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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Management through purchase, exchange, Act of Congress or Executive Order, and an agreement or the terms of the act or Executive Order provide that the Bureau of Land Management shall honor existing grazing permits or leases, such permits or leases are governed by the terms and conditions in effect at the time of acquisition by the Bureau of Land Management, and are

formatting link

Reply to
Ray Keller
Loading thread data ...

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.

Reply to
Jeff M

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

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?

Reply to
F. George McDuffee

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

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?

formatting link

Reply to
F. George McDuffee

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.

Reply to
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names

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.

Reply to
Jeff M

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

Reply to
Jeff M

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

Reply to
Tom Gardner

Except for the Chinese, Reid and a solar plant

Reply to
Tom Gardner

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.

Reply to
PaxPerPoten

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.

>
Reply to
PaxPerPoten

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

Reply to
Jeff M

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.

Reply to
Jeff M

Sounds a bit like "sweet thing"...

Reply to
tag-along

Jeftard is a brain damaged leftard disbared lawyer

Reply to
Ray Keller

Roger that.

Reply to
tag-along

I'll wait to see who investigates the investigators.

Reply to
Tom Gardner

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.

Reply to
Jeff M

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

Reply to
tag-along

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

Reply to
Scout

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.