Exposed! Armed siege and cattle theft from Bundy ranch really about fracking leases

[rangerrebew]

exposed! Armed siege and cattle theft from Bundy ranch really about fracking leases



Thursday, April 10, 2014
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)
Tags: BLM lies, fracking leases, Bundy ranch 

 (NaturalNews) The Bureau of Land Management says its 200-man armed siege of the Cliven Bundy ranch in Nevada is all about protecting an "endangered tortoise." But a Natural News investigation has found that BLM is actually in the business of raking in millions of dollars by leasing Nevada lands to energy companies that engage in fracking operations.

This document from the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology(1) shows significant exploratory drilling being conducted in precisely the same area where the Bundy family has been running cattle since the 1870's. The "Gold Butte" area is indicated on the lower right corner of the document (see below), and it clearly shows numerous exploratory drilling operations have been conducted there.

What's also clear is that oil has been found in nearby areas and possibly even within the Gold Butte area itself.

It is, of course, customary for the U.S. government to bring armed soldiers to an oil dispute. (Operation "Iraqi Freedom" for starters...) Heavily armed snipers, helicopters and militarized soldiers have never been invoked over tortoises. (Anyone who thinks this siege is about reptiles is kidding themselves.)

Here's the map showing the oil exploration conducted on the land where Bundy runs his cattle (all the red crosshairs are oil and gas exploration drilling operations):




BLM collects $1.27 million in shale fracking leases
The Bureau of Land Management has just cashed in with $1.27 million in oil and gas leases in Nevada. This was just reported two weeks ago in ShaleReporter.com, which states:

U.S. Bureau of Land Management geologist Lorenzo Trimble tells the Las Vegas Review-Journal the Elko County oil and gas leases sold Tuesday for $1.27 million to six different companies. The auction took place in Reno. The leases are near where Houston-based Noble Energy Inc. wants to drill for oil and natural gas on 40,000 acres of public and private land near the town of Wells. The Review-Journal reports the project would be the first in Nevada to use hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to extract oil and gas from shale deposits.

The way this works, of course, is that BLM runs land theft operations by claiming they are "managing" the land and thereby kicking everyone else off it. They then invoke a reptile, an owl, a bird, a snake or some other animal which they claim to be "saving," even while they are stealing and destroying hundreds of cattle belonging to a private rancher trying to make an honest living in a nation where productive Americans are increasingly branded "enemies of the state."

Once control of the land is established via court order or by bringing armed men with automatic weapons, BLM then turns around and leases the land to fracking companies who proceed to exploit the land using hydraulic fracturing techniques that inject toxic chemicals into groundwater supplies (and have been linked to earthquakes). The money collected by the BLM is then used to increase BLM salaries and bonuses.

In essence, the BLM is a criminal mafia racket, and Cliven Bundy just happened to be in the way of their next target, the Gold Butte area of Nevada. That is why they brought hundreds of heavily armed men to a "save the tortoise" operation.

"Endangered tortoises" is merely the government cover story for confiscating land to turn it over to fracking companies for millions of dollars in energy leases. In truth, the BLM was rapidly euthanizing these very same reptiles en masse last year.(2)

As part of its police state intimidation to control the land, BLM unleashed attack dogs on a pregnant woman.

See the brutality invoked by the BLM against peaceful protesters in this video of a near-riot just outside the Bundy ranch:



Does anyone really believe this is still about a tortoise?

Sources for this story include:
(1) http://www.naturalnews.com/files/Petroleum-D...
(2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/25/des...

More details from Pete Santilli on location:
 


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/044670_BLM_lies_fracking_leases_Bundy_ranch.html##ixzz2yZY79VO0

[flowers]

hmmm

[ABX]

[ABX]

Back in 1998 a federal court after due consideration found that Mr. Bundy had no right to remain on the land.  That decision still stands and has withstood scrutiny.  The BLM is simply carrying out the actions the courts have authorized it to carry out.  How is this any different from removing someone who has overstayed their visa?

