Mystery of the Shiree Bundy letter

[EVT1]

Had to move this to avoid topic creep:

The original quotes from here:  standwiththebundys.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/a-message-from-shiree-bundy-cox/   www.scribd.com/doc/217874478/A-Message-From-Shiree-Bundy-Cox-Stand-With-Cliven-and-Carol-Bundy

     “Sorry this is long but applicable here. 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 to it, but here it s 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 servival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars. These rights to the land use is 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 use to pay the BLM wages and to help with repaires 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 they’re own grazing fees. When they offered to buy my dad out for a penence 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 indangered species card. You’ve already heard about the desert tortis. 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 their desperate. It’s come down to buying the brand inspector off and threatening the County Sheriff. Everything their 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 exsisted. 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 Aucion 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”



Now it appears there are numerous versions of this quote in various states of editing depending on the website- an no one is linking to the original document.....

For example:
www.orlytaitzesq.com/clive-bundy-and-his-daughter-shiree-bundy-are-asking-for-your-help/


Legitimate or not?  It is just shocking to me how many websites have jumped on this 'letter', edited it, posted it as fact, and not investigated or in some cases not posted the source and no one seems to be questioning it.  When something is written this badly it should raise red flags- and so far I guess I am the only one- will probably get 0 responses  but at least the original version is posted before it magically changes.

[EVT1]

Bonus question for the literate- how many errors can you spot?

[Green Eyed Lady]

Apr 14, 2014 16:33:18 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Bonus question for the literate- how many errors can you spot?

Too many to count.  "Penance"?

[EVT1]

One response yay!

Hint- over 20- even spell check would have caught some of them.  It would give English teachers nightmares.  I wouldn't even grade it- just rip it in half.

[Green Eyed Lady]

It should be easy to concentrate on what she was saying instead of how she said it, but that's impossible for me.  It's one of my many failings.



ETA:  I make my own share of mistakes.  This makes my "failing" even worse.

[mmhmm]

I'm bad about that, too, GEL.  Spelling errors, errors in syntax, and punctuation errors can drive me to distraction.  I lose the whole gist of what's being said in the morass of errors.

[jkapp]

I'll sum it up, then, for the overly sensitive liberals (who don't seem to care about spelling and punctuation when it concerns an issue they agree with):

The ranchers bought the land decades ago...later the BLM showed up and charged them fees, but those fees were to pay for the BLM wages and also used to help maintain the land and ranches.  Later, the BLM used those fees to buy out the other ranchers, as well as tried to buy out the rancher in question for below-market prices (or at least less money than the rancher wanted for his land).  The rancher in question realized that the BLM had become another corrupt, power-hungry agency, so he fired them as they were no longer serving their established purpose.  When the rancher wouldn't sell, the BLM started using bullying tactics in the form of endangered species legislation and, later, the court system.

(a side not - if you want to know how the BLM really feels about animals, then look no further than their gunning down of wild horses in the northern parts of the state.)

So what this letter is detailing is the government's meticulous land grab from the area ranchers. Something that is bemoaned by the left when it comes to the native tribes of this country, but is apparently condoned when it comes to the ranchers in Nevada...

I suppose if you steal land by gunpoint, its wrong, but if you steal it using intimidation and threats, it's a-okay...as long as no guns are involved (although the BLM agents were packing during the standoff - but I guess that's okay too).

[The Captain]

Apr 16, 2014 9:43:10 GMT -5 jkapp said:

I'll sum it up, then, for the overly sensitive liberals (who don't seem to care about spelling and punctuation when it concerns an issue they agree with):

The ranchers bought the land decades ago...later the BLM showed up and charged them fees, but those fees were to pay for the BLM wages and also used to help maintain the land and ranches.  Later, the BLM used those fees to buy out the other ranchers, as well as tried to buy out the rancher in question for below-market prices (or at least less money than the rancher wanted for his land).  The rancher in question realized that the BLM had become another corrupt, power-hungry agency, so he fired them as they were no longer serving their established purpose.  When the rancher wouldn't sell, the BLM started using bullying tactics in the form of endangered species legislation and, later, the court system.

(a side not - if you want to know how the BLM really feels about animals, then look no further than their gunning down of wild horses in the northern parts of the state.)

