Exclusive: Does Cliven Bundy Have Something Called “Prescriptive Rights”, Why The BLM May Be Afraid To Go To Court

By: Ben Swann
552

In this ongoing story surrounding cattle rancher Cliven Bundy, there are a series of questions media has ignored. For instance, in the 20 years Bundy hasn’t been paying his fees, why hasn’t he been taken to court? Why this year, spend nearly $1,000,000 of taxpayer money to round up 400 cattle that ultimately have to be returned? Why didn’t the BLM just place a lien on the cattle rather than attempting to take them by force and then auction them off? The Bureau of Land Management has suffered a huge black eye this week because of their response to the Bundy situation. Perhaps though, there is a reason the BLM chose force over the courts.

In an exclusive interview with Benswann.com, Montana cattle rancher Todd Devlin says the BLM is now considering new ways of dealing with the Cliven Bundy situation. Devlin, is not just Montana cattle rancher but is also a County Commissioner in Prairie County Montana and he has worked with the Department of Interior, having taught workshops for the agency in the past. Monday, Devlin reached out to his contacts in the Department of the Interior to find out why the Bureau of Land Management has refused to work with Bundy rather than simply attempting to run over him.


Among the questions Devlin asked of the BLM, “Is it possible that this guy (Cliven Bundy) has prescriptive rights?” The response from top officials at the BLM, “We are worried that he might and he might use that defense.”

So what exactly are prescriptive rights? Prescriptive right to property is an easement that gives some one the right to use land owned by someone else for a particular purpose. An example is using a path through Party A’s land to get to your land, a prescriptive easement is allowed which gives the user the right to get to his land through A’s property.

In most states, if a trespass or use of land occurs regularly for at least 5 years without the “owner” of the land taking legal action, prescriptive rights come into play. Because Bundy stopped paying his grazing fees to the BLM in 1993 but continued to use the land for over 20 years, it is possible he now has prescriptive rights to the land. That might explain why the BLM has not taken this issue to court and never bothered to file a lien against the cattle.

Granted, there have been court actions over the years. In 1998 a federal judge issued a permanent injunction against Bundy, ordering him to remove his cattle from the federal lands. He lost an appeal to the San Francisco 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Yet, the “trespass cattle” remained on the BLM land. In fact, it took until August of 2013 for a court order to be issued saying Bundy had 45 days to remove his cattle from federal land. 15 years went by from the time of the last court case over the cattle until the BLM attempted to remove the livestock.

Of course, Bundy has not made the claim that he will not pay the fees, he simply says he will not pay those fees to the BLM because he doesn’t recognize federal authority over the land. Bundy has said that in the past, that he would pay fees to Clarke County, Nevada, though Clarke County has refused to accept them. The BLM has insisted that Bundy owes $1.1 million dollars in grazing fees for his trespass cattle.

“The actual number is probably around $200,000. The $1.1 million claimed by the BLM is probably mostly interest and penalties for trespass cattle.” says Devlin, who goes on to say that it is unlikely that Clarke County would be able to collect those penalties.

When Devlin reached out to the BLM, he suggested that the federal agency just allow Bundy to pay the fees to the county rather than continuing with these aggressive tactics to confiscate his cattle.

“Why don’t you just let him pay them there (Clarke County)? I got a call back from the liaison saying ‘Yes, pursue it.’” Devlin reached out to contacts in Nevada to get that process moving forward. If that were to happen, Clarke County could collect the grazing fees and if it desired to do so could hand those fees over to the BLM.

Finally, Devlin says instead of allowing the situation with Bundy’s cattle to grow completely out of control, the BLM could have simply placed a lien on the cattle in the first place. Of course, that lien might have been rejected in court if Bundy were able to demonstrate those prescriptive rights. Then again, the courts so far have sided with the government, therefore it is even more baffling why the lien wasn’t placed on the livestock.

Days after the BLM has claimed they will stand down, they are now reportedly considering a lien on the cattle,

“I asked why you didn’t put a lien against the cattle?” Devlin asked the BLM. “They hadn’t thought about that but they are considering it now”

Support the Truth In Media Project


"Like" Ben Swann on Facebook
  • Death to Tyrants

    They’re afraid to go to court because Bundy is in the right. He has the grazing and water rights to that land and he doesn’t have to pay the government to keep them. That’s what this is all about. Maybe you guys should pay more attention to some of your readers. Anyone with a brain already knows that Bundy has the law on his side.

    Every-single-man in America, who is forced away from his children by the unconstitutional family courts so that they can extort “child support” from the father, also has the law on his side, but God only knows how long it will take ignorant criminals like you people to figure that out.

    The criminals who run the courts are taking hundreds of years of precedent and throwing it out the window and most of the people responsible are “white females”.

    How long will it take to get that truth out? We may never survive long enough to learn the full truth of how damaging feminism, the Federal Reserve Bank and the “progressive income tax” has been in destroying America.

    • HaveYourCake

      Unfortunately the author of the article doesn’t know his ass from his elbow. Bundy has been taken to court and the appeals process ran out. Bundy had full on judgments, and liens against him and his ranch.

      • Death to Tyrants

        The courts are run by criminals.
        Bundy is in the right.
        What part of that don’t you understand?

        • Vance

          You can’t. Argue with individuals that will give up our freedoms and rights just to claim to be right.

      • MAA Oregon

        Can you cite the source for this? That would be helpful to educate folks. Thanks!

    • Brenda

      “white females” ? Would you care to elaborate on that?

    • FedUp

      Here’s a guy who was probably “forced” away from his family for beating them into an emergency room, an is now pissed he has to pay their medical expenses.

      • You are a Sicko

        And you’re probably a sick pig who wrote that comment with the blood of the 10th child you’ve murdered running down your legs and you justify the murder by calling it your choice.

        Makes a lot more sense than the comment you made seeing as how so few men actually beat their families and how sooooo…. many females have abortions.

        • FedUp

          Actually, I’m happily married, and never had an abortion, your as wrong about that as you are about the percentages of woman and children who have suffered from domestic abuse. As I’m quite sure you wouldn’t believe me I suggest you actually research the sad facts.

        • FedUp

          Wow.. I’m the sicko? Seriously? Get some help! Who said anything about abortions? As it happens, I’m happily married, no abortions. I just take exception to crazy people blaming their family court issues on “white women”. Oh….and look up the statistics on domestic abuse sometime, if that’s your idea of a “very few” I feel sorry for you.

      • ScarletPimpernil

        Do you get out unsupervised often? I can see why not.

        I got into the business of law when I learned it was a purchased thing, and I could not afford to purchase it. After nearly three decades, I can say, with all certainty, a comment like this would only be made by someone wholly ignorant of the family law system.

        That judge or commissioner sitting on the bench is no less prone to bias than anyone else. If you doubt that, take some time and review the many listings of Judicial Conduct Commission censorings.

        Yesterday, that judge or commissioner was just another incompetent attorney. Only by promoting themselves in a political arena did they acquire the seats they hold.

        Consider this one, of many examples of actions by judiciary: Most states require one to obtain a business license to operate a business, and to contract. Guardians ad litem contract with the courts and are paid as private contractors. The animators of the courts knowingly and willingly pay them, as contractors, without any verification they have complied with the law by attaining a business license.

        After nearly three decades, I could write volumes on the illegal or otherwise improper activities of those associated with the judiciary. It is all documented in the public record, available for review via your state’s public records laws.

        Only idiots or those consumed by prejudices would fabricate obvious speculations, as you did, post them as fact, and make such an easy target of themselves.

        • Bobbup

          Hence, the old joke, what do you call a guy who graduated at the bottom of his class in law school?

          “Your honor.”

        • FedUp

          Oh yes, I forgot, us “white women” are responsible for getting together and destroying justice in the court system, right….and you’re worried about me getting out? It’s people like you and “Death to Tyrants” up there that give the conservatives a bad name. I agree that Bundy is being railroaded and the courts are bending over to the BLM. But saying it’s all “white woman’s”fault? Seriously? You’re going to defend that? You’re nuttier than a fruitcake.

    • HoppinJohn

      He lost 2 court battles and 4 appeals, Yeah, the law is on his side alright, and you sound like your ex-wife screwed you over in your divorce, quit your whining.

  • Fraze Turner

    The news reports that Mr. Bundy has already lost three times in court. Is that incorrect?

    • HaveYourCake

      You are not incorrect. He has been to court multiple times.

    • Death to Tyrants

      The courts are corrupt. Whether or not that is the case, (losing three times) can you lose three courts cases if the courts are corrupt – or – are you being cheated by lawless criminals.

      Figure that out for yourself.

      • HoppinJohn

        Troll

  • Spellcheck

    *Lein

    • Spellcheck

      **Lien.

    • Guest

      The word is Lien. Not Lein.

  • Cathy McMahan

    they should be in state court not federal, this is not a federal issue.

    • HoppinJohn

      If it is Federal land it goes to Federal Court. So they have it right.

  • http://www.immigration-weaver.blogspot.com/ weaver

    I don’t know about preemptive rights, Nevada has a screwed up Constitution and a history of government corruption concerning land deals, but there is this….
    The charges against Colvin were dismissed,[1] Chief Judge Robert C. Jones of the Federal District Court of Nevada found in favor of Hage concerning water rights, grazing rights and all but two livestock trespass charges in United States vs. Wayne Hage (2013).[1][2]

    Judge Jones found:[3]

    Congress prescribed grazing rights on federal lands were to be granted based on a rancher’s ownership of water rights established under local law and custom.[3]

    Hage has a right of access to put his livestock water rights to beneficial use, therefore the livestock could not be found in trespass.[3] [Within one half mile of water rights][1]

    USFS employee Steve Williams was found in contempt of court and guilty of witness intimidation.[2][1][4]

    Tonopah BLM manager Tom Seley as found in contempt of court and guilty of witness intimidation.[2][1][4]

    Williams and Seley were held personally liable for damages with fines exceeding $33,000.[3]

    The Hage’s were found guilty of only two minor trespass violations and were fined $165.88[1]

    Regional Forester Harv Forsgren was excluded from testifying at trial during witness credibility hearing for lying to the Court.[3][4]

    Chief Judge Robert C. Jones stated at the conclusion of the case:

    “I find specifically that beginning in the late ‘70s and ‘80s, first, the Forest Service entered into a conspiracy to intentionally deprive the defendants here of their grazing rights, permit rights, preference rights.” [3][4]

    Statement of Randy N. Parker for, The US House of Representatives, Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Water and Power, October 10, 2013

    ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f “UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA”. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. ESTATE OF E. WAYNE HAGE et al., Defendants. R-Calf USA. 23 May 3013. Retrieved 15 April 2014. “2:07-cv-01154-RCJ-VCF”

    ^ Jump up to:a b c “COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 113th Congress”. Oversight Hearing on “Threats, Intimidation and Bullying by Federal Land Managing Agencies” October 29, 2013. United States House of Representatives. 29 October 2013. Retrieved 15 April 2014. “Wayne N Hage Testimony”

    ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Parker, Randy N. (10 October 2013). “H.R. 3189 “The Water Rights Protection Act””. United States House of Representatives. Retrieved 4 April 2014.

    ^ Jump up to:a b c d Jasper, William F. (June 3, 2012). “Federal Judge Rules for Property Rights, Smacks Down Abusive Feds”. New American. Archived from the original on April 14, 2014. Retrieved April 14, 2014. “In fact, Judge Jones accused the federal bureaucrats of racketeering under the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations) statute, and accused them as well of extortion, mail fraud, and fraud, in an effort “to kill the business of Mr. Hage.””

  • MAA Oregon

    Little error paragraph 6:

    “Granted, their have been court actions over the years.”

    should be

    “Granted, there have been court actions over the years.”

    • Grammar Nazi

      Typical control-freak behavior.
      You are pathetic.

      • BenMerca

        someone needs to these days…

  • ncbill

    This is just another name for an ‘adverse possession’ claim.

    Except ‘adverse possession’ claims CANNOT be filed against public (state or federal) land.

    So, no, there are no ‘prescriptive rights’ in the Bundy case.

    • ScarletPimpernil

      However, the law is the law is the law: We The People may do any act not proscribed, but [representative] government may only do what is prescribed.

      A case like this could become very complex. If Bundy’s rights matured before BLM arrived on the scene, any transfer to federal ownership, or management which failed to address it might be assailable.

      The right or wrong of Bundy’s actions, or inaction, aside, BLM resorted to self help. Back to my first lines – can the BLM bypass the usual procedures for enforcing a judgment? Where is its authority to do so?

      Regarding prescription by another other name, keep in mind, theft is just that for purposes of criminal matters, but it’s conversion for purposes of civil matters.

      Even a state or other government can waive rights. Were it otherwise, we would have no statute of limitations on criminal actions, cities could not abandon alleys, the state could not hand land over to the fed and so forth.

      If the county or state leased land for years, it waived some of its rights. Consider, for example, the Clearfield Doctrine – when governments descend to the corporate level they CEASE to be governmental entities. That is, they move to the status of mere corporations.

      • ncbill

        “If Bundy’s rights matured before BLM arrived on the scene”

        They didn’t.

        The land passed directly from Mexico to the federal government decades before Bundy claims his family was grazing there.

        NV never made a legal claim on the land in question.

        The Bundy family had the use of the land for free until the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, which was specifically written to impose grazing fees on federal lands formerly grazed for free.

        So there never were ‘grandfather’ rights for any rancher to continue to graze on federal land for free.

        Bundy’s family continued to pay the BLM grazing fees until 1993, when they objected to the terms of the new contract and refused to sign -so their legal right to graze on the land ended in early 1993 with the expiration of the permit.

        It does not matter that Bundy objected to the terms of the new contract – courts have held the BLM has broad authority to regulate use of the land.

        Yes, even if that means the new permit only allows a herd 10% of the previous size to graze.

        • ScarletPimpernil

          Why, then, was he paying the county in the past? Something doesn’t jive.

          • ncbill

            He attempted to make one payment of under $2000 back in 1994 to the county, an amount that would cover less than 1/10 the size of the herd he currently has grazing on the disputed land.

            The county didn’t accept it and he made no further effort to pay anyone.

          • builder21

            What ncbill glossed over was the transition from the Taylor Grazing Act in 1934 to the creation of the BLM in 1946, at which time it hijacked the General Land Office (GLO) somehow convincing the rubes that “grazing lands” and “ALL lands” in general were the same.

            Well, in their defense, they DO see all inhabitants of the land as “grazing” livestock worthy of fee-ing and taxing, sooo…………

          • HoppinJohn

            Bundy said he tried to pay at the county office but they declined his payment, due to fact they did not own the land.

  • Dawn

    Yeah… Except none of that is gonna happen, because none of this is really over unpaid fees. Someone with much deeper pockets than Bundy wants the land. The only thing keeping the family safe is media attention. Eventually, they’ll figure out some “legal” backdoor to get them off the land. Then, whether it’s Chinese solar panel, or fracking, you can bet whatever company runs that won’t be paying any fees.

    • Witchwindy

      Many think that “legal back door” won’t be anything legal at all, but rather a midnight raid on the ranch where the family might all end up dead at the hands of the fed gov thugs (like Waco but not publicized).

      • HoppinJohn

        I heard the Oath Keepers were going to shoot them and blame it on the Govt. for their American Spring movement.

  • Helen Love

    I have been repeating this for a week so I apologize if I’ve become a bit boring. But, as far as I have been able to see in my Research, the Provence on this land is clear. Spain owned the land via exploration and conquest. Then Mexico gained the land through a War with Spain which ended in 1821, when Mexico was recognized as an Independant Country. The Mexican -American War (1846-8) concluded with the Guadelupe Hildago treaty which ceeded the land to the U.S. Federal Government- We won the war and paid the Mexican Government $15 Million for the rights to this land. Nevada was established first as a Territory in 1861 then was declared the 36th State by President Lincoln in 1864. It joined the Union in the Civil War to fight against the bid of the Confederates to establish States rights over Federal rights…And the Union won, establishing the Federal Government as the Primary Law maker. At no time ( at least as far as I’ve been able to determine) did the Federal Government cede title to the Federal Lands to the State. They allowed Homesteading and gave titles for those specific plots to the individual owners then,eventually set up a system to rent tracts to the Ranchers for grazing. This was clearly a rental and not a purchase either by the State or the Individual. Mr Bundy seems to have understood this as he paid fees to graze his cattle on the land until a section of that land became unavailable (set aside for the Turtle conservation).When he was told that he couldn’t graze his cattle on that specific acerage, he stopped paying the rent (1993) and continued grazing his cattle despite all the warnings and demands for him to remove them. He has been to court twice and failed to make his case both times. His argument seems to be that his right to use that land pre-dates the presence of the BLM, but the BLM is just an agency of the US Government which has owned the land since 1848 and Mr Bundy’s Family, according to his statement, moved to the area in 1877. It seems to me that his argument is very much like me saying I do not have to obey the speeding laws because I was driving on the road years before the signs were erected :)

    • Jarrod Hasty
      • Helen Love

        Thank You for posting the interview. The vid is a bit glitchy but it was interesting…The difference I see in his situation and Mr Bundy’s, is that he had a provable case and prevailed in Court while Mr Bundy hasn’t. I’m no fan of the BLM but the place for battling about these things in in the courts. Mr Bundy has been to court twice and lost. He tried paying the fees to the State and even the State of Nevada knew better than to accept the funds due to the Feds. His problem is (at least as far as I see it) that he acknowledged the rights of the Feds when he paid the fees in the first place. He has had twenty years to make other arrangements or decrease the herd to reflect the smaller allotment of land available to him and he hasn’t. His response is to bring in loonie tunes with guns and start a media blitz and raise the ire of every activist in the Country. If he was hoping to bypass the legal system and win the hearts of the tax paying, American Public, I’m afraid he is failing at that as well. For every vid showing Cowboys waving American flags and herding calves, you’ll see another of Penned Mustangs and the destruction of the fragile public lands. I’m very glad that the Feds have backed off and bloodshed was averted. But we all know this isn’t the end of the conflict and we all know who ends up getting hurt in this sort of battle. I’m frankly, concerned for the Family.

        • Baladas

          Bundy has a provable case. The 9th circuit is in the federal government (BLM and Harry Reid’s) pocket. Bundy’s lawyers sold him down the river and did not act according to the rights he has, according to the Nevada legislatures wishes, and that was proven by a texas lawyer live on the Kevin Allan show who reviewed the judges ruling and the tactics used by Bundy’s sell out lawyers.

          http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1nljfq_bundy-ranch-live-show_news

          The federal judiciary has failed Nevada and failed Bundy, and his only recourse is to bend knee or stand. He did the latter.

          • HoppinJohn

            He lost most of his cases and appeals B.H. (before Harry)

    • Witchwindy

      The fed gov did not ever cede any land to the States as they were formed, but it was recognized that as soon as a territory became a State the land within the sovereign State’s borders immediately became the property of the State, and no longer owned, managed or controlled by the fed gov.

      • Tom B

        Correct!

    • Baladas

      Helen. In 2013 The Nevada Legislature acted to address the issue of the federal gov. continuing to claim title/ownership of unappropriated public lands within Nevada borders. According to multiple acts of congress, including the recognition of the Nevada state constitution by congress, the feds have broken their contract which states they MUST dispose unappropriated public land to the state, and those lands which they hold in order to fulfill enumerated powers of congress, they must compensate Nevada for. They have done neither. Nevada is on Bundy’s side.

      2013 Nevada Revised Statutes
      Chapter 321 – Administration, Control and Transfer of State Lands
      http://law.justia.com/codes/nevada/2013/chapter-321/statute-321.596

      Nevada Constitution.
      http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Const/NvConst.html

      • Helen Love

        Thank You So Much Jester for being polite :)… I’m honestly not being agressive when I ask questions, I’m just miserably confused about everything that is going on :) None of it makes any sense to me – too many loud voices with too many opposing views, so I revert to type and go back to the beginning. Could you tell me ,please, when the State Constitution changed? Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution:All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.

        • Jester

          Helen. According to the Nevada legislature, and the facts they rest their case on, the Federal government has exceeded the power vested to them by the people, as proscribed in the US constitution, by breaking their contractual obligations, and ignoring legal challenge. So it is the duty of the American Citizens within the borders of Nevada, who grant authority to the federal government, to revoke it. The federal government has not recognized the peaceful attempt of those American Citizens of Nevada to divest them of their false authority.

          So, there are 2 options left. Bend a knee and surrender to tyranny, or stand up and resist. Everyone has freedom of choice in that regard.

          • Helen Love

            Again, I thank you for your patience ’cause I still do not understand when this land was transferred into the keeping of the State?..The Feds owned it before the State was created, Mr Bundy paid for grazing rights until 1993..He tried to pay the State for Grazing rights and they wouldn’t accept the funds because they couldn’t..So where is the tyranny?..He paid for the grazing rights. , as far as I know, his parents paid for the grazing rights. They all acknowledged the Feds right to this land until a section was blocked off for a Tortoise Sancutuary.If this Land is owned by the State they have had twenty years and two really looong court cases to prove it and they’ve failed. I am really worried about Mr Bundy and his Babies, I’ve heard that he has lost Critters already -since this had gone viral every nut job with a cause has become invovled. Gun toting Militia on one side, animal rights activists on the other.Gotta say, as far as I”ve seen the Feds have a right by the basic law, but I’m really worried for the safety of the Bundy Family and his livestock..You want to talk about Waco ? Who ended up suffering for that?..They are’t even considered heros, they are just gone. So who wins in the end ?If we are not a nation of laws who are we?

          • Jester

            In 1996 Nye county Nevada challenged the Federal Governments ownership of lands and jurisdiction in their county. They lost in federal district court on technicalities and trickery as you can see if you can read between the lines of the judgment.

            http://www.leagle.com/decision/19962028920FSupp1108_11870

            People can only resist such a leviathan as the fed in small increments. There was no reason and no public support before the 1990′s to buck the system, so he paid for his permits and the regulations were not yet designed to kick him off the land. In 93 he saw the writing on the wall. He fought for 20 years in court and had the TRUTH on his side, but as you know, if they are motivated, attorneys (including judges) use legalese to support their own agenda.

            If the feds had truth on their side, their actions would not scream the opposite. Judging by their actions it is plain as day that no matter what they say, they could not possibly be abiding by their constitutional limitations, unless we consider the drafters of the constitution to be incompetent fools.

            This is why so many people refuse to hear any discussion over what is LEGAL anymore, because they KNOW that they are being lied to by sophists. They know by observation of the results of a persons actions if they are abiding by THE LAW. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, love thy neighbor, and do no harm.

            Bundy’s were out of time and had to take a stand or lose everything and concurrently enough people have woke up to the truth which is why so many flew to their support unhesitatingly, without questioning what the attorneys decided years ago. They knew in their hearts that no cattle trespassing on empty land could justify what they saw the BLM doing and didn’t need to ask a lawyer what to do about it.

      • HoppinJohn

        Your links disprove your land theory.
        Plus, Clark County, Nevada deputies have been serving the Bundy’s their evictions notices and court summons, including last summer and this year.
        Nevada can not change the way the Federal Govt disposes of their land, only land owned by Nevada.

        • Jester

          According to people like you, since Clark county law enforcement ignores the will of the people and acts under color of law, this somehow legitimizes federal tyranny, and as long as they haven’t created a federal statute to directly take from you and yours, you can enjoy another day, month, or year of blissful ignorance, until you are finally thrown under the bus.

          You have no grasp of history. Life is a spiritual battle at some point you must die to live, or live on your knees under a jack boot. Fence sitters eventually get kicked off on one side or the other and according to the Supreme Judge, yes there is a difference in what side you land on. Choose wisely.

          • HoppinJohn

            I have a great grasp of history, I just do not read into what I want. How did that civil war thing work out, and there a lot less of you jack-booted thugs than then there were confederate soldiers.

          • Jester

            nice try. throughout history, those who deem to control others via illegitimate governmental policies, or who support those who do, have been resisted by those whose spirit of independent self determination cannot be broken. Of course it is difficult to break the spirit of greed and avarice which leads to the tactics of the overbearing bully. Which is why if a bully does not respond to impassioned pleas for reason and refuses to honor the personal boundaries of their fellows, the equation is simple.

            Serve the bullies whims, or resist and put them in their place at all costs. Simplicity at its finest. When I was a child I fought back against the bullies. That will never change.

    • BenMerca

      Thanks for your effort, your response and this article have opened the field of debate, these issues are rarely cut and dry. I think both entities have accountability with regard to how this has come to a disruptive conclusion. A fair compromise is in order, and that would clear the air of all the disinformation , speculation and wishful thinking on both sides of the fence.

    • Tom B

      The government has to cede the land over to the state of Nevada.The SC decided that issue in 1845 and it’s never been overturned.What’s really happening is the federal government is trying to steal the land in Nevada.All created states must have a level playing field with the original 13 states.

      • Helen Love

        Nevada was not one of the original Colonies, it wasn’t even one of the Ceeding States. It joined the Union on the side of the Feds with the Leaders, and the Comstock mine, supporting the Feds..There could very well be some basis for this current conflict, but it is’t historical.

        • Jester

          The point is the equal footing doctrine was based on the Northwest ordinance and it matters not that Nevada was formed from captured Mexican territory. The principle is that the fed is meant to dispose unappropriated lands period because they are bound by the constitution. So the stipulation the feds required in the cession to Nevada is unconstitutional on its face due to the fact that until Congress passes an act specifying their authority to own land outside the power enumerated in Art1Sec8 of the constitution, they have no legal footing. The Nevada legislature made note of that, but never went so far as to enforce their statute. Clive Bundy just became the defacto Sheriff of Nevada.

          • la Bestia Negra

            Did you come up with this mangled interpretation of SCOTUS’ “Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan”, or are you copying it from some wingnut militia site?

            In either case, it’s totally FUBAR.

            First of all, you’re totally misreading Article 1, Sec 8 of the Constitution. The Article doesn’t say the Feds can’t own land – it says, in fact, just the opposite – that the Feds, using their power of EMINENT DOMAIN, may indeed take ANY land from ANY state, so long as it is for a VALID FEDERAL PURPOSE – Military reserves, Federal infrastructure projects (such as the TVA for example), etc.

            It happens all the time – haven’t you noticed?

            Second, the whole point in Pollard was that it was the the sovereign state of Georgia that had originally ceded the land that would become Alabama to the U.S., with the stipulation that when certain conditions arose (sufficient population), the territory would become a state; ie, that ALL THE LAND therein would become state land. By accepting title to the land from Georgia – one of the original sovereign states, existing before the Constitution of 1787, the U.S. was bound to accept Georgia’s stipulation that the land would all belonging to any new state that was formed from the territory.

            That same stipulation, by the way, didn’t apply in the Northwest Ordinance case, because that land was ceded to the United States PRIOR to the 1787 Constitution – in effect, Virginia ceded Ohio to the original “Confederate” United States. So when the U.S. was LATER “formed” by the 1787 Constitution, any prior agreement with the state of Virginia became moot and void – at that point, the land belonged to the new U.S. Federal govt, free and clear of any prior restraint.

            And, by the way, the so-called Equal Footing clause you also mention is completely irrelevant to the issue of the Federal ownership of land.

            The Nevada Territory, on the other hand, was never owned by any state of the United States when Mexico ceded it to the U.S. In fact it didn’t even belong to Mexico at the time; the California “Bear Flag” revolt had occurred earlier that year, and the California Republic (which included, at the time, the Nevada Territory) had already proclaimed its independence and established itself as a sovereign country!! Mexico “ceding” it to the U.S. just confirmed that the U.S. would not suffer any objection from Mexico if the U.S. decided to admit the California Republic into the Union. And that in fact, of course, did occur – California applied for and was granted admission to the union as a state, and in doing so released the attached California territory of Nevada to the Feds, who turned around and attached it to the newly acquired territory of New Mexico (acquired from Mexico after the war). So NO U.S. state had prior sovereignty over, or ownership of, the land in Nevada, NO U.S. state had established any “conditions” about who would own the land in Nevada when it became a state – and accordingly, the U.S. Federal government was CONSTITUTIONALLY allowed to retain land in Nevada AFTER the state was formed.

            A totally different case than that which applied in Alabama, and in the Pollack decision.

            You need to learn to treat EVERYTHING you get off these wacko anti-government militia websites as ABSOLUTE, TOTAL B.S. (because that’s exactly what it is), and to do your own research before coming onto these forums and making yourself look, at best, like an ingenuous tool of these dishonest militia wackos – or, at worst, just a plain fool. .

          • Jester

            I simply realize that the federal government cannot possibly be working within the limitations of authority intended by the framers, due to the harm and anguish their decisions cause. To believe otherwise is to label the framers incompetent.

            Equal Footing is a principle first articulated in the NW ordinance but was specifically interpreted by the Supreme Court in Coyle v. Smith to be extended and applicable to all created states, and that any limitation the state was forced to include in their constitution as a matter of enabling the state’s creation is unenforceable.

            The Court noted that the power given to Congress by Art. IV, § 3, of the Constitution is to admit new States to the Union, and relates only to such States as are equal to each other in power and dignity and
            competency to exert the remainder of sovereignty not delegated to the Federal Government.

