Topic: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher - page 23. (Read 34677 times)

I disagree with several of your statements thus far. Here are some rebuttals.

 - All US territory within the continental United States belongs to either the US Federal Government or to a State government. International US military bases and US territories like Washington D.C. are Federally owned while the ranch in Nevada is State owned. The State of Nevada has an arrangement with the Federal Government allowing the Federal government to use that property. The State of Nevada retains ownership of that land, not the Federal government and the usage of that property is shared equally with those authorized by the State of Nevada to use the property.

 - The right to use this property has been upheld for 150 years by the State of Nevada; one authorized user of a property can't place a fee or excise on the use of that property by another authorized user; even when that other authorized user is the Federal government.

- The land was settled by his family before the State of Nevada was entered into the Union. The lawful right to use that land is obvious, local history, and the court ruling which reversed 150 years of State history is unfair, unjust, and unlawful. The document you seek should be available at the Courthouse. The misplacement of that document by the Courthouse or custodians isn't enough to discount the existence of that document; especially when supported by 150 years of inter-family generational use.

- I saw you mention "bad law" and would like to expand on that to prove "relevance". There's a difference between legal and lawful. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to distinguish between what is legal, and what is lawful. The Constitution could not be more direct in this regard; unlawful laws are to be disobeyed without prejudice. If you read the notes and writings of our Founding Fathers regarding the Second Amendment, you'll find that disobeying unlawful law is a requirement for maintaining a US citizenship. Every US citizen of able mind and body is included in the definition and scope of the US militia; further, the Militia is bound by honor to take action when action is necessary in order to uphold the intent behind the Constitution and more specifically the Bill of Rights. By refusing to subject himself to the whims of the BLM he is acting lawfully within the Constitution.

- The Constitution was not written for lawyers, nor for scholarly debate among a few withering Supreme Court Justices. The Constitution was written for the common man. You're expected to have common sense, and the Constitution means just what a reasonable US citizen would interpret it to mean. The Bill of Rights is intentionally broad by design to provide sufficient protection (warning) against an exceptionally clever tyrant. The problems with the Constitution are those with the later Amendments where the intention was shifted towards disorienting and confusing the "reasonable US citizen" to allow for selective enforcement and profit.

- The BLM is an enforcement agency under the Executive Branch, not a law-making agency under the Legislative Branch. Allowing an enforcement agency under the Executive Branch to create and enforce regulations under force of law is unconstitutional. The "laws" created by these organizations are extra-Constitutional and subject to the laws within the Constitution. The judges who uphold these extra-Constitutional laws are leeching the life away from our three branch system of government and are enablers to the collapse of our system.

- This "rich old man" isn't stealing anything from the government anymore than the Native Americans "stole from the government". He has the right to forage this property and forage rights are of an indefinite term. The only way to get him out is with his consent and just compensation for any and all expenses incurred as the result of improvement or upkeep. The $1.1 million he "owes" the government isn't lawful as he has the right to use that property.

You can't just give somebody a right and then charge a fee for the lawful use of that right. That would be like the Federal government charging a fee to publish a news article, or a fee to exercise the right to a trial by jury. Property rights are a fundamental point to the Constitution, the Constitution was created to protect property rights specifically, among other things...


BTW, I think it's great when people challenge the conspiracy theories. However, challenging a theory requires the use of a scientific method...
 
When you mention specific sources and imply that those aren't reliable, and then claim that as a piece of supporting evidence for your disagreement about a conspiracy theory; it's no different than trusting the content word-for-word from a polarized opposite standpoint.

It doesn't provide anything of value to the debate unless you can support your opinion. If you disagree with any conspiracy theory, then I would challenge you to back up your opinion with verifiable evidence. If you don't contribute to the verifiable evidence behind a claim then you're acting as nothing more than another highly opinionated individual selling snake-oil.

"You might be crazy if you think they're after you, but you might not be wrong." -- Conspiracy is an attempt at solving an unknown by using a scientific method. Without a theory, you have nothing to test...

The government did the right thing by backing down.  It's not worth people dying over.  But the government does appear to be right in this case.  I'm sorry I can't confirm what you want to be true.

I would save my angst for a time in which the government actually is overstepping its authority.  This just isn't that case.  

Nolo is right. Snipers and Reid calling those people terrorists were the right thing to do. BLM represents the law. Bundy owns BLM $650 Millions. If he cannot pay then he should be put down like those cows next time.

Eminent Domain is also a federal right.  See the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

If no document exists, then how do we even know Bundy's claims are true?  Because he says so? 

(See above post on adverse possession not applying to the government.)

I do not need to indulge in "conspiracy theories".  (The truth is amazing enough)
Here is a quick view of some mainstream sources on the subject you introduced.