So what this letter is detailing is the government's meticulous land grab from the area ranchers. Something that is bemoaned by the left when it comes to the native tribes of this country, but is apparently condoned when it comes to the ranchers in Nevada...

I suppose if you steal land by gunpoint, its wrong, but if you steal it using intimidation and threats, it's a-okay...as long as no guns are involved (although the BLM agents were packing during the standoff - but I guess that's okay too).

I think you're wrong. If I understand correctly they never owned the land outright, just the rights to use it. The BLM came in and changed the rules of use (which I would think is legal if you basically own it), the rancher didn't like it, and is protesting.

As far as trying to buy out at below market prices, apparently every other rancher didn't seem to think so...

[Deleted]

He quit paying the BLM but, tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down.

I don't agree with how the government spends my tax money but I don't stop paying taxes. And I would expect to be penalized if I did. 

I also suspect there's more to the "he tried to give his fees to the county which they turned down" story.

[mmhmm]

The rancher didn't buy the land.  The rancher bought grazing rights to the land.  The land still belonged to the government.  It never belonged to the rancher.  If you wish to cross my land to get to your favorite picnic spot, I'm free to give you permission to do so and set the circumstances under which you can do so.  If, however, I decide to fence my land to protect my wild flowers from your feet, I've got the right to do that, too.  I also have the right to withdraw any previous agreements since it's my land.  The "land grab" here is by the rancher who thinks he can graze his cattle on land that doesn't belong to him.

I can say my home and land are worth 5 million dollars.  If it's decided to build a freeway through my land, the government doesn't have to pay me what I say my home and land are worth. They pay the going rate, or market price.  That's life.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Apr 16, 2014 9:43:10 GMT -5 jkapp said:

I'll sum it up, then, for the overly sensitive liberals (who don't seem to care about spelling and punctuation when it concerns an issue they agree with):

The ranchers bought the land decades ago...later the BLM showed up and charged them fees, but those fees were to pay for the BLM wages and also used to help maintain the land and ranches.  Later, the BLM used those fees to buy out the other ranchers, as well as tried to buy out the rancher in question for below-market prices (or at least less money than the rancher wanted for his land).  The rancher in question realized that the BLM had become another corrupt, power-hungry agency, so he fired them as they were no longer serving their established purpose.  When the rancher wouldn't sell, the BLM started using bullying tactics in the form of endangered species legislation and, later, the court system.

(a side not - if you want to know how the BLM really feels about animals, then look no further than their gunning down of wild horses in the northern parts of the state.)

So what this letter is detailing is the government's meticulous land grab from the area ranchers. Something that is bemoaned by the left when it comes to the native tribes of this country, but is apparently condoned when it comes to the ranchers in Nevada...

I suppose if you steal land by gunpoint, its wrong, but if you steal it using intimidation and threats, it's a-okay...as long as no guns are involved (although the BLM agents were packing during the standoff - but I guess that's okay too).

Thanks...except I'm about as far from a "liberal" as a "conservative" can get. 

[jkapp]

Apr 16, 2014 9:59:36 GMT -5 @beerwench said:

He quit paying the BLM but, tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down.

I don't agree with how the government spends my tax money but I don't stop paying taxes. And I would expect to be penalized if I did. 

I also suspect there's more to the "he tried to give his fees to the county which they turned down" story.

No, even though government agencies always need more money, they will not accept money designated to a different agency. So the county would not accept BLM fees...however, the county would accept money from the BLM.  Frickin government, man!

[Green Eyed Lady]

Why would a person try to give the grazing fees to the county when they are quite clear on the fact the county doesn't own the land?  That doesn't make any sense.

[jkapp]

Apr 16, 2014 10:04:31 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

The rancher didn't buy the land.  The rancher bought grazing rights to the land.  The land still belonged to the government.  It never belonged to the rancher.  If you wish to cross my land to get to your favorite picnic spot, I'm free to give you permission to do so and set the circumstances under which you can do so.  If, however, I decide to fence my land to protect my wild flowers from your feet, I've got the right to do that, too.  I also have the right to withdraw any previous agreements since it's my land.  The "land grab" here is by the rancher who thinks he can graze his cattle on land that doesn't belong to him.

I can say my home and land are worth 5 million dollars.  If it's decided to build a freeway through my land, the government doesn't have to pay me what I say my home and land are worth. They pay the going rate, or market price.  That's life.