            And they opined in conclusion: “To this we may add that the constitutional equality of the States is essential to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was organized. When that equality disappears, we may remain a free people, but the Union will not be the Union of the Constitution”

            I admit you have a superior understanding of the chain of provenance of the land now sitting within the borders of Nevada. Thank you for the history lesson.

            However, there are some Supreme court jurists who disagree with you as to its relevance as well as millions of justifiably angry Americans. The equal footing doctrine certainly applies to the federal ownership of land when the federal government manages that land in a manner detrimental to the interests of the citizens of the sovereign state it lies in, and renders it incapable of being equal with its neighbors. Nevada legislature made a damn good case for that and the facts speak for themselves.

            It is inconceivable how anyone can look at the way the fed uses land in certain instances and consider it a valid federal purpose, or “necessary and proper”. Are they and the federal courts the final arbiter of what is necessary and proper? The federal lands are meant to be managed by input from both federal agents AND the state government. If the state government feels they need to kick out the feds from certain land projects, perhaps that tells you something about the how the feds honor that partnership?

            Judging by the fruits, I don’t care what legal sophistry is employed to justify despotic overreach that harms everyone involved. Such court orders enforced at the point of a gun can only be responded to in one way that reserves dignity and integrity.

            And if saying so makes me a whacko fool, I wear that badge with honor. Better that then a Despotic Jackboots bucket boy.

          • HoppinJohn

            Just admit, just like Cliven, you don’t like it so it doesn’t exist.
            If you cover your eyes no one can see you.

          • Jester

            what an inane comment

          • Yousuck

            But it was funny.
            Two wrongs don’t make it right, and both sides are in the wrong. Pointing guns at each other wont solve the issue.

          • Jester

            You bleating about Cliven Bundy being in the wrong does not make it so.

            You believing that it does? That is funny.

          • Yousuck

            LaLaLaLa, I can’t hear you.
            You and people like you are the reason this county has gone down the shitter, your lack of respect for the Constitution and for other people knows no bounds

          • Jester

            I have respect for the Constitution for it is a divine covenant. I have nothing but contempt for those who interpret and misconstrue it to suit their tyrannical penchant to control and steal from hard working God loving Americans. Who try to piss on us while telling us it is just raining.

            The reason this country is on the decline is described by greater men than me.

            Isa 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put
            darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet,
            and sweet for bitter!

            1Timothy 4:1-2, “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that IN THE LATTER
            TIMES some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits,
            and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their
            conscience seared with a hot iron.”

            2Timothy 4:3-4, “For THE TIME WILL COME when they will not endure sound
            doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves
            teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from
            the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”

          • Yousuck

            You lost me at divine covenant. I believe in God and am strong in my faith, I attended Catholic school up until high school. My church, my school, and I still believe in the separation of church and state.

          • Jester

            The separation is meant to be between religion and state. There are many denominations of churches which promulgate various religious rites and practices which is why no church was meant to govern the state and rightly so. And the state was not meant to establish a religion or favor one over another.

            However, to perceive the Constitution as a divine covenant between God and those who would govern His great experiment in liberty and Justice for all named America, is not a mistake of merging church and state. It is a purely spiritual perspective. Church attendance and religious practice may foster spirituality in a man, but it is not a requirement for that end.

            The laws of this country were based on the golden rule and the 10 commandments which are spiritual practices in themselves which transcend the various religious rites of the many churches. The organic laws of the United States which began with the Declaration of Independence and ended with the Constitution were inspired from within the hearts of Godly spiritual men. Which is why officials and public servants swear oaths upon that other inspired document called the Bible.

        • Tom B

          You haven’t the slightest clue what you are talking about and as I can tell you don’t even understand how states were even created post the 13 states.

        • la Bestia Negra

          Helen, Jester doesn’t know what he’s talking about – he’s just pulling all of this nonsense out of his ass. Please see my answer to one of his senseless ramblings a little further below…

      • mjhoop

        It’s all the fault of the lawyers in Congress! Too many laws, most contradictory. Let’s burn them all and start again.

      • HoppinJohn

        That not the way at least six judges see it, they have found Bundy in the wrong in two court battles and 4 different appeals.

    • Clarence Darrow

      ” It seems to me that his argument is very much like me saying I do not have to obey the speeding laws because I was driving on the road years before the signs were erected :)
      That’s because you are obviously a simpleton who doesn’t understand the law.
      Now run along like a good little girl.

      • Helen Love

        I could very well be a simpleton. And I admit I do not understand the compexities of the law..But it seems to me that this fella has had twenty years, the benifit of attorneys and,legislators, a strong Religous lobby as well as the Cattlemans assoc…and he still lost his court cases.And if the best response he has to the non-agressive questions of a Simpleton is an attack, the guy is toast..Thing is, I feel sorry for this guy and I don’t like the BLM.But we are a country based on laws and I haven’t seen any basis for his complaint -He recognized and supported the rights of the Government up until `1993, then he stopped, changed directions and got himself tangled up with fringe elements that might, or might not, be right, but are certainly NOT mainstream. And the quickest way to look like an extremeist idiot is to attack someone asking simple questions – Just saying it’s your choice- He has lost in the courts, all he has left are the American People.If you believe this Guy has been cheated, you had darned well better be willing to explain why without attacking the people who ask the questions.

        • Clarence Darrow

          You are a nutcase, there is no arguing with a nutcase, sorry to disappoint you.

        • builder21

          You believe you live in a country of laws, but you can’t seem to differentiate between the lawful ones, and the unlawful ones.
          My guess is you’re a product of the Public Education System.
          You also emphasize Patriotic Americans as NOT mainstream.
          Even more evidence of indoctrination…

  • Frank Koza

    There are two parts to this. The first, the courts are geared to support big government regulatory themes and claims they created against the ranchers. As with New London v Kelo, it doesn’t matter if the Bundy’s kept up paying their imposed grazing fees. There, even the SCOTUS ruled in favor of using eminent domain to allow governments to kick people off the land to turn it over to other private big monied interests who will put the land to more profitable use by defining as “for the public good” as increased tax revenue. They don’t give a rat’s behind about prescriptive rights.
    The second is this isn’t solely about ranchers, but big money and its effect on free enterprise. As more small multi-generational family ranchers give up the fight against a bureaucracy prosecuting long term plans to drive them out out of business and off the land, the future of ranching will look more like the way big cities and big money control the taxi industry:
    http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/22/the-medallion-bill-is-back-dc-taxi-chief
    The liberals portraying the Bundy family as wealthy fat-cat squatters on “their” public land don’t realize they too will always lose out to the big money on “their” land.

    • mjhoop

      We have met the enemy and he is us……
      I was with you until you used the L word. Why is that the word for people who believe in freedom is now a dirty word, a slam, an accusation? Sad.

      Impeach SCOTUS. Where can I find that bumper sticker?

      • Frank Koza

        I do apologize. There are certainly large numbers of conservatives and even some libertarians (self-identified) saying the same thing. Using that word was a knee-jerk reaction on my part after just viewing Thom Hartmann proclaiming that.

  • Lance Spivey

    Don’t forget: China wants to develop that land!

    • John Wesley Camp

      the chinese solar project is located 176 miles away in Laughlin.

      • Witchwindy

        Yes but Harry Reid wants Bundy’s land for mitigation of the changes the solar array will do to the area in which it will be built (if they get away with this theft).

        • Baladas

          that solar project in Laughlin was cancelled. There are 2 major projects by Brightsource Energy in the Dry Lake Solar energy zone directly adjacent to the Gold Butte land where Bundy grazes his cattle. Brightsource MUST pay for the conversion of Gold Butte to a conservation zone in order to “mitigate” the impact they are having where they are destroying thousands of acres with the solar farms. Brightsource already footed $56 million of taxpayer subsidy (oxymoron) to study and relocate the desert tortoise from that area. This is the area BLM chose and required them to use. It is that simple.

          From BLM’s own documents that were saved before they removed them from their website.

          http://archive.today/nvlzr

          on.doi.gov/1iJOtNb (pages 29-31)

          http://www.brightsourceenergy.com/ivanpah-and-the-doe-loan-guarantee-program#.U0nYoXQWSMY (56 million dollar tortoise)

          • Witchwindy

            No one has mentioned that the fed gov has been destroying many desert tortoises because “there were too many of them” so that excuse of relocating them is so much BS.

          • Baladas

            But federal funds are running dry at the Las Vegas Valley
            facility, and rather than release the animals, officials plan to
            euthanize about half of the 1,400 tortoises. The 220-acre
            facility will shut its doors in 2014, and the tortoises deemed
            feeble to survive in the wild will be set free…

            The Bureau of Land Management currently funds the conservation
            and research center with fees inflicted on those who disturb
            tortoise habitats. During the housing boom in the early 2000s,
            the conservation center had plenty of cash, since developers were
            frequently fined for disturbing such habitats. But since the
            recession, the BLM has struggled to meet its annual $1 million
            budget.

            Over the past 11 months, the BLM has only accumulated $290,000 in
            federal mitigation fees that developers are forced to pay.

            “With the money going down and more and more tortoises coming
            in, it never would have added up,” BLM spokeswoman Hillerie
            Patton told AP.

            http://www.dailypaul.com/316447/desert-tortoise-conservation-centers-plan-to-euthanize-hundreds-of-the-tortoises-in-nevada-by-2014

          • mjhoop

            Sounds like BLM is not on the side of the public welfare…….the concept of the ‘commonweal’ has vanished in the past 200 years….

          • Jester

            It is making a comeback due to its conspicuous absence in the actions of those meant to administer it, and dire need for its reappearance, lest we all perish into a vacuum of chaos that will make us easy prey to highly ordered minions of Fascist dictatorships from abroad looking to expand their territory and finish off their biggest competition to world dominance.

      • Lance Spivey

        Yeah, I found that out yesterday, John. Also found out that the ENN shot it down, temporarily, at least… Reid got the project going on a Paiute reservation about 30 miles West of the Bundy ranch. It also turns out that Bundy can’t claim Prescriptive Easement because it’s federal land, not state land (I called the Nevada SAGs office today). So my opinion has changed in light of new information. He needs to pay up. I think it was handled wrong, but he does need to pay up. I don’t like it; I think it’s wrong, but we have “Honest” Abe to thank for it.

    • Frank Koza

      Yes, Lance. And for all those (like snopes.com) claiming those plans were not specifically on Bundy’s privately owned land or grazing allotments because the Harry Reid ENN deal was 240 miles away, it’s like the EPA’s process for “compensatory mitigation”. Compensatory mitigation refers to the restoration, establishment, enhancement, or in certain circumstances preservation of wetlands, streams or other aquatic resources for the purpose of offsetting unavoidable adverse impacts.

      Why are they adamant about protecting the tortoise on Bundy’s grazing allotments and not on the Dry Lake project? Gold Butte appears the be the compensatory mitigation area for the destruction of habitat at Dry Lake.

      The land under BLM management is divided up to be used for single use or multi-use and this administration has directed it to be used for solar and wind projects in 17 energy zones. They already have 27 approved projects and over 90 pending applications.

      http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/solar_energy.html

      Well, when a solar plant goes in and they destroy the habitat and the principles are directed to perform compensatory mitigation in another area, they want the cattle off in that mitigation area because the cattle are incompatible with the mitigation improvements. So how many of these energy projects are going to end up forcing out other ranchers throughout these “public” lands?

      • Baladas

        This was the very reason behind the adoption of the 1978 range preservation act by congress. Although the stated intention was to protect and expand the western livestock trade, it introduced a non negotiable, annual permit to graze, regardless of the rights purchased in the 1800′s, which are akin to a form of property holding in themselves.

        The BLM oversaw these permits, and tailored the terms and conditions according to their own desired goals. If their goal was to protect the ability of ranchers to graze livestock, then why did over 50 ranchers in Clark County go out of business because of those burdensome license requirements? Bundy claims the only reason he has been able to graze livestock all these years is because he did NOT agree to the permit terms and conditions, and did not pay to assure his own destruction.

        • Frank Koza

          Exactly. It’s like the government imposing taxes on tobacco users and funding anti-tobacco orgs with the proceeds to churn out more propaganda to justify raising those taxes even more. Bundy was aslo concerned the BLM may be using grazing fees from cattle ranchers to support environmentalist (who take advantage of tax exemptions) concerns of those NOT paying for but demanding the land be put to incompatible competing uses instead of the range improvements for grazing as intended.

          • Baladas

            He knew full well that was what they were doing, it was not a secret, which is why he refused to pay for his own demise.

        • builder21

          So by that, it would be reasonable to assume any land rights purchased (held) by the Bundys were an agreement between the US Government and the Bundys, circa 188?.

          (The REAL US Government, that is.)
          Any Congressional “Range Preservation” Act passed in 1978 would therefore be in conflict with the original agreement, no?
          Much the same way Allodial title to property has been conflicted by the introduction of “warranty deeds” that invite 3rd parties to tax and zone private property.
          Maybe the only real question here is “Which government is legitimate?”

          • Jester

            we really let this one get away from us didn’t we?

          • HoppinJohn

            Bundy does not claim to have grazing or water rights to the public land in question, do not put words in his mouth.

          • builder21

            I could be mistaken, but I do believe that claim came from Bundy himself during a recent interview.

            His family “purchased” water rights, and possibly mineral rights to the land in question.
            Somewhere in the mid-late1800′s.

            While they do not hold title to the land, the water and mineral right, according to court precedence, allows them to access the land to reap the benefits from those “purchased” rights.
            Rights they own, according to the original government that contracted with their ancestors.

            I would trust that the original government would have acted in good faith and honored their own agreement.
            The government that superseded it, as we know it today……….not so much.

          • HoppinJohn

            In some interviews he says he does and in other he says he doesn’t, does it depend on the audience, the time of day, or the day of the week, or is he just lying, because he did not show any documentation in court showing anybody in his family ever bought any water rights to this land, he might have one for his own property, but not the public land, the state and federal government have no record of this purchase.

          • builder21

            I guess we have to assume then, if the State and Federal government have no record of such a transaction, it must be in the same “lost ” filing cabinet that holds Obama’s BC and 18 minutes of missing Watergate tapes…….

            If Bundy’s guilty of anything, it’s the inability to articulate his legal position clearly.

          • HoppinJohn

            Correct!
            But, without a record of anything (his or theirs) he is probably screwed.
            When he goes to court he represents himself and has lost all his court cases and appeals, the only reasons I can come up with are a) he is to cheap to hire a lawyer. b) he thinks he is a lawyer. c) no lawyer will take his case. d) lawyers are too scared to take his case.

          • builder21

            OR………..
            e) he knows that lawyers stand behind the Bar, and are agents of the State.
            Most likely, the reason he’s getting screwed in the courts is because he made the mistake of recognizing their authority in the first place.

        • HoppinJohn

          F him, he can go buy his own land if he doesn’t like it. The other rancher made their millions off the public lands like Bundy and retired from ranching. Just another millionaire doing whatever he wants because he is above the because he is rich. He has a mental condition that make he not believe in the US Govt. it’s called affluenza.

          • Jester

            Even a child can see that by the results of their actions, the federal government cannot possibly be obeying the limits to the powers granted to them by the constitution. Either that or the framers of the constitution were totally incompetent or complicit in a conspiracy to create a federal government that could do whatever they want whenever they want, put the people of the country into crushing debt for generations, and basically ruin everything they touch.

            Thus any adult who supports the federal government and believes the legal sophistry they employ to explain away their destructive tendencies, is the one with a mental condition called denial.

          • HoppinJohn

            You said it, not me, “the framers of the constitution were totally incompetent or complicit in a conspiracy”, Blame them all you want, but, it is you that are in denial of the law and the Constitution.

          • Jester

            NO you said it by implication, I said it to characterize your implied position, that is the distinction. I deny illegitimate statutes enacted under color of law. You deny the spirit of the constitution and hide behind illegitimate legal statutes masked as law. Another distinction between you and me.

      • Mitchell McAleer

        If you look at the maps for Silver State South project, in attempt to make the the Reid / ENN / Bundy range connection, you will find maps that indicate the turtle relocation areas are all adjacent to the SSS project site, in Laughlin. The inference of turtle habitat at the Bundy ranch related to mitigation for the SSS project is unsupportable.

        • Jester

          read a few comments below this one. The Gold Butte land where Bundy grazes cattle is slated as wildlife sanctuary for the Dry Lake Solar zone, which is mostly Brightsource energy. Links are there to BLM documents. The china connection was misdirection. Although China makes much of the hardware for all these solar projects, and purchases shares in them via proxy shell corps.

          • Marla Hughes

            Mr. Bundy nor his family ever had legal control of any part of the Gold Butte allotment, only the Bunkerville allotment. Mr. Bundy’s (and his illegally grazing children’s cattle with the unregistered brands) cattle on Gold Butte allotment is definitevely illegal and part of the court cases that he’s lost multiple times.

          • Jester

            The bunkerville allotment blends in with Gold Butte. Gold Butte is not an allotment. It is just a name given to a general geographic area. But you are correct that Bundy’s cattle and the unbranded cattle that grazed alongside his branded herd were observed to be grazing in areas off of the Bunkerville allotment. Bundy no longer had permission from the feds to graze his cattle even on the Bunkerville allotment. So he just grazed them on any public land in his reach. His cattle were even reported to have done some damage to private property. The Bundy family should have done a better job of cowherding, especially if they were going to make use of parts of public land adjacent to golf courses, roads, etc.

          • Marla Hughes

            From my research Gold Butte is under BLM management so also is an allotment and has an allotment number. They all do. If reserved for wildlife then it’s just listed in all documents as being under BLM instead of an ‘owner’.
            Something you might be interested in: http://water.nv.gov/data/permit/results.cfm (Be sure to check the certified or approved permits to compare the differences. Also note that Mr. Bundy bases his claim for water rights on his grazing rights, not the reverse.)

          • Jester

            True the whole area is divided up by BLM according to their schemes. I imagine the Bundy’s and his grandparents used to call the area Gold Butte, and their town Bunkerville, until the BLM named their allotted land the Bunkerville allotment. That is a small point.

            The important thing to note about water rights is that there are many categories one can apply for. Go to the “forms” section to see. Bundy applied for PROOF OF APPROPRIATION FOR STOCKWATERING PURPOSES. This is a claim of appropriation for beneficial use for livestock PRIOR to Nevada’s 1905 surface water code, which is why in his application he notes first use in 1890. The application was approved and he was granted vested water rights by Nevada. To see in detail what this actually means, read this.

            http://www.water-law.com/articles/Nevada-vested-water-rights.html

          • Marla Hughes

            No. Gold Butte is a separate allotment from the Bunkerville allotment because they are miles apart and different demographics as well as geological features at Gold Butte that aren’t at Bunkerville, such as Indian petroglyphs, rock formations strongly reminiscent of the Grand Canyon’s most famous formations and different wild life habitat as well as lack of human settlement and forage potential.
            Bundy’s grand parents lived in Arizona and Utah. His father lived in Bundyville, Arizona in fact, until he moved to Bunkerville. http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25301551/bundys-ancestral-rights-come-under-scrutin
            Note: Grazing NOR water rights can be declared or sold or inherited unless the land adjacent to the property in question is owned by the same entity/person. In other words, if I want to sell you the water rights to my property, your property has to be adjacent to mine with the water rights on it. The federal government operates the same way. Saves controversy.
            Mr. Bundy’s only owned property is 160 acres his father purchased in the 1950′s. The adjacent land is where his former allotment was. Gold Butte is MILES away and is the allotment he allowed his cattle to roam onto and go feral on.
            If you look at Mr. Bundy’s APPLICATION (versus accepted and certified declarations), he applied for stock water rights in 1997, after he was already in arrears and in court over his allotment leasing fees. So, in 1993 he stopped paying the BLM what he and his father had been paying them since the 1950′s (which is a pittance compared to Nevada grazing fees on state owned land- $1.35 per head per month versus $15 per head per month) and waited until 1997 to even apply for stock water permits.

          • Marla Hughes

            I don’t know why my reply didn’t show up but I’ll briefly try to repeat it in a condensed version.

            Bundy did *apply* for water rights. In 1997, four years after he lost his first court case and stopped paying his grazing permits. They were never certified. For comparison purposes, here is an example that includes Mr. Bundy’s applications as well as other people named Bundy who’s certificates were approved by BLM: http://water.nv.gov/data/permit/results.cfm (you may have to type in Bundy under owner’s name to see results)

          • Jester

            If you look at the permit applications with certificates, the certificates were all post 1905. The status shows certified. If you look at the applications with no certificates, their status shows RFP (ready for action but protested) or DEN (DENIED).

            Bundy’s applications show status of VST (vested right). As I indicated he claimed pre-1905 code usage. This was approved and the State recognized his vested water rights. There is no requirement for a certificate if you can prove pre-code usage through predecessors. Some may argue that the Virgin river water rights that came with his ranch deed are not proof of ancestral use and that is correct. But he must have showed some other proof in of ancestral usage in that area to receive 11 vested right permits.

            http://www.water-law.com/articles/Nevada-vested-water-rights.html

          • Marla Hughes

            No, Mr. Bundy’s applications are for 1997. He filled in the claims about 1905 but everything on the applications, including the legal names of the applicants have to be certified. There is no certification on any of them, indicating to me that Mr. Bundy didn’t even bother paying the filing fee ($50 per claim). He makes a claim of 11 vested rights permits. He APPLIED for them. There is no certification so they were rejected or he didn’t pay the fee to finish the application process. (That’s why I said look at others that were certified to show the difference.)
            I read where Clark County offered to buy his permits out (they’re only good for no more than 10 years anyway) but he refused. The time period is about right. Perhaps that’s when he applied for them and the reason they weren’t certified is because he already had two court cases decided against him, denying him the permits.

          • Jester

            You wrote: “but everything on the applications, including the legal names of the applicants have to be certified.”

            perhaps, but the certification is different pre and post 1905. Remember, before 1905, there was NO certification required for Nevada ranchers who appropriated water. So there may have been nothing on the books. And there was no Nevada certification or permit required after 1905 unless needed for purposes of adjudication.
            http://www.water-law.com/articles/Nevada-vested-water-rights.html

            In 1934 the feds required a federal permit via the Taylor grazing act, but that is a separate issue.

            “There is no certification on any of them, indicating to me that Mr. Bundy didn’t even bother paying the filing fee”

            The fact is, that if a permit is denied, the status reads “denied”.

            Review Clarence A Bundy’s permit which has the status “certified”.
            http://water.nv.gov/data/permit/permit.cfm?page=1&app=4951

            Click on the application link. It shows an application from 1918 for “permit to appropriate the public waters of the state of Nevada”. This is why they needed the certificate from 1913. They were applying for permission.

            click on “ownership/title” Clarence Bundy is listed as current owner. Thomas Dolan is “original owner”. Thomas Dolan’s name is on the 1918 application. Click on the “certificate” it is in the name of James Doutre who made a claim in 1913 and presented “proof of appropriation for stockwatering purposes”. It was mandatory after 1905 to register these claims. Dolan used that 1913 claim in 1918 to get a permit, which was passed to Clarence Bundy.

            The same with Ed and Connie Bundy’s 2001 permit which is “certified”.
            http://water.nv.gov/data/permit/permit.cfm?page=1&app=67884

            They were applying in 2001 for permission as well. NOT for vested rights which are only available to someone who proves a claim from pre 1905.

            Now click on “ownership title” of Ed and Connie Bundy’s permit. They are 1st owner, and 2nd is listed as Lavar and Kaye WADE. Click on the “certificate” The name on the certificate is WADE. This more modern certificate is still similar to the 1913 one reflecting a proof of claim of appropriating water for beneficial use (stockwatering).

            Cliven Bundy’s permit status reads “vested rights”. The specific “permit” applied for was “PRIOR appropriation for stockwatering purposes”, which is more akin to a registration of a claim. Go to his first permit.
            http://water.nv.gov/data/permit/permit.cfm?page=1&app=V08974

            Click on “maps and due dates”. It reads- filing date 10/23/1997, Priority Date: 01/01/1890. That is not language from Bundy’s application but language on the permit itself. Next click on “ownership/title”. There are 2
            names. Cliven Bundy first, and Keith Nay, 2nd. Look down to “original owners. Both names are again listed. Indicating the ancestral link. The only reason he needed to apply for a Nevada state permit was because he was involved in adjudication.

            I cannot say what type of proof Bundy had to submit in order to get these vested rights. If interested to explore this, I am sure there is a phone # to the state engineer in the division of water resources.

            See the link to the full description of Nevada law regarding vested water rights at that link from the Schroeder Law offices. It is an education.

          • Marla Hughes

            Simple: Find Mr. Bundy’s permit number and show me where it’s located. Here’s the tool. http://webgis.water.nv.gov/

          • Marla Hughes

            My replies keep not showing up so apologies if repeat myself.
            Here’s the tool. http://webgis.water.nv.gov/
            Find Mr. Bundy’s permit numbers and show me each one’s location.
            Here is an example of a certificate for reference: http://images.water.nv.gov/images/certificates/16000/16324c.pdf

            Reading Nevada water law, it appears water rights on public land are contingent upon a valid grazing permit:
            NRS 533.503  Restrictions on issuance of permit or certificate regarding appropriation to water livestock.
            1.  The State Engineer shall not issue a permit to appropriate water for the purpose of watering livestock unless:
            (a) The applicant for the permit is legally entitled to place the livestock on the lands for which the permit is sought, and:
            (1) Owns, leases or otherwise possesses a legal or
            proprietary interest in the livestock on or to be placed on the lands for which the permit is sought; or
            (2) Has received from a person described in subparagraph
            (1), authorization to have physical custody of the livestock on or to be placed on the lands for which the permit is sought, and authorization to care for, control and maintain such livestock;
            (b) The forage serving the beneficial use of the water to be appropriated is not encumbered by an adjudicated grazing preference recognized pursuant to law for the benefit of a person other than the applicant for the permit; and
            (c) The lack of encumbrance required by paragraph (b) is
            demonstrated by reasonable means, including, without limitation, evidence of a valid grazing permit, other than a temporary grazing permit, that is issued by the appropriate governmental entity to the applicant for the permit.”

            Therefore, since Mr. Bundy refused to pay for his grazing lease, his water rights on any land that were subject to the particular Nevada law were abandoned as well.

          • Jester

            That section of law specifies that the Engineer can issue a permit If (a) The applicant for the permit is legally entitled to place the livestock on the lands for which the permit is sought, and:
            (1) Owns, leases or otherwise possesses a legal or
            proprietary interest in the livestock on or to be placed on the lands for which the permit is sought.

            So to answer the question why the requirements in that section were met, and the subsection 2 below was inconsequential is as follows.

            The applicant was legally entitled to place the livestock on the lands, according to Nevada law. PRIOR to Feb. 1997, Nevada recognized the right of the BLM to require federal grazing permits of ranchers in Nevada as an absolute condition for grazing their cattle.

            That changed on Feb 6, 1997 with AB149. Was reaffirmed in March 22, 1999 with AB672. Reaffirmed again March 16, 2001 with AB391_R1. Again in 2010 with NRS 321.596. And again in 2013 w/ NRS 321.596.

            http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/69th1997/97bills/AB/AB149.HTM
            http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/70th1999/bills/AB/AB672.html
            http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/71st2001/bills/AB/AB391_R1.html
            http://law.justia.com/codes/nevada/2010/title26/chapter321/nrs321-596.html
            http://law.justia.com/codes/nevada/2013/chapter-321/statute-321.596

            So, Nevada had already rejected the BLM’s hegemony and ability to force grazing fees. When Bundy applied in 1997, he was legally entitled to place the livestock on Nevada land because of a proven claim of prior appropriation of stockwater for livestock. BLM “permits” notwithstanding. At least the Water engineer appeared willing to uphold Nevada law. Can’t say the same for the county sheriff. And when the federal courts raked him over the coals ignoring Nevada law, Nevada’s attorney general did not come to his aid.

            According to the Taylor Act, federal grazing permits did not transfer any title or interest to the land. So why did the BLM have to “buy out” the grazing rights of the other ranchers in Clark county? Because those were WATER RIGHTS not granted by federal grazing permits, but recognized by the state of Nevada! The BLM offered to buy Bundy’s also but he refused. How do you buy something that doesn’t exist? If simply revoking a grazing permit was all that was needed, why spend taxpayer money buying a non existent right?

            Bundy knew he had the LAW on his side, and wasn’t about to let the UNLAWFUL “legal determinations” of a rogue federal agency backed by a federal judge be the reason to allow them to steal his professional livelihood and property. He may not have had the full backing of the wishy washy law enforcement of Nevada, but some things are worth fighting for. And the feds should get used to it.

          • Marla Hughes

            The state of Nevada doesn’t claim that so I don’t know who you’d get to order “let it be so”.
            Mr. Bundy was NOT legally entitled to keep livestock in the land after he refused to pay his lease. It’s just that simple.
            The reason your links are irrelevant and why the Nevada Attorney General keeps telling Mr. Bundy to obey the federal courts is answered right in the justia disclaimer:

            “Disclaimer: These codes may not be the most recent version. Nevada may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the
            information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. Please check official sources.”