ABC News:
 Here's Obama's full bio from the 1991 brochure:

Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation. He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago's South Side
(They claim the 1991 bio was a "mistake")
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/born-kenya-obamas-literary-agent-misidentified-birthplace-1991/story?id=16372566


HufPo:
GOP Lawmaker Cracks Birther Joke
North Carolina state Rep. Larry Pittman (R) joked that it wasn't right to call President Barack Obama a traitor because he had not done anything to harm Kenya at a town hall meeting Monday.

"I noticed on Facebook recently somebody had posted something with a picture of Barack Obama and across it said 'traitor.' And, you know, I don't always agree with the guy -- I certainly didn't vote for him -- but I gotta defend him on this one," he said. "I just don't think it's right at all to call Barack Obama a traitor. There's a lot of things he's done wrong but he is not a traitor. Not as far as I can tell. I haven't come across any evidence yet that he has done one thing to harm Kenya."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/25/larry-pittman-obama-birther_n_4164331.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Also this graphic from HufPo is about Yahoo News:



Israel National News:
Obama Born In Kenya? His Grandmother Says Yes.

Someone is lying.  According to Obama's Kenyan (paternal) grandmother, as well as his half-brother and half-sister, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya, not in Hawaii as the Democratic candidate for president claims.  His grandmother bragged that her grandson is about to be President of the United States and is so proud because she was present DURING HIS BIRTH IN KENYA, in the delivery room.  -This, according to several news sites and Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg (see video below) who is, surprisingly, a life long democrat himself.  Berg is the former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and he has an impressive background in his activities as a democrat, but his support for the party seemingly stops when it comes to his trust in Barack Hussein Obama.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/blogs/message.aspx/3074#.U1II86JCZNQ


Denver Post:
Speaking at a Republican breakfast last week, state Sen. Owen Hill commented that the country already has “someone from Kenya as President of the United States.”
http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2013/11/07/owen-hill-we-already-have-someone-from-kenya-as-president-of-the-united-states/102429

If such document exists, it is probably in an archive in Clark County Nevada or on microfiche somewhere. I doubt it's been put online. Most recorders' offices don't even have records from 1980s online yet, let alone 1880s. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 has language stating that nothing in a permit issued by it would confer title, etc.

As for what has been brought before a federal judge, I haven't read those cases yet. I'm sure they challenge the BLM's right to manage federal lands and I'm sure the federal judges will always uphold that right since the BLM was created by an act of Congress, likely via the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Once Bundy quit paying those fees and the BLM wanted him off the land, the clock started ticking for a claim of ownership via adverse possession. The timeframe required by Nevada law is 5 years and Bundy has been adversely possessing that land for 20 years. If he brought a claim of ownership before a Nevada state court, he would likely find that the court agrees with his assertion that he is entitled to do so under Nevada law. Since eminent domain is a state right, Nevada would be within its right as a sovereign state under the US Constitution to transfer that land to Bundy if the court ordered it to be so.

Nolo, you really ought to read my previous post on this thread, it will enlighten you to the entire backstory on this situation, going all the way back to 1864 when Nevada was admitted into the union. What you fail to understand is that Bundy is right, it is not the federal government's land. You see, when a territory gains statehood, it does so on an equal footing with every other state, particularly the original thirteen states. In order to become a state, the US Congress at the time required that Nevada include in its Enabling Acts that it will disclaim all unappropriated land within its borders. This is a violation of the Doctrine of the Equality of the States and there is previous court precedent to back this up. See the Supreme Court ruling on https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/44/212/case.html Pollard's Lesse v. Hagan (1845). The power of eminent domain always passes to the newly formed states so when unappropriated land is finally appropriated, it is the state that exercises eminent domain and controls that land, not the federal government. When the Congress acts in violation of the US Constitution, as it did with Nevada, the Supreme Courts sees these actions as void and nonexistent. It is a shame that Nevada never challenged the requirement that they disclaim the unappropriated land in Nevada and give the power of eminent domain to the federal government. So, from a legal standpoint, that land belongs to Nevada, not the federal government.

Now that I have that out of the way, let me go ahead and counter your claim that Bundy doesn't have rights on that federal land. Bundy's ancestors purchased grazing rights from the federal government in 1887. You see, prior to the passage of the Taylor Grazing Act, ranchers let their livestock roam freely. It wasn't much of an issue at first because there was so much open land and so few ranchers. Well, as more ranchers grew their herds and located closer to other ranchers, range wars broke out with ranchers fighting each other over the open land. So, the simple solution was to purchase the right to graze a particular allotment. That gave him the right to graze that land at the exclusion of other ranchers. Just as you can purchase a mining claim, ranchers purchase grazing rights. Eventually, the Taylor Grazing Act led to the creation of the Bureau of Land MANAGEMENT. I emphasize management because they were supposed to manage the land for the benefit of the public and the people with rights and claims on the lands. To offset the cost of managing the lands, the BLM would charge a monthly fee per head of livestock. Since the BLM would be working to improve the land, Bundy was willing to pay and did so for quite a while. However, the BLM lost its way and started harassing the ranchers and kicking them off the land. So Bundy fired them and quit paying. Just as you might do if a service provider was no longer providing a service to you.

