News
news Scientists baffled by UFOs (unidentified floating objects) that washed up on a Sydney beach
news U.S. airstrikes hit ISIS inside Syria for first time
news Climate Change Activists Arrested in Wall Street March
news Former CIA Agent Claims Aliens Crashed at Roswell
news Study: Internet Trolls are Narcissists, Psychopaths and Sadists.
news Impressive UFO Over Portsmouth, UK "Not a Cloud" According to Experts
news Allegations of Fraud Surfacing in Scottish Independence Vote
news Tiny Implants Could Give Humans Self-Healing Superpowers
news Secret Service investigates after man jumps White House fence, reaches doors
news Study Shows One Dose of Antidepressant Changes The Brain
news UFO Filmed From UK Flight

Advertisement



Username:
Password: or Register
 
Thread Rating:
  • 6 Vote(s) - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bundy is wrong.. here is the 1934 Taylor grazing act
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 209628
04-12-2014 04:19 AM

 



Post: #1
horn Bundy is wrong.. here is the 1934 Taylor grazing act
Advertisement
The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (43 USC 315), signed by President Roosevelt, was intended to "stop injury to the public grazing lands [excluding Alaska] by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration; to provide for their orderly use, improvement, and development; [and] to stabilize the livestock industry dependent upon the public range" (USDI 1988). This Act was pre-empted by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA).

More here:
http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_office...lor.1.html

here is a related article also.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014...f_law.html

Heartflowers
Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement

SlowLoris
Friends help Friends
User ID: 189775
04-12-2014 04:40 AM

Posts: 8,050



Post: #2
Bundy is wrong.. here is the 1934 Taylor grazing act
A new law is binding on persons who enter into a new contract from the time of the new law .

I'm sure you have heard the term "grandfathered in" that isn't done by an entity of the state just to be nice. It happens to be a provision of our Constitution.

Read up on the term "ex post facto law"

Start with the Constitution of the United States of America

Article one, section ten

Bundy's family had a contract/land grant that predated the state of Nevada, predated the BLM. His previous grazing rights overrule any law created after 1870. The 1934 Taylor Grazing Act was enforceable only on new ranchers.

You don't have to like it, but if you throw out Article one of the Constitution you might as well scrap the whole thing.
Quote this message in a reply
sweet
Registered User
User ID: 5268
04-12-2014 04:42 AM

Posts: 5,366



Post: #3
Bundy is wrong.. here is the 1934 Taylor grazing act
SlowLoris  Wrote: (04-12-2014 04:40 AM)
A new law is binding on persons who enter into a new contract from the time of the new law .

I'm sure you have heard the term "grandfathered in" that isn't done by an entity of the state just to be nice. It happens to be a provision of our Constitution.

Read up on the term "ex post facto law"

Start with the Constitution of the United States of America

Article one, section ten

Bundy's family had a contract/land grant that predated the state of Nevada, predated the BLM. His previous grazing rights overrule any law created after 1870. The 1934 Taylor Grazing Act was enforceable only on new ranchers.

You don't have to like it, but if you throw out Article one of the Constitution you might as well scrap the whole thing.


CheerCheerCheer

Quote this message in a reply
TheKeyling
lop guest
User ID: 227767
04-12-2014 04:46 AM

 



Post: #4
Bundy is wrong.. here is the 1934 Taylor grazing act
Remove Nevada from the UNION - and bill Washington for the nuclear clean up bill


The place is dangerously contaminated.
Quote this message in a reply
FeAr ThE Nòóß
Registered User
User ID: 185492
04-12-2014 04:49 AM

Posts: 4,671



Post: #5
Bundy is wrong.. here is the 1934 Taylor grazing act
SlowLoris  Wrote: (04-12-2014 04:40 AM)
A new law is binding on persons who enter into a new contract from the time of the new law .

I'm sure you have heard the term "grandfathered in" that isn't done by an entity of the state just to be nice. It happens to be a provision of our Constitution.

Read up on the term "ex post facto law"

Start with the Constitution of the United States of America

Article one, section ten

Bundy's family had a contract/land grant that predated the state of Nevada, predated the BLM. His previous grazing rights overrule any law created after 1870. The 1934 Taylor Grazing Act was enforceable only on new ranchers.

You don't have to like it, but if you throw out Article one of the Constitution you might as well scrap the whole thing.

Contract was not with him.
Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 224754
04-12-2014 04:51 AM

 



Post: #6
Bundy is wrong.. here is the 1934 Taylor grazing act
The truth, in the words of a Bundy
Mike Combs By SHIREE BUNDY COX:

I have had people ask me to explain my dad's stance on this BLM fight. Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much [more] to it, but here it is in a nut shell. My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887, around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972. These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars. These rights to the land use are called preemptive rights.

Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges, while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment, which was to be used to pay the BLM wages and to help with repairs and improvements of the ranches. My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM, until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve. Instead, they began using these money's against the ranchers. They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out, with their own grazing fees. When they offered to buy my dad out for a pittance, he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren't doing their job. He quit paying the BLM but tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down. So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes.

In essence, the BLM was managing my dad out of business. Well, when buying him out didn't work, they used the endangered species card. You've already heard about the desert tortoise. Well that didn't work either, so then began the threats and the court orders, which my dad has proven to be unlawful for all these years. Now they're desperate. It's come down to buying the brand inspector off and threatening the County Sheriff. Everything they're doing at this point is illegal and totally against the constitution of the United States of America.

Now you may be saying,"how sad, but what does this have to do with me?" Well, I'll tell you. They will get rid of Cliven Bundy, the last man standing on the Bunkerville allotment and then they will close all the roads so no one can ever go on it again. Next, it's Utah's turn. Mark my words, Utah is next.

Then there's the issue of the cattle that are at this moment being stolen. See, even if dad hasn't paid them, those cattle do belong to him. Regardless where they are, they are my fathers property. His herd has been part of that range for over a hundred years, long before the BLM even existed. Now the Feds think they can just come in and remove them and sell them without a legal brand inspection or without my dad's signature on it. They think they can take them over two boarders, which is illegal, ask any trucker. Then they plan to take them to the Richfeild Auction and sell them. All with our tax money. They have paid off the contract cowboys and the auction owner, as well as the Nevada brand inspector with our tax dollars. See how slick they are?

Well, this is it in a nut shell. Thanks

April 10 2014
Quote this message in a reply
FeAr ThE Nòóß
Registered User
User ID: 185492
04-12-2014 04:54 AM

Posts: 4,671



Post: #7
Bundy is wrong.. here is the 1934 Taylor grazing act
SlowLoris  Wrote: (04-12-2014 04:40 AM)
A new law is binding on persons who enter into a new contract from the time of the new law .

I'm sure you have heard the term "grandfathered in" that isn't done by an entity of the state just to be nice. It happens to be a provision of our Constitution.

Read up on the term "ex post facto law"

Start with the Constitution of the United States of America

Article one, section ten

Bundy's family had a contract/land grant that predated the state of Nevada, predated the BLM. His previous grazing rights overrule any law created after 1870. The 1934 Taylor Grazing Act was enforceable only on new ranchers.

You don't have to like it, but if you throw out Article one of the Constitution you might as well scrap the whole thing.
Ex post facto is criminal law. The constitution prohibits it.
Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 228047
04-12-2014 04:54 AM

 



Post: #8
Bundy is wrong.. here is the 1934 Taylor grazing act
LoP Guest  Wrote: (04-12-2014 04:19 AM)
The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (43 USC 315), signed by President Roosevelt, was intended to "stop injury to the public grazing lands [excluding Alaska] by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration; to provide for their orderly use, improvement, and development; [and] to stabilize the livestock industry dependent upon the public range" (USDI 1988). This Act was pre-empted by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA).

More here:
http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_office...lor.1.html

here is a related article also.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014...f_law.html

Heartflowers
-well maybe if the govmint would start following the law of the land peeps would start obeying ya know set an xample.Jptdknpa
Quote this message in a reply
SlowLoris
Friends help Friends
User ID: 189775
04-12-2014 05:04 AM

Posts: 8,050



Post: #9
Bundy is wrong.. here is the 1934 Taylor grazing act
FeAr ThE Nòóß  Wrote: (04-12-2014 04:54 AM)
SlowLoris  Wrote: (04-12-2014 04:40 AM)
A new law is binding on persons who enter into a new contract from the time of the new law .

I'm sure you have heard the term "grandfathered in" that isn't done by an entity of the state just to be nice. It happens to be a provision of our Constitution.

Read up on the term "ex post facto law"

Start with the Constitution of the United States of America

Article one, section ten

Bundy's family had a contract/land grant that predated the state of Nevada, predated the BLM. His previous grazing rights overrule any law created after 1870. The 1934 Taylor Grazing Act was enforceable only on new ranchers.

You don't have to like it, but if you throw out Article one of the Constitution you might as well scrap the whole thing.
Ex post facto is criminal law. The constitution prohibits it.