Yet, if you charged people to pass through your property, then most likely you had come up with some sort of agreement - let's say a document giving those people the right to walk across your land for the fee.  Now if you later change your mind and demand additional fees for people to use your land, have you not just broken the original agreement?  And if so, shouldn't those original fees be refunded?

[Deleted]

Now if you later change your mind and demand additional fees for people to use your land, have you not just broken the original agreement? And if so, shouldn't those original fees be refunded?

Why would I refund you your money? You've been walking on my land.

[mmhmm]

Apr 16, 2014 10:11:41 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Apr 16, 2014 10:04:31 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

The rancher didn't buy the land.  The rancher bought grazing rights to the land.  The land still belonged to the government.  It never belonged to the rancher.  If you wish to cross my land to get to your favorite picnic spot, I'm free to give you permission to do so and set the circumstances under which you can do so.  If, however, I decide to fence my land to protect my wild flowers from your feet, I've got the right to do that, too.  I also have the right to withdraw any previous agreements since it's my land.  The "land grab" here is by the rancher who thinks he can graze his cattle on land that doesn't belong to him.

I can say my home and land are worth 5 million dollars.  If it's decided to build a freeway through my land, the government doesn't have to pay me what I say my home and land are worth. They pay the going rate, or market price.  That's life.

Yet, if you charged people to pass through your property, then most likely you had come up with some sort of agreement - let's say a document giving those people the right to walk across your land for the fee.  Now if you later change your mind and demand additional fees for people to use your land, have you not just broken the original agreement?  And if so, shouldn't those original fees be refunded?

Since I'm the owner of the property, I'm free to change the rules regarding that property.  The original fees would not be returned as the person paying them had been crossing my land during the time he/she was paying them.  When I change the rules, they're no longer free to cross my land.  I could decide to put a gate in my fencing and allow the use of that gate for a fee. Pay it and you can cross my land. Don't pay it and you can't.  In this case, no "additional fees" are involved, since this dude isn't paying any fees at all and is still grazing his cattle on someone else's land.  Other ranchers have either chosen to pay fees or keep their cattle on their own land.  Bundy has chosen to take what he wants without consideration of anyone other than himself.

[Tennesseer]

Can a landlord not change the rent he charges renters year over year?  Or must he honor the original monthly rent for years to come.  Agreements change all the time and it is always in the owner's favor.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Deleted my post.  I'll try again later when I might actually be able to make sense!

[EVT1]

Apr 16, 2014 9:43:10 GMT -5 jkapp said:

I'll sum it up, then, for the overly sensitive liberals (who don't seem to care about spelling and punctuation when it concerns an issue they agree with):

The ranchers bought the land decades ago...later the BLM showed up and charged them fees, but those fees were to pay for the BLM wages and also used to help maintain the land and ranches.  Later, the BLM used those fees to buy out the other ranchers, as well as tried to buy out the rancher in question for below-market prices (or at least less money than the rancher wanted for his land).  The rancher in question realized that the BLM had become another corrupt, power-hungry agency, so he fired them as they were no longer serving their established purpose.  When the rancher wouldn't sell, the BLM started using bullying tactics in the form of endangered species legislation and, later, the court system.

(a side not - if you want to know how the BLM really feels about animals, then look no further than their gunning down of wild horses in the northern parts of the state.)

So what this letter is detailing is the government's meticulous land grab from the area ranchers. Something that is bemoaned by the left when it comes to the native tribes of this country, but is apparently condoned when it comes to the ranchers in Nevada...

I suppose if you steal land by gunpoint, its wrong, but if you steal it using intimidation and threats, it's a-okay...as long as no guns are involved (although the BLM agents were packing during the standoff - but I guess that's okay too).

Let me sum it up- this topic is about whether this lady wrote the letter or if it is a fake- leading to the question if so why is she that dumb?  The argument over the land is over at P&M thanks.

And BTW this letter is far worse than just spelling and punctuation.

[Deleted]

It wouldn't surprise me that she was dumb enough to write the letter. People are STOOPID! 

[EVT1]

I thought people with money tended to educate their kids- an 8th grader could rip this one apart.  I never call people out for making some errors- but this was so terrible it needed a thread. I can't believe she wrote this. Pretty suspicious the blogger from the original source made one of the same errors in his bio.  That's the mystery.