            “According to the Taylor Act, federal grazing permits did not transfer any title or interest to the land.”

            Exactamundo. The TGA eliminated any prior claim to grazing or water rights. Everyone had to reapply and I think that’s the act that limited all permits to no more than 10 years. It might have been Reagan’s Executive Order in the 1980′s that did that, though. Getting too bored to look up the small stuff. (And, before you get going on the TGA the big ranchers not only supported it’s passage but sat on the board to write it up. According to Mr. Bundy that would be his relatives.)

            “So why did the BLM have to “buy out” the grazing rights of the other ranchers in Clark county?”
            Because THEY had legal grazing rights. Mr. Bundy did not. Maybe because they paid their rent. Again, pretty simple.

            ” How do you buy something that doesn’t exist?”
            Clark County was the one behind the tortoise issue and the one buying up the grazing permits. At the time he had his lease paid up to date. I think how it works is that it’s a yearly lease for grazing and w/o the ‘beneficial use’ of grazing, the water lease goes defunct in 5 years. However it works, it was a way for Clark County to tie up loose ends since Mr. Bundy could not LEGALLY use his water lease because he lost his grazing lease from lack of payment. They are tied together too closely to unconnect them from each other. That’s how the Hages won. Because the BLM TRIED to unconnect grazing from water leases and fine them because of the BLM’s own errors. In Mr. Bundy’s case it’s the opposite. The Hages had paid all of their fees so had grazing permits. The BLM tried to reject their water permits’ claims as a separate issue. The judge reamed them out over it. Mr. Bundy is trying to say that even though he isn’t paying grazing fees he should still retain water permits for stock water. Since he’s not supposed to have stock on that land, his permits for the water are also invalidated. (You have to have permitted land adjacent to or on the property you want water permits for.)

            The entire legal history of the area and jurisprudence disagrees with Mr. Bundy and many of them are laughing at his outrageous claims. I feel sorry for him as an old man but not as someone using the mentally weak in order to keep suckling off of the federal teat, even to the point of threatening violence.

          • Jester

            Sucking off the federal teat? People like you will likely never change. You will continue to miss the forest for the legalese, because the forest is the natural habitat of the trees and ignorance of natural law results in man’s law and breeds the despotism that moves from tree to tree and cuts them at the root to be chopped into finer pieces to be burnt and consumed on the pyre of greed, leaving a scorched earth in its wake.

            Thus you will continue to support a group of people (fedgov) to whom natural law is but a quaint concept to be ignored as its application cannot support their goals, and instead manufacture “legalities” on the fly to maintain their control over matters where no control was intended for them to exert. The reasons you will do so are varied, but none justify that weakness of heart. If the entire body politic were to decide “democratically” that one man no longer had natural rights in some arena, and his natural conscience rejected the proposition, he is morally and spiritually justified in resisting the whole lot to whatever degree his conscience dictates, perhaps even until death, and heaven shall not resist his entry, whereas his selfish oppressors will continue to dwell in the hell of their own turpitude, and look amongst one another for the next victim of their avarice. Who will be next for whom that bell tolls? Couldn’t be you. No need to respond. Or have the last word if you like. After I clean off this mud, I will not return because I plan to stay clean.

          • Marla Hughes

            Natural law? What’s natural about some people getting the benefits of being able to get lower grazing fees based on ether being part of the corrupt ranching cabal that hired gunmen to mow down whole families and burn out settlers in order to keep their lock on range land? (reference: Range Wars)

            I give no apologies for supporting a more limited government n which corporate welfare is eliminated for the powerful ranchers in the West and all residents of the states and localities are represented by those they elect, not just the few who consider the ranges their own w/o having to pay property taxes for their use. Furthermore, there are ranchers who have been on that range long before the Bundys who have never had the benefits of grazing their cattle on BLM managed land at a much lower lease price than they paid for private land or leases. I couldn’t feed a gerbl for $1.50 a month, but that s the grazing fees the BLM charges. THAT is one of the bennies Mr. Bundy’s competition did not have. By getting such low lease rates, Mr. Bundy had an unfair advantage over other ranchers in the area. It’s about time that the playing field was made more level.
            Not to mention the fact that Mr Bundy is not the only one being represented by local, state and federal offcials. The penalty for bringing in new residents is that they also expect the use of public land because they are helping pay for its maintenance. Land which Mr. Bundy demands is his to use by some ‘right’ that others do not have. Nothng natural about that other than the natural greed of all mankind to some degree. Mr. Bundy has elevated it to an art form.

      • D’Rhonda Leigh Wallace

        Snopes.com can no longer be trusted. Owned and operated by a couple but funded by Soros. Also Rory Reid (Harry Reid’s son) brokered the deal with the Chinese. The Chinese said that the cattle are in the way of them doing what they want with the land. The new head of the BLM is an ex-employee of …Harry Reid. Coincidence? I think not!

        • HoppinJohn

          No, The Chinese said that the lack of investors was in the way of them doing what they want with the land.

      • HoppinJohn

        Just the ones that don’t pay their grazing fees.

  • http://benswann.com Truth In Media

    We have people on here trolling all of over the comment pages right now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFiosLqjoQQ

    The Young Turks is a joke since they sided with KSNV News 3 and the Democratic Party all the time anyway!

    KSNV News 3 is such a rotten carcass anyway!

  • timroy

    sending him an invoice for money owed is an action.

    • Tom B

      Contract please!

    • jiminmt

      One is NOT obligated to open an envelope or package that comes “unsolicited” by the addressee, nor even if opened to respond to it. Only a subpoena. None in evidence in Hage or Bundy examples. Nice try. Buzzer please.

  • myleftone

    If a judge says I owe the government a million bucks, I go to jail. And if you’re commenting, you do, too, no matter your viewpoint. Why not Bundy?

    • Greg

      Taking advantage of a technicality in the law is a valid defense.

      • myleftone

        Judge said otherwise. That’s law.

        • Greg

          No judge has ruled on Prescriptive Rights in this case. Nice try.

          • myleftone

            Irrelevant since Prescriptive Rights have not been asserted in any appeal, simply speculated on in this article. The assertions that HAVE been made have been ruled against. Water under the bridge. So nice try. You and I would be in jail long before now.

          • Hambone72

            You act like that makes it right. Sounds like someone who does something he knows is wrong because “he’s just doing his job”

          • Greg

            Since Prescriptive Rights are the subject of this article, and haven’t been asserted YET, what is actually irrelevant are the other assertions that have been ruled against.
            As for us being in jail, my $400 an hour attorney would do much better for me than your public defender.

          • la Bestia Negra

            “No judge has ruled on Prescriptive Rights in this case.

            So what. They don’t have to. It’s settled law, and has been for centuries. But even so, It actually did come up in another similar Nevada case very recently, and in that one the Judge did specifically say there were no prescriptive rights, and that the BLM does indeed have the right to confiscate the cattle and levy fines. Look up Hage v U.S..

            Oh, and, uh, nice try.

          • Greg

            Hage v. U.S.? Lets see:
            “The importance of this decision is its specific rejection of the
            position of the BLM and Forest Service that ranchers have no property
            rights on their grazing allotments”

            On June 6, 2008, a federal judge in the case of the Estate of Hage v. the U.S. awarded the estate of Nye County rancher Wayne Hage $4.2 million in damages plus interest, attorney fees and costs in compensation for the federal government’s Fifth Amendment “taking” of grazing and water rights.
            Bad example.
            Thanks for playing.

          • jiminmt

            Fact check: BLM not exist “for centuries”. Created by AGENCY, not law, in 1976.
            Fact check: HAGE family awarded several million $$$. Gov’t appeal not “settled law”, because government agency dragging it out!

          • HoppinJohn

            Here’s the settled law:

            The U.S. government appealed the decision and in July 2012, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling reversing Judge Smith’s decision, also vacating the damage award.

          • HoppinJohn

            Beause he has none.

        • jiminmt

          Judge is human. Made error in judgment.

        • jiminmt

          judge do not make law idiot

        • builder21

          Boy, you’re a compliant little one, aren’t you….

          I get that the Wizards in charge are narcissistic control freaks, but I don’t think I’ve ever stopped to consider there must be quite a lot of submissives on the other end of their whips…….

          Not sure how to respond.
          Are you wanting spanked or just scolded?

    • Jester

      So, are you disappointed that someone has been blessed with the power to resist abuse of power under COLOR of law?

      • myleftone

        Judgement of a court is not color of law. Back to point A. But nice try.

        • Jester

          That is your misunderstanding. Are you a black robed priest operating under a title of nobility yourself? Or just a big fan?

    • ATrober

      Get the facts. Bundy doesn’t owe them $1M.

      • HoppinJohn

        No it is $1.2 million in fees and fines.

        • ATrober

          wrong. It’s a fifth of the fed’s posted rate.

          I guess we could look it up in the court county records online?

          Either way, it’s a scam Reid’s had going on for years now to run ‘em all out of business for ***personal*** financial gain on BLM land.

          THAT alone should send Dems and the Left reeling. But, oh, no.

  • Jester

    BLM is so good at managing livestock that they shot Bundy’s cattle that wouldn’t cooperate with their helicopter round up, stomped to death any calves born in their captivity, and buried them all them in mass graves with their hooves sticking out.

    Busted.

    http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/04/16/exclusive-evidence-of-blms-deadly-abuse-of-animals-taken-from-bundy-ranch/

    • HoppinJohn

      Funny

  • Karen

    Who owns you?

    Who teaches US that WE are sinners and only here to do penance and serve masters?

    Who benefits?

    Why do WE believe WE are unworthy and must look to others to protect us?

    Who benefits?

    Why are WE taught that WE must obey “authorities” without question?

    WHO benefits by this?

    WHO wrote the bibles WE revere??

    WHO validated the “Miracles”???

    If someone claimed to have parted the Red Sea, or
    spoken to a burning bush, or turned water into wine, wouldn’t WE want to
    validate that?

    Why do WE so easily believe what was written so long ago, and edited by those in power, who profit from those beliefs?

    Why are WE taught to believe murder is wrong, yet allow those who claim to represent
    us, to murder in our name, while training Our Children to torture and
    murder innocents by dropping bombs and drones?

    Why are
    WE not looking at the damage the United States is causing ALL OVER THE
    WORLD, and understanding the district of Columbia is a private,
    independent state with it’s own army, and the military arm of the new
    world order?

    The Vatican is the Spiritual head, the city of London the financial head.

    All of these are privately owned with their own armies, and excluded from taxes.

    They also all have Egyptian Obelisks……….WHO do they serve?

    Does this make sense to you?

    If
    you are in America, the corporation of the not so united states believes
    they own you, and that they can tell you what to do, steal and destroy
    your property, your health, your wealth, and indoctrinate your Children
    with impunity. Not only that, but most of Americans are so brainwashed
    they actually believe that alphabet gangs like BLM, IRS, EPA have the
    right to do this, and can make up their own rules, use armed thugs in
    uniforms who wave “legal paperwork around”, and force us to obey. WRONG!

    Just listen to Ben Swann’s
    interview Wed April 16 (hopefully the archive will be posted soon), and
    you can hear a member of the Bundy family talking about the 40 head of
    cattle, slaughtered by the BLM, who are spending more than a million
    of OUR dollars to steal from this family. Consider how many Americans
    are homeless and can’t afford food, and that the out of control BLM will
    spend more of OUR money on theft and treachery than the amount they
    claim they are owed. At the same time they’re going to murder the
    tortoise’s they claim to want to “protect”.

    Does this make sense to you?

    They trespassed,
    destroyed property and murdered livestock. There are also rumors now of a swat
    team being assembled to go back and use violence against the PEOPLE and the Bundy’s.

    WHO
    among US is actually so brainwashed and braindead that they will
    actually put on the uniform and become villains in the eyes of the
    country and world, eagerly causing harm, injury and loss?

    Those who obey these immoral orders will be held accountable, for
    the People are rising, the internet is here, and they will not be able
    to hide.

    What kind of lives do mercenaries, soldiers
    and police have anyway? By becoming known enemies of the People, they
    will have to be looking over their shoulders the rest of their miserable
    lives if they continue to think that violence is a measure of control
    and the People who they have harmed will simply forgive and forget. They
    may want to check out Mark Passio’s great work and understand how they are openly mocked by their masters, who could care less about them personally…once they vacate the uniform, they’re even more expendable than when they wore it.

    This is a time where they actually could do something
    right, by reclaiming their own morality, and resist being pimped out by
    their masters. They could be Hero’s instantly by REFUSING to side with
    the federal government and stepping over to side with and defend the
    PEOPLE!

    U.S. National Debt clock gives you some insight as to how the government gone wild values you.

    Our Children are forced to be born in the government sanctioned hospitals, issued birth certificates,
    their blood is drawn, they are vaccinated and overloaded with toxins
    and their birth certificates are sold on the stock market.

    Here’s Jordan Maxwell on this.

    Current government paperwork claims ownership……….that’s the bad news, along with the
    fact that we’ve all been turned into debt slaves for corporations.

    Good News is that corporations ONLY run when the employees (you and me) show up to do the dirty work.

    WE CAN STRIKE at the same time and drop profit, which will bring them to the table.

    Then WE make OUR DEMANDS and can simply take care of our local areas, by utilizing 3 principles:

    Self
    Ownership, Cooperation and Non-Violence.

    We don’t need to go
    through
    all of their legalese and millions of corporate “laws”, we can recreate
    Ourselves much more simply. Those who willingly cause harm, injury or
    loss WILL be dealt
    with right there and then by the People who have been harmed and others
    in the area who seek true values of integrity, honor and trust. Anyone
    who chooses to be outside the common law will be considered “outlaws”
    and subject to accountability to the extent needed to compensate for the
    loss caused, while the People reclaim their power.

    WE ALL
    have the right to be armed and able to defend Ourselves, and those who
    are unarmed must work with those who are, in order to make sure
    communities are safe.

    We must work together, since WE have ALL
    been lied too, and by ignoring and resisting the federal government, WE
    will be able to take advantage of Our much greater numbers. Bullies
    have NO power if they are shunned.

    WE can drop
    profit by withdrawing our energy and funds from all multinational
    corporations. This is the only god they know, (gold, oil and drugs) and
    when enough of US pull out, we’ll hear it on the privately owned
    mainstream news who won’t be able to ignore it.

    Then WE extend Our Strike and make Demands!

    Return
    ALL Troops to their home countries to help rebuild, hold those
    accountable who brought us here, and get the true health care they so
    deserve, including cannibus, hemp oil and
    all other solid healing
    treatments we’ve been denied. The fda is no longer in charge of what WE
    can and cannot have access to, nor is any alphabet gang revered over
    what is right, true and just.

    NO MORE profit over
    People, erase ALL fraudulent debt, firing criminals on wall street and
    opening up the doors of those buildings to the homeless People created
    by these psychopaths.

    NO MORE geoengineering, fracking, drilling for oil, destroying and privatizing water or other resources!

    The
    militant industrial complex must be forced to turn over ALL hidden
    technology, and now put in the business of undoing the damage they
    caused.

    NO MORE ongoing BP Gulf Disaster or ignoring Fukushima, NO MORE nuclear power plants.

    NO
    MORE gmo’s, NO MORE politicians with life time salaries, NO MORE
    political prisoners, or agenda 21 or U.N. global dominance policies.

    NO MORE secret programs and experiments on the People, ALL information turned over so WE CAN HEAL!

    NO MORE INSANITY!!!!

    Consider life without rulers, instead with administrators who rotate jobs and share the burden.

    No one need bow down or kiss the ring………WE are ALL here by Divine Right!

    The
    next false flag is just around the corner, and whether it occurs on the
    Bundy Ranch remains to be seen. At any time, when WE have had enough,
    WE can STRIKE!

    How else to implement change than by simply
    rebooting the entire system with the least amount of bloodshed?
    Plantations don’t run without slaves……

    WE OUTNUMBER THEM!!!!

    Just
    because they are not on your doorstep now, doesn’t mean they won’t be
    there tomorrow………….and what will happen to YOUR CHILDREN who
    will be left in the hands of these thugs? Rumor is that ALL who attended
    the Bundy Ranch were photographed and will face consequences later.

    Is this okay with YOU?

    Don’t Buy, Don’t Comply, Ask Why????!!!!!

    UNITED WE STRIKE, UNITED WE WIN

    • Jester

      Wow. Wanna get married and start a new planet together?

      • jiminmt

        Karen be queen and you the jester, right?

        • Jester

          So far I am a joke of a Monarch, thus the nickname. Good thing is my court will never want for a jester.

    • mjhoop

      Autoworkers can’t even organize enough to vote in a union……
      False flag was 9/11 and it’s been downhill from there…..
      You expect a lot of the people to overturn the corporate aristocracy without blood running in the streets…the blood of the people will flow, but not of the corporate ‘persons.’
      Now I need to load the dishwasher……you can start the revolution without me…I did it during VietNam…your turn………

    • Yousuck

      Who teaches US that WE are sinners and only here to do penance and serve masters?
      The Pope.

  • Jkay

    I’m an attorney who works on prescriptive land use issues all the time. It is a fundamental principal that you CANNOT get any sort of prescriptive right against the government, whether state, local, or federal.

    • Jester

      Of course not. Which is why a reset is coming. No more oathbreakers. Incumbents out and new SELECTIONS based on first principles (not democracy). And law merchants bearing titles of nobility step back and get honest work or get the boot back to Feudal Europe to enjoy dhimmitude.

  • Had_Enough2010

    Bundy is the last rancher, the only one that they (reid, the fed, and his son) haven’t been able to intimidate and force off their property. Time is the reason this action was called into play. reid had to have full access to this land so he could sell it to the Chinese which is illegal in itself because reid doesn’t own the land.

  • http://benswann.com Truth In Media

    Hey people! Stop procrastinating and get it done right now before it is too late! Otherwise Ben Swann will have no choice but to shut down the website completely!: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/truth-in-media-project-season-2#home

  • tree worm

    HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GRAZE FOR FREE, it saves fires and them having to cut it he is doing them a favorite

    • https://twitter.com/TheDanLovingood Dan Lovingood

      Should a, would a , could a! Drug dealers believe they should be able to sell their poisons to society unfettered. Shoplifters believe they should be able to steal from stores and not get caught. Robbers believe they should rob banks without prosecution, Murderers believe they should murder and get away with it. We are a country of laws to which the State of Nevada and all other states and citizens subscribe and follow. You, Bundy and the ilk believe whatever you want, but we are a civilized country of laws not an anarchy of lawless thugs like the Bundys and their wackos. He’s a reactionary and it’s not about the grazing fees, it’s about hating the government. You idiots obviously don’t realize that, in our civilized country, the government was elected BY the people, FOR the people.

      • https://www.facebook.com/pages/Liberty-Above-All/152353438273739 LibertyAboveAll

        Drug dealers are right, Dan, and I highly doubt shoplifters, robbers, and murderers believe what you say they believe. The government is elected by idiots like you, Dan. I shouldn’t have to listen to Justin Bieber just because the majority of the country like it. That’s democracy. It has no consideration for individual needs and desires. We are not a collective, so get used to it. Change is gonna come, tough guy.

        • Draken

          Playing devils advocate for a minute, (that and almost a decade in retail) the comment on shoplifters is almost dead on. Many, if not most we caught viewed it as either we owed them, or as they were not doing anything wrong. The logic behind it was often because ‘large’ companies like the one I worked for didn’t need or wouldn’t notice the loss, so ‘they (the shoplifter) weren’t hurting anyone by stealing.’

          Yeah, I hate people who think like that…

          • https://www.facebook.com/pages/Liberty-Above-All/152353438273739 LibertyAboveAll

            Maybe that’s how they resolve their cognitive dissonance, but anyone knows deep down that taking from others is not acceptable.

      • Lorine Schocknmyer

        The BLM and the Forest Service are not elected. They are a bureaucracy and the elected officials have turned over their authority to the bureaucracy. They change the rules and laws as they go along and then they go before bought judges to rule in their favor. That doesn’t make it right.
        Hitler didn’t break any laws in Germany. Didn’t make what he did right.
        As Americans we have the constitutional right and duty to correct a government that is no longer answering to the people.
        It’s way past time but it’s not too late. The corrections are beginning. First we will fire the career politicians and replace them with people that will reign in these out of control bureaucracies and then we will fire the bought judges.

        • dinkster

          Lower judges more often than not rule in favor of statutory law, while higher judges tend to favor constitutional arguments. Bundy’s court rulings mean next to nothing, other than he likely doesn’t have the funds to continue pursuing appeals.

          • HoppinJohn

            He has tons of money to keep appealing, he just doesn’t want to waste his millions (over $10 million), knowing he has lost 2 court cases and 4 appeals and he would lose any other appeal.

      • jiminmt

        Elected to do whatever they want TO the people seems to be your stance. How much acorn paying you – per word or message?

        TIME TO IGNORE DANNY BOY – let him slink silently back to his cell and chains.

        • http://live.xbox.com/en-US/MyXbox/Profile?gamerTag=FinderKeeper FinderKeeper

          You suggesting changing government at the point of a gun instead of by election? Are you too lazy to vote, or is it just too boring for you if things get settled in court or at the ballot box, and no one gets killed or threatened with force?

          If’n you don’t like the gub’mint, Jimmy Boy, vote it out. If you don’t like the next one, vote it out. If you don’t like any gub’mint at all and think violence is the answer, well, enjoy your pipe (bomb) dream, and your circle-jerking “militia”.

      • dinkster

        I love it when proggies go off the rails, talk about low hanging fruit for rebuttals.

      • dinkster

        If you were the least bit intellectually honest, Dan, you would be far more upset about the 100 million the feds just promised Detroit for running their own town into the ground.

      • Abe

        I’d say the first 1/2 of your comment is already happening! You forgot the rapists!

    • Joseph Slabaugh

      Favor. You are right, the tortoises are helped by the cattle. They eat the cow pies, and without the cows, they would die off.

      • Freedom

        Herds of buffalo roaming that range for thousands of years couldn’t hurt those tortoises, but these few cows will? I don’t think so.

      • HoppinJohn

        That is not their preferred food, they have to eat that because the cattle trampled there natural food source.

        • Joseph Slabaugh

          BS, literally. The tortoises had a larger population number when there were way more cattle. So you are just wrong.

          • HoppinJohn

            This isn’t about tortoises, solar or oil, its about money, about $1.2 million.
            Your logic is flawed, just because they have to eat BS it doesn’t mean they should have to.

          • Joseph Slabaugh

            I could show you the study, but its been a few days, and I forgot the link. But you are just trying to start crap, and it wont work.

      • HoppinJohn

        No, they have to eat shit or die, the cattle trample their native food sources and watering holes. Yes, they have to eat shit to live, but, they shouldn’t have too.
        You would see it the same way if we made you eat our shit, just cause we want you to.

        • Joseph Slabaugh

          LOL Gotta love the trolls.

          • HoppinJohn

            Troll? BS. The desert tortoise was there centuries before cattle come into the picture and survived just fine without them and are better off without them, agreed that some might die off, but reduction in population down to what the land can support is the way nature works.

          • Joseph Slabaugh

            I know its BS, I live in Bean Station. “The desert tortoise was there centuries before cattle come into the picture”… You should have finished it with “along side of the Bison”.

          • HoppinJohn

            Buffalo didn’t roam Nevada’s deserts, they stayed mostly in the plains, which Nevada has little of, not in the desert southwest, they needed a lot of prairie grass and the desert tortoise didn’t live on the plains, they had little to no conflict with each other.

  • Priscilla Jones

    I wouldn’t pay a nickel to graze livestock on land that looked like that. This entire story is steeped in desolation and desperation. Things are heating up between the citizen and his government .

    • JimSherwood3

      Agreed. From the videos. I’d say it’s more about the water rights than ” grazing rights ” ..seeing as how there IS NO GRASS.

  • ATrober

    NV needs to purge both of these Reids and the tumors they’ve created in that state.

  • https://twitter.com/TheDanLovingood Dan Lovingood

    NO! The premise and facts in this blog article are completely false. BLM went to court TWICE and won TWICE. Bundy and BLM settled for $1.1 million, but it could have been more because of interest. He and his seditionist conspirators need prosecuted and jailed under 18 USC Chapter 115 –
    TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES, And I won’t rest until they are.
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/Liberty-Above-All/152353438273739 LibertyAboveAll

      Dan, you’re an idiot. Recognizing that the federal government has no right to “claim” land is *anything* but socialist in nature.

      • Kurt P

        Nut or troll…or both.

        • https://www.facebook.com/pages/Liberty-Above-All/152353438273739 LibertyAboveAll

          I agree!

      • http://live.xbox.com/en-US/MyXbox/Profile?gamerTag=FinderKeeper FinderKeeper

        Bundy is without standing (i.e. the legal right to claim). This is why he’s resorting to guns. Have to protect what you’ve “stolen fair and square”.

        • https://www.facebook.com/pages/Liberty-Above-All/152353438273739 LibertyAboveAll

          You’ve got it wrong, FinderKeeper. It is the government that has no moral right to claim. That they’ve manipulated the system and the laws to create a “legal” right to that claim is the problem. Bundy’s family set up shop on that dirt long before any federal person had ever set foot on it. If you research the history of the region, the sage brush wars, etc. you’ll be far better equipped to have an intelligent discussion on the matter…

    • jiminmt

      Did you lose your meds? Or did you think you are at moveon or are you huffing poop?

    • dinkster

      He is grazing cattle in one of the most inhospitable places in the country. The only thing he is harming is Reid’s political cronies.

    • builder21

      Dan must be one of the corkscrew mafia that “Can You Dig It?” was mentioning earlier………..

      You sound like another one of those knuckle draggers that think some of your “entitlements” are going to get cut if Bundy doesn’t pay his extortion fees.

      • tallhog

        it is not extortion. It is a usage fee that all cattlemen who use federal land must pay. Bundy is a taker

    • Freedom

      You really don’t understand grazing rights or air rights or mineral rights or property easements. Calm down, drink some warm milk and go lie down. The Truth is only upsetting you.

      • HoppinJohn

        Bundy is without standing (i.e. the legal right to claim). This is why he’s resorting to guns. Have to protect what you’ve “stolen fair and square”.
        Bundy is a Millionaire Welfare Queen.

    • Tallhog

      Bundy is a classic taker.

  • Bob Fiorito

    I have heard of prescriptive rights before. When I bought my land in Colorado in 1996, 160 Acres. I was told to be careful in letting people graze their sheep. That after some time of about 5 years they would have the right to graze and that I wouldn’t be able to fence the property for they could take me to court. What I did to offset that problem was to move on the land every other year. Sometime I stay two years. No one grazed there when I was there. I did see sheep droppings through out the property. What did happen though, When I was gone some body vandalized my camper and stole all the possessions including a safe I had secured there with some very important paper including my VA papers. I came back with a travel trailer, I live there for 6 months went to Texas and when I returned my Travel Trailer was stolen. I well understand prescriptive rights. I sold that land last year.

    All the news outlets and all that I have read on the Bundy drama with the BLM. They all stipulate that the BLM has the Court judgments and the law is on their side, But in fact the BLM acted illegally against the Bundies with great force and destroying property. The BLM just like any American who acquires a judgment must act on it. They could have put a lien on their property. But the BLM never had the right to force the Bundies with the Armed troops of the Government. There is a great suspicion that is why the BLM acted as they did for the Bundies had rights also and the courts would have held it to the bundies advantage. What this government mis-judged is that the American people will take a stand. You see if the BLM actually got all those cows off the land. Then it would have been much harder for the Bundies to exercise their PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHTS.

    My question will be , Why didn’t the BLM acted sooner in a legal fashion. It’s kind of simple. They really didn’t need the land until Rory Reid worked out the Chinese deal with the BLM and Harry Reids appointee to the BLM to make great profits from using the federal property. ” MR.SMITH GOES TO WASHINTON”.

    We are under the POLITICAL ONE PERCENTER’S, 1%. Obama, Reid, can do what ever they want without the media investigating to keep them HONEST. Screw US they say!!!!!

    • Joseph Slabaugh

      I was buying land at one time, and a neighbor was grazing on it, but in the end, someone burned my trailer down, and I sold it last year, at a 13K loss.

    • HoppinJohn

      Prescriptive rights do not apply to city, state, and federal land, just private land owners. Any permanent improvement the Bundy’s made to the public land is owned by the land owner, so any property they damaged was federal property. The BLM has been actively involved in this for twenty years, 2 court battles and 4 appeals, dozens of eviction notices, served by the Clark County, Nevada Deputies.
      The Koch’s, ALEC and AFP have more to due with this than the Chinese, the one Percenter’s Koch and Bundy.
      The man has affluenza and doesn’t recognize the federal government and is a welfare queen, I mean, welfare rancher, as they are called by ranchers who own their land.

  • Can You Dig It?

    Bundy is in the right.

