Does Cliven Bundy Have Something Called “Prescriptive Rights”

Swann ^ | April 16, 2014 | Ben Swann

[Duke C.]

[snip]“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”

[Kansas58]

There is court history on “vested use” where water is concerned. Land cases have been decided on that case history.
The law is often an ass.
Being a “law and order” absolutist does not make you a patriot or a conservative.

[Kansas58]

The Feds do not have the authority to order the Sheriff to enforce Federal claims.

[iontheball]

Another issue that I do not know the answer to is how Nevada’s “open range” law impacts on his cattle grazing rights.

[Boogieman]

“IMO the land they have been grazing cattle on for over a century should belong to them.”

So if I use public lands long enough, they magically become my property?

[DannyTN]

"Does Bundy have those other rights? I don’t know...but to understand the situation, one has to understand that to say X owns property Y doesn’t necessarily meant that the ownership is all-inclusive."

It doesn't sound like Bundy owns anything. I understand that ownership rights can be divided. But like you, I don't know what Bundy owns. Does he own water rights. He was leasing grazing rights for a while. I don't think most people know. I think they are reacting emotionally. And they are assuming the courts are flawed.

[DannyTN]

"Does Bundy have those other rights? I don’t know...but to understand the situation, one has to understand that to say X owns property Y doesn’t necessarily meant that the ownership is all-inclusive."

It doesn't sound like Bundy owns anything. I understand that ownership rights can be divided. But like you, I don't know what Bundy owns. Does he own water rights. He was leasing grazing rights for a while. I don't think most people know. I think they are reacting emotionally. And they are assuming the courts are flawed.

[DannyTN]

"The Feds do not have the authority to order the Sheriff to enforce Federal claims."

Okay, so who does? The court? Didn't the BLM go to the court multiple times and win each time?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Maybe it's that the Federal government owns as much land as it does. That seems to be a sore point with a lot of people out west. There is a legislative remedy for that though. And if the government does sell off it's vast holdings, is there going to be enough water resources for the increased population?

As I've pointed out before, all of this land was available to be homesteaded well into the 20th Century. There's a reason no one wanted it.

[MamaTexan]

It called preemptive Rights.

[Dick Bachert]

The United States government has direct ownership of almost 650 million acres of land (2.63 million square kilometers) -- nearly 30% of its total territory. These federal lands are used as military bases or testing grounds, nature parks and reserves and Indian reservations, or are leased to the private sector for commercial exploitation (e.g. forestry, mining, agriculture). They are managed by different administrations, such as the Bureau of Land Management, the US Forest Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the US Department of Defense, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the US Bureau of Reclamation or the Tennessee Valley Authority.

The above map details the percentage of state territory owned by the federal government.

[MamaTexan]

How about “adverse possession” of the land as a Bundy defense?

How about people research a little HISTORY instead of squealing "nanner-nanner boo-boo"?

From the Library of Congress
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsb&fileName=040/llsb040.db&recNum=818
(line 12)
Provided, this privilege shall not extend to lands upon which there many be rightful claims under the preemption and homestead laws

-----

Preemptive rights (also called land usage or 'range' rights) were given as an incentive to settle the West. These rights would be enumerated in the Deed held by Bundy's family since the 1800's. These rights are transferable, inherited along with the property, and stipulate WHO the fees would be paid to.

This Deed is a contract, and the federal gov/BLM impairment of the obligation of this contract by insisting Bundy pay them instead of the Original payee is unconstitutional according to Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1: .......or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts

Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation.
James Madison, Federalist #44

[Kansas58]

Federal Law Enforcement must enforce Federal claims. The Federal Government has no authority to force local or State government to enforce its claims.
The Feds can file a lien against property in Federal or State Court, that would be a different matter. The Feds have so far not done that.

[exit82]

Thanks, BRTF.

That easement would run with the land from then on.

[mad_as_he$$]

Adverse possession is a common law concept. According to several FR trolls there is no ability to gain adverse possession of Federal lands; just on private and state lands. Just because it hasn't doesn't mean it can't. But let's try this. Bundy has water rights that are controlled by the State of Nevada on Federal land. If he can't get AP of Federal “land’ can he get it for the forage it produces since that what he has been consuming?

BTW Bundy is not very good at expressing his views on this. Took me a few minutes to understand his position when I first heard hi speak in January.

[Axenolith]

If he paid taxes on any aspect of it, it would strengthen that, along with a filing of Notice of Intent to Preserve Interest. Just a thought.

[Axenolith]

I’m not sure, but in the grand scheme of things the government is actually most likely the Trustee of the land under legal definitions. The Trustee has a fiduciary obligation to the “beneficiaries” in that circumstance, and to squirrel away large tracts of land as “mitigation banks” probably violates that responsibility to the beneficiaries if they are defined as the general citizenry.

[Axenolith]

In the instance of 1872 mining law they did on claims, if you so desired, until Clintoon pulling the funding to process the land Patents.

[taxcontrol]

Sorry, but the facts of the case do not support that assertion.

The BLM first responded via administrative order when Bundy did not renew his grazing lease back in 1994. The second BLM action was to go to the courts and file suit. When Bundy lost that case and then refused to remove his cattle, the BLM went back to court to get permission to remove the trespassing cattle themselves. When Bundy threaten violence, the BLM got a restraining order.

All of this occurred prior to the roundup.

[taxcontrol]

The only federal law for adverse possession limits the land size in question to 160 acres... far short of the 600,000 acres in question.

[taxcontrol]

The land was owned by the US government before Nevada was even a state (1864). In fact, the US government has owned the land since the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1844.