That is really the crux of Bundy's dispute, did the court have the legal authority to brake said agreement considering these agreements were codified by a Congressional act and that hasn't been overturned (previous post). Instead of continuing the case in court, he did like many old ranchers and just gave the finger to the government. He could have handled it better, but it is still a case of government bullying and overreach.

Again, if this stands, it could spell trouble for millions of homeowners in the Southwest who technically, don't own their property but simply are on it due to century old usage rights. For example, almost all homes and businesses in LA would fall under old Rancho agreements. The Feds could just come in and say, the property is ours, the contract is null, get out.

I need to check on this, but I also just read (on Facebook so take it with a grain of salt until confirmed) that if you filed a homestead exemption against your property taxes, you transferred your property from land ownership to simply use ownership (homestead) and the property now belongs to the government.

[ABX]

I found one of the cases I was looking for earlier, Summa Corp. v California, 466 US 1984.  A similar 'land patent' was held in California when the State tried to take it away to use as a tidewater basin. Trial courts initially ruled in the State's favor, but the Supreme Court ruled that the original contract of land patent superseded everything.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/466/198/

The land was not 'titled land' but the usage patent was what the Supreme Court considered right of use over the State's claim.

[truth_seeker]

That is really the crux of Bundy's dispute, did the court have the legal authority to brake said agreement considering these agreements were codified by a Congressional act and that hasn't been overturned (previous post). Instead of continuing the case in court, he did like many old ranchers and just gave the finger to the government. He could have handled it better, but it is still a case of government bullying and overreach.

Again, if this stands, it could spell trouble for millions of homeowners in the Southwest who technically, don't own their property but simply are on it due to century old usage rights. For example, almost all homes and businesses in LA would fall under old Rancho agreements. The Feds could just come in and say, the property is ours, the contract is null, get out.

I need to check on this, but I also just read (on Facebook so take it with a grain of salt until confirmed) that if you filed a homestead exemption against your property taxes, you transferred your property from land ownership to simply use ownership (homestead) and the property now belongs to the government.

Baloney to your Southern California assertion. I'm a licensed real estate broker here, for over 25 years.

The properties are routinely sold, with never a claim dating to disputes over land grants.

FYI the land legal issues covered in the Treaty of Hidalgo were twofold.

1. Borders between Mexico and the US, and
2. Honoring land ownership of existing owners (existing Mexican citizens at the time of the treat).

....there was nothing whereby some class of squatters would emerge 150+ years hence, with magical legal rights, never holding a deed, and failing to pay rent.

[ABX]

Baloney to your Southern California assertion. I'm a licensed real estate broker here, for over 25 years.

The properties are routinely sold, with never a claim dating to disputes over land grants.

FYI the land legal issues covered in the Treaty of Hidalgo were twofold.

1. Borders between Mexico and the US, and
2. Honoring land ownership of existing owners (existing Mexican citizens at the time of the treat).

....there was nothing whereby some class of squatters would emerge 150+ years hence, with magical legal rights, never holding a deed, and failing to pay rent.

See previous Supreme Court case I cited. The State of California has already tried it based on the assumption they can superseded those land patents. What is to say they won't try it again?  As you should know if you are an agent in California, the titles you are selling are a "Warranty Deed" and the government has used this in the past to take land. (see Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 PET (U.S.) 498 10 L.Ed. 264, SCOTT v. CAREW, 196 U.S. 100 (1905)) Challenges don't happen often, but they do happen.

[truth_seeker]

What we are NOT hearing or seeing, is a written document showing rancher Bundy ever owning the land.

He claims to have "rights" but he quit paying the fees which are the contractual consideration that are exchanged for those rights.

His case is weak to non-existent from several directions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grazing_rights

[EC]

What we are NOT hearing or seeing, is a written document showing rancher Bundy ever owning the land.

He claims to have "rights" but he quit paying the fees which are the contractual consideration that are exchanged for those rights.

His case is weak to non-existent from several directions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grazing_rights

Who owned the land before the farm was built? Nevada has (or had) a pretty robust homesteading law, and it does sound like he would have fulfilled the terms of that, by making improvements and making it pay.