    Anyone who thinks the courts are lawful, also thinks that tap water laced with hydroflurofalicacid and dozens of other dangerous chemicals is good for you, that GMO is harmless and they love feeding it to their children, that drone strikes which murder innocent children are a good thing, that Obama is eligible under the Constitution to be President, they’ve already signed up for Obamacare, they think the second amendment was for hunters and that you should only be allowed to own a flintlock rifle if you can pass a 666 question, mental evaluation, and have a signed letter of recommendation from 666 members of the community. They also think that 10 hijackers brought down three NYC skyscrapers at free-fall speed with two airplanes.

    They also are alleged to have corkscrew genitalia and worship the moon.

    The truth is that the courts are stealing his property under color of law and they will be abusing you next, Satan worshiper or not.

    They love feeding on their own kind, after they have destroyed everyone else.

    • http://live.xbox.com/en-US/MyXbox/Profile?gamerTag=FinderKeeper FinderKeeper

      Now *THAT* is the tin calling the foil shiny. Don’t forget to refuse your vaccinations.

  • sherlockzz

    One cannot get prescriptive rights or adverse possession from a government entity or government land. You can only get them from other private land owners. If he has a claim for a prescriptive easement, it would have to predate the date when any government entity owned the land. I think it is more likely that he has rights given to him from the state or the county prior to the Feds getting the land and that’s why he says he’d be willing to pay grazing fees to the state or county and not the Feds. It’s like if you sign a lease with a landlord and then the landlord sells the house, the new landlord cannot change the terms of the lease unilaterally until the lease is up. In Bundy’s case, his “lease” with the state or county may have been open ended or “in perpetuity” and the BLM couldn’t have altered the terms without his agreement.

    • DrZarkov99

      The major flaw in the Constitution is that it grants supernumerary rights to the government, treating it with the authority of deity. The government should be dealt with as a kind of corporation, with the limitations of power and legal responsibility normally granted corporate entities. It appears, amazingly, that the BLM’s legal advisers share my view.

      The Constitution is a legal statement, not scripture.

      • jiminmt

        No. The Federal government and the few delegated powers exercised by it through agencies would not exist without the Constitution. It is a “creature” of the Constitution, having not existed until the states ratified. So, in a sense it is scripture albeit not any religious kind, which seems to be your comment’s intent to imply.

        • DrZarkov99

          You’re partly correct. The problem with the Constitution is its elegant brevity, based on a belief that the reader must understand it is a legal document, not a secular scripture, which is how Progressive legislators, judiciary, and Executives choose to treat it. WARNING! This response is lengthy, but necessary to respond with respect to the message.

          Phrases such as “general welfare”, while understood to be a simple statement of responsibility not to do harm by the original authors, have been treated as license to expand the reach of an authoritarian central entity. Giving the judiciary lifetime appointment has created a kind of secular priesthood that has granted itself powers over citizens’ life and welfare not originally intended. Congress without term limits has become a bishopric corrupted by patronage (much like the corruption within the Catholic church that so offended Martin Luther). The expansion of the Executive powers has allowed the creation of an imperial Presidency, unlimited due to the corruption of the other branches of our supposedly “Constitutionally limited” government.

          By creating a legal document, the Founders opened the door to the cleverness of lawyers to allow interpretation of the original intent completely out of character with the government they envisioned. By mistakenly trusting to the honor and ethics of future legal scholars, our Founders laid a trap that could be set and sprung by unscrupulous lawyers.

          The Bill of Rights, insisted upon by George Mason to remind future Constitutional enforcement based upon “natural rights”, while well-intended, lays further traps. Each amendment therein is a minefield ripe for abuse by unethical lawyers, due to the attempt to keep the language direct an brief.

          The 1st amendment, like the other original additions, seems direct and to the point. However, subsequent interpretations by the “black robed secular priests” of the Federal judiciary have been harmful in proscribed limitations and expansions of the “natural rights” that were supposed to be irrevocable. Obscenity has been approved and political speech restricted; mob rule given license and the right of peaceful assembly unreasonably limited; racist, faithless, and hateful behavior allowed, and faith degraded.

          The 2nd amendment, direct and simple (and its intent well-explained in the Federalist papers) has been corrupted in its interpretation to deny the right of holding an abusive government at bay. The right to defend oneself and family, and by extension, one’s neighbors, has been restricted in favor of threatening criminals.

          Abuse of the supposedly inherent rights spelled out in the remaining original amendments have proceeded on the same lines (except for the 3rd). This demonstrates that the Constitution has been treated as scripture, open to whatever interpretation is favored by a particular congregation, with the most powerful faith of the moment dictating what rules apply.

          Lawyers maintain that the Constitution has irredeemable legal foundation, while the Declaration of Independence has only historical significance. Translations for the non-lawyers in the audience: the right to remove an abusive government is an illegal act, subject to extreme penalties due traitorous criminal rebellious elements (or simply put, you get shot for even thinking like that).

          • Freedom

            I believe that this is part of why our founding fathers said that the tree of freedom must be watered every 25 years with the blood of both patriots and tyrants.

          • http://live.xbox.com/en-US/MyXbox/Profile?gamerTag=FinderKeeper FinderKeeper

            Checks and balances. No one has absolute writ or power… not the President, not the Statef in Congreff Affembled, not the Supreme Court, and especially not Cliven Bundy. Everyone is subject to the rule of law, no one person or group is above it.

            The right to remove an abusive government is enshrined in the Constitution. It’s called voting. :-p

          • DrZarkov99

            I agree with the intent of the Constitutional limits, but in fact, we have allowed the government and its agents to be above the law. Congress makes its own rules about when and if a Representative or Senator may be held legally accountable, with the result that members guilty of outright theft and fraud have remained as sitting members. Term limits would insure that such thieves would be restricted in the damage they could do to the republic.

            A number of states have term limits for their governors and legislature, with no evident harm to their ability to serve their residents. The Founders envisioned a national legislature that was made up of persons who would serve temporarily, not make a career of their elected positions.

            Abuse of power in the Executive has taken place under Presidents of both major parties. Such expansion has reached near-Papal dimensions for the current President, with anyone daring to object to his wishes vilified by the press, and subject to IRS harassment.

            Term limits should apply to all branches of the government, including the judiciary. Lifetime appointments were intended to armor the Federal justice system from political influence and pressure, but the negative effect has been to distort the law by decisions made without consequence to the decision-makers. To contradict your argument about removing abusive elements of government by election, judges can only be removed by impeachment.

          • lew

            The Constitution is a system design, technology of government.

            The US had by far the best tech of gov when the Constitution was written. Unfortunately, the writers depended upon individual honor as the enforcement mechanism.

            When we amend the Constitution to prevent things from getting out of control again, we need an enforcement mechanism that allows individuals to effectively push back.

            I suggest that the amendment recognizes that gov officials exceeding their authority can and should be treated by citizens as an imminent threat of death. All of the legal mechanisms determining whether the homicide was justified would apply, and if the case went to trial, only one person on the jury would need to agree with the defendant’s interpretation of the Constitution.

            Sounds extreme, and there would be citizen’s over-reach and abuse of the clause, but a) young hotheads would be on the side of social stability and b) the civilization we are part of would not have the wars and breakdowns, each of which costs a generation or 2 of accumulated wealth.

          • HoppinJohn

            No, the present government was created by the Constitution, to be more precise, by the ratifying of the Constitution.

      • CyberEd65

        The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is the foundation upon which all other law is laid. Without which all laws that have been passed are moot and worthless.

      • http://live.xbox.com/en-US/MyXbox/Profile?gamerTag=FinderKeeper FinderKeeper

        And it’s up to the courts to interpret, not any individual person… even the President. Funny how that rule of law works, huh?

      • HoppinJohn

        Are You F’N Crazy!!!, I would NOT want our government to have the total freedom to do what it wants, when it wants with the lack of responsibility just like corporations. That has to be (I’ll be nice) the least smart thing I have heard all month.

        • DrZarkov99

          I have news for you, since you seem to be either living in isolation from any form of news media, or purposefully oblivious. Our government already has the right to take property without our permission (which a corporation can’t do), thanks to the 5th amendment; it has the right to conduct warrantless searches of our personal residences (thanks to permission it has granted itself, despite the restrictions of the 4th amendment, which a corporation can’t do); our government has assumed many rights for itself not defined in the Constitution, nor legal to a corporation, and has declared that American citizens can’t sue it for those illegal acts (again, a defense not available to a corporation).

          The checks and balances between the government branches that were supposed to have protected us from such violations of our personal liberty have failed. If a corporation tried to conduct itself like our abusive government, it would have been sued out of existence. Try educating yourself before you resort to name-calling.

          • HoppinJohn

            In 2005,the Kelo v New London case, the Supreme court sided with New London Development Corp. to take individuals privately owned land by eminent domain and be given to a corporation (Pfizer), and unless your a terrorist, the patriot act, does not allow warrantless home searches, but at one time it did allow warrantless wiretapping, no city, state, or the Federal Govt cant enter your home with out a warrant, but, I agree that the fourth amendment has gotten pretty beat up since 9/11.

          • DrZarkov99

            Eminent domain is a government mechanism, and the New London Development “Corporation” had to have the local government as a partner in order to have a right to file in Federal court. The basis for the eminent domain claim was the increase in revenue to local government from property tax projected for the commercial development of the land. This was government theft of private property, regardless of how clever the lawyers were to make it appear otherwise.

            The NSA invasion of private communications of non-terrorist American citizens; IRS release of private tax information to both other government and non-government organizations; abuse of the Grand Jury mechanism as a form of “kangaroo court” (I’ve participated in one of these fiascos, and was named as an “unindicted co-conspirator” when I refused to perjure myself on behalf of the Federal prosecutor; which charge was immediately withdrawn when I threatened to report it to the DOJ Inspector General); granting itself numerous privileges to control elements granted to the states and citizens in violation of the 10th amendment. Do I need to go on?

          • HoppinJohn

            It should still be illegal for privately owned land to be taken from law abiding citizens for use of a private corporation, higher tax revenue or not.
            You mentioned warrantless entry to your house, not electronic surveillance, if your not protecting yourself on the internet, your a fool, everyone has known about this since 9/11.
            DHS, NSA, FISA, and the so called “Patriot” Act should all be declared Illegal and dismantled.

          • DrZarkov99

            Now you and I are reaching an understanding! I agree 100% with your 1st sentence. The FBI and many local law enforcement agencies have increasingly used looser and looser excuses for seeking warrants “after the fact”, and when innocent people have been invaded by mistake (and sometimes killed by officers using excessive force) they are rarely held accountable.

            The NSA has used viruses to invade everyone’s Internet activity. The “Heartbleed” virus has successfully thwarted most supposed security measures for over two years, and the NSA has admitted it used the virus. All of your phone activity, landline and cell phone, have been subject to NSA observation for ever since 9/11. I worked for one of the other intelligence agencies, and what I can’t tell you would curl your hair.

            Finally, I agree 100% with your last sentence.

          • HoppinJohn

            I haven’t seen much on the “after the fact” warrants in my area, but, I’ve seen a warrant for one thing, but they find something else, wrong address, but still find something, they are at a home see something and one calls for a warrant, but looser and looser is an under statement, warrant judges are just yes men.
            On extreme police tactics, I had a friend shot and killed in front of his girlfriend and sister by police, he was depressed and suicidal off and on for a couple of years because his ex-wife forced him to sell his farm. They were told to have him evaluated he had to be suicidal or threatening harm to himself or another when police arrive. About two months ago he was depressed and having a hard time, was threatening suicide. His girlfriend and sister called police, it takes two people to have someone evaluated, they had him talk to a counselor on the phone, he put his gun down, his girlfriend picked up and ran with, he chased her out the front door, she threw the gun across the yard, he turns to go get the gun, and he’s shot, he tries to get up and he is shot four more times, police had snuck-up behind the house so they didn’t know they were there and shot as he turn towards the gun, didn’t try to tackle him, didn’t try to taze him and he had no weapon at the time.The officer got off scott free, except for a two week paid leave. I have a very high distain for law enforcement right now, to put it lightly.
            Sorry about that rant. Yeah we can only do so much to protect ourselves online, but I try to keep up on it as much as possible and make it as hard as possible for them. The amount of spying and invasion of privacy already sickens me, and like you dais I don’t even know the half of it.

    • jiminmt

      Governments are not persons, and thus have no rights. Only specific, and enumerated powers delegated by the people. Governments are not omniscient.

      • jm

        However, the Supreme Court ruled, “corporations are people”
        Since our “Government is actually a Corporation”, this argument is a bit shady.

        • 7LibertyForAll

          Except that corporations are NOT people, no matter what wand the supremes wave over them.

          • Kurt P

            Although…this might be an interesting rabbit hole to go down.
            Government is a corporation.
            Corporations are “people”. (per scotus)
            “People” have EQUAL rights under the law – and can not have SUPERIOR rights or protections as compared to others…
            Therefore, the government CAN NOT enjoy additional protections, immunities, or rights as compared to any other person.
            …hmmmmmmm….

          • Freedom

            Nice rabbit hole.

          • http://live.xbox.com/en-US/MyXbox/Profile?gamerTag=FinderKeeper FinderKeeper

            Nice try. A government is not a person, legally or naturally (unless you’re a monarch, but that’s a whole ‘nother country, innit, Your Majesty?)

            A government therefore cannot be a corporation. At least not in this country. It has no status as an individual person. A government–in this country–is a representative of the people (plural, not individual).

            In terms of legal existence, the State of Nevada can sue or be sued, but as “The People of the State of Nevada.” The United States is legally seen as a plural, i.e. it is as if someone is suing (or being sued by) the people of all fifty states.

            Again, nice try.

          • Kurt P

            Well, there are a few things wrong in your thinking here, not the least of which is your confusion of legal myths vs. realities.
            There is a legal distinction between “these” United States and “The United States”…the latter being a corporate entity. Your superficial understanding and application of the myth of government does not even approach the potential complexity (rabbit hole) of the topic, therefore your dismissal of it is meaningless.
            I don’t pretend to know where the rabbit hole would lead.
            You shouldn’t pretend it doesn’t exist.

          • Yousuck

            So by this argument, this “person” who owns the land would be owed rent by Bundy for using “his” land.

        • http://live.xbox.com/en-US/MyXbox/Profile?gamerTag=FinderKeeper FinderKeeper

          Corporations have been legal persons (not natural) since the late 1800s. That helped quite a few robber barons get rich at the expense of natural persons (and to wield greater influence over them by means of controlling the government). I do oppose this vehemently, and I would hope the Supreme Court eventually revokes that legal personhood, but given recentl rulings, I’ll likely be hoping in vain.

          However, even corporations as legal persons have to buy land before they use it for economic gain. If they buy state land (such as from the state of Nevada), then they’re purchasing it from the PEOPLE of Nevada (the state government is merely the representative of the people).

          If they purchase the land from the federal government, they’re buying it from the PEOPLE of all fifty states (as the federal government represents not the people of the singular United States but the people of the plural United States; the federal land that Bundy is occupying legally belongs to “the people of Alabama, the people of Alaska, the people of Arizona, etc.”

      • http://live.xbox.com/en-US/MyXbox/Profile?gamerTag=FinderKeeper FinderKeeper

        Governments are representative of the people. In this case, the “United States” is actually a plural. If Bundy sues the United States, he will be suing the fifty states combined. If he brings suit against the State of Nevada, it will be “Bundy v. People of the State of Nevada.

        So yes, you’re right. Governments are not individual persons. They’re a group of persons.

        Bundy is squatting (using for economic gain without payment) on land granted BY LAW (the constitution of the State/People of Nevada) to the people of all fifty states. Not to any one person, even Bundy.

        Clear?

      • HoppinJohn

        Corporations are not people either, but look how that turned out.

    • CyberEd65

      His family has been grazing those lands since before Nevada was a state. He owes no one fees, but is willing to pay the state the fees out of decency. Article 1, Sec 8 of the Constitution, along with the 10th Amendment, indicates that the lands belong to the state (once a territory gains statehood). The Feds are in the wrong holding onto 83+% of Nevada’s land. People are sick and tire of this government disregarding the Constitution and the rule of law so it can do whatever it wants with impunity.

      • Kevin Hansen

        1864
        Nevada constitution says, ” the people inhabiting said territory do
        agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the
        unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the
        same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the
        United States.”

      • Helen Love

        Again with so many people making so many conflicting statements it’s hard to know who is telling the truth. But Nevada achieved Statehood in 1864 and Mr Bundy, himself, said his Family settled in the area in 1877 . It would be interesting to know if his Father and Grandfather paid the fees and who, originally set the boundries for the grazing area. And I’ve recently read a report that says Clark County bought the grazing rights for the Tortoise Sanctary and retired them -has anyone else heard this?

        • CyberEd65

          From what I understand the first time grazing fees were collected was after the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 was passed and signed by FDR.
          I’ve heard there is some dispute between the state and the Feds over control of this particular land Bundy uses that is still being fought over In the courts. The say Bundy is caught in the middle as a pawn between the state and the Feds.

          • Helen Love

            Whatever else he is, Mr Bundy isn’t a pawn IMO :) He is smart and he is strong and he didn’t become a Millionare by being a ‘Tool’ of anyone…. I’m trying to figure out if he is basing his argument on the fact that Clark County, apparently, bought the grazing rights to this land. I’m sorry I don’t have the report at my fingertips and I’ll have to go back and plow through two weeks of research to find it…And the weather turned nice so I’d rather be riding and I’m not a millionare so I have to do all the farm work myself..So I was hoping someone else would have had the information at hand :) I’ll go back and see if I can find it. Thing is, if the County bought the grazing rights this would all make sense…If Clark County bought the rights to this land, then retired it, he might think he could pay them instead of the Feds. But since the the rights have been retired the County can’t legally accept funds to run cattle on it..But you are saying there is another Court case in the pipe line?

          • http://live.xbox.com/en-US/MyXbox/Profile?gamerTag=FinderKeeper FinderKeeper

            Bundy doesn’t own the land, and he has to abide by the conditions the owner sets. Until some court rules he actually has title to the land, he needs to pay up or get out.

            Actually buying the land would help, but he seems to not want to do that. Much easier to “squat.”

          • CyberEd65

            No, I said that one news report I head today said this. I have not been able to verify this, but it would make sense as to why Bundy thinks he should pay the county ad not the Feds since he obviously paid the Feds prior to 1990, since this is not in dispute.

          • HoppinJohn

            Clark County, Nevada makes no claims, water, grazing, or other wise to this piece of land, they say it is federal public land, the Clark County Sheriff and Deputies have even served Bundy summons and eviction notices.

          • Helen Love
          • HoppinJohn

            From your link:
            “Mr. Bundy attempted to pay his grazing fees to Clark County, but the payment was properly rejected due to the County’s lack of jurisdiction in the matter.”
            The land is in Clark County, but the county and state don’t own it, that’s why they didn’t accept it, it is owed to the Federal Govt.

          • Helen Love

            Of Course you are right, the allotment has been retired for use by the National Park Service. There is just so much misinformation and rhetoric flying around, I wanted to state my source :)

          • Helen Love
          • HoppinJohn

            Clark County, Nevada, The State of Nevada, and the US Govt. all agree that the land is public land held by the US and managed by the BLM. Bundy was paying his grazing fee to the US govt. until 1993 when he decided the US Govt. doesn’t exist and stopped paying his fees, setting up 2 court battles and 4 appeals, all of which he has lost.

          • CyberEd65

            it is high time that the federal government get rid of all the land they own and turn it over to the states to be sold to private owners, or maintained by the state, or given away to homesteaders. There is no reason for this land to be held in the control of big-wigs half a world away so that locals could not determine for themselves what could be done to benefit the people closest to the land in question; I believe that was one of reasons we fought a war with King George III. If it takes another revolution to resolve this then so be it.

          • HoppinJohn

            I agree with the first part of your response, but I’m not going to kill someone to have it changed. Especially for some guy that just doesn’t want to pay his grazing fees.

          • CyberEd65

            There you go again twisting history to suit your argument. He, Bundy, said he would pay his grazing fees to the state or county, which he maintains is the rightful owner of these “public lands”. The rub comes in when the Feds claim they own these “public lands”. You state that you are a history buff, with the degree to go with it, so use it and do a little research because the Supreme Court has already ruled on the claim of the Feds concerning their “ownership” of lands within the borders of a sovereign state in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan – 44 U.S. 212 when ruling on a similar land/navigable waters grab when Alabama became a state, saying it was ILLEGAL. Just because the Feds waved the requirement of Nevada to have 60,000 people to gain statehood (they only had 40,000) it still remained ILLEGAL 19 years later to place the SAME requirement on Nevada to cede all of these “public lands” forever to the Federal government. For the ruling by the SCOTUS forcing that same language in Alabama’s statehood agreement read: “The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.”
            So the land in dispute belongs to the state of NEVADA no matter what they were FORCED to accept by the LINCOLN Administration in 1864 so they could become a state and give the needed vote to Lincoln so he could be re-elected. Lincoln, like obama, was a political scoundrel that didn’t care what the law said, or what the Supreme Court ruled, he was going to do whatever it took to stay in power … Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!!! Only an assassin’s bullet could stop him.

          • HoppinJohn

            Sounds like it was more of a concession, to get in with only 40,000 we get your unappropriated land, a deal is a deal, don’t really know about why they put that in Nevada’s Constitution, I haven’t seen it in any other states constitution, but, by all means I have not read them all. Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan did not say or make owning land within a state illegal. Land ceded from Georgia and Virginia was put into a trust with the United States as executor of that trust. They put stipulations on that trust, especially Georgia, which just went thru the Yazoo land fiasco. The US had to assume responsibility for the settlements of the Yazoo land claims, they had to remove the Indians from the land, all Indian land given to the states formed from the ceded land (Alabama & Mississippi), and at the US’s expense, get rid of the Indians in Georgia and turn that land over to Georgia, plus pay one and a quarter million into a fund for the common good of the states.

            So, the land was part of Georgia before it became Alabama, still with me, Georgia ceded the land to form new states, and as in your post, was put into a trust, with the US as executor, the executor has to go by the wording and stipulations setup in that trust. The executor does not own the trust, a trust is its own entity, separate from the executor. With the land going from Georgia to trust to new state (Alabama), they were correct in that the US never owned the land or “never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes”.
            This is not the case with Nevada, who’s land was owned by the US before Nevada became a state, thanks to the Mexican-American War and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

      • http://live.xbox.com/en-US/MyXbox/Profile?gamerTag=FinderKeeper FinderKeeper

        The feds owned the land before Nevada became a state. Funny thing, when a federal territory has land owned by the federal government, isn’t it?

        It was up to the U.S. government to relinquish the land when Nevada became a state. Since it was 1864, it did not. Nevada’s constitution recognized federal ownership of the land upon admission as as state.

        You can blame the Republican Party. ;-)

      • HoppinJohn

        Maybe Nevada shouldn’t have given it to them, from Nevada Constitution:

        ” Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States.”

        • CyberEd65

          That sounds like something out of a communist country like China, Vietnam, North Korea. I guess when this communist dictatorial country has a gun to your head, and none of the people of the state know or could read what was proposed at that time, you just rejoice and say yippee! because you’re the next state in the union.

          • HoppinJohn

            If things that were done with “a gun to your head” don’t count, this country would still be controlled by England, the Southern states would still have slaves, and Mexico would still own Nevada, you could say anything signed at the end of any war or conflict could be null and void and I’m sure becoming a state has less duress than ending a war.

          • CyberEd65

            When shysters like Harry Reid are in power and push issues through “for the good of the people”, without letting the citizens he “represents” in on any details, something stinks. Then when the shysters use the full force of the government, be they judges, sheriffs, BLM agents, etc. to get rid of “little people” in the way of lining the pockets of everyone involved, we know the breed of the skunk. But when these charlatan’s plans are thwarted and have their little hissy fits and call those who stop them “homegrown terrorists” and threaten “It’s not over!” … one no longer has to wonder just who is the real terrorist threat to the country. It’s the government, hands down! Now you may approve of this style of 19th century, banana republic politics but I do. I find no leeway in the Constitution to allow their behavior or their heavy-handed existence.

            As for your introduction of southern states slaves, and
            Mexico’s Nevada, into our discussion, tells me all I need to know about you, your politics, your lack of understanding of history (yes, even with your BA in history) and how utterly dependent you are on government, instead of yourself, to get by, to solve everyday problems and to make life “better”.

          • HoppinJohn

            You shouldn’t paint everybody that disagrees with you with the same brush. There are ditches on the left and ditches on the right, to move forward we need to stay out of the ditches.

          • CyberEd65

            You put yourself in the ditch by going off topic.

          • HoppinJohn

            The same goes for you, for your rant in your last paragraph and by passing judgement on a person you don’t know. There is a good possibility that we agree on more things then we disagree.

          • FedUp

            Actually, it’s because the southern states had a gun to their head that they’re still in the union at all. Better brush up on your Civil War history.

          • HoppinJohn

            Still doesn’t change the fact that Nevada was not under duress when they ratified their state constitution, it was quite the opposite. Nevada wanted in so bad they had the government make a special deal for them to be admitted with only 40,000 residents instead of the usual required 60,000 residents.

          • FedUp

            That’s probably why they thought the federal government was entitled to all that land. Their special deal. No special deal, however, should’ve trumped the U.S. Constitution. The Feds should’ve ceded control of that land back to State control when Nevada became a state.

          • Yousuck

            Bundy said he would pay Clark County and the state of Nevada.
            My thought, temporarily let Bundy pay to Clark County, if Clark County wants to pay the US then they can pass it along to them, UNTIL all this finally get settled on land ownership, I feel that the US should sell or give back the lands within the state to that state, but in reality, that is not the way it is right now, but it needs to be done legally thru the courts, so that can’t be overturned, killing people on either side is not the answer.

          • HoppinJohn

            A TV station in Nevada found out Bundy’s a lying sack of s**t,
            http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cliven-bundy-ancestral-rights
            Plus

    • Freedom

      I believe his family has been on that land for over 100 years. His grandfather bought the grazing rights to it back in 1887.

      • http://live.xbox.com/en-US/MyXbox/Profile?gamerTag=FinderKeeper FinderKeeper

        Bought the rights, not the land. Guess what happens when you refuse to renew those rights according to stipulations of the owner, and instead claim ownership of the land…

      • HoppinJohn

        Cliven Bundy dose not claim his grandfather or father ever bought the grazing rights or any other rights back in 1887 or any other year. He also dose not claim to own it, he claims Nevada owns it, but Nevada says the Federal Govt. owns it.

  • Dick Motta

    In the decision handed down by the
    Supreme Court in the case of Escanaba Co. v. City of Chicago, 107
    U.S. 678, 689 (1883), an important constitutionally based concept
    known as the “equal footing doctrine” was described as “Equality
    of constitutional right and power is the condition of all the States
    of the Union, old and new.” Basically, this principle requires that
    any state added to the union do so on equal footing with the 13
    original states. When States were added to the Union, the territorial
    land was transferred to the State.

  • thereisacreator

    Why should a rancher pay grazing fees and the government pays farmers not to grow crops? They call it environmental ?

    Paying farmers not to grow crops was a substitute for agricultural
    price support programs designed to ensure that farmers could always sell
    their crops for enough to support themselves. The price support program
    meant that farmers had to incur the expense of plowing their fields,
    fertilizing, irrigating, spraying, and harvesting them, and then selling
    their crops to the government, which stored them in silos until they
    either rotted or were consumed by rodents. It was much cheaper just to
    pay farmers not to grow the crops in the first place.

    Of
    course, paying people not to do work is bound to be politically awkward
    (think of the old New Yorker cartoon of an accordion player on a subway
    platform with a sign next to his cup that read, “Will not play Lady of
    Spain, 25 cents”). So the government described the program as an
    environmental one rather than an income maintenance scheme. As described
    to the public, it was compensation to farmers for retiring acreage to
    reduce fertilizer and pesticide runoff into the nation’s water supply.

    • http://live.xbox.com/en-US/MyXbox/Profile?gamerTag=FinderKeeper FinderKeeper

      The owner of the land gets paid. Farmers who have full title to their land get paid by the government not to grow crops. They have the right to refuse the government offer–in which case, they won’t get paid by the government.

      The U.S. government has full title to the land Bundy is grazing on (i.e., public land, that does not belong to any individual, but to the people of the United States collectively). If Bundy wants to economically exploit that land, he has to pay the owner–the people of the United States. And the people of the United States are represented by the United States government.

      The federal government has the right to refuse Bundy’s “offer” to graze on public land. Especially if he does not pay for the privilege of doing so.

      The case is rather airtight, and any “thugs” are the ones seizing public land and refusing to vacate it by resorting to arms. Until the courts decide otherwise, they are breaking the law; usually, to win public sympathy from people other than fellow “thugs”, non-violent resistance is the best strategy.

      Bundy’s already lost in that regard. And if he or his supporters actually defend their occupation with violence, they’ll lose more than sympathy. Shooting federal employees on federal land is not a recipe for success.

  • thereisacreator
  • teddy6139

    Excellent follow up. Thanks.

