Disagree. They have the history of the open range, and they have the fact that they were permitted to make personally paid for improvements with no reimbursement. That pretty well settles it for me.That don't settle it in a court of law and that's what matters.
It is unowned land and it has been improved. They have a range claim.Then they need a court judgment saying that.
The Fed is responsible for the land within our borders. They are not PROPERTY OWNERS.Well, the law has disagreed on that for a couple of centuries now. If you want that viewpoint to be law, you need to have it recognized as law.
If they were, shouldn’t they be paying property taxes to the states/counties, the same as other property owners within those states.Actually, no. Federal property is exempt from property taxes. So is state property and municipal property. It varies a little from state to state, but you can check your local real estate laws for that.
At this point, there are a couple of items of interest in this case.
1. What do you think of the Harry Reid connection?
2. What does misrepresenting the tortoise endangerment do to past court rulings that utilized those assumptions?
3. What does BLM overkill do to their case; i.e., bringing snipers and heavy artillery to a cow ranch?
4. What do the “1st amendment zones” say about the Fed’s opinions of the American people?