I disagree

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/fletcher-peck.html

Fletcher vs Peck 1810 was about property rights and ex post facto law
Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 144938
04-12-2014 05:10 AM

 



Post: #10
Bundy is wrong.. here is the 1934 Taylor grazing act
LoP Guest  Wrote: (04-12-2014 04:51 AM)
The truth, in the words of a Bundy
Mike Combs By SHIREE BUNDY COX:

I have had people ask me to explain my dad's stance on this BLM fight. Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much [more] to it, but here it is in a nut shell. My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887, around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972. These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars. These rights to the land use are called preemptive rights.

Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges, while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment, which was to be used to pay the BLM wages and to help with repairs and improvements of the ranches. My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM, until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve. Instead, they began using these money's against the ranchers. They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out, with their own grazing fees. When they offered to buy my dad out for a pittance, he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren't doing their job. He quit paying the BLM but tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down. So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes.

In essence, the BLM was managing my dad out of business. Well, when buying him out didn't work, they used the endangered species card. You've already heard about the desert tortoise. Well that didn't work either, so then began the threats and the court orders, which my dad has proven to be unlawful for all these years. Now they're desperate. It's come down to buying the brand inspector off and threatening the County Sheriff. Everything they're doing at this point is illegal and totally against the constitution of the United States of America.

Now you may be saying,"how sad, but what does this have to do with me?" Well, I'll tell you. They will get rid of Cliven Bundy, the last man standing on the Bunkerville allotment and then they will close all the roads so no one can ever go on it again. Next, it's Utah's turn. Mark my words, Utah is next.

Then there's the issue of the cattle that are at this moment being stolen. See, even if dad hasn't paid them, those cattle do belong to him. Regardless where they are, they are my fathers property. His herd has been part of that range for over a hundred years, long before the BLM even existed. Now the Feds think they can just come in and remove them and sell them without a legal brand inspection or without my dad's signature on it. They think they can take them over two boarders, which is illegal, ask any trucker. Then they plan to take them to the Richfeild Auction and sell them. All with our tax money. They have paid off the contract cowboys and the auction owner, as well as the Nevada brand inspector with our tax dollars. See how slick they are?

Well, this is it in a nut shell. Thanks

April 10 2014

Bump Don't feed the shills , word is out why this happend to this man land grabbing Reid and his director of the FLM he personally put into power was his ex advisor.
Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 144938
04-12-2014 05:12 AM

 



Post: #11
Bundy is wrong.. here is the 1934 Taylor grazing act
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroo...evada.html

Secretary Jewell Announces Two Solar Projects Approved in California, Nevada

Projects mark the 49th and 50th utility-scale renewable energy projects approved on public lands since 2009

WASHINGTON, D.C. – As part of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan to reduce carbon pollution, create jobs and move our economy toward clean energy sources, Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell today announced the approval of two solar energy projects located near the Nevada-California border that are expected to supply 550 megawatts of renewable energy, enough to power about 170,000 homes, and support more than 700 jobs through construction and operations.


First Solar has agreed to undertake significant project design changes and mitigation measures to minimize impacts to wildlife, water, historical, cultural and other resources. For example, the BLM worked on the Stateline proposal to reduce the project’s footprint by more than 20 percent to avoid and minimize project impacts. In addition, as part of ongoing efforts to protect the threatened Desert Tortoise, the BLM is expanding the nearby Ivanpah Desert Wildlife Management Area by more than 20,000 acres and requiring that the developer protect three times the area that the project will disturb.

For the Silver State South project, the project design was modified to reduce the size of the facility by 100 megawatts. Mitigation measures include soil stabilization to prevent erosion and polluted runoff. In addition, the developer must fund over $3.6 million for Desert Tortoise mitigation and $3.5 million for studies intended to guide future efforts to protect the Desert Tortoise in the project area. The company must also assess the project’s potential adverse impact if archaeological properties at the site are found to be eligible for National Register of Historic Places listing.

“As we implement the President’s Climate Action Plan to generate jobs, cut carbon pollution and move our economy toward clean energy sources, we need to do so in a way that takes the long view and avoids or minimizes conflicts with important natural and cultural resources,” added Jewell.

The U.S. Senate voted 71-28 on Tuesday to confirm the appointment of Neil Kornze to the post.

Kornze was raised in Elko and is a former senior adviser to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. He joined the BLM in 2011 and has been leading the agency as principal deputy director for the past year.
http://www.mynews4.com/news/state/story/...FSHOA.cspx
Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 227865
04-12-2014 05:12 AM

 



Post: #12
Bundy is wrong.. here is the 1934 Taylor grazing act
LoP Guest  Wrote: (04-12-2014 04:51 AM)
The truth, in the words of a Bundy
Mike Combs By SHIREE BUNDY COX:

I have had people ask me to explain my dad's stance on this BLM fight. Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much [more] to it, but here it is in a nut shell. My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887, around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972. These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars. These rights to the land use are called preemptive rights.

Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges, while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment, which was to be used to pay the BLM wages and to help with repairs and improvements of the ranches. My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM, until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve. Instead, they began using these money's against the ranchers. They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out, with their own grazing fees. When they offered to buy my dad out for a pittance, he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren't doing their job. He quit paying the BLM but tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down. So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes.

In essence, the BLM was managing my dad out of business. Well, when buying him out didn't work, they used the endangered species card. You've already heard about the desert tortoise. Well that didn't work either, so then began the threats and the court orders, which my dad has proven to be unlawful for all these years. Now they're desperate. It's come down to buying the brand inspector off and threatening the County Sheriff. Everything they're doing at this point is illegal and totally against the constitution of the United States of America.

Now you may be saying,"how sad, but what does this have to do with me?" Well, I'll tell you. They will get rid of Cliven Bundy, the last man standing on the Bunkerville allotment and then they will close all the roads so no one can ever go on it again. Next, it's Utah's turn. Mark my words, Utah is next.

Then there's the issue of the cattle that are at this moment being stolen. See, even if dad hasn't paid them, those cattle do belong to him. Regardless where they are, they are my fathers property. His herd has been part of that range for over a hundred years, long before the BLM even existed. Now the Feds think they can just come in and remove them and sell them without a legal brand inspection or without my dad's signature on it. They think they can take them over two boarders, which is illegal, ask any trucker. Then they plan to take them to the Richfeild Auction and sell them. All with our tax money. They have paid off the contract cowboys and the auction owner, as well as the Nevada brand inspector with our tax dollars. See how slick they are?

Well, this is it in a nut shell. Thanks

April 10 2014

Crybaby
Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 227870
04-12-2014 05:13 AM

 



Post: #13
Bundy is wrong.. here is the 1934 Taylor grazing act
The entire thing is a psyop to catch militia types
Quote this message in a reply
SlowLoris
Friends help Friends
User ID: 189775
04-12-2014 05:13 AM

Posts: 8,050



Post: #14
Bundy is wrong.. here is the 1934 Taylor grazing act
FeAr ThE Nòóß  Wrote: (04-12-2014 04:49 AM)
SlowLoris  Wrote: (04-12-2014 04:40 AM)
A new law is binding on persons who enter into a new contract from the time of the new law .

I'm sure you have heard the term "grandfathered in" that isn't done by an entity of the state just to be nice. It happens to be a provision of our Constitution.

Read up on the term "ex post facto law"

Start with the Constitution of the United States of America

Article one, section ten

Bundy's family had a contract/land grant that predated the state of Nevada, predated the BLM. His previous grazing rights overrule any law created after 1870. The 1934 Taylor Grazing Act was enforceable only on new ranchers.

You don't have to like it, but if you throw out Article one of the Constitution you might as well scrap the whole thing.

Contract was not with him.

He inherited some of the rights, others he bought.

There is a family in California that owns huge tracts of land from generations ago. They lease the land for extremely long periods of time. A house I bought in Huntington Beach had a 99 year lease.

No one disputes their rights to the land, even though the original custodians of the land grant issued by Spain are long dead. Plus the minor fact that this is not Spain.

Disclaimer:
I am not a lawyer, only the cousin of one.
Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 221808
04-12-2014 05:19 AM

 



Post: #15
Bundy is wrong.. here is the 1934 Taylor grazing act
LoP Guest  Wrote: (04-12-2014 04:51 AM)
The truth, in the words of a Bundy
Mike Combs By SHIREE BUNDY COX:

...

Well, this is it in a nut shell. Thanks

April 10 2014

No, that's not really it in a nutshell at all. I don't mean to insult the Bundy clan, this current generation isn't to blame for what happened 200 years ago.

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/201...e.html?m=1

There's a photo in this article of a mountain of buffalo skulls. If you click on it, you get a full-size version. Ponder that image. And ponder the words too. Understand the real history of the west, because there sure is a helluva lot of hypocrisy in America. Cliven Bundy is no Wounded Knee warrior - he ain't the first guy to get stiffed and he sure won't be the last - but he is staring down the same gun barrel as the previous land occupants did. How ironic. The more things change, the more they stay the same, eh?
Quote this message in a reply












Contact UsConspiracy Forum. No reg. required! Return to TopReturn to ContentRSS Syndication

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Valid CSS 2.1