  • dinkster

    Surfers, ironically know all about prescriptive rights. Years and years of court battles over beach access from home owners trying to draw property lines in the sand and make 15-20 miles of connective fences to stop access to the water line.

  • dinkster

    Proggies like Dan amaze me. All the progressive arguments about ‘absentee landlords’ turning the population into serfs and sharecroppers goes out the window as long as the ‘right people’ are in charge.

  • Mike C.

    As if any of this was about the rancher and him paying the fees. Someone found a way to make a ton of money by using the land for something else… IE Harry Reid. That is when this rancher using the land became a problem.

  • Aj Vesce Jr.

    So that would just make his criminal behavior a legal oversight…still a criminal.

    • Jm

      There are several judges stating that Bundy should have won the court cases.
      Search for yourself. I think you are missing the true criminal activity accruing in the entire western U.S.

      • CyberEd65

        I agree! The real criminals are the Federal government!

      • http://live.xbox.com/en-US/MyXbox/Profile?gamerTag=FinderKeeper FinderKeeper

        No, I don’t trust you. Provide names of federal judges, preferably U.S. Supreme Court, or you’re blowing proverbial smoke, and Bundy is nothing more than a welfare prince living off the government teat (for free).

      • HoppinJohn

        Your straight up lying no judges have came out supporting Bundy. Bundy cant even find a lawyer in Nevada to take his cases, he has to be his own lawyer. Maybe that why lost all his court battles and appeals

  • Brian

    FYI, I know it’s nitpicking, but it’s Clark not Clarke County.

  • jddeatherage

    This is a little off topic but why does the BLM have it’s own armed force of agents? Do other federal depts have armed agents as well? Education? Energy? etc.

    • dinkster

      Energy sure does, but they have a much much better justification for it, concerning all the nuclear material they deal with.

    • CyberEd65

      There are over 80 federal agency that have their own SWAT teams including the park service, education, social security, Amtrak, fish and game, border patrol … heck even some of the SWAT teams have SWAT teams within SWAT teams. Next the balloon vendors will have a SWAT team. It’s become absolutely ridiculous!!!

      • 7LibertyForAll

        And WE pay for it.

      • OneWitness

        This doesn’t exactly help pay down the federal deficit, does it?

      • dinkster

        Its SWAT teams all the way down.

    • 7LibertyForAll

      Why, yes they do. That’s where a lot of the ammo has been going so that us ORDINARY people don’t have access to it and when they do, it’s very expensive. WE pay for the criminal government to arm itself AGAINST us. Isn’t that just dandy?

    • thereisacreator

      Go do a search on how many government agencies have an “army” now. It’s an eye opener. Yes, Education, Energy and even the USPS. They haven’t purchased 1.6 Billion rounds of ammunition that includes hollow-point bullets for nothing.

  • ColinC

    So if you can get away with something long enough, you’ve earned the right to do it indefinitely? There’s something very wrong with that.

    • 7LibertyForAll

      Bundy hasn’t “gotten away” with anything. Haven’t you read anything regarding this situation?

      • CyberEd65

        Obviously not from a comment like that.

      • ColinC

        Did you read the article or just jump to the comments section? I wasn’t talking about Bundy, but about the principle of “prescriptive rights.” Why should I have to actively defend my property from my neighbors, or else lose the right to do so in the future?

        • Jester

          5 years is a long time to not notice someone is using your property to walk their cattle to a watering hole. If you didn’t notice I guess you aren’t much of a steward of that land. Not to mention it is public land.

          Now as far as private land, we are not talking about you losing your land. Prescriptive rights are for easement. And if you privately own land that someone uses for easement for 5 years without you knowing, again, what the hell does it matter to you? Of course if you can show a plan to use the area of easement in the future, that would overrule the rights the other guy gained while you were sleeping. After all they are rights, not ownership, and you are the owner with superior rights if you can prove the need.

      • HoppinJohn

        He has gotten away with theft for twenty years

    • Kurt P

      It’s well established in law.

  • Kevin Hansen

    1864
    Nevada constitution says, ” the people inhabiting said territory do
    agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the
    unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the
    same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the
    United States.”

    • Jester

      and in Coyle v. Smith the supreme court ruled that was an unconstitutional agreement made under coercion by the prospective state in order to get into the union, and is not enforceable by the federal government because it puts the state at a disadvantage when it comes to equal footing with other states, diminishes their sovereignty, and independent self determination.

      And the Nevada Legislature agreed passing a law in 2010 declaring the Fed ownership of any land in Nevada that does not fit the description of article 1 section 8 clause 17 of the US constitution to be null and void.

      Cliven Bundy did the job of the County Sheriff by enforcing that ruling.

      • Kevin Hansen

        That ruling was this:
        The Supreme Court held that preventing the state of Oklahoma the right
        to locate its own seat of government deprived it of powers which all
        other states of the Union enjoyed, and thus violated the traditional
        constitutional principle that all new states be admitted “on an equal
        footing with the original states”. As a result, the provision of the
        enabling act which temporarily restricted Oklahoma’s right to determine
        where its seat of government would be was unconstitutional.

        Had nothing to do with the land owned by the Federal government, and doesn’t apply to that either.

        • Jester

          You, and the 2 who agreed with your comment are mistaken about what I wrote. Try reading it again.

          • Chapter C Cavanaugh

            So you’re talking about the constitutional clause that was used to create DC. In this case though the land is definitely Federal. Nevada is not sovereign as Bundy states. His case is predicated on Nevada being the supreme ruler of it’s territory. The Federal Governement through eminent domaine retains ultimate authority. If Bundy doesn’t want to acknowledge the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, he can get out of this country and take his trespass cattle with him. Dude needs to Cowboy up and pay his fee’s.

          • http://live.xbox.com/en-US/MyXbox/Profile?gamerTag=FinderKeeper FinderKeeper

            Exactly. He’s a federal welfare rancher que… uh, “king.”

          • Jester

            And you are an uneducated buffoon.

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            That land is not Federal land. The Federal government owned the land in the Territory until Nevada was admitted as a State of the Union. Upon becoming a State the Federal government is bound by constitution to dispose of the soil to the State. Then, the only way the Federal government can constitutionally acquire land within a State is to purchase the land from the State with the Consent of the State Legislators or eminent domain. Article I. Section 8. Clause 17 is quite clear.

            Bundy’s case is not predicated on Nevada being the supreme ruler of it’s territory. Bundy’s case is predicated on who owns the land. All the land belongs to the State of Nevada and the State of Nevada is subject to the supreme law of the land in accordance with United States Constitution.

            The Federal government does have the power to use eminent domain to obtain property for public use, but they must pay for it. There is no getting around it. Nevada owns that land unless the Federal government purchased it.

            “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

          • Jester

            True. Interestingly enough, the feds forced the newly forming state of Nevada to agree to language in their state constitution which granted extraordinary power to the feds to keep land without question of purpose or time limit for its disposition to Nevada.

            The supreme court shot that down in Coyle v. Smith.

            Equal Footing is a principle first articulated in the NW ordinance
            but was specifically interpreted by the Supreme Court in Coyle v. Smith to be extended and applicable to all created states, and that any
            limitation the state was forced to include in their constitution as a
            matter of enabling the state’s creation is unenforceable.

            The Court noted that the power given to Congress by Art. IV, § 3, of the
            Constitution is to admit new States to the Union, and relates only to
            such States as are equal to each other in power and dignity and
            competency to exert the remainder of sovereignty not delegated to the Federal Government.

            Andthey opined in conclusion: “To this we may add that the constitutionalequality of the States is essential to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was organized. When that equality disappears, we may remain a free people, but the Union will not be the Union of the Constitution”

          • HoppinJohn

            It still allows for Federal public lands, here is what is still allowed by Coyle v. Smith:

            “The constitutional duty of Congress of guaranteeing to each State a republican form of government does not import a power to impose upon a new State, as a condition to its admission to the Union, restrictions which render it unequal to the other States, such as limitations upon its power to locate or change its seat of government.

            No prior decision of this court sanctions the claim that Congress, in admitting a new State, can impose conditions in the enabling act, the acceptance whereof will deprive the State when admitted of any attribute of power essential to its equality with the other States.

            Congress may embrace in an enabling act conditions relating to matters wholly within its sphere of powers, such as regulations of interstate commerce, intercourse with Indian tribes, and disposition of public lands, but not conditions relating wholly to matters under state control such as the location and change of the seat of government of the State.”

            So Federal Govt can still hold public lands within states until sold to someone, sold to the state or given to the state, until the land is sold the government holds and manages the land, and Nevada agree with this.

          • Jester

            you ignore “wholly within its sphere”. “Disposition” means that the feds are to dispose of public land that they cannot use for legitimate federal purposes. It could still remain public land, but transfer of title would go to the state, and the state would decide on the management team. Or they could dispose to private individuals within the state.

            The founders did not want a federal bureaucracy centralized in some remote area centralizing power to themselves over vast portions of land in every state for obvious reasons. And Coyle V. Smith simply validates that foresight because not only would such governance be inefficient and out of touch with the local scenario, but it a state like Nevada where the feds owned a majority of the land, it would put that state on unequal footing with other states. It is quite simple actually. Which is why Nevada said enough is enough.
            http://law.justia.com/codes/nevada/2013/chapter-321/statute-321.596

          • Yousuck

            Wow, you guys in this thread are crazy, but it makes for an interesting philosophical debate.

          • HoppinJohn

            Nevada says its Federal land

    • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

      The people in Nevada did not have the authority to usurp the U.S. Constitution. That clause you reference is null and void of law because it violates the U.S. Constitution.

      Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137: This is one of the leading cases in the history of the U.S. The opinion of the court was “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law; Clearly for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme was illogical; for certainly the supreme law would prevail over any other law, and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis for all laws, and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law. It would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as though it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded by a court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it, and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law, which means it doesn’t exist in law.”

      U.S. Constitution. Article I. Section 8. Clause 17.
      “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;”

      Unless the Federal government purchased that land from the State of Nevada with the Consent of the Nevada Legislature, then that land belongs to the State of Nevada and it always has.

      • http://live.xbox.com/en-US/MyXbox/Profile?gamerTag=FinderKeeper FinderKeeper

        Tell it to the Supreme Court, then. Though Bundy seems to not have much success taking the legal route. The Supreme Court has a majority of strict constitutionalists, but they seem to have interpreted the U.S. Constitution differently than you have.

        Too bad you’re not on the Supreme Court. It’d be fun to see judges you think share your conservatism shoot you down (metaphorically speaking, of course). :-p

        • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

          Nine justices based in Washington were never given the power to make law. The Supreme Court does not have the power of judicial review. They were not given that power in Article III or any subsequent amendment. Their rulings are not binding on the people as a whole, but only upon the parties to a suit.

          Abraham Lincoln on his first day in office before the Civil War started.

          “I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.” – Abraham Lincoln – March 4, 1861

        • Jester

          Try supreme court Colye v. Smith and get back to us.

          • HoppinJohn

            “The constitutional duty of Congress of guaranteeing to each State a republican form of government does not import a power to impose upon a new State, as a condition to its admission to the Union, restrictions which render it unequal to the other States, such as limitations upon its power to locate or change its seat of government.

            No prior decision of this court sanctions the claim that Congress, in admitting a new State, can impose conditions in the enabling act, the acceptance whereof will deprive the State when admitted of any attribute of power essential to its equality with the other States.

            Congress may embrace in an enabling act conditions relating to matters wholly within its sphere of powers, such as regulations of interstate commerce, intercourse with Indian tribes, and disposition of public lands, but not conditions relating wholly to matters under state control such as the location and change of the seat of government of the State.”

            See that part in Colye v Smith about the Federal Govt can still hold land until disposition, which means sold or given away, is wholly within Congresses sphere of powers

      • Chapter C Cavanaugh

        How does Marbury v Madison have anything to do with the fact that the Nevada State Constitution says that unappropriated land is forfeited by the citizens within the state territory?

        • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

          I quoted the opinion of the court concerning Marbury v Madison to demonstrate that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If the constitution is usurped, then whatever action taken to usurp the U.S. Constitution is null and void of law.

          The people living in Nevada in 1864 did not have the authority to agree to let the Federal government keep the unappropriated land. By Constitution the Federal government MUST dispose of the soil to the State when the State is granted statehood. They can purchase some of it back from the State later, but they are bound by constitution to give it up first. All the land within the State borders belongs to the State until the Feds purchase it back.

          • Chapter C Cavanaugh

            These lands were never claimed by Bundy’s family as the State felt in 1932 that the land was overgrazed and would be a cash burden to maintain, thus they allowed Hoover to take over the land to which the BLM was created. Numerous times througout the remaining century bills came before congress to deed out the land but nobody would back the proposals. Finally in 1976 the Federal Land Policy and Management Act ended homesteading and allowed the Federal Government to retain control of this land. That puts the ownership of the lands in Federal Ownership. You cite the constitution as being supreme yet you don’t recognize the FLPMA as being a Federal Law. The ownership of the land is that of the Fed’s because neither Nevada, nor Bundy’s family own it.

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            The original intent of the U.S. Constitution did not allow the Federal government to own land except for what eventually became Washington D.C., erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings such as Post Offices, Courts, Mints, etc. All the land within the State’s boundaries rightfully belong to their respective States. Since the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land the Federal government must surrender the land to the States.

            Imagine how the economy would boom, and liberty blossom if individuals were allowed to exercise their rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. Federal oppression would shrink and individual State governments would flourish. Competition is good. If individuals were allowed to homestead land, build homes on their land, grow industrial hemp, or mine the minerals off their land, and rule over themselves as intended by the original intent of the Constitution, individuals in America would become wealthy from taking advantage of opportunity like our ancestors did. 160 acres or even 80 acres of land is quite valuable.

            That is why the Federal government does not want to honor their contract. They do not want to give-up their power.

          • Chapter C Cavanaugh

            The problem though is that the lands that you cite WERE NOT WANTED BY THE STATES. They gave them up! That’s like selling a Porsche when you were 18 because you couldn’t afford the maintenance and now you have a good job you cry that you should have your Porsche back even though you steal it off the lot everyday. If Nevada wants its land back they need to take it up with the guy who has the keys AND the TITLE. Bundy needs to COWBOY UP and PAY THE MAN HIS DUES. Good day, sir!

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            LANDS WERE NOT WANTED? That is not true. You are claiming that people did not want to own land according to law in the mid-19th century. I don’t buy that argument. The Feds understood that if they continued to give up the land to the people, then the people would be free and the Feds would lose their power. That’s why they stopped letting the people own land.

            Yes, the people did want that land. Many people died defending their right to own those lands. Those lands hold valuable soil and minerals. I have travelled throughout the Western lands and much of BLM land is riverfront, and valleys, and hold valuable resources such as oil, forests, pasture, and gold & silver. The Feds would rather taser, K9, and throw women to the ground than give it to the people who rightfully own it.

          • Chapter C Cavanaugh

            If the people wanted the land they would have bought it when it was for sale. They would have homesteaded on it. Truth is they didn’t want it because nobody came for it and the State Governments didn’t want to pay to maintain the land. Snooze and lose, buddy. Sorry. If they were meant to have the land they would have dealt with all of that long ago. Bundy’s a deadbeat and the militia’s defending him should be arrested for treason.

          • HoppinJohn

            I love the 1800′s conspiracy theories, they’re so quaint.

          • Michael M

            It’s worse (for Bundy) than you suggest. In reality, the land was never the state’s. It was part of the land procured through treaty by the fed govt, was set aside and not included in the land designated as Nevada’s at statehood as per the state enabling act and the state constitution. The fed govt did allow various states broad use of lands it owned (but never transferred ownership) until it became clear that the public interest was not being served and a more unified approach was warranted…thus, the establishment of the BLM with full administrative control of what had always been federal land.

          • HoppinJohn

            What give up power to a rich welfare queen, your an idiot.

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            “your an idiot” should be written as “you’re an idiot”. Idiot.

          • HoppinJohn

            Well, I guess charter schools aren’t that good after all, I stand corrected for once. Spelling Genius.

          • HoppinJohn

            Same story, still wrong.

  • DMG

    If Bundy wants to claim he is grazing them on public land, wouldn’t the cattle be considered public cattle? He is using my land for his profit. When do I get my side of beef?

    • CosmicJo

      When you go out and earn that Right, it is Yours, until then remain a parasite complaining that there is no fairness and you need the Gov to stand up for your Rights, that “they” will in the end take from you, lol.

    • thereisacreator

      Do you ever walk on sidewalks, drive on roads, walk in parks, etc.? They belong to the public, so should you be paying a fee every single time you access these public lands? When you drive to work, that is the way you make money and I don’t get a share of your “profits.” Farmers and ranchers provide the most important commodity for all of us FOOD and we need them. They have a hard life, work long hours and they aren’t rolling in money. When I go to the store and look at that piece of meat that costs $15.00 I know it costs that much because the government has made it impossible for ranchers to survive. I walk out of the grocery with 2 bags of food and I spent at least $50.00 for very little. The government has imposed fees so high that in Nevada, most ranchers have gone out of business. The gov’t pays farmers not to plant crops, in 2006, to the tune of 1.6 billion dollars saying it helps the environment but charges grazing fees to ranchers for the environment?

      If I had a choice between buying a new iPhone, iPad, etc., versus food, I choose food at reasonable prices.

      Think about the bigger picture before you spew what the government or mainstream media says.

      • Kevin Hansen

        Using public lands is different than using public sidewalks or roadways. Bundy is over using a resource and increasing the size of his herd beyond the capacity of that land to support it. Ever hear of over grazing? That is what Bundy is doing. Not his land to destroy.

        • Jester

          that is not true and you have no facts to support it.

        • thereisacreator

          This is 600,000 acres of DESSERT land which converts to 937.5 square miles. Does that give you an idea how big that is and you’d have to look really hard to find those 900 cattle Bundy has on that large an area. He has improved that STATE property and is not destroying it. If he is destroying it, then that’s not to his benefit as his cattle would starve. This so-called resource isn’t used by anyone. You can’t farm it. His cattle also support other wildlife in the area (for instance: it sustains the dessert tortoise because they eat the cattle dung as their only source of food.) BLM thinks he should limit his cattle to 150 herd. Heck, that’s nothing.

          Horses graze differently than cattle and the way horses graze is the reason that you have poor pastures. They will reduce a pasture to dead areas. Cattle graze uniformly over a pasture and they do not have upper teeth in the front so they can only snip off the grass that is two inches tall so the grass will be replenished. Horses will bite the grass off at the ground pulling out the roots.

          Farmers rotate their crops because if they didn’t it would make their land useless. Ranchers also understand how many cattle can be sustained on land & because of the way they eat grass, grass is constantly being replenished of grazing material.

          The U.S. government subsidizes the farmers NOT to plant crops (at your expense) yet, ranchers are regulated to death so that they go out of business. In 2006, the US gov’t paid out 1.6 Billion $ to subsidize farmers not to plant crops; yet they want to charge ranchers grazing fees on land that belongs to the State?

          50 or more other ranchers used that STATE dessert land to graze and now he’s the last one. So how could his little herd possibly destroy that much acreage by over-grazing when it sustained so many other cattle in the past?

          This is not about cattle, it is about land grab and that acknowledgement that the government does not own Nevada State land. It belongs to the State of Nevada.

          We need to support our farmers and ranchers because you can have all the money in the world but if there is no food, then what?

          • DMG

            600,000 acres of dessert? That’s a lot of cupcakes.

          • thereisacreator

            sorry, DESERT. LOL

          • http://live.xbox.com/en-US/MyXbox/Profile?gamerTag=FinderKeeper FinderKeeper

            Still not his land, it’s the government’s, and he’s as foolish as someone claiming the right to use a mothballed jetfighter or tank because “the government isn’t using it”.

            Property rights trump everything else; he does not own the property, therefore he has no individual rights over it. End of story.

          • greenthumb707

            The Federal Government DOES NOT OWN this land. The State of Nevada owns the land. If the State of Nevada wanted him gone then I could understand but the BLM has no right as they do not own the land.

          • HoppinJohn

            Yes, they do, just ask Nevada

          • Chapter C Cavanaugh

            You can’t deny that there is a local golf course that has repeatedly complained about his trespass cattle on their course and that they do not have a right to graze on the golf course. The miles of fence the Nevada Wildlife Dept has put up and the road hazards caused, not to mention the polluting of local water resources from their dung. There are restoration projects that have over a half million in funding that have been put on hold because the cattle will undo, not to mention bulls will harass, all work done in the area.

          • HoppinJohn

            “it sustains the dessert tortoise because they eat the cattle dung as their only source of food”, Because the cattle trampled their native food supply DS.
            Why do you call it Nevada’s land when Nevada says its the Federal Govt’s land. If the Bundy’s wanted it they would have bought it.
            He is nothing more then a Millionaire Welfare Queen.
            He can pay his fees or get the fu** off my land.

      • HoppinJohn

        Yes, I do pay to access public land, sidewalks, street, etc. I pay all of my fees and taxes city, state, and federal, Bundy has refused to pay for his access to public lands for twenty years. He says he could pay if he wanted too, he is worth over $10 million, he just doesn’t want too.
        Bundy would be getting a bargain if he paid federal grazing of $1.35 an animal unit per month, because if he grazed on Nevada land it would cost him $12.00 per AU per month.
        Stay in the City.

    • Jester

      You get your non-gmo fed, non-steroid injected slice of Bundy beef if you are lucky enough to get a piece of his cattle in the food chain. He had already paid for perpetual grazing rights on land that no one used, and then paid for years when the government changed that “right” into a yearly permission with extra fees, and then when they were going to charge him even more to reduce his herd and protect a turtle that began to flourish because of cattle and sheep maintaining their food source (oh you didn’t know that?) he told them to get off his back. The Nevada public decided that the best use for that land was to keep cattle ranchers in business and keep prices down. The fed gov decided the best use is wildlife habitat and solar farms. In 2010 the Nevada legislature told the feds they were taking back the lands not used for military purposes or post roads and firing the fed mismanagers. The Fed told Nevada they have more guns and it is their land to do whatever they want with.

      You do the math smart guy.

      • DMG

        Ah, but no one makes money walking on sidewalks. And they aren’t public, they are maintained by some form of government. Bundy has broke and is breaking laws NUMEROUS times. What makes him so special? Why is he above the law? Him and his cronies are bullies. They are the thugs….they threaten violence and then have people milling about with rifles. They even threatened to use women and children as human shields. I live here. I have been to Gold Butte more times than I can count. I am also a part time BLM fire fighter and all of you that are complaining about the BLM overstepping its bounds, wait until wildland fire season and you will be thanking God that a government agency exists.

        • Jester

          Learn the difference between taxes and grazing rights and related management fees and go from there.

          And the BLM explicitly broke federal law.

          U.S. Code — 43 U.S.C. Section 1733, Subsection C

          “When the Secretary determines that assistance is necessary in enforcing Federal laws and regulations relating to the public lands or their resources he shall offer a contract to appropriate local officials having law enforcement authority within their respective jurisdictions with the view of achieving maximum feasible reliance upon local law enforcement officials in enforcing such laws and regulations.”

          • Michael M

            You might wish to start questioning your sources if you came across this someplace touting the BLM’s actions violated Sect. 1733. Read Subsect. c1 (above) carefully: “when…assistance is necessary” –that is, there is no requirement of using local officials. Indeed, the rest of Subsect. c1 essentially is about deputizing these officials, and certain powers/immunity being equal to that of federal officers–again, no requirement to use them at all. This statute gives power to the Secretary…not restricts it.

            Read further to Subsect. c2, first line: “The Secretary may authorize Federal personnel or appropriate local officials to carry out his law enforcement responsibilities with respect to the public lands and their resources.”
            –Again, pay attention to the OR…it makes all the difference

          • Jester

            I quoted the relevant portion. First, the Secretary only needs assistance when his personal order, via a court, is disobeyed. At that point the secretary is required to “achieve maximum feasible reliance upon local law enforcement officials”. How you can imagine that would require any federal agents when local agents are now armed to the teeth is beyond me. As a matter of fact the entire section c1 is devoted to describing how local officials are to be empowered, trained, and protected by federal law and procedures.

            And section c2 specifically indicates that any fed personnel involved shall “have the responsibilities provided for in section c1, meaning achieving maximum reliance on local law enforcement.

          • Michael M

            You are misreading the section. If the secretary needed assistance every time an order was disobeyed as you contend, then there would be no need for federal officers at all, which is nonsensical. Also, think of the logic of your interpretation: The feds ‘must’ rely on local authorities in federal areas…local authorities must give consent (they cannot be forced after all)…meaning, there are times when local authorities can refuse to help–>under your novel interpretation, in those instances, the secretary would be powerless to enforce federal law in federal areas and would be at the whim of locals–such an interpretation makes a mockery of federalism and national supremacy principles. In short, your reading is incorrect–note that one only gets to your pt by excluding several words in the section. That is, it is not ‘required to “achieve maximum feasible reliance upon local law enforcement officials”‘…you simply pulled a prepositional phrase out of context

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            You, Michael M, are the one misreading. The Federal government was not formed to rule over us. It was formed to liberate us.

          • Jester

            You ignore the word “feasible”, which if applied reasonably, gives the secretary all latitude in the case of uncooperative local law enforcement and nullifies your contention.

            Interesting to note is that local LE may have a very good reason to refuse cooperation, and may also offer resistance.

          • Michael M

            Exactly…why would the Secretary be required to rely on uncooperative local leo’s? The answer is: the Sec is not…indeed, the Sec is not required to rely on local law enforcement at all…the plain reading of the Section is that the Sec may rely on locals, and if so, they have certain powers and protections…or the Sec my deem that no assistance is necessary, and proceed with federal agents exclusively…the fact that in this case local leo’s might actually resist rather than cooperate makes my pt

          • Jester

            Since you do not understand the founder’s intent to limit the federal government’s power, you misread the plain language of that code. The federal government was NEVER meant to have standing armed law enforcement agents in every county in the nation. The very first sentence is when the sec. determines assistance is needed. You interpret assistance to mean not enough federal stormtroopers to surround a guys home and serve a judges warrant. I translate assistance to mean the respondant is unresponsive to a judgement or warrant mailed or served by a process server or sheriff, and the Secretary must authorize force and use all willing local law enforcement if feasible. If not, then proceed to the next option which would be to use federal power to call up militia or in todays day and age, use state national guard.

            That is the straightforward translation that is in line with the limited powers envisioned for the feds. You have it backwards, just like today’s fed.

          • Michael M

            Jester, Your reading is anything by plain. You supplant the natural reading (when the Secretary determines) with your own (when the respondent is uncooperative). This would make the Sec part of the legislative branch–able only to decree, rather than having executive powers. As for the use of the militia/national guard, again your logic fails. The long tradition in this country–including among the founders–is a general abhorrence to use the military for law enforcement tasks except under the most extreme cases (and even then, quite unpopular). This is part of the rational for having specialized officers outside of the military at the federal level. As for your hyperbole about standing agents: note that the jurisdiction of such fed agents is very limited to federal crimes, federal property, etc. If the code was intended to be what you suggest, it would simply read something like, “To enforce Federal laws and regulations, the Secretary must authorize and depend upon local forces when feasible…” That, of course, is not what the law states.

          • Jester

            The Feds were meant to dispose lands not needed for forts, arsenals, dockyards, military proving grounds etc as enumerated. States were meant to be trusted to use public lands for projects as they saw fit and if those states deprived any rights of citizens in their states in the process of whatever projects they used those lands for, the fed was to step in. Instead the fed maintained superior title and influence while allowing state reps largely titular role in managing projects initiated by the feds on those lands. Granted, in newly formed states, there was a transition period to consider and this is why we have this issue and

            43 U.S. Code § 1733 under discussion. This entire subsection 1733 is basically describing how relevant, already established, local LE is deputized when necessary to assist the attorney general with federal law enforcement. Granted with divisions of the DOI such as Fish and wildlife, parks, BLM, mining, there will be local people employed in those divisions. But it should be considered rare for the need for armed law enforcement, forget about militarized law enforcement. And as the ostensible object is eventual transition to state or county control of all public parks, mines, and EVERYTHING, anyone trained in law enforcement should make a living at the local level doing so, and only be called upon (deputized) for federal work when necessary.

            Thus the only salaried LE positions within each of the various DOI divisions requiring a LE arm, would be Chief and a few deputy chiefs ala US Marshals.

            As it is, each division of the DOI has its own federal shock troops, mercenaries if you will, and thus a literal standing army, having no local ties or allegiance to 49 out of 50 states they will be called into (or zero if they are foreigners).

            So, I stand by my earlier comments that if god forbid there was some sort of massive rebellion within a newly formed state where public lands were usurped by a well organized and armed group who were trampling the rights of state citizens, and the Secretary of the Interior could not rely on the Chief and deputies of the division with jurisdiction to deputize local LE as per the US code under discussion, then the national guard or even the US army would need to be called in. That is the way things would look under constitutional limitations.

