somesuch, in which some documents were lost. I could be confusing this with another story, but, I do seem to recall a fire, either city hall, courthouse, etc, where some of the only records held, were lost. I may be completely wrong on that, though.

Regardless, just know, documentation of land ownership in the west actually came much later.

ETA stuff..

en.m.wikipedia.org...

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Under the act no cultivation of lands was required, but some range improvements were mandated as necessary.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Over 80% of the Nevada area is owned by the federal
government, as homesteads of maximum 640 acres
(2.6 km
2
) in the arid state were generally too little
land for a viable farm. Instead, early settlers would homestead land surrounding a water source, and then graze cattle on the adjacent public land, which is useless without access to water.

reply to post by TKDRL


I would say that tidbit about the stillborn Bundy to be odd..

But David and Bundy are common names.. So that could be anyone... But then again we are talking 40's so........

Maybe interesting.. Maybe we are getting played like every other event that has happened.. maybe this was a test to see what would happen.. maybe this is to see how far the people will go when things go south to see if they will rise up...

::EDIT::
Actually come to think about it.. Why does this instance make any difference compared to the other thousands of instances like this? Why was this guy chosen specifically? There are I am sure more cases similar to this one but we heard what about?

See again not making sense.. The government does whatever it wants and nobody bitches.. Someone in nowhere lands suddenly gets on the map..... Why? Why this event? Why did everyone rush down there? what is the purpose??
::END EDIT::

See how things do not make sense.. I am really starting to think this was a social experiment...

Now it is bringing more questions.. Why is it things are not simple... Why can it never be yes no........ meh...

One yr we will find out what happen...

I think we been duped guys......... Damn

David A Bundy
October 27, 1942
Mohave County, Arizona

If this says what I think it means, it puts the bundies in AZ at least as late as 1942......

reply to post by TKDRL


Well gee, now what I said makes more sense.. Stop feeding to ct nuts guy.. you making it sound like we know what we are talking about...

reply to post by ThichHeaded

Well, allegedly, according to the AJ story, some 53 or 57 other families have either been bought out (mostly bought out) or by other means (he didn't expound) run out of that area, and Bundy was the last one holding up the China deal. I am sure some information can be found to solidify that information, as well.

He refused to sell, so they were looking for other ways to get rid of him. According to the Nevada laws I read, if he ever filed a Homestead Exemption, he could not have his property taken for the alleged past due grazing fees.

It was stated that the documents state that the agreement says that Bundy is the last remaining one, and must be removed by 2014 to solidify the deal with China.

reply to post by ThichHeaded


Well, I posted respectfully mind you, on both the facebook page, and the blog. I basically stated I am a supporter, and came across conflicting info, and requested info to use to debunk the claim. Instead of responding, my comments were removed within 2 minutes, and I was blocked from adding any comments to the pages. I am beginning to get angry now. I do not like being lied to, and I do not like being used. Perhaps some others here might also try contacting them and hopefully we get an answer?

reply to post by TKDRL


Well to tell you the truth.. How shady this story has been I think what i said in my 2nd post above i think you know social experiment makes sense..

We still dont know much of anything, the news isn't saying anything we have to rely on tabloid news sources we know have loose info..

So you tell me? Would you buy a story off me in this condition?