Was it originally part of the homestead plot and carved off by the Feds? Or was it never part of the homestead, but common land?

[ABX]

What we are NOT hearing or seeing, is a written document showing rancher Bundy ever owning the land.

He claims to have "rights" but he quit paying the fees which are the contractual consideration that are exchanged for those rights.

His case is weak to non-existent from several directions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grazing_rights

The claim that the media has presented that he quit paying the fees seems to have been debunked. He did pay all the fees and fulfilled his obligations to the contracts. The BLM is playing Ex Post Facto games here. From South Texas in another thread.

The Real Story Behind The Bundy Ranch Harassment

*UPDATE: Those who say Bundy is a “deadbeat” are making inaccurate claims. Bundy has in fact paid fees to Clark County, Nevada in an arrangement pre-dating the BLM. The BLM arrived much later, changed the details of the setup without consulting with Bundy — or any other rancher — and then began systematically driving out cattle and ranchers. Bundy refused to pay BLM, especially after they demanded he reduce his heard’s head count down to a level that would not sustain his ranch. Bundy OWNS the water and forage rights to this land. He paid for these rights. He built fences, established water ways, and constructed roads with his own money, with the approval of Nevada and BLM. When BLM started using his fees to run him off the land and harassing him, he ceased paying. So should BLM reimburse him for managing the land and for the confiscation of his water and forage rights?

Cliven Bundy’s problem isn’t that he didn’t pay — he did — or that his cattle bother tortoises — they don’t — it’s that he’s not a Reid donor.

**One last thought: For those conservatives saying that since BLM arrived in the late 90s, it’s the law now, well, so is Obamacare.
- See more at: http://danaloeschradio.com/the-real-story-of-the-bundy-ranch/#sthash.l9vh4ZtY.dpuf

http://danaloeschradio.com/the-real-story-of-the-bundy-ranch/

[truth_seeker]

The claim that the media has presented that he quit paying the fees seems to have been debunked. He did pay all the fees and fulfilled his obligations to the contracts. The BLM is playing Ex Post Facto games here. From South Texas in another thread.

Sorry, but it is discussed on other sources that he readily acknowledges over $300,000 in unpaid fees, versus over $1 million claimed by fedgov.

He supposedly disagrees with how fedgov spends money, so suspended payments.

There is so much information going around, claims about fracking, about solar, about Beef, about China, about Brazil.

So I'm suspending my comments to see if better sources turn up. Just not interested in feeding fuel to a fire that could incite some trigger happy person to get hurt over the situation.

For anybody curious about the area, the ranch is next to Mesquite, NV which is along Hwy. 15 between Vegas and St. George. That is a 2 hour drive. Mesquite being a bit more than halfway towards St. George.

*My great great uncle was born nearby:

•ID: I9
•Name: Louis A. M.
•Sex: M
•Birth: 20 MAR 1869 in Spring Valley, Nye, NV
•Death: 21 FEB 1950

[truth_seeker]

I'm not an attorney. I'm a real estate broker, in an area that has gone from farming, to oil production, to luxury homes and commercial in about 100 years.

And involves private ownership, alongside federal, state, county and city owned properties. I've seen eminent domain, cases of private encroachments onto public lands, etc. Redevelopment projects, too.

I've seen hostile holdouts, and evictions. I've talked to disappointed parties. I've been here 46 years, and know people who go back much further.

I witnessed a decades long situation with a private parcel, which the public very much wanted for preservation purposes. It took decades. In the end a swap was arranged, the degraded wetland got restored and preserved, the commercial interest got to go ahead with their project, etc.

For this Nevada cattle rancher to come out better off, he might need to be willing to negotiate and take some changes. Like for instance what if he could obtain a BETTER parcel, continue grazing his herd of cattle?

If he is unwilling to be involved with a give-take, win-win process, he stands less chance in the end.

[katzenjammer]

Not surprising to see who the bootlickers are!! smh