          • Michael M

            Jester, Additionally, you might wish to be careful of wrapping yourself too tightly in original intent arguments…they are often used as a surrogate for ‘the world has changed and I don’t like it, by I do not have anything substantive to base my argument’
            Also, if you do wish to employ the strategy, you might become better acquainted with facts pertinent to your claim. Namely,
            (1) the Postal Inspector (actually called Special Agents) position existed before the Dec of Ind, and had complete law enforcement powers (investigate, arrest, use of deadly force).
            (2) The US Marshals (1789 or so on) were famous for the support they had from G. Washington and the legal executions they carried out as federal law enforcers.
            (3) Call out the military you say (see also below)…G. Washington was so reluctant to do so (state militia in that case) that when it became clear that the US Marshals were not enough during the Whiskey Rebellion, he had to get certification from the US Supreme Court first…obviously not something most of us would want every time federal law needed enforced
            (4) Moreover, the original intent legal reasoning (if you wish to go beyond the ‘I don’t like that the world has changed’ position) goes to the intent of those making the relevant law…in this case regarding the use of the Sec discretion, that would be Public Law 94-579 I think…haven’t looked it up, but seems in that ballpark…that is, mid to late 1970s…the intent of federal enforcers outside of the military clearly would have been intended

          • Jester

            excellent points, see my last comment/reply to you as I address that.

          • HoppinJohn

            That was tried first, Clark County Sheriffs and Deputies have served several court summons and eviction notices to Bundy, only to be threatened for twenty years with violence and shootings

        • Jester

          Furthermore they did not threaten to use women and children as human shields. Sheriff Mack, who wasn’t even there, claimed that about women, NOT CHILDREN. Later, when called on the facts, he retracted his story admitting he was not in contact with anyone at the ranch regarding tactics before the event and it was just an idea he wanted to suggest depending on how the situation unfolded. I believe it was a bad idea but that is not the point. You repeated a claim from one man without verifying it, and it turned out he was exaggerating at best.

          • DMG

            http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/15/former-sheriff-willing-let-wife-daughter-die-front/

            Not sure where you got your information from but he did indeed threaten to use women and children as human shields. 1) Mack is/was in Bunkerville 2) He did say his own wife and child 3) please see verification above.

          • Jester

            I got my information from listening to Mack said to the Fox news reporter the morning after the event, what Mack then said in the 10 minute interview with Ben Swann later that day (found on this webpage), and then what he said when asked about it a couple days ago. In other words I did not rely on any other reporter to tell me what he said and did, I did my own homework. You have been misled by a reporter with an agenda other than the truth.

          • HoppinJohn

            He was there, wanting to use women as shields, he only retracted his Monday statement Wednesday because he got in trouble with the Tea Party and Militias.

          • Jester

            He only arrived on the scene after the group confronted the BLM at their corral under the overpass. He literally had no say or consultation in how the confrontation occurred. You need to listen to his 10 minute interview with Ben Swann from the day after to get the whole story. In that interview he said that putting women in front was an idea he had that he was going to suggest, but never got a chance to.

      • HoppinJohn

        Cliven Bundy has never claimed that he or any member of his family ever paid for perpetual grazing rights for this land, do not put words in his mouth.

        • Jester

          I don’t need to claim it, that is actually what it was in 1877. When you paid for grazing rights they included forage and water rights, and this was tantamount to rights to the land via prescriptive easement. The federal government was still the owner. So at any time they wished to revoke the right to graze they needed to treat the situation as an eminent domain action. Which requires a reasonable explanation for revoking one’s rights to property, and just compensation.

          He and his family went along with the “permit” process in the beginning (1934) because it was not burdensome and being used to screw them over. Even the new rules of 1978 were not enough to deter them. But in 1993 it went too far. The feds did not exercise eminent domain in a fair way, so Bundy said screw you I will see you in court. The federal court is appointed, not elected, and in the pocket of Reid and Kornze, and he knew he would never be treated fairly. Don’t be so blind. He had every right to stand his ground and demand fair treatment.

          • HoppinJohn

            Prescriptive easements do not apply to city, state and federal land, just private land owners, eminent domain is not need by the land owner to change his agreement with a renter, which is what Bundy is. Reid and Kornze can not appoint judges to a federal court, state court maybe, but not federal, and then it would be the Governor.

          • Jester

            I said they were in the pocket of Reid and Kornze and if you don’t understand what that means, you never lived in Las Vegas and are probably from Mars.

            And you are dead wrong about P.Easements. They most certainly CAN apply to federal land. And Bundy is not a renter. He is about to discover more about his relationship to that “allotment” than he even knew. Here is a peek for you.

            2003 : Who owns public land?
            Nearly 100 ranchers gathered in Farmington, N.M., last weekend to
            listen to Wayne Hage and his wife, former Congresswoman Helen
            Chenoweth-Hage, explain how the “public” land on which their cattle
            graze may not be “public” at all. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims
            found, in Hage v. United States, that the ranchers, not the federal
            government, may be the true owners of the property referred to as
            “public” land.

            Environmental organizations, and agencies of the federal government,
            have been trying to rid the West of cattle for decades. The Hage
            decision demonstrates that the “ownership” of the forage, water and
            migration routes, may actually belong to the ranchers, and not to the
            government.

            The doctrine of “prior appropriation” governed land and water
            acquisition in the West long before there was a United States. This
            doctrine means that the first person to find water, and put it to
            beneficial use, had the exclusive right to use the water and the
            adjacent land and forage sufficient to maintain the livestock the water
            would support.
            http://www.wnd.com/2003/11/22039/

            2006: “TNA: Why are ranchers required to have a grazing permit if, as you say, they already own the water and forage on these lands?

            Hage: The truth is that a rancher is not required to have a grazing permit. The grazing permit should more accurately be called a grazing management permit. It is a cooperative permit whereby the rancher permits the U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management to manage his private range rights in return for the rancher being permitted to participate in the range improvement fund for capital expenditures. When the federal agency cancels a grazing permit, as they did in my case, they cancelled my ability to participate in the range improvement fund, but they also cancelled any authority (ed. for THEM) to manage my private range and water rights.

            TNA: Is this part of the reason the rulings in your case have caused so
            much consternation among environmental groups and federal land
            management agencies?

            Hage: Yes! The one thing the environmentalists and federal land
            management agencies hate to lose is control. Without the grazing
            management permit or some other management agreement with the rancher, they cannot legally control his property rights.”
            http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/12961-huge-win-for-property-owners

            2012: In a June 6 bench statement, Judge Jones charged federal officials of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) with violating previous court judgments and engaging in a decades-long conspiracy against Nevada rancher Wayne Hage and his family.

            “So I’m finding and concluding as a matter of law,” said the judge,
            “that the government and the agents of the government in that locale,
            sometime in the ’70s and ’80s, entered into a conspiracy, a literal,
            intentional conspiracy, to deprive the Hages of not only their permit
            grazing rights, for whatever reason, but also to deprive them of their
            vested property rights under the takings clause, and I find that that’s a
            sufficient basis to hold that there is irreparable harm if I don’t —
            and it’s in the public interest, if I don’t restrain the government from
            continuing in that conduct.”
            http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/13490-judge-blasts-federal-conspiracy-ranch-family-vindicated-%E2%80%94-again

            2013: Hage added, “More importantly we proved a ‘forage right.’ Ranchers in the state of Nevada are protected from trespass within a half-mile from a water source.”

            Notably, the court said, “The Government may not abuse its discretion in refusing to renew, or in revoking, a [grazing] privilege.” Significantly, the family will be under permanent injunctive relief and the government shall not reduce the Hages’ permits by more than 25 percent for any period of time without the courts’ consent, and never permanently.

            Specifically, the court found, “The Government has abused its discretion in the present case through a series of actions designed to strip the [Hage] Estate of its grazing permits, and ultimately to strip Defendants of their ability to use their water rights.” He explained, “Substantive due process protects individuals from arbitrary deprivation of their liberty by government.”

            The court further explained, “The Government cannot withdraw them (grazing permits) or refuse to renew them vindictively or for reasons totally unrelated to the merits of the application as governed by published laws and regulations, lest the Government abuse its executive power in a way that shocks the conscience.” http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/15602-federal-judge-rules-for-property-rights-smacks-down-abusive-feds

            BUNDY’S 11 VESTED WATER RIGHTS REGISTERED IN NEVADA

            http://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-The-Feds-Harry-Reid-and-the-Showdown-at-Bundy-Ranch-PT-2?pid=7963100#pid7963100

          • HoppinJohn

            Applied for on October 21, 1997

          • Yousuck

            Do you mean 1897?

          • HoppinJohn

            The date on his application is October21, 1997.

          • Yousuck

            Hage v US, upheld water rights of ranchers, but they also stated that it does not give them ownership, just unfettered access.

          • Jester

            If you hadn’t noticed, these vested water rights that come with unfettered access to the land are tantamount to property. Ownership is implicit in the word property. So, basically, there is private property within public land. There is no justification to take someone’s property, EXCEPT that the public can reclaim that property via eminent domain. The fair exercise of eminent domain according to the Nevada constitution, is a stringent process, and if the public approves the need to take the property of an individual, the compensation must be at fair value. Taking someone’s multi generational water rights who has spent their whole life cattle ranching must include the following factors in the compensation equation. Physical improvements to the land used to take advantage of the water rights. Time invested in learning the trade. Loss of future revenue while learning a new trade and finding alternative employment. Relocation costs. Need to give severance pay to all employees. And so much more. Which is why it is almost inconceivable to imagine a use for that land that could justify the cost of compensating a rancher for 150 year old water rights and the business built on that.

          • Yousuck

            Eminent domain has nothing to do with access to water, water rights DO NOT give ownership of the land it on, it doesn’t even give them ownership of the water, the same water supply can have multiple water rights users, they can only use the amount that they asked for when they paid for their water permit.
            Your assumptions are baseless and untrue

          • Jester

            you can’t have it both ways. If a man has vested water rights and forage rights that were already paid for, which led to the investment and labor to install physical infrastructure, there is an issue of something tangible that affords him a livelihood that can be taken away from him. This is tantamount to property in the same way as a copyright is intellectual property. Yet there are conditions on patents and copyrights, and also on water rights that differentiate them from property owned in perpetuity via land patent held by allodial title.

            The point being that while these are public lands there is simultaneously property owned by the person the public allows to be the steward of that land. The public allowed and encouraged a man to not only be steward of that land but to invest into that land and training of his family and staff to the extent of a multi-generational career occupation. If your position is that you believe the public can whimsically decide to take all that away from a man and his family without applying the PRINCIPLES behind eminent domain to take it while FAIRLY compensating him for all he will LOSE because he doesn’t “own” the rights and the land, then you are in fact a sociopath advocating theft and ruination.

          • Yousuck

            They don’t allow ownership since multiple people can have rights to the same water supply. They are allowed to divert the amount of water they asked for when applying, if it wasn’t 100% then other people can use that source too. He can install diverters, wells, pumps, pipes, water ditches, etc. to convey his water, which he probably should be compensated for, since this is allowable, he is not allowed to make permanent improvements to public lands like build roads, put up fences, run power lines, build buildings, etc., which he would not be able to be compensated for. He was not able to show in court that he had any of these rights, that’s the biggest difference between him and the Hage’s. The Hage’s had their documents and the state has records for them, Bundy can not produce any documents and the state has no record, not at least until 1997.
            As a compromise, would you agree to something like this, I seen this somewhere else. He could put the money he owes into a escrow account, the government can’t touch it, allow him to continue grazing and future grazing payments would also go into the escrow account. Allow the government and Nevada to hash out the ownership of the public lands in court and leave Bundy alone until then.
            IMO,this is not be a perfect plan, but no one should be getting threatened or killed.

          • Jester

            I have only listened to a synopsis of the case from a lawyer in Texas, and he never mentioned that Bundy was not able to produce any proof that he had vested water rights. His 1997 applications to register his vested water rights with the State of Nevada were approved with the recognition within the application that the herd had been using that water since 1890. The Fed court first ruled against him in 98. In principle he had prescriptive easement long before that. And considering the BLM admittedly used Clark county grazing fees for purposes “UNRELATED” to range improvements, and demonstrably to do nothing but extort ranchers and drive them out of business, I would say you should offer to pay the BLM what Bundy “owes” them to support the continuation of their dirty work on behalf of Dirty Harry Reid if you really want to keep the peace for another month or so and feel good about a bad situation that will only get worse because CERTAIN PEOPLE support sociopathic tyrants who will stop at nothing short of total control to satiate their greed.

          • Yousuck

            Brietbart has links to his cases and appeals, I’ll try to get the links for you, I have not fully read them yet, might not be until tonight or in the morning, gotta go.

          • Jester

            thanks. I know the article you are referring to.

          • HoppinJohn

            He cant back date an application from 1997 to 1890, it is illegal, he has had rights from ’97 on.
            He kinda burnt his house down and then tried to buy insurance for it.

          • Jester

            You misread what I wrote. He did not back date, read it yourself. http://water.nv.gov/data/permit/permit.cfm?page=1&app=V08984

            He was personally grazing cattle on the B’ville allotment since 1954. In 1954 the permits were according to the 1934 Taylor Grazing act and valid up to 10 years with no restrictions. He was paying for AUM permit fees to the BLM prior up until 1993 when he finally refused the permit. It was only in the 78 public rangelands improvement act that permits became yearly and the BLM had more latitude to impose various restrictions.

            The federal grazing permits grant “no title or interest” to the land and did not grant water rights. Nevada recognized his vested water rights in 1997 when Bundy went so far as to register his consistent (4 decades) personal use of the same 11 water diversion areas, and noted that the first use was “before 1890″ obviously referring to some family ancestry.

            The feds were not honest about their reasons for wanting the cattle ranchers out of Clark County. Because it is reasonable and customary to grant a man prescriptive easement after using public lands for 40 years to make a living, and even Nevada recognized vested water rights. So the feds would have had to not only compensate Bundy for destroying his livelihood, but tell the public exactly what they were going to do with the land. Instead, they used the turtle they are now murdering as an excuse to drive him out of business and persecute him.

          • HoppinJohn

            I have read the water rights application, that is what he tried to do

          • Jester

            you changed your story. you exact words were that he illegally back dated his application. I pointed out he did not and provided the very document to prove it. Yet you still insist you are correct. You work for the federal government by any chance?

          • HoppinJohn

            ? how did I do that, on his app he did put 1890 on it, but, that doesn’t mean anything since he didn’t apply for the rights until Oct 21, 1997, the date Nevada recognizes his rights started, illegally was the wrong word to use.
            Former Air Force and currently a Construction Engineer

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            Nice work Jester. We have HoppinJohn Hoppin Mad. HoppinJohn is a lunatic shill for government control over our lives. You, Jester, are a highly intelligent, well read, promoter of liberty. Nice work indeed. Kudos for you.

          • Jester

            thanks for the kind words and all of your efforts as well. We must tirelessly propagate the concepts of liberty and justice to stem the tide of sociopaths who would take advantage of young people who are ignorant of those principles to enslave them and future generations.

          • HoppinJohn

            Aw, and I was just starting to like you guys. But, as you said “the concept”, which is what you have, ifs and buts are not reality, and I do not disagree with your “concept” that the states “should” own their own land, but that is not the reality of it. Vote for change and/or petition for change would be the only way I would support Bundy, civil war over this is foolish.

          • Jester

            You conflate the federal government with a country. The states are the countries. They are united for certain purposes via the federal government but meant to be at liberty (independent) in so many other ways. And this is why people like you will always be opposed by those who understand this “concept” so well that it is a practical reality in their lives. Because they do not want you lording it over them and controlling their lives by restricting their self-determination under the guise of knowing what is best for them, or the rubric of keeping the states “united”. And they will “realize” the concept of justice when you overstep your bounds and force their hand.

          • HoppinJohn

            They are sovereign to each other not to the US. Read the Constitution

          • Jester

            The people grant the fed gov sovereign power with limitations. Which is not sovereignty in the strictest sense of the term. The fedgov is conditionally sovereign. In the same way the states are sovereign retaining all governmental powers NOT delegated to the fed gov. States are nations in the classic definition. We refer to the union as a nation, but it is more akin to an empire, until the time when all states have EXACTLY the same laws.

            Of course the state gov is sovereign over state land. And the fed gov is made up of reps from each state. New states are created to propagate the common societal and cultural aspects shared by the already existing states in the union. The western states are similar in that way to the European colonies. The existing states, through the federal government, gave these new states some conquered land a jump start while retaining management oversight until the states could populate and get their legs under them. The fed was supposed to gradually wean the states and then cede control over all land except that needed to perform the constitutionally enumerated federal duties. Thus giving the states equal footing with their neighbors. They failed to do so. The western states are rising in rebellion EXACTLY as the colonies did. The real question is whether those inhabiting the federal government are too attached to their power to learn from history.

            If you look at the character of the heads of most of the extra constitutional fed agencies, and their scandalous actions both on and off the “job” the answer is probably not. Google Ronald Wenker Nevada BLM director and national director. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

          • Yousuck

            Bundy has legal ways to fight this, armed militias only get people killed.
            This who’s going to shot first mentality on both sides is wrong.

          • Jester

            He fought it in the legal system and the legal system ruled unlawfully, as is the case more and more often these days if you hadn’t noticed. The legal system bled him dry and ruined every other rancher in the county. And the BLM shot first. Shot Bundy’s son Ammon with a taser directly over his heart because Ammon caught the BLM destroying wells and water pipes and shooting cattle. People die every day. May as well die for a righteous cause.

          • Yousuck

            If he was bled dry, why is he still a millionaire? Bundy’s son was the aggressor and kick the police dog, that’s when he got tazed. Unlawful would mean they broke the law, the ruling are lawful, you just don’t agree with them. No one needs to die for this guy.

          • Jester

            That is what you wanted to see. In the video, the K-9 handler clearly gives both a verbal and bodily command to attack an unarmed man who is in their face pissed off because they won’t let him catch them in the act with the truck full of property they destroyed. His kick was an instinctive reaction of self defense as the dog lunged at him.

          • Yousuck

            Again, both sides are in the wrong here.

          • Jester

            your overlords are now happy to know that when they finally come around to analyzing those citizens occupying your social strata to identify valuable assets to appropriate to their cause, that you will not raise a finger in objection, nor offer a word of reproach, but instead lay a welcome mat when they come and have your wife serve them coffee and donuts during their stay.

          • Yousuck

            I have no overlord, you are a paranoid conspiracy freak.

          • Jester

            My paranoia is well justified. Wake up.

            - In his opinion of United States v. Estate of Hage,
            U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Jones reveals that after late
            Nevada rancher E. Wayne Hage indicated on his 1993 grazing permit
            renewal that by signing the permit, he was not surrendering his family’s
            long-standing water and forage rights on the land, the BLM not only
            rejected the permit but also conspired for decades to both deny his
            family’s property rights and to destroy their cattle business.

            QUOTE: “In summary, government officials, and perhaps also Mr. Snow, entered
            into a literal, intentional CONSPIRACY to deprive the Hages not only of
            their permits but also of their vested water rights.” Judge Robert C. Jones

            Whatcha gonna do when they come for Yousuck? Better hope Bob Jones is in your corner cause otherwise you’ve got nothing. Oh, and be sure to clear your schedule for 5 years to fight in court and make Bob Jones and his Law Merchant brethren wealthy.

          • HoppinJohn

            Hage’s and Bundy’s cases are way different, the Hage’s could prove their rights and the state backed them up, no proof from the Bundy’s and state record’s show him to be a liar.

            http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25302186/an-abbreviated-look-at-rancher-cliven-bundys-family-history

          • Jester

            they aren’t “way different” they are almost identical in spirit. If Bundy paid for his renewal he would have been forced out of business due to the terms. In this case the court was on the side of the turtle. The same turtle that the BLM is now slaughtering because they diverted millions of dollars to steal Bundy’s land instead of funding the turtle refuge they built in Vegas that is now going under. Don’t you get it yet?

          • HoppinJohn

            Read the Hage case it is very different

          • Jester

            Hage claimed water rights based on the predecessor-owners having acquired water rights on the federal lands adjacent to the ranch they purchased in 1978. Further it was argued that the rights accrued due to the state conferred right to make beneficial use of water. This is to be understood when a rancher like Bundy has been given a permit to graze for 40 years (1954 – 1993) in the same place. By priority of possession such rights accrue according to local customs. Nevada confirmed this in 1997 when allowing Bundy to officially register his vested rights on the State rolls.

            From the Hage case.
            http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2012/0responses/2012-0918.resp.pdf

            - Rights to use water that is on federal lands may be privately owned, and such rights ordinarily are gov­erned by state law. That state of affairs traces to Con­gress’s severance in the latter half of the 19th century of rights in the use of water on public domain lands from rights in the lands themselves. See California Or. Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co., 295 U.S. 142 (1935). Here, the relevant statute effecting that sever­ance was the first such federal statute, the 1866 Mining Law: [W]henever, by priority of possession, rights to the use of water for mining, agriculture, manufacturing, or other purposes, have vested and accrued, and the same are recognized and acknowledged by the local customs, laws, and the decisions of courts, the pos­sessors
            and owners of such vested rights shall be maintained and protected in the same; and the right of way for the construction of ditches and canals for the purposes aforesaid is hereby acknowledged and confirmed

            In September 1992, the United States moved for summary judgment. Although the CFC agreed with the United States that petitioners had no property interest in either grazing permits or the rangeland itself, Pet. App. 203a-204a, it held that petitioners would have “the opportunity at trial to prove property rights in the for­age [on National Forest System lands] stemming from the [state] property right to make beneficial use of wa­ter,” id. at 218a. With respect to the claimed taking of ditch rights of way, the CFC held that petitioners would have “the opportunity * * * to prove their ownership of vested ditch rights and that their desired use and maintenance of these rights does not exceed the scope of their property interest.”

          • HoppinJohn

            The BLM did abuse the Hage’s, by putting up fences blocking access to their water rights, the Hage’s had rights before Nevada became a state from Mexico, the state recognized this and had record of this agreement, and the BLM refused to renew their rights even though they agreed price wise and condition wise. The court made clear that water and grazing rights did not confer ownership of the land, but that they did have perpetual water rights and could use the land to maintain their water ditches and diverters, they still could not build roads, install permanent electrical or water lines, build building or fences
            Bundy’s 1954 start was 20 years after the Taylor Grazing Act, which made all new rights time limited, no more eternal/perpetual rights, Bundy refused to pay to use the public land, etc., we’ve been over this part. Bundy wasn’t abused until after non-payment and after the courts ruled against him and he does not have perpetual right to the public land only on the 160 arces his ranch is on.
            Can you see what I am calling “big” differences for the reasons the courts ruled differently.

          • Jester

            According to this definitive research regarding Nevada vested water rights by a Law office in Nevada, http://www.water-law.com/articles/Nevada-vested-water-rights.html , a person needs to apply for a Nevada permit prior to using water in the state. According to the legal definitions, it seems that Bundy’s 1997 permit was accepted by Nevada as a “vested water right” which is equal to a “pre-code” right. Which implies he somehow was able to prove historical continual usage. This is a very interesting read.

            - Nevada’s water allocation system evolved over time. Initially, the
            prior appropriation system arose based on the customs of early settlers
            rather than being based on state laws. Nevada’s surface water code came into existence on March 1, 1905. Statutory provisions relating to artesian groundwater sources developed on March 22, 1913, and a percolating groundwater code was passed on March 22, 1939. As a result, water rights arising after those dates must comply with Nevada’s statutory scheme, including the requirement to apply to the State of Nevada for the issuance of a water right permit prior to using waters of the state.

            But what about surface water rights that arose prior to 1905, artesian rights prior to 1913 and groundwater rights prior to 1939? Prior to Nevada’s water code, water users did not need to apply to the state to obtain water right permits. All that was necessary was that users diverted the water and placed it to beneficial use. Thus, persons who began using water before Nevada started issuing water right permits for the particular water sources still have valid water rights. Pre-code water rights are called “vested water rights.”

            Vested water rights start as vested water right “claims.” Persons
            using water rights dating back prior to the Nevada water code must make
            a claim of right with the Nevada State Engineer. Although claims are typically submitted to the State Engineer after the initiation of a stream adjudication, they can be made at any time. A stream adjudication is the process by which the state can determine all the water rights along a particular waterway or within a particular water basin, including individual water rights, Indian water rights and federal water rights. All persons with water rights must submit claims to the State Engineer in order to be issued a “decreed” or “determined” right upon the conclusion of the stream adjudication with the earliest priority date of use taking precedence.

            It is vital for a vested water right holder to prove his claim with sufficient records and documentation. A claimant must prove that the claimed water use began prior to the relevant water code date, and must prove continual use up to the present time. This can prove to be a daunting task given the historical proof that is required in order to prove a pre-code, vested water right.

            Proof of continuous use is important in order to prove that a water right has not been forfeited or abandoned. Abandonment may occur when a water user fails to use his water and manifests his intent to abandon the water right. Forfeiture may occur when a water user fails to exercise his water right for a period of five or more consecutive years. All types of water rights, whether permitted, certificated, vested, adjudicated, or un-adjudicated, are subject to abandonment and forfeiture. When a water right is abandoned or forfeited the right reverts to the state to hold for the public, and may be appropriated by another water user.

    • Guest

      Sure sidewalks are public land, but there is no profit from walking on them. Signs say “Enjoy your public land”. It doesn’t matter how hard he has worked making improvements blah blah blah. He has broke the law MANY times over. There are consequences to breaking the law. What makes him above the law for 20 years? What makes him better than the other ranchers that are following the law? He uses HIS THUGS (why the BLM are called thugs in this situation, I will never understand) to intimidate the government to back off for fear of violence. Who are the thugs now? He has overgrazed the land, which he claims reduces fire danger. I live where this is taking place, been to Gold Butte numerous times, AND I work part time for the BLM as a fire fighter. All you people are going to be the ones thanking the BLM for saving your house this summer when the wildland fire season hits. And I stand by my statement. He is making a living off of public land (although depending which article you read he refers to the as public or “his” land…he is not sure which). I am a member of the public. How about profit sharing?

      • thereisacreator

        Take your pills and take a nap. Make sure you take care of your German Shepard so that’s he’s strong enough to attack.

  • name1234

    Prescriptive rights are actually a huge problem in policy and this is simply a loophole that is luckily working in favor of Bundy who is clearly in the right. Prescriptive rights are a problem because it destroys the meaning of ownership. Just because someone is deceived into thinking their property hasn’t been used doesn’t mean anyone else has the right to use it.

    That being said, the major problem here is the fact that the federal government is not entitled to this land. The federal government is not supposed to own land outside specific purpose property such as military bases and political buildings. The federal government has claimed 85% of Nevada as federal government owned property (we see similar statistics in the rest of the west), and this is absolutely outrageous. Property that is not in a municipality is supposed to be managed by the state or county, which obviously would support its own economic growth and likewise there would be no legal issue with the land being used in this way. In fact, it would probably be sold for next to nothing totally resolving any question about this issue. Instead, the federal government cares little about this because it is an overgrown waste machine that uses whatever means necessary to establish a firmer grasp on the public to increase its revenue and continue growing like a parasite infestation. A single cattle rancher in Nevada is of no consequence to the massive federal government, unless of course the public gets outraged enough to force real change.

    When states had the rights allocated by the constitution–before the Supreme court essentially ruled the tenth amendment to be irrelevant–the country was managed largely by state powers that were forced to compete with each other to fight for the best system. If a state had a poorly managed system, anyone with money would get up and leave; which would leave the state in shambles. This didn’t happen because the threat of it prevented people from allowing it. As the federal government has taken control of anything it could get its hands on, this effect was totally eradicated. An environment of healthy competition has transformed into a tiny portion of federal politicians manipulating the masses into re-election (don’t for a moment be deluded that an ethical person could ever make it into a federal office) while satisfying special interest groups in a way that most of the oblivious voters will never recognize.

    It is our responsibility to stand up to the government. The government is becoming obscenely powerful but that is only because we are letting it happen. We negligently allow the government to continue on this path because we fear the idea of standing up to it, but the fact is without that negligent support the government is nothing. We still have the ability to bring the USA to its former glory as a nation truly dedicated to liberty. Sadly, the mindset of most people may be too far gone for that to happen.

  • Tallhog

    Bundy the Taker has been taken to court numerous times, and ignored legal court orders to pay his fees. That has been reported by just about every news organization, even fox.

    • thereisacreator

      Like I said in an earlier post, you the tax payer is subsidizing farmers not to grow crops but ranchers have to pay grazing fees and both farmers & ranchers are critical to feeding us. Some laws are just stupid. In the past it was against the law for someone to harbor a runaway slave just as an example.

      • Robyn Ann

        As it was unlawful for Rosa Parks to sit at the front of the bus. Had she just “followed the law”, there may be no Civil Rights Act today. Just because “it’s the law” doesn’t mean we should obey.

        • HoppinJohn

          You Are Right! We all should be able to shoot our landlords when they come for the rent!

          • Robyn Ann Smith

            Rosa Parks didn’t shoot the bus driver, so your snarky, trollish comment has no standing of an argument. No one was confiscating her belongings either, or pointing guns and sic-ing their dog on them, which would have given her additional cause to defend herself….or at least justify being armed.