Next, I will address the adverse possession rights that Bundy has. You see, I know a little about this because I've actually held a Nevada Real Estate license in the past. Adverse possession is when someone occupies or uses the land in clear violation of the owner's wishes. For twenty years, Bundy has not paid the BLM and they have wanted him off that land but have not removed him. He is using that land for the purpose of grazing his cattle. This meets the definition of adverse possession in Nevada Real Estate Laws. Nevada requires 5 years for the adverse possession to be recognized as a valid claim of ownership. Bundy has been on the land for 20 years. If he were to file suit claiming ownership of the land in question, he would likely win. To his benefit would be the fact that the issue would be decided in Nevada state court and not a federal court. The only way it could go to federal court would be if Nevada's law regarding adverse possession was challenged on its constitutionality.

Finally, if you are making an argument that Bundy is a bad person for using that land without paying for it, I say that turnabout is fair play. You see, the federal government owns 86.7% of Nevada's public lands. They don't pay any property taxes on the land that they possess, which is unlike private ownership. Think about this for a second...Nevada gains no revenue from a vast portion of the land within its borders. The government makes use of much of that land but doesn't pay a dime. Under the US Constitution, the federal government can only acquire land with the consent of the state legislature and must pay for that land. Nevada never got the benefit of selling the 86.7% of its land for any profit. As a matter of fact, the federal government screwed Nevada even worse. Upon statehood, states typically get 2 sections of every township for the benefit of common schools. This is 3.9 million acres in Nevada. Well, the federal government wasn't getting around to doing a survey anytime soon so in 1880, Nevada had to exchange that 3.9 million acres for 2 million acres of public land of its choosing. Finally, for all the federal workers in Nevada, they use roads, infrastructure, send their kids to Nevada schools, etc., all without contributing property taxes. That makes the federal government a mooch on 86.7% of Nevada's lands.

So next time a few thousand people show up someplace pissed off at the government over something you don't agree with, perhaps you should try playing Devil's advocate and try to understand why they are so upset. You might learn something. Never take a side without considering both sides first.

I would like to read the document that shows these grazing rights were granted free and forever.  Link?

Edit:  Also, was this document presented to the federal judge that ordered the cattle be seized?

It is not that simple as it seems. Bundy's family were the first European Americans to ever settle on that land, after defeating the Shoshone. The government used the services of that family to defeat the Indians. And in return, they were granted grazing rights to the whole area. How can the government take away something that was granted many years ago?

I must have missed the part where I called someone names.  I quite clearly see where I was called a name however.  But it doesn't hurt my feelings.  Trust me, I've been called much worse than the supporter of cow killing bureaucrats.  lol

I simply said, and stand by the fact that I do not get my news from conspiracy or propaganda outlets.  

I'm not going back and reading all 8 pages of this thread, so I'll ask, is it your opinion that this man is not breaking the law?  Is it your opinion that requiring him to pay the government to use the government's land is unjust?

I see were you are coming from. You provide no proof about your level of education while calling everyone names. We shall bow and submit to Nolo the Divine, great defender of the Supreme BLM Cow Killing management bureaucrats.

Even if what you say is true, its irrelevant.  Its the government's land.  They can use it for any legal purpose.  They don't have to get this guy's consent to use their own land as they see fit.  

That would be the equivalent of me telling my neighbor he can't sell his house, because I store my lawnmower in his garage.  Pretty ludicrous, eh?

I'm well educated on the story.  I do not however, get my information from infowars, Fox News, ronpaul.com, World Nut Daily, or any other conspiracy website that also claims the President was born in Kenya, or that George W. Bush was behind 9/11.

Yes. It is public land. But Bundy's family has been grazing their cattle on it for almost 150 years now. The BLM wants to convert the land in to a wildlife sanctuary for the desert turtles and ban the grazing there. May be they should give him a similar plot somewhere else as a compromise.. but I don't know whether the will agree or not.

Have you spent some time checking the different links posted all along or you simply read the thread title?

This has nothing to do with politics or an authoritarian government overstepping its bounds.

This is one rich old man who is essentially stealing from the government.  It is government land.  His cows are grazing on it.  Every other rancher has to pay the government for the ability to do so.  Why is this old man so different?  Because he doesn't recognize the federal government.  Well good for him.  The government should follow the court order and seize his cattle until he pays. 

This isn't even a bad law.  There is something to be said about violating "bad laws".  This is just greed on his part. 

Now granted, I'm glad the authorities have chosen not to use force at this point.  It's stupid, but these idiots would force the police to use deadly force on them, and law enforcement knows that, and that's why they've temporarily backed down.  The government in this case is showing far more restraint than can be said for these nutjobs.

Well if its public land, can it be perhaps leased to him for 100 years? Or sold. Is there some important public infrastructure on that site?

The Truth About the BLM - Bundy Ranch Dispute Explained


http://youtu.be/tAwALTdrMZ8