Started By
Message

re: regulators mount up militias to take on LBM in nevada.

Posted on 4/12/14 at 12:53 pm to
Posted by Alahunter
Member since Jan 2008
90739 posts
Posted on 4/12/14 at 12:53 pm to
[quote]LINK ]

Whatever it was about, it appears that the Bundy Ranch vs. the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) confrontation has reached a successful conclusion. TTAG’s man on the ground, Bryan Hyde, reports that the BLM is backing down from a battle over grazing rights on federal lands. Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie brokered a deal with the BLM to release the Bundy Ranch’s impounded cattle and allow their owner to graze the bovines on public lands again. Bryan tells us that during the Sheriff’s press conference at the Bundy Ranch to announce the deal, Bundy was surrounded by militia types in “full battle rattle.” And that the rancher isn’t satisfied with the latest arrangement. Meanwhile, a reliable source says there’s a large police staging area on Mormon Butte, just south of the Bundyville exit, with SWAT a plenty. More info as we get it.
Posted by VetteGuy
Member since Feb 2008
28556 posts
Posted on 4/12/14 at 1:30 pm to
100% accurate and on point.


Every little chickenshit podunk department has an army of Tahoes, Expeditions, and mobile SWAT units.

To those who think their local yokels wouldnt take up arms against them, you'd best think again.
Posted by bulldog95
North Louisiana
Member since Jan 2011
20731 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 10:45 am to
Bump for the confiscated guns thread
Posted by WildTchoupitoulas
Member since Jan 2010
44071 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 11:27 am to
quote:

Bump for the confiscated guns thread

The only new information I gleaned from this thread is that the feds, or land owner, changed the lease agreement and the rancher didn't like the new agreeent, so he refused to pay and continued to graze his cattle.

If I told my tenant to GTFO because I was going to develop my land, as long as I didn't violate the lease, he would have to GTFO. Now if the feds did violate the lease (which I doubt they could have done - given that they write the laws and the leases), they may owe him some compensation for the remainder of the term.

Anyone know the term of the lease, 99-year? In perpetuity (which I don't think is legal for the state to engage in)? Year-to-year?
Posted by boom roasted
Member since Sep 2010
28039 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 2:38 pm to
quote:

Didn't bother to read any of the fricking posts in this thread before delivering your bullshite, huh?

Does anyone have a good link to the grazing fee / lease agreement that states the government is required to manage the property with roads, water, etc?

ETA: I'm failing to see where Bundy has a case. He is required to pay grazing fees to the federal government. He doesn't want to do that because he doesn't recognize the federal government as the owner of the land. Am I missing something?
This post was edited on 4/13/14 at 2:45 pm
Posted by Fishhead
Elmendorf, TX
Member since Jan 2008
12195 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 2:48 pm to
quote:

Am I missing something?
Yeah. You're missing the part where the government stood down and ended the dispute.

Bundy won.
Posted by boom roasted
Member since Sep 2010
28039 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 2:55 pm to
quote:

Yeah. You're missing the part where the government stood down and ended the dispute.

No, I saw that. I still have questions as to whether he was right. But feel free to ignore my questions and make another condescending quip.
This post was edited on 4/13/14 at 2:56 pm
Posted by Fishhead
Elmendorf, TX
Member since Jan 2008
12195 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 3:03 pm to
Read thru the thread. It's mentioned earlier on.

Posted by boom roasted
Member since Sep 2010
28039 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 3:05 pm to
I read all the pages. I just wanted a link detailing the lease agreement / grazing agreement and what obligations are placed on each party. I like reading these things for myself before forming an opinion.
Posted by Fishhead
Elmendorf, TX
Member since Jan 2008
12195 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 3:16 pm to
My bad. I understand what you're saying. Problem is, I could link a Drudge Report article and you'd read it one way, then I could link an MSNBC article and you'd read it another way. That's the problem with a lot of things today.
Posted by CoastieGM
Member since Aug 2012
3185 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 3:50 pm to
In the southwest high deserts, land surface rights were historically linked to water rights. Your water claim affords you surface rights to the lands drained by your claimed water structure. Bundy's family filed the water rights claims long before the BLM existed. BLM came in and usurped this longstanding system.

Hell, the feds acknowledge 500 yr old Spanish and Mexican land grants all around my place in New Mexico (e.g. Cilili, Manzano, Abo, and Tajique Land Grants, et al). Why not Bundy's?

People need to get out of their Deed-oriented mindset of property ownership and understand that there are other forms of land ownership/possession. Folks are not understanding is that possession by Deed and Claim both forms of possession. In the the SW Claims lands, the owners hold claim and BLM is just supposed to manage the land, not own the land.