          • Yousuck

            I think he was talking about Bundy not Rosa Parks.

          • Robyn Ann

            I got the reference and it was taking mine out of context.

  • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

    Of course the federal judge has always ruled in favor of the federal government. They know who butters their bread. Cliven Bundy is right. The Federal government does not have jurisdiction.

    U.S. Constitution. Article I. Section 8. Clause 17.
    “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;”

    The only land legally held in the State of Nevada by the Federal government is land that they bought from the State of Nevada by the Consent of the Nevada Legislature. All other federal claims to land must be disposed of by law. That land belongs to the State of Nevada.

    The same goes for Colorado, New Mexico, California, Montana, and all other States.

    • Jester

      But the congress declares that it is “necessary and proper” for them to be able to pass laws to control every thought and action of their peasant serfs, and every square inch of land, in order to execute their duty.

      And they have the guns and thugs to prove it.

      • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

        “And they have the guns and thugs to prove it.”

        For sure. That’s where they get their authority, and they are not afraid to let their thugs use their weapons on peaceful men, women, and children.

        • HoppinJohn

          They didn’t use them on anybody, was anyone shot? BLM came armed due to the fact that for twenty years Bundy has threatened violence against anyone enforcing the court orders. Plus, peaceful people don’t bring arms to a protest.

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            Thank God the federal thugs only used tasers and brute force instead of guns. Thank God.

          • Yousuck

            Agreed, BOTH side are handling this VERY BADLY.

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            I never intended to imply that the patriots defending the Bundy family have done anything wrong. They are standing up for their freedom. They understand the U.S. Constitution required the U.S. government to cede the land to the State of Nevada when Nevada was accepted into the Union.

            Those lands belong to the State of Nevada by law. The BLM guys are the trespassers not the cattle.

          • Yousuck

            Standing up for Freedom? What, freedom were they standing up for, not paying your bills.
            The way things are and the way you want them are two different things.
            Bundy’s family f**ked him when they didn’t buy rights back in 1887 when they first arrived in Nevada.

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            The Feds do not own that land. That land belongs to the State of Nevada by law. The BLM boys are the trespassers and the armed thugs who thought they should use force to steal and kill privately owned cattle and then use force on peaceful people who understand who the real trespassers are.

            “Trespass Cattle”? How dumb do they think the American people are? Apparently some people are stupid enough to buy their B.S. The feds have no jurisdiction there and should stay away or go to jail.

          • Yousuck

            Some one said the Oath Keepers are going to kill the Bundy’s to start thier American Spring mission. Go support Bundy and die quickly.

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            Why are BLM agents armed? Are they a police force? A standing army?

          • Yousuck

            When threatened with violence and being shot gives them the right, which he has done for twenty years.

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            Why are BLM agents ARMED? Why?

          • Yousuck

            They have a right to protect themselves in this situation, I agree that they should not be armed all the time.

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            Everyone has the right to protect themselves even private citizens against thugs in uniforms. The BLM thugs do not have the right to use force to manage land.

          • Yousuck

            Call me crazy, but I believe that if you are threatened you have a right to defend yourself, be it, citizen to citizen, citizen to government, government to citizen.

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            Federal agents don’t need to be armed to manage lands anymore than a carpenter needs to be armed to build buildings. Federal agents are ARMED in order to force people to obey their unconstitutional orders.

          • Yousuck

            Again, I DO NOT believe that they should be armed, with the exception of threats of violence.

          • Yousuck

            Question. Do you believe that the government has no right to protect itself or its workers?

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            I have never even implied that position. I do not believe that Federal agents are even in danger until they try and use force against others. Using a taser against one of the Bundy family members, and throwing a 57 year old woman to the ground is not in the job description of a BLM agent… or at least it shouldn’t be.

            Why aren’t postmen and postwomen armed? They are Federal agents too. They too have a right to protect themselves.

          • Yousuck

            You seem to think that I support the afore mentioned action by the BLM, I do not.
            Clark County deputies serving eviction notices have stated that Bundy has said to expect violence if they try to enforce the court orders.

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            The Federal Courts have no jurisdiction in this matter. Those lands belong to the State of Nevada. The Feds evicting tenants in the State of Nevada is abuse of power.

            Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137: This is one of the leading cases in the history of the U.S. The opinion of the court was “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law; Clearly for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme was illogical; for certainly the supreme law would prevail over any other law, and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis for all laws, and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law. It would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as though it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded by a court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it, and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law, which means it doesn’t exist in law.”

            The Bundy family has no obligation to obey an unconstitutional court order. The BLM Feds need to disarm and go home or go to jail.

          • Yousuck

            The Constitution does not exclude the government from owning land within a state and for 150 years Nevada and the US government have been agreeance that the public lands in Nevada were controlled by the government. I believe about two years ago Nevada has started a process to have that land turned back over to them.

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            Article I. Section 8. Clause 17 limits the land the U.S. government can own in a State to “Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings” such as Post Offices, Mints, etc.

            Furthermore, the only way the U.S. Government can own land in a State is to purchase it from the State with the Consent of the State Legislature, or they can seize private land through eminent domain, yet they must give the landowner just compensation for it.

            Article I. Section 8. Clause 17.
            “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;”

            The feds do not own those lands in Nevada and they know it. That is why they arm themselves. They are trying to steal what does not belong to them and that requires weapons because the rightful owners already possess the property and are willing to defend their rights.

          • Yousuck

            The Constitution’s “Property Clause” in Article IV, section 3, reads, “The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.”
            Pointing to this clause, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the rights of the United States to hold land in its ownership and control unless specifically directed otherwise by Congress.
            The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 required each new state admitted to the Union to respect the right of the federal government to dispose of public lands (and manage them until disposed) within state boundaries. In effect, the ordinance made it a condition for admission that new states would give all unclaimed lands to the federal government.
            So, unless the Constitution, Supreme Court and the Northwest Ordinance are found unconstitutional they have the right to own land within a state, all this was tried in the Sagebrush Rebellion in the 70′s and 80′s, but an act of Congress or amendment to the Constitution can change all that, I have seen that some states are petitioning Congress for that change.

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            “The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 required each new state admitted to the Union to respect the right of the federal government to dispose of public lands (and manage them until disposed) within state boundaries. In effect, the ordinance made it a condition for admission that new states would give all unclaimed lands to the federal government. ” – Yousuck

            That is not a true statement.

            The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 gave power to the Federal government to govern over lands not yet bounded by a State. The land becomes disposed when land is formed into a separate republic … a State. When a State is formed and joins the Union, the State boundaries became a State and no longer a U.S. Territory but a part of the Union subject to the U.S. Constitution. The Feds gave-up the land to form the State. Any land the Federal government needs within a State must be purchased back from the State with the Consent of the State legislature, or by eminent domain with just compensation.

            Article IV. Section 3 simply says that Congress retains the power to make the rules on how a State is formed. The Territory is disposed by the formation of the State when accepted into the Union.

            That was the original intent of the U.S. Constitution as evidenced by all the land east of Colorado being mostly owned by the States.

          • HoppinJohn

            Are you going to be like those Japanese soldiers who refused to admit WWII was over and their Emperor was not divine, and, rather than admit they were wrong, they spent the rest of the lives hiding out and refusing to surrender, because they believed as long as they resisted, Japan had not lost the war? That where you’re headed.

            http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25302186/an-abbreviated-look-at-rancher-cliven-bundys-family-history

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137: This is one of the leading cases in the history of the U.S. The opinion of the court was “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law; Clearly for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme was illogical; for certainly the supreme law would prevail over any other law, and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis for all laws, and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law. It would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as though it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded by a court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it, and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law, which means it doesn’t exist in law.”

            Let me explain to you HoppinJohn.

            The original intent of the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land as decided by the Supreme Court in 1803. I agree with Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion. Marbury vs. Madison has never been overturned. The supreme law of the land overrides any lesser law.

            The Supreme Law of The Land clearly designates that the land within the boundaries of the State of Nevada belongs to the State of Nevada as the U.S government was required to dispose of their ownership rights to their Territory when they accepted Nevada as a State in the Union.

            As a member of the federal Union, the republic of Nevada is subject to the U.S. Constitution and if the U.S. government needs any land within the borders of the State of Nevada they are REQUIRED BY CONSTITUTION to purchase it from the State of Nevada with the Consent of the State of Nevada legislature.

            That is the SUPREME LAW of the LAND.

            Cliven Bundy is right. Those lands belong to the State of Nevada.

          • HoppinJohn

            Original intent is like a**holes and opinions, everyone has one, your belief that you know their intent insults the Founding Fathers.

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            The Original Intent of the Constitution is written down, for anyone who is literate, to read for themselves. The Founding Fathers shared with us their original intent.

            Read:
            The Articles of Association 1774
            The Declaration of Independence 1776
            The Resolutions of 1780
            The Articles of Confederation 1781
            The Northwest Ordinance of 1787
            The U.S. Constitution 1789
            The Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers

            To learn the Original Intent of the Founders. It is not that difficult if you are literate.

            The BLM agents are ARMED, not to manage lands, but to steal land from the good citizens of the State of Nevada.

          • HoppinJohn

            Yes people should read these important historical documents, but you are going to have several varying different opinions on the same subject matter, some people say the Constitution supports separation of religion and state and some say it doesn’t, unless you taint their thoughts by trying to tell them what to think. All you have is an opinion.

          • Yousuck

            I apologize for my rudeness of my last post.

    • Michael M

      You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution and the history of national expansion.

      1) The land was never Nevada’s. It–like nearly 2 billion acres acquired by the fed govt, including some ceded by the original 13 states as early as 1781–was part of this nation’s expansion. The fed govt encouraged settlement of various regions, and established territories which continued to be controlled fully by the fed govt until a relevant statehood was established. In Nevada’s case (like elsewhere), land that had not been appropriated by the state enabling act continued to be federal land.

      2a) As for Art. 1, Sect. 8 Clause 17–this refers only to DC and to establishing federal military bases (forts) in EXISTING states [in which case, the fed govt would have exclusive jurisdiction--the point of this clause]. The requirement of state consent was prompted from fear that the new national govt would take land from states and build forts potentially threatening state powers [see any number of commentaries regarding the Constitutional Convention]

      2b) The relevant section of the Constitution is Art. 4, Sect. 3 Clause 2: “The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.” This gives the fed govt absolute authority (or as the Sup Crt put it, power “without limitation”) over such land.

      • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

        Your explanation violates the spirit of the law in America. If your explanation was correct then the Eastern States would be mostly owned by the Federal government too. America was founded specifically to secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the individual. Liberty, peace, and prosperity for individuals is the promise of America.

        Currently, individual liberty, peace, and prosperity are hampered by a Fedgov out of control. They taser, sic K9s, and throw women to the ground in order to take rights away from peaceful people to enrich themselves. The only reason they can violate the natural rights of others is by using the power they derive from “owning” Western lands and the resources contained in those lands. Their power comes from their wealth and control.

        Liberty, peace, and prosperity can be granted to individuals by honoring the promises made in the U.S. Constitution. The States need to exercise their authority given to them by the Resolutions of 1780, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, and the 10th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Cliven Bundy is right. That land belongs to the State of Nevada.

        • Michael M

          It is not just my interpretation…it is the only interpretation I am aware of that an authoritative court has ever taken. Your extension to the eastern states is misplaced, given their boundaries were fixed under the Art of Confed, and especially relevant, under the Northwest Ordinance–a law you note but seem confused about. That law, after all, established the exclusive power of the fed govt in the area of expansion, and restricted existing states (original 13). Similarly, your claim to the role of the 10th is misplaced since that only affects powers not noted elsewhere…and Article 4 powers of the fed govt to own land is clear.
          Your pts about liberty, natural rights, etc. –important topics, but you make no connection to the issues at hand. One does not have a natural right or one extending from the right to the pursuit of property that allows unfettered access to another’s land, or to have that land out of fed govt control.
          If your argument–and it is unclear–suggests that the fed govt has to turn over all land to states when states are admitted to the union…again, there is no basis for this in the Constitution or statute…indeed, Nevada’s on constitution recognizes the exclusive claim by federal govt on such land. That is, even the State of Nevada (and about a century and a half of legal precedent) disagrees with your assertion.

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            You are the one misinterpreting the Constitution. Our founders never intended Federal agents to have the authority to steal and kill privately owned cattle and then taser, beat, and threaten the rightful owners American citizens in order to take the rights they have been exercising for over 100 years away from them.

            The U.S. Constitution was written to free people from tyranny not enslave them with “absolute authority” maintained in Washington D.C.

            Article IV. “The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.” This gives the fed govt absolute authority (or as the Sup Crt put it, power “without limitation”) over such land.”

            Key word is “Territory” When the U.S. Territory became a State the Federal government must cede the soil to the State and purchase land back. See: Resolutions of 1780, The Northwest Ordinance, and the U.S. Constitution.

            Also, at least 20 of the States that were not part of the original thirteen own most of the land in their State which proves my interpretation. The people in Nevada in 1864 did not have the authority to usurp the U.S. Constitution. Those lands belong to the State of Nevada. Also, it is clear a federal judge will always rule in favor of the federal government. That is rule by man and weapons rather than rule by law.

          • Michael M

            Your case continues to have gaping holes.
            1) Your first paragraph: impassioned, but hardly relevant. Fed agents stealing (really?)–even if it were this, fed land ownership would not make it legal and barring fed land ownership would not prevent it…ergo, you pt on original intent, again while passionate, it not connected
            2) Your 3rd and 4th paragraph: You focus on territory but completely ignore “or other property belong to the United States…” This makes it clear that the plain reading constitutional reading does indeed support federal ownership
            3) 5th paragraph: while fed land was and is much more common in the west, by your own admission, it exists and existed in the east…and more than you suggest…hence land grant colleges and other federal gifts, in addition to land that continued to be held by fed govt…If, as you suggest, the founders intended no such possibilities, such land ownership would not have existed…yet clearly did, even in eastern states
            4) 4th paragraph: There is nothing in the Northwest Ordinance as amended to reflect the Constitution to require the federal govt to cede all territorial land to the state once a state has been established…nothing. Moreover,
            4a) We know this did not happen (land continued to be held by fed govt in OH, MN, etc.) after statehood and
            4b) The very members of the fed govt involved in this (e.g., Jefferson, Adams…) were among the founders…thus, your original intent argument suffers again for countervailing evidence
            5) And in any case, the Northwest Ordinance only clarified the fed gov’t exclusive power to procure land for expansion…it was not the empowering instrument regarding Nevada…that was a treaty…again, something exclusively reserved to the fed govt
            6) Your logic also fails to recognize that the land was never part of Nevada…the very state enabling act (which established statehood-relevant agreements) separated these unapportioned areas from that land given to Nevada.
            7) You might be trying to make an argument that the fed govt can only acquire land with the express and exclusive intent of expanding the nation with new states and that, if I understand you correctly, all land would ultimately then have to be turned over to newly formed states…if that is your case, it is an interesting and provocative one, but one without any support that I have ever found in my years as a constitutional scholar in (a) the Constitution, (b) the Nevada state constitution, (c) statute or (d) judicial interpretation. Indeed, the entirety of evidence in each category of which I am aware is exactly opposite your point.

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            Territory would be land and “Other Property would be buildings, etc.”

            I have NEVER suggested that the Federal government could “OWN” land except in “Territory” and whatever they purchased, as per the Constitution, from the States.

          • Michael M

            That is a preposterous interpretation. Since before this nation’s founding, the word ‘property’ in a legal context has meant first and foremost, land…and the founders knew this…and the definition continues to this day (see your property tax bill; buildings are often labeled property/land improvements). States’ rights is a serious topic deserving serious consideration. Unfortunately, crazy arguments only diminish from such important considerations. For your ‘feds cannot own land’ argument to work, each and every of the following pts would have to hold (in fact, none do):
            1) Art 1, Sect 8, Clause 18 would have to be controlling [in fact, it gives fed govt exclusive power in DC on military bases...period; no connection to broader land ownership issues]
            2) The Northwest Ordinance would have to be controlling [Nevada was not part of this region, but even if it were...]
            3) The Ordinance would have to state that the fed govt must cede all territorial land to the state once statehood is granted [in fact, no such language exists]
            4) The constitutional power of fed govt to enter treaties could acquire land, but that land by law would have to either be given to existing states, formed into new ones, or sold to another nation [no such language exists, logic defies the history of treaty powers]
            5) The treaty with Mexico included such language require fed govt to give land to states [no such language]
            6) Art 4 power given to fed govt to own property somehow is limited to buildings suggested elsewhere in Art 8 [defies common usage; would make this part of the Constitution superfluous as repetitive--something our short Constitution is not]
            7) 5th Amend reference to fed govt ability to take property somehow does not mean that fed govt can own property [again, nonsensical position...indeed, as was well understood by the founders, the ability to take property for the common good is an essential element of a sovereign--see any number of historical texts on the subject with which Madison et al were well familiar]
            I fear that your zeal to defend your position against what you see as an intrusive fed govt has led you to some of the most twisted interpretations possible. I suggest it far better and more productive to think of ways to reduce the fed govt’s imprint, if that is your position…perhaps by calling for a dramatic reduction in the amount of land the fed govt owns (e.g., through auctioning large lots off). Otherwise, you risk being dismissed as a lunatic…which would be unfortunate, because at least some of your ideas are, at a minimum, entertaining

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            You are absolute wrong about the original intent of the U.S. Constitution.

            Our federal government was not set-up as an oligarchy or dictatorship. Our government was set-up as a self-ruling Republic. Article I established the Legislature to make law. Article II established the Executive branch to enforce the law. Article III established the Judicial system to judge law. Article IV established the States, as smaller Republics, to offer a competitive system of opportunity for individuals to prosper. All land titles are from the State and rightfully so.

            States own the land except for Washington D.C., military institutions, Mints, Post Offices, and other needful buildings and land that they purchased back from the State. When you are in a Post Office you are on federal land and that land is subject to whatever rule the federal government makes concerning their land that they purchased from the State to enforce their laws. They are the supreme rulers over their duly owned land, but only in their duly owned lands. Post Offices are federal jurisdiction.

            The Fedgov was never intended to rule over American citizens except on Federal lands. If they “own” all the lands, then the entire concept of self-rule is abandoned in favor of an oligarchy of Federal judges. Not only is your concept of government not self-government, your concept of government is supreme rule by Mob rule by weapon not rule by law.

          • Jester

            you need to see what the feds recently ruled about the “taking Power” and the link between grazing/water rights and land ownership.

            https://disqus.com/home/#comment-1347924163

          • HoppinJohn

            WTF are you talking about, Michael M kick your a** with proof and you are too ignorant to learn the truth, You and Cliven Bundy are two pea in a pod, ignoring the law and the Constitution, and fearing the Gubbmnt, the only difference would be that he is a millionaire.

        • HoppinJohn

          Nevada gave all unappropriated land to the Federal Govt. when they became a state, this is from the Nevada Constitution:

          ” Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States.”
          Basically, the US owned the land before Nevada became a state and Nevada let them keep it when they became a state.

  • Frank Koza
    • thereisacreator

      Yes, I watched it. Thanks for posting that. In essence the Government had a treaty a long time ago to keep the peace with the settlers and the natives; however due to “encroachment” meaning because in order to keep the peace, the natives allowed to share their land (not sell) with the settles so the BLM/gov’t illegally stole the land and did the same thing they just did at the Bundy Ranch, seizing their livestock (many of them died) all because of the “environment” and over-grazing showing up in full military gear, hellicopers, guns, etc.; however it was all about the gold and due to how they had to extract that gold, destroyed the land. There was no title of transfer of the land but the gov’t took it anyway.

      Always always ask: Who gains?

  • Buck

    “I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear that I will execute the Constitution of the United States.”

  • http://Www.zerohedge.com AL

    hmm, actually, this is a very valid point. he might have a claim through adverse possession…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession

    it’s really quite an interesting legal question for legal geeks. no wonder the BLM wants to keep it quiet.

    i am sure there are some land lawyers out there who can opine.

    • thereisacreator

      This is true and has happened. For instance, say I own a large piece of property off of a main highway and my house is set at the very back. I have a gravel road to my house. My neighbor, who happens to be behind my property lives on a secondary road and it would take him much longer to drive to get to the main highway, so he begins to use my gravel road by crossing over my land to access it. I want to be a good neighbor so I might first tell him not to do it but he continues to do it and I don’t put up a fence to block him. This goes on for about 5 years or so. My neighbor now has the right to access my land. If I sold my land, the new owner will soon realize that my neighbor now has claimed that small portion of my land to access the gravel road.

      • HoppinJohn

        Prescriptive easements are for private land owner to private land owner, not renter to land owner, or renter to state or fed

    • Michael M

      Adverse easement seems virtually impossible–this would give Bundy EXCLUSIVE use of federal land. Easement is general (prescriptive right) seems highly unlikely given (a) the tolling of time required of the owner’s (fed) inaction would restart with each legal/administrative action, and (b) I do not believe as a matter of common and statutory law that one can have a prescriptive right against the federal government

  • thereisacreator
  • Farrago A’gitprop

    For instance, in the 20 years Bundy hasn’t been paying his fees, why hasn’t he been taken to court?

    You call this journalism? He has been in court every year for the last of those 20 years and has completely ignored all court rulings.

    WTF? You need to go back to school and learn how journalism is meant to work. Here’s a hint – start with research.

    • Obedience

      Indeed…and BLM should have proceeded with assassinating him along with that pregnant ho and stupid kid. These subjects need to fear their government master and now the subjects are uppity in light of the way it ended. Government needs to kill everyone who dissents without hesitation.

      • Farrago A’gitprop

        You have issues that would respond well to a long course of strong medicine, and confinement in a secure unit.

        • DrZarkov99

          And you need to repair your sarcasm detector.

  • kellymitch

    He’s been taken to court multiple times. What possible difference do you think a lien on his cattle would make?

  • Tommy H

    we petition the obama administration to:
    Start a congressional investigation of Harry Reid , and his family,for corruption and illegal dealings.

    We the people,ask President Obama and Congress to launch a immediate Congressional investigation of Senator Harry Reid,BLM,and his family`s dealings,especially in these matters listed below,for Political Corruption and illegal business dealings.

    BLM ,especially in Nevada

    The Bundy ranch “cattle roundup”

    Collusion with his son and the “Communist Chinese” to forcibly remove Bundy from his property

    ENN Energy Group

    Current or former BLM members on his or his son’s staff

    The Bureau of Land Management Head, Neil Kornze

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/start-congressional-investigation-harry-reid-and-his-familyfor-corruption-and-illegal-dealings/hbDhCYbr

    • SometimesI’mRight

      First, there is no solar power project; it was cancelled nearly a year
      ago, after the company trying to get it done, ENN, could not get a buyer
      at a profitable enough rate.

      Second, Reid was not profiting from this. ENN hired a prominent law
      firm, Lionel Sawyer & Collins, at which Reid’s son is an attorney.
      Neither Reid had any investment in this venture and if they would have
      both lost that investment when ENN pulled out.

      Third, the proposed site was 90 miles south of Las Vegas, in Laughlin,
      NV, while the land to be used was County Land, not Federal. Bundy’s
      ranch is in Bunkerville, 100 miles north of Las Vegas. Combining the two
      distances makes the Moocher’s property he has been illegally grazing on
      nearly 200 miles from the right’s imaginary “Chinese Solar Field”.

  • Michael M

    Please cite cases supporting prescriptive easements regarding federal land? I am not aware of any. Prescriptive rights exist in common and statutory law regarding private property; however, I do not believe this extends to govt property. In fact, I know that such an extension is expressly prohibited regarding California government property (Civil Code 1007), and seem to recall such exclusions regarding federal land as well.

  • Tim Morris

    There are a lot of problems with this article. First, you cannot claim adverse possession against the federal government. Second, a lien can only be filed against property in very specific circumstances such as a debt owed related to the property to be encumbered by a lien due to unpaid taxes or improvements made to the property by a contractor.

    And the idea of a lien on cattle is ridiculous. How would such an encumberance possibly be enforced?

    • DrZarkov99

      Read my reply to this above. The question is whether the government should have Papal authority of infallibility, which is what the invulnerability against legal action for abusive behavior amounts to.

      A lien against any form of property that has commercial value is commonly exercised. Such a lien, if ruled enforceable by a court, can be used to collect any revenue from selling the property in question.

    • builder21

      “……And the idea of a lien on cattle is ridiculous. How would such an encumberance possibly be enforced?…..”

      Really?
      You seem to know so much that isn’t true.
      Cattle ranching is agriculture.
      Commodities are produced, just as with grain farmers, or fruit growers.
      If any of those commodities can be assigned a dollar value, either singly, or in whole, and pledged as financial collateral, they can be liened.

  • thereisacreator

    I
    just have one question: When the BLM showed up they did not think they
    would have any trouble at all so why were they fully equipped and
    looked like they were transported to Fallujah ready to gun down
    insurgents. BLM also stated they they would shoot and kill those
    people. So regardless of who is right or wrong, it’s now acceptable to
    kill people for taxes/fees. Yet, Harry Reid says the protestor were
    armed. 200 armed Federal “servants” came to show that rancher who is the
    boss. Comply, comply.

    • HoppinJohn

      They knew there would be trouble, Bundy has threatened violence and to shoot people for twenty years if they tried to enforce the court orders. Only a few dozen were BLM agents the rest were hired cowboys for the cattle round-up.

      • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

        Of course the BLM thugs knew there would be trouble. If you are going to try and steal land there will be trouble. Be sure and bring plenty of men with guns.

  • yaz reggae

    Facts are indeed, stubborn things.

    Imperial President Ronald Reagan signed Executive Order 12548 regarding grazing fees of, and for animals…… This was signed in February 1986 by the Great Communicator Mr Horourable Ronald Reagan.. Mr Bundy began to pay his required rent per this Order. Somehow he got wind of this States’ Rights stuff and stopped paying meaning his alleged priviledge allows him to use other peoples’ ignorance for his own ignorant craving for power and status. He stop paying his fees when Mr Clinton came into office. Since when is it legal to have Squatters RIghts and people applaud this man for not paying for use of government property. There is a sucker born every 30 seconds then they head to this clever buzzards place. Only in USA

    http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1986/21486b.htm

  • Biff Sarin

    Soooo, someone please help me understand something here. Ranchers, like say corn and soy bean farmers, provide a valuable commodity to our economy. Beef is one of the staples of most US citizens’ diets. Why is it then, that the Federal Government subsidizes corn and soy bean farmers BUT charges grazing fees to cattle ranchers who had been grazing on the same public lands for decades unmolested??? What are those fees supposed to correlate to? Are the fees a ‘fee for use’, where the fees collected are used to restore the land damaged by grazing? Or are the fees just another tax imposed and pocketed by the federal government? I heard it put best in another’s description once: Why is it that citizens cry foul about the ‘enormous’ 4% net profit per gallon that oil companies ‘reap’ for a gallon of gas, but say nothing of the 15% fuel tax imposed by the government?

    I find it ironic and incredibly hypocritical that so many citizens are quick to jump on these comment boards or even national TV and decry the “actions” of this rancher as ‘domestic terrorism’ (Harry Reid), but then in the very next breath, complain about the ‘rising costs of living, for instance the rising costs of milk, beef and other staple food items’. I just wish that more people would quite drinking the media ‘Kool-Aid’ and begin to look at the bigger picture. The ranchers aren’t paying those range fees…the people who eat the beef are in the form of higher prices! The costs of everything we use in our life is skyrocketing in price because it is being taxed at every turn. We the people, are allowing ourselves (by way of the federal government) to be taxed to death with absolutely no accountability for the stewardship of our funds.

    I mean come on, $600 million for a dysfunctional healthcare website? I’m postulating here, but I think that a smart group of a dozen or so college computer science majors could have put together a much better, and more functional website in half the time, and for about 1% of the cost!!! Even if it had worked, it would have to go down in history as one of the most expensive websites in history! Elon Musk created SpaceX corporation from nothing and, with about $500 million in investments, he designed, developed, tested, launched a rocket into space and achieved orbit around the planet. NASA later admitted that SpaceX did it for about 1/10 what it would have cost NASA. NASA now contracts with SpaceX (who tacks on an enormous profit) to launch NASA’s space flights because, even with SpaceX’s profit margin, they can launch a rocket for a third the cost of NASA! Remember, The federal government couldn’t build a freaking website with $600 million!!!

  • greg

    Republican Ronald Reagan had argued for the turnover of the control of such lands to the state and local authorities back in 1980. Clearly, the surrender of all claims to any land for statehood was illegal under the Constitution. This is no different from Russia seizing Crimea. The Supreme Court actually addressed this issue in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845) when Alabama became a state in 1845. The question presented was concerning a clause where it was stated “that all navigable waters within the said State shall forever remain public highways, free to the citizens of said State, and of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost, or toll therefor imposed by said State.” The Supreme Court held that this clause was constitutional because it “conveys no more power over the navigable waters of Alabama to the Government of the United States than it possesses over the navigable waters of other States under the provisions of the Constitution.”

