Federal agency vows to continue legal action after ending Nevada ranch standoff

Now what's needed is any evidence that Mr. Bundy's antecedents had an existing grazing permit or lease at the time in question. Then they can move on to trying to show that Mr. Bundy didn't unilaterally breach and/or abandon those existing grazing permits by failing or refusing to pay any grazing permit fees for about two decades, and/or otherwise breaching the terms of the permits.

But since he's been to court twice over this matter and lost both times, I'm gonna guess he had no existing lease or other legal basis for converting over a half-million acres of public land to his personal use as an extension of his 160 cattle ranch.

=========================

What is not clear is why the BLM had to remove the cattle. In the Texas panhandle there are several large wind farms and the cattle graze between the wind turbines with no problems. Something more to the story.

Also if Mr. Bundy and his family has used, possibly improved the land for generations, what are the common law precedents about possession?

=========================

What is not clear is why the BLM had to remove the cattle. In the Texas panhandle there are several large wind farms and the cattle graze between the wind turbines with no problems. Something more to the story.

Also if Mr. Bundy and his family has used, possibly improved the land for generations, what are the common law precedents about possession?

Bundy claims "ancestral rights" to the land.

I suspect there are some folks at the local Indian reservation whose ancestral rights trump his. Of course, no one wants to bring up this fact.

Bundy is a welfare queen who has spent his entire life sucking at the guvmint tit . . . cheap grazing land, federal agencies protect his cattle from disease, federal agencies round up the wild horses that compete with his cattle for forage, tax laws give him huge breaks . . . rugged individualist my ass . . . welfare queen and that's all he is.

It's not about grazing, it's about trespassing. The excuse I heard was damage to natural resources and threats to persons and traffic from cattle.

I haven't researched it, but I'd bet that the existing statutory law adequately covers this matter. There is a long history of litigation over land use and water resources in the West.

I think that's a non-starter under the fact pattern as I understand it.

And, of course it has nothing to do with the Chinese, Reid or a solar plant.

Except for the Chinese, Reid and a solar plant

In the 1870's no such paper work was required or even available. In fact much of American could not read or write. Thus much was by hand shake ..word of mouth etc..

I haven't researched it but he claims to have won those.

In most state if not all..The Law of Adverse possession is only 7 years. But It is more then possible that if his usage of that land on a continuous basis since the 1870's...He owns it. And the ridiculous $millions the Government claims is owed for rent on that barren land is a Joke. The Democrats love their Jack Booted Thugs kicking down doors and shooting women and children like at Waco and Ruby Ridge. They sure covered up and fogged up the real story about Oklahoma City too.

If you say so, but I want the matter to be properly investigated before I draw any firm conclusions.

There's more to adverse possession than some might think. I don't even know if it's an available claim v. federal property, and the common law is generally trumped by statutory law. It may also be procedurally far to late to raise it, or perhaps it was tried and denied. I don't know the specifics.

Sounds a bit like "sweet thing"...

Jeftard is a brain damaged leftard disbared lawyer

Roger that.

I'll wait to see who investigates the investigators.

Your established pattern strongly suggests you'll just toe the regressive party line, whatever it is, regardless of any facts or what any investigation reveals. I'd be surprised if you ever did anything else.

Your pattern says you'll parrot the Lib Dem party line, regardless.

Isn't it odd how when the government investigates itself, it rare finds wrong doing even while it's clear there was?