” His case also is based on his family’s presence on that land back into the 1880’s, iirc.”
Here is another point that is often missing. I usually quote the 1998 case, because it spells out in detail why Bundy stopped paying. However, the land his cattle are being seized from are the “New Trespass Lands” in the 2013 case. These are lands Bundy’s cattle were not grazing on until AFTER the 1998 decision.
Bundy is claiming he has been grazing there since the 1800s. But he was NOT grazing there at least from 1954-1998. It was only after 1998 that he STARTED using that land for grazing. Had he used that land from grazing prior to 1998, it would have been part of the 1998 case.
“In an order dated November 3, 1998, this court permanently enjoined Bundy from grazing his livestock within a different area, the Bunkerville Allotment, and ordered Bundy to remove his livestock from the Allotment before November 30, 1998. U.S. v. Bundy, No. CV-S-98-531-JBR (RJJ), 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23835 (D. Nev. Nov. 4, 1998). The court also ordered that the [*2] United States was entitled to trespass damages from Bundy for livestock left on the Bunkerville Allotment after such date.
In its [new] complaint, the United States alleges that, not only has Bundy failed to comply with the court’s orders that he remove his cattle from the Bunkerville Allotment and pay the financial penalties, but that Bundy’s cattle have moved beyond the boundaries of the Bunkerville Allotment and are now trespassing on a broad swath of additional federal land (the “New Trespass Lands”), including public lands within the Gold Butte area that are administered by the BLM, and National Park System land within the Overton Arm and Gold Butte areas of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area.
The United States seeks an order enjoining Bundy’s unauthorized grazing on the New Trespass Lands...
...Bundy principally opposes the United States’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that this court lacks jurisdiction because the United States does not own the public lands in question. As this court previously ruled in United States v. Bundy, Case No. CV-S-98-531-JBR (RJJ), 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23835 (D. Nev. Nov. 4, 1998), “the public lands in Nevada are the property of the United States because the United States has held title to those public lands since 1848, when Mexico ceded the land to the United States...
...Moreover, Bundy is incorrect in claiming...that the Property Clause of the United States Constitution applied only to federal lands outside the borders of states...[and] that the United States is basing its authority to sanction Bundy for his unauthorized use of federal lands on the Endangered Species Act as opposed to trespass...
...The United States has submitted Bundy’s deposition excerpts indicating that Bundy has grazed livestock on the New Trespass Lands and further evidence of the trespass of Bundy’s cattle in those areas.”
These lands were not part of the grazing Bundy did from 1954 thru 1998. He has been grazing there, illegally, from no earlier than 1998.
I listened to the man last night, and it seems pretty clear to me that his is simply disputing the right of the federal government to assert ownership of land that it holds in trust for the people. He says it’s wrong that the Federal Government claims it “owns” 80% of Nevada.
I actually agree with that. Americans — even conservatives it seems — have this notion that can’t shake that land must belong to someone. It seems very hard to explain to people that just because land is unpurchased by individuals that it automatically is NOT owned by the Federal Government. This idea that the Federal Government “paid” Mexico for this land and took “ownership” after a war is a terribly misplaced idea. The Federal Government did nothing more nor less than the American Revolutionaries did in winning independence from the British. Did the Federal Government then “own” each of the 13 colonies? After the Louisianna Purchase, did the Federal Government “own” everything from Louisiana angling up toward Wyoming from the Mississippi west?
Or was it simply a new establishment of American borders with the Federal Government in a role of responsibility over those millions of acres within new borders? Is the Federal Government an individual in that it, like a monarch, exerts ownership over crown properties?
A steward does not own anything. A steward simply watches over the property of his boss. And since the Constitution gives the Federal Government direct control of only a limited list of places, that means the bulk of the steward’s watched over property is owned by the steward’s BOSS. That boss is “we the people of the United States in order to establish a more perfect union”.
Any power not granted to the Federal Government is reserved for the States or for the People.
The first constitutional branch of government mentioned is THE People.
The second is the States.
Old Clive Bundy is standing on principle. That principle is that the land in question is within the borders of Nevada, and that it, therefore, belongs to Nevada. And unclaimed and unpurchased, as of yet, by individuals it is “open range”. He is using open range and is willing to pay Nevada reasonable fees.