    The Pollard decision expressed a statement of constitutional law in dictum making it very clear that the Feds have no claim over the lands in Nevada. The Supreme Court states:

    The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.

  • logicisuseful

    This is possibly the worst journalism ever. First of all, Bundy has lost in court numerous times. See United States v. Bundy on the PACER system.
    Even if he hadn’t already lost over three times in court, whoever wrote this article clearly does not understand the first thing about adverse possession, easements, or prescriptive rights. In fact, the author actually undermines the the truth of the headline in every paragraph of the article.

    If you have a court order against you, adverse possession cannot be established. Either way you can’t get adverse possession by trespassing. And you could restart any statute of limitations by protesting the adverse possessor’s presence on your land. You learn that in the first year of law school.

    This is horribly sloppy journalism, meant to simply sensationalize. Do some homework on your stories!

    • ScarletPimpernil

      Contrary to your claim, adverse possession is about trespass. If I drive through your rose bushes to get to my drive way for twenty years and you don’t complain, I can demand to continue to use my usual means of accessing my property.

      • Yousuck

        You can not get adverse possession from local, state, or federal governments

        • Jester

          There is precedent for acquiring prescriptive easement upon public land and federally “owned” public land to boot. It is not the norm, but nevertheless…

          A minor distracting point considering the federal government made a decision to favor one business usage over another (livestock grazing v. solar farms) without the due process of public hearings and without offering fair compensation to a man, his family, and employees, who would lose a well established livelihood, a livelihood that the BLM was specifically TO PROTECT AND ENCOURAGE according to the language in the 1978 public rangelands improvement act which gave them the congressional authority to demand leases and fees from ranchers in the first place.

        • ScarletPimpernil

          If adverse possession could never be applied to government (for future reference, that’s us, those others, like BLM, are just “representative” of us), the many people whose lands are within the boundaries of national or other forests could be kept off their land by the simple closing of access roads.

  • TeXan1111

    The author has been to denver smoking some of their finest weed… Glenn Beck & Greta have said bundy is in hte wrong.

    • Jester

      they know where their bread is buttered.

      • HoppinJohn

        The Koch’s will be very angry with them.

    • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

      The U.S. Constitution says Bundy is in the right.

  • Skip Patterson

    The premise of your paper is incorrect in the second sentence. “For instance, in the 20 years Bundy hasn’t been paying his fees, why hasn’t he been taken to court.” He has been taken to federal court, twice. In both cases the government was given a directed verdict. (Bundy Lost)
    Read more: http://benswann.com/exclusive-does-cliven-bundy-have-something-called-prescriptive-rights-why-the-blm-may-be-afraid-of-going-to-court/#ixzz2zlzjpnDQ
    Follow us: @BenSwann_ on Twitter”

    • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

      Of course Bundy lost in court. It was a Federal judge ruling in Federal Court in favor of the Federal government over what they claim is Federal land. Wouldn’t you expect your Mother to rule in your favor if given the opportunity?

      Cliven Bundy is right. It is a State of Nevada issue. The Feds do not have jurisdiction and their rulings have no force of law. That is why BLM agents carry guns. They don’t have the force of law but they do have weapons and they are not afraid to use them to steal land from the good citizens of the State of Nevada.

      • SometimesI’mRight

        Brother Johnathan,
        First, Grazing Rights have never been codified in U.S. Law nor has it
        ever been established as a legal right in the U.S. And while the Taylor
        Grazing Act authorized permitted use of lands designated as available
        for livestock grazing it never conveyed a right, a title or an interest
        in the land.

        Second, Nevada adopted and enacted its first Constitution in 1864, which
        explicitly surrendered all title and all rights to all unappropriated
        land in the Nevada territory to the Federal Government. The specific
        language in Nevada’s constitution reads, “That the people inhabiting
        said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all
        right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said
        territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire
        disposition of the United States…” So, it remained federal land after
        the State of Nevada joined the U.S. Nevada is made up of approximately
        87% federally owned unappropriated land, managed by the BLM, including
        Moocher Bundy’s illegally grazed 500,000 acres.

        Third, The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the US-Mexican War
        signed in 1848 is when the State of Nevada first came under Federal
        control. The Nevada territory was ceded to the U.S. by Mexico under the
        terms of that treaty. So, it was Federal land before the State of Nevada
        ever existed. Moocher Bundy, nor his family, has any claim to any of
        the lands in question as he, Moocher Bundy, admits his ancestors didn’t
        show up in the area until the 1880s.

        Fourth, Moocher Bundy’s strongest argument used in the courts was
        that the Disclaimer Clause of the Nevada Constitution regarding “…to
        all unappropriated land in the Nevada territory”(quoted above) carries
        no legal force, something the court rightly disagreed with. So, his
        fighting for “States Rights” is hogwash, as he doesn’t see Nevada’s
        State Constitution as having any legal force in the first place.
        Now, if there has been any legal findings and published opinions that otherwise do away with those basic facts I’ll admit I’m sometimes wrong as well.

        • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

          “Nevada adopted and enacted its first Constitution in 1864, which explicitly surrendered all title and all rights to all unappropriated land in the Nevada territory to the Federal Government.” – SometimesI’mRight

          Nobody living in Nevada had the authority to usurp the U.S. Constitution in 1864. Article IV. Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution required the Federal government to dispose of all the soil to the State of Nevada when they were accepted into the Union. That is the supreme law of the land.

          Furthermore, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137: This is one of the leading cases in the history of the U.S. The opinion of the court was “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law; Clearly for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme was illogical; for certainly the supreme law would prevail over any other law, and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis for all laws, and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law. It would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as though it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded by a court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it, and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law, which means it doesn’t exist in law.”

          Cliven Bundy is right. Those lands belong to the State of Nevada by the supreme law of the land. The Feds do not have jurisdiction over those lands no matter what anybody assumes.

          • HoppinJohn

            Your circle jerk argument, is easily disproven and getting old.

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            It is not easily disproven. The Original Intent of the Constitution was for the State of Nevada to own the land within their borders. I don’t care if it is getting old. I am sharing with people the Original Intent was to free people from thugs who use guns to tell them what to do and steal property.

          • HoppinJohn

            That’s also is disproven, by the Supreme court.

          • http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm Brother Jonathan

            The Supreme Court does not have the power of judicial review. They were not given the power of judicial review in Article III nor any subsequent amendment. The cases they rule on are only binding on the parties to the case. The United States was not formed as an oligarchy.

            Lincoln taught us that in his First Inaugural Address.

            “I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.”

          • HoppinJohn

            You might not like it, but your forefathers gave the supreme court the responsibility and right to decide which laws are constitutional or not, and they have continually upheld the Federal Govt right to own land, get a time machine and change it, because the way you see it is not the way it is.

          • Jester

            No, Honest Abe didn’t like stare decisis when it was abused as precedent instead of persuasive. And the Supreme Court justices are to be removed by the people (via congress) if they do not exhibit “good behavior” (Art III), which means if they interpret the constitution in a manner not consistent with the explicit translation of the language of the constitution, they are behaving badly.

            If the congress becomes deaf to the will of the constituents they claim to represent, and commandeer and control the election process, then everyone knows the next step, and it aint pretty.

            And as far as this “moocher” nonsense, I could analyze just about every person’s life in America and find some way they are being subsidized (willingly or unwillingly) by federal tax dollars because the government has arranged that everyone must depend on them in order to justify their expansion and continued largess.

          • HoppinJohn

            Just sayin’, work for that change then, cause that is not the way it is.

          • Jester

            You are technically correct about the explicit responsibilities given the Supreme court. And I am technically correct about what is NOT said but implied about how to remedy the situation where that responsibility is not met, the powers abused, and normal channels of recourse barred from use.

            Actually, there is some precedent regarding the last recourse that is very explicit. It is contained in the Declaration of Independence. There is good reason why you hear many American’s quoting portions of that document these days.

          • HoppinJohn

            Can we agree that, the state should have that land, that’s not the way it is now, and it needs to be changed.

          • Jester

            where I suspect we might disagree is what it will take for the federal government to give up decades of intricate plans already meticulously drawn up and funded for those lands. Plans that have had the blessing of many in the state and county governments involved and even some of their constituents, despite the fact that those plans were made at the expense of the rights of others without their say so.

          • HoppinJohn

            I can agree with that, hopefully I’ll have a chance to see you on another page somewhere, I think I’m done with this one, it’s been fun.

          • Jester

            thanks for the discourse. Take care

          • SometimesI’mRight

            So, the following means, well, what?

            Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2: Federal Property and Territory Clause

            “The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

            I often wonder how anyone can use the argument of ” Original Intent” with our Constitution. If they try then they should also recognize that the ” Original Intent” of “All Men Are Created Equal” was meant for white males only. They should also recognize the distance we have come from a “A Well Regulated Militia…” to the almost unregulated firearm use of today.

        • Jester

          The Nevada legislature disagrees with the wording of the Nevada Constitution as they consider Nevadan’s in 1864 forced to accept that unconstitutional language in order to “enable” them to form a state. And now that the feds have proven that they had no intention in allowing western states like Nevada to become sovereign states on equal footing with the other states, and have abused the ownership of lands in Nevada’s borders, they have repudiated the conditions stated in the Nevada constitution. And if you hadn’t noticed, nine other western states have recently took the same stand.
          (2010 statute revised in 2013) http://law.justia.com/codes/nevada/2013/chapter-321/statute-321.596

          Further, Nevada allowed for VESTED water rights on federal land (since the management decisions for all unappropriated federal lands require some input from the state). These Vested rights are pre-code rights resulting from appropriation for beneficial use. According to Nevada law, a person who makes use of such water sources after being granted their use by generational transfer does not need to register for a state permit UNLESS adjudicating their claim.

          In 1997, Bundy applied to the Nevada Dept. of Conservation, division of water resources for a permit under “proof of appropriation for stockwatering” which is a claim to pre 1905 code, vested water rights, and it was approved. Vested water rights include easement to access those water sources, and any forage along the route, which was confirmed in Hage v. United states.

          Here is the relevant Nevada law regarding vested rights.

          http://www.water-law.com/articles/Nevada-vested-water-rights.html#_ftn12

          So, in 1993 when the feds decided to reduce Bundy’s AUM by 80% and thus put him out of business to save the turtles, he refused to renew his grazing permit and fired them as management. Perhaps if the feds had been honest and exercised eminent domain and offered Bundy the true value of all he would be losing, he may have just went along with it, but we will never know. As it stands, he has rights, the state has rights, and the fed will fight that because they know nothing other than unbridled lust for control.

      • HoppinJohn

        Not everything is a conspiracy theory, you have an infowars mentality.

  • Ron

    Light v. U.S., 220 U.S. 523 (1911)

  • SometimesI’mRight

    Has anyone heard Moocher Bundy’s latest rant? Here’s just a portion of this obvious racist slant of a man so out of touch he shouldn’t be allowed to raise children let alone cattle:

    “And
    because they (African-Americans) were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they
    do? They abort their young children, they put their young
    men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton.”

    And all the while benefiting from, and raising his children on, a federal subsidized public grazing program? Really? Can anyone say racist hypocrite?

    • Jester

      Why not reprint the entire 2 minute speech, including the context in which he was speaking? Don’t bother answering, I know why. Can anyone say biased bigot?

      • HoppinJohn

        You don’t say stuff like that in public or at least in front a camera, his rant and then his explanation for his rant are equally terrible, but he has the right to put it out there if he wants to, he would’ve been better off keeping that it to himself.

        • Jester

          What he said, in the context he said it, is not terrible, unless his goal was to pander to the neutered politically correct crowd. In fact, his lack of guile and forthrightness is refreshing and indicates that he is not a manipulative character. I agree his characterizations reveal he is old fashioned and provincial, but so what? It was political hyperbole used to illustrate how terrible the federal government actually has become in that it enslaves those it claims to protect. Republican lieutenant governor candidate E.W. Jackson from Virginia basically said the same thing recently. And he is black from a family decended from slaves.

          http://m.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/virginia-politics/jackson-suggests-welfare-has-been-worse-than-slavery/article_257b8879-1564-5dde-928c-37713a2cd9c1.html?mode=jqm

          vir

          • HoppinJohn

            Short story for you, I have raised my kids since they were 4 and 1, I got custody in the divorce, I think I am a good father and provider, when they got up in to their later teens, it was dumb f’n n****r this, lazy f**ck’n spic that, I was the Bundy, I did that to them, I have no one to blame but me, and I have tried hard to be a better person about race every since.

          • Jester

            my old man was raw like that, and that degree of angst is certainly born of inner discord and is more or less inappropriate, though stereotypes exist because there is some general truth to them. Individuals tend to act differently when among like minded fellows and stereotypes are born.

            I struggled for a long time myself trying to discern what is valid, not wanting to be blind to any truth. Wanting to give each individual the benefit of the doubt, but be on guard against dangerous herd instincts.

            I listened carefully to the audio of Bundy’s words, and also the audio of his explanation of what he said. I did not find his comments coming from a place of bigotry or deep prejudice, nor from a place of low self esteem and misplaced anger.

            Privately he might have a dark side that harbors such resentments, but nothing points directly to that in my opinion.

          • HoppinJohn

            I thought it might have been TMI for you for a response. I am NOT saying I am a better person than Bundy, but I find hope in admitting and recognizing what I am, so I can fight an internal fight. By the end of August I will be a grandpa, a grandson, and I do not want to pass that ugliness down to another generation.

          • Jester

            With that awareness, the battle is half won. You’ll make a fine grandad.

      • SometimesI’mRight

        Have you heard his interview with the Alex Jones of Infowars? Mr. Jones asked Mr. Bundy two (2) times if he said “picking cotton” in his interview, Mr. Bundy denied he did each time Mr. Jones asked. Can anyone say a back-pedaling unbiased bigot getting caught up in his own not too well spoken rhetoric?

        Good God, Man! Even those that where making him out to be a patriot less than 24 hours ago are back pedaling away from his racist butt, and you can’t see it? Oh well…

        • Jester

          Yes, I listened to the whole thing and took it in context. Here is a simple rural old timer, not used to the public eye and media machinations. He took issue with how the story was being spun and how the NYT cherry picked his words, and neglected to include the first part of his first statement “I am wondering if” …they would be better off under slavery than under government welfare slavery.

          Then he admitted to most of what he said and tried to link it to the context. Then he denied ever mentioning “picking cotton”. Twice.

          He’s an old guy, and was embarrassed to think he might have used such a stereotype. He probably actually believed
          that he couldn’t possibly have said something so out of touch and
          embarrassing. And thus denied it. But he admitted to everything else
          he said.

          He is fallible. So what? Actually, if he was some kind of master
          manipulator, he would have remembered exactly what he said and there is
          no way he would have flatly denied it within 24 hours. Especially
          knowing there was media present recording him both times.

          This is just a distraction to divide off more sheep who didn’t really support the essential principles Bundy stands for anyway.

          • SometimesI’mRight

            I’m sorry, Jester, but “bein’ an old guy” just doesn’t cut it for me, not one bit! If in all of years he hasn’t yet learned how to speak in a manner that doesn’t alienate a whole race of people he need not speak, or at least run it by someone else before doing so.

            He galvanized a nation, he took on a subject in the hearts and on the minds of many people in this country and if he couldn’t represent that because of his age? Well, then step aside or face the consequences.

            And as far as calling people out as sheep? Get real! That’s the typical hyperbole of the extreme right and it’s heard mentality jealous as hell about those of us that form a different opinion.

            Over the years in dealing with many people, in many different environments and under a thousand different situations I have found out one thing that’s is almost infallible; put a person in one of two situations, a position of trust or under pressure, and you’ll find his or her true nature.

            Cliven Bundy has failed your cause, whether you, and those that think like you, rebound from it I believe is up to you and how you and the others move forward. You have valid points, ones that can be resolved in the courts and not by the threat of “range wars” or the threats of violence being used thus far.

            If you want those opposed to you to act in a reasonable and non-threatening manner, try doin’ it as well, no matter what the other side does, you’ll garner much more support that whey. Threaten to bring a gun and expect one to be waitin’ for you. I just don’t understand how you could expect anything different.

          • Jester

            he obviously did not alienate “a whole race of people”. That itself is a racist statement not giving credit to people of that race to see through a NYT set up and hit piece and analyze those comments in context and prioritize their importance compared to the larger issues they might already fully agree with Bundy on. For example, read the direct responses to this so called charge of racism from Alan Keyes, Erik Rush, and other Blacks. Watch the video of the Black man who is currently a personal bodyguard being interviewed by CNN who articulately and respectfully disagrees with the CNN reporters efforts to manipulate his opinion on the subject, who insists, “but aren’t those offensive comments to you?”, to which the guard replies “not at all”, and goes on to say he “looks up to Mr Bundy like my own grandfather”.

            I love that he said what he said, because the reactions are separating the mice from the men. Because I don’t want to stand side by side with anyone who would misconstrue a little molehill to be a mountain. The coming fight for independence from this modern neo-feudal reincarnation of totalitarianism will be fierce and terrible and God help the petty who cannot recognize what to take to heart and what to let roll of their backs for they will find no shelter.

          • SometimesI’mRight

            I apologize. After seeing an unedited version of the interview Mr. Bundy gave to the NYT I was wrong. He is clearly not being racist in his comparisons and was only trying to draw comparisons (as misguided as I still believe they are) to his struggle and those of the American-Africans.

            That being said, I still believe he is wrong in what he is doing and as a stand-up American Citizen I have the right to say so. I do take exception to you though, Mr. Jester; as you insinuate I am somehow a “mouse” not worthy of standing “side-bye-side with” because I take a different view of things than you do. I would stand side-bye-side with you though, because I believe the truest sense of a persons character out to protect this country of OURS is the type of character that protects those he or she doesn’t agree with because the essential and implicit RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES given to us under OUR Constitution says we are compelled to do so.

            I’m a not a fan of our current form of government and or the direction it has been going for the span of my life, my Fathers life and his Fathers, I think it is as far removed from what it was intended to be as a country could be. BUT! The best way to change a system is by changing it without violence or the threat thereof.

            If Mr. Bundy actually feels the pain and suffering of the American-African community he should also recognize their biggest gains have been through their non-violent measures and compel those who have come to his aid, his battle, to set aside their guns, not to threaten, not to bluster and to be as passive as they can be. IT WILL GET FAR MORE AND BETTER THINGS DONE!

            I’m done with this, You take care and consider not marginalizing those you disagree with.

          • Jester

            I have no power to marginalize anyone but I do get to decide who I trust with my and my families life when a tyrant has them in his sights. The best way to change a system is by any means necessary commensurate with the willingness of the controllers to change. I have without exaggeration dealt with bullies all my life and now I have their measure as they have mine. At this point I have seen enough to decide what is needed for me to move forward. Anyone who insists a viable, visable threat of force is off the table needs to get the hell out of my way. I would rather see a little bluster than flaccidity, at least it is in the right direction, although neither are ideal. No more emasculated appeals to Ghandi-ism, peace-ism, or any ism except for constitutionalism one way or the other. And if there are not enough with that same conviction to see this reset through, one way or the other, then this country is no longer worth living in and I would rather be dead.

          • Helen Love

            Thing is, He made a lot of noise, raised the public to start asking questions and the answers didn’t suit him. Not a single one of his claims can be documented in the Public forums anymore than could be be supported in the courts. As a Cultural Experiment it was super. But for Mr Bundy’s individual case, it was an abysmal failure. I wish it could have remained an argument of States vs Feds rights, but Mr Bundy couldn’t focus on the message. The shock value is wearing off and he is right back where he started, a Welfare Rancher tossing a hissy fit cause the Bad Ole Government won’t give him free grazing to fatten his cattle on land he doesn’t own, has never owned and never will own…If he chooses not to recognize the Federal Government that’s fine. But it seems to me that in refuting the Government he has refuted the homesteading laws putting his Homeplace in danger and Gawd help him if he tries to sell his cattle without Federal Inspections. This isn’t a Chinese Resturant where you can choose from columns ‘A’ or ‘B’, it’s an intricate tangle developed over centuries of experimentation.It’s America, we will continue to push and question ’cause that’s what we do..But this Guy and this case is toast IMO.

          • Jester

            facts are a stubborn thing aren’t they? A hissy fit? You speak like you have never worked hard to actually own and treasure property and a way of life built around it, just to have some thug come and try and take it from you for no good reason, against the wishes of the legislature, etc.

            The only thing that is “toast” is that (large) portion of the federal government consisting of extra constitutional agencies, and all of the civilian and corporate structures that have gained from and supported them. It is people who have a lifestyle built upon those foundations who DESERVE to have it fall like the house of cards it is. And it will happen because there are too many still alive who realize that if the federal gov is NOT RESTORED to its limited and valuable function and staffed with “moral and spiritual/religious” people, then the country will fall to totalitarian despotism. The fact that so many have enjoyed a cushy life on the expansion of unlawful government agency and will resist such change is no deterrent. Trust me. Their souls will be better off having to live an honest life or die fighting to retain their privileged existence at the expense of others. I hope you fall on the right side of the fence BEFORE things really begin to sort themselves out.

          • Helen Love

            Huh? Thing is, where do you want to start? All of these arguments are so scattered and none of them make any sense to me..You wanna start with the French Indian war..the Articles of Confederation…where, Please?…If ‘MIght makes right’, this guy lost, if we are a country of laws, this guy lost, if we are ruled by the Social media, this guy is screwed and his followers’ are going to end up looking like extremeist loonies..If we are going to ignore the comfortable status quo, we have to give the citizenry something better and i’m just not seeing here..This guy says his Family rights pre-dates the BLM ( The BLM is just an agency expanded and renamed from the original, historically documented “Grazing Rights System’ set up by President Lincoln – No confusion there)…The Guadelupe-Hildago treaty,gives the land rights to the Feds….The Feds tried to give the land to the States and the States refused ( Don’t yell at me cause it’s all documented)… This is America, we all have voices, but it doesn’t mean we are all going to have our own way..No big deal, cause it’s just a personal thing, but I’d love to see the origina;lBundy land grant – just seems odd that it hasn’t been posted when this is so basic.

          • Jester

            You must have missed the part where since the 70′s Nevada has begged and pleaded with the Feds to dispose of the fed controlled land to them, and went so far as to DEMAND IT BY LEGISLATION for the last 15 years. Do you call that refusing land?

            There is no original “land grant” you really should study the issue more carefully. And boil it down if you have to. A man makes a living for 40 years doing what his father did on the same piece of land. There are all kinds of Natural rights to property involved in that. The BLM is the old “Grazing Service” melded with the “General Land office”, whose primary job is to assist homesteaders in keeping the land viable for use by the homesteaders especially for grazing livestock. So they kick off 52 out of 53 ranchers from the land in Clark county. And then tell Bundy he is grazing too many cattle on the land because the turtle is in danger even 52 ranchers worth of cattle are no longer there. And the amount they will permit him to graze will force him to go out of business and sell the ranch anyway. Are you getting this yet? That is not LAWFUL, no matter how legal it is because of black letters on a page. This country was founded resisting the exact thing I am describing here. Do you like America? Or would your rather it become something else without any resistance?

            The deliberations of the Constitutional
            Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious
            citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended
            in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer
            was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin
            Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”
            With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT.”

          • Helen Love

            I’m not saying the States Rights Advocates do not have some really valid arguments. I’m just saying that, while most are making reasoned, understandable comments, thier current Poster Boy (Mr Bundy) is continually shooting them in the foot. He started out saying his family was ranching on that land in 1877, but according to an investigation by one of the newspapers, Mr Bundy’s Father purchased the land in 1948…In the first few days he was yelling that he had paid the state for the grazing rights, then it was determined that he had tried but the payments had been refused..He talks as if these particular allottments are just sitting there unused, but they were purchased and ceeded to the National Park system so any way you want to look at it, those cattle ARE trespassing. Then we get to the media nonsense…The Bundy group saying they will use thier women as shields in a battle ( with the resultant images of those same ladies with pistols tucked in thier waistbands). And the current pictures of Militia men squatting on overpasses waving thier high powered rifles at, basically, nothing…And the images of the hundreds (apparently) people there camping out and playing in the river like a revival of the communes of the 60′s. So,IMO, whatever serious points the States Rights Advocates are trying to make are being smothered under the mockery of the Late NIght Comedians. I’m thinking, maybe, the Bundy case was supposed to be a lead-in for the Utah thing, but they screwed that up as well with the threat to the Mustangs. If you want to change the laws you need the support of the American people and that’s just not happening here and now with the focus on Mr Bundy.

    • TeXan1111

      Sometimes
      What do you mean benefiting from subsidies. Heck he didn’t even pay anything.. The stole the grazing rights. Why doesn’t somebody ask shean Hannity and Orielly to help him pay if they like him so much?

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/Liberty-Above-All/152353438273739 LibertyAboveAll

      Ohhhhhhh the ignorance…

  • TeXan1111

    The Judge Neopalotanio must have let his stomach bypass go to his brain, Has he become Fox brain dead? When Texas goes blue then Dixie and the republicans will have to listen up to the rest of america.. Dixie has control of the congress because they control the rural states and anti minority states (Dixie)

    The rural states have an out sized representation in congress. Think that the Wyoming senators each represent 250k people when the California senators represent 20mil however each has the same power and vote.

  • disgusted

    So none of this is Clive Bundy’s fault and he walks away from it by paying the fees to the county rather than the citizens of the United States who own this land? I don’t think so.

    • William St. George

      You need to look a little deeper into the matter. According to precedent and the Constitution the land ought to have been given over to Nevada when it became a state. In any case your belief that we the citizens own the land is almost laughable as it is pegged for oligarch use. Read more, research more before you comment and reveal that your knowledge is lacking.

      • Dave Hill

        Nope… Not the case William. Have you looked at the enabling clause for Nevada or its constitution? Federal land remained federal land when Nevada became a state. Do some research yourself before you post William.

    • juandeveras

      You don’t even think.

      • Dave Hill

        And your drinking too much tea. Read all of Judge Jone’s remarks and pay a bit better attention this time, Jaun. While your at it read all of the court judgements against Bundy and learn something.

  • juandeveras

    Last I checked ‘gubment’ includes local, county, state and federal. If you learned to read a little, you’d learn that the ‘gubment’ already put the other 53 Nevada ranchers out of business deliberately by asking them to sign over their preemptive property rights in exchange for da ‘gubment’ allowing them to graze. Apparently Bundy was the only one who figured out what was going on. Now the other 53c have a class action available to them, and the ‘gubment’ has lots of rules on the books they can use to do that. Paul Krugman refers to Bundy as a ‘high plains moocher’ but then Krugman couldn’t tell the difference between a cowpie and chocolate mousse. Can one picture Krugman on a horse, though some might give him at least partial credit – for being more a horse’s a–.

  • Dave Hill

    you forgot the part where the ranchers were paid and paid pretty handsomely for their grazing rights- which by the way are only for 10 year terms. If Bundy had prescriptive rights he’d have tried that angle long ago but he doesn’t. The governement took him to court and won a judgment against him in 1998…Poof…So long the dream of prescriptive rights. The government has tried for 20 years to resolve this in a peaceful manner but to no avail. Bundy is a freeloader on the public purse and a scammer- not a hero. Latley he has started to reveal his true racist character too… Pay the money you owe Bundy and get your cattle out of there.

  • griff

    NRS 11.150  Additional requirements for adverse possession: Occupation continuously for 5 years; payment of taxes.  In no case shall adverse possession be considered established unless it be shown, in addition to the requirements of NRS 11.120 or 11.140, that the land has been occupied and claimed for the period of 5 years, continuously, and that the party or persons, their predecessors and grantors have paid all taxes, state, county and municipal, which may have been levied and assessed against the land for the period mentioned, or have tendered payment thereof.

    He hasn’t been paying state property taxes as owner of land. Cant claim adverse possesion

    • y_p_w

      There was a law that allowed for people to claim adverse possession against the federal government, but only for up to 160 acres. That might even apply to the ranch that his family owns. However, he’s grazing on way more than that, and as far as I can tell, Nevada is like other states where the federally owned land can’t lapse into adverse possession of a prescriptive easement. It required 20 years.

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/43/1068

  • Lynn Kopa Balogh

    they have been in court over and over for 10 years, and bundy lost over and over. Check the Clark County Court Records. You call your article news?

  • Lynn Kopa Balogh

    sorry I read your Bio, for a investigating reporter you did not look at the basics, and use a spell checker. Internet is so full of literal BS

  • y_p_w

    I know that according to California law, title by prescription can’t apply to public land or land dedicated for use by a public entity or public utility.

    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=01001-02000&file=1006-1009

    1007. Occupancy for the period prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure as sufficient to bar any action for the recovery of the
    property confers a title thereto, denominated a title by prescription, which is sufficient against all, but no possession by
    any person, firm or corporation no matter how long continued of any land, water, water right, easement, or other property whatsoever
    dedicated to a public use by a public utility, or dedicated to or owned by the state or any public entity, shall ever ripen into any
    title, interest or right against the owner thereof.