The biggest difference between the Bundy Claim and most other long-held claims is that the Bundy's are white and can't play the race card.
Posted by Fishhead
Elmendorf, TX
Member since Jan 2008
12195 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 4:14 pm to
Posted by Mung
NorCal
Member since Aug 2007
9054 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 7:25 pm to
quote:

I purchased the remained 28 years of a 75 year lease of 6500 acres


...and enlighten us as to what you pay for said 47 year old lease? I'm sure it's market rate, and your aren't sucking the gubmint teat like Bundy.

Boudreaux's grandson
Posted by Pepperidge
Slidell
Member since Apr 2011
4314 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 7:40 pm to
quote:


Whatever it was about, it appears that the Bundy Ranch vs. the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) confrontation has reached a successful conclusion. TTAG’s man on the ground, Bryan Hyde, reports that the BLM is backing down from a battle over grazing rights on federal lands. Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie brokered a deal with the BLM to release the Bundy Ranch’s impounded cattle and allow their owner to graze the bovines on public lands again. Bryan tells us that during the Sheriff’s press conference at the Bundy Ranch to announce the deal, Bundy was surrounded by militia types in “full battle rattle.” And that the rancher isn’t satisfied with the latest arrangement. Meanwhile, a reliable source says there’s a large police staging area on Mormon Butte, just south of the Bundyville exit, with SWAT a plenty. More info as we get it.



may not be over yet...(not sure of source)
LINK

Hmmm...we've been played...again

https://www.stevequayle.com/index.php?s=33&d=877

At 1750 hours ET, I was contacted by my source within the Department of Homeland Security regarding the current situation at the Bundy Ranch. To put it bluntly, the people are being hoodwinked into believing that the situation is being resolved. It is not. It is a strategic de-escalation to fool the public. This source stated that the retreat of the BLM agents and the release of the cattle was actually crafted as a potential plan yesterday (Friday, 11 April 2014) based on the following:

1. A military assessment of satellite and drone surveillance imagery of the “patriot resistance. Drones under the control of the U.S. military were in use, taking real-time photographic images of not just the activity at the ranch, but "identifying the protesters, any arms and any supplies they might have or be carrying. “Mission accomplished.”
2. Real-time communication intercepts between patriots on-site and their off-site support;
3. Active monitoring of internet traffic regarding the coverage of events at ranch;
4. The monitoring of real-time video from the scene.

This source stated that a response by the patriot movement was anticipated, although exceeded their expectations. Although this was a real operation, they also ran this as a test case for future government operations once they saw the response. They were also actively managing the media, in some cases threatening to cut off White House access to anyone covering the event.

Despite this, the coverage by the alternative media began to create a public relations problem that was not easily managed. Note the lack of acknowledgment by the White House regarding this event. They are intentionally framing it as a state issue, despite the fact that all federal response has been and continues to be from the White House. There is a reason for this – a reason that has not been identified in any of the public reports to date. I will explain in further detail in a follow-up report on Sunday, after this source attends [redacted] to obtain more specific information about future federal operations. Regardless, according to this source, the government will take back ‘their land’ as they must to fulfill international obligations. It was never about grazing rights or anything other than (1) “securing clear title” to the land, and (2) further demonizing any patriotic resistance. It is my understanding, based on the information from this source, that it is a critical task to create a situation that will also advance their agenda of gun control and confiscation.

A more detailed report will follow on Sunday, 13 April 2014, with additional and much more specific information about their inside plans and future operations.PLEASE MAKE THIS VIRAL!


Posted by TigerTatorTots
The Safeshore
Member since Jul 2009
80831 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 7:48 pm to
Not saying I believe that latest 'report'...

However, this was the first of what could become a slowly building snowball between the government and an opposition which is growing very quickly throughout the country. To my knowledge, I haven't heard of a civilian group standing up to the government in arms over the past decade. The rate that the country divides and agendas are pushed to limit freedoms, these occasions may start happening more frequently.
Posted by CamdenTiger
Member since Aug 2009
62676 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 7:55 pm to
WOW, hope this is wrong, but Gov't moving in now will set the Nation on fire!
Posted by Pepperidge
Slidell
Member since Apr 2011
4314 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 8:08 pm to
Like I said in my post...I am "unsure of the source"

that being said, I have a healthy distrust of my government...I would not put it past them to wait until all of this settles to just do it anyway...
Posted by TheGreat318
West of Bossier
Member since Feb 2012
1256 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 8:47 pm to
quote:

Pepperidge


quote:

LINK


Seems legit.


No, for real, that shite was hilarious.


This post was edited on 4/13/14 at 8:49 pm
Posted by bulldog95
North Louisiana
Member since Jan 2011
20731 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 11:42 pm to
Looks like a good way for the government to identify the militia, there base of operations, internet traffic to identify sympathy sets, and weaponary they can mobilize.
Posted by Pepperidge
Slidell
Member since Apr 2011
4314 posts
Posted on 4/14/14 at 6:00 am to
Like mentioned...the source may be suspect...but I guess you believe everything the government tells you and that whatever they do is in our best interest...got it!
first pageprev pagePage 6 of 7Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram