17 votes

Does Bundy own the land or is it leased federal land to graze his cattle?

I'm not quite understanding this whole situation.

According to The Wildlife News:
http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2014/04/07/blm-makes-progress...

"On Saturday, April 5 the U.S. Bureau of Land Management BLM) began rounding up the hundreds of cattle owned by rancher Cliven Bundy of Bunkerville, Nevada. The cattle are a mixture of trespass cattle Bundy runs on U.S. public land for which he has no permit and also apparently feral cattle, probably derived from the trespass cattle. In surveys this month, the BLM identified 908 cattle illegally on the scenic, almost 600,000 acre Gold Butte public land area.

When Bundy stopped paying his required grazing fees in 1993, the BLM had authorized him to graze only 152 cattle."

So, Bundy owns the cattle but not the land, as I'm understanding.

UPDATE: The land is not federally owned, it is federally protected public land.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

This issue simply means will there be a death of Open range

If Bundy wins, open range will continue.

I wonder where the

lawyers are, usually someone gets a lawyer and let the court settle the problem, did this happen?

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

He fought an expensive legal

He fought an expensive legal battle in court, which he was winning, when the BLM came in and asserted that they have jurisdiction -- not the courts!

Thanks,

for the info.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

I heard more about this yesterday ...

... and the story is that the state owns the land. He was paying grazing fees to the state for many years.

The feds intruded into the scene by claiming that they were protecting the environment. The state (cowards) went along with it, even though the feds have no constitutional authority to intrude.

The feds then started suing the various ranchers over environmental issues. Unlike other ranchers, Bundy fought them. When it looked like Bundy was going to beat them in court, the feds just unilaterally declared that they have the authority and they walked out. As far as I can tell, the case was never resolved.

The state refused to accept Bundy's grazing fees. He tried paying the county, but they refused. He would not pay the feds because they have no jurisdiction.

Then, the feds went to fed court (where the feds have the automatic advantage) and got a fed court order to take the cows. This is when BLM moved in with their swat team of 200 to steal the cows.

It's hard to piece it all together because Bundy does not communicate his message all that clearly, but this is my take on it.

With the 30-day no-fly zone over the area, which will prohibit media cameras, and with the media's lack of attention to this case, it is most likely not over. Round 2 is probably coming in a few weeks.

Bundy's Defense

..may have been tied to:
" Right of Way by Prescription."
I have exercised this right, personally, and I would guess that it is the reason he has been successful in court...but the courts have NOT resolved the issue, due to fear of retaliation by the Fed Govt.
link:
http://www.shoosmiths.co.uk/client-resources/legal-updates/C...
Notice the date:
"1832"
Notice the timeline requirement:
"20 years"
Bundy stopped paying in 1993...21 years ago.
That's why they needed to use force...and abuse of power.
The Bundys had this case won in a slam-dunk if it could be "resolved".

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

LittleWing's picture

Please read -An American Original: Wayne Hage

Read this Post and additional info/comments, very important!

Government's Shocking Interference in Rancher's Life -The Wayne Hage Story
http://www.dailypaul.com/316686/governments-shocking-interfe...

An American Original: Wayne Hage
http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/Grazing/hageinterview1998.htm

If Wars Can Be Started by Lies, They Can Be Stopped By Truth.

Finally Got Around to It

...and yes!
It IS a very good strategy...too bad it took so long, and was only "resolved" after the elder Hage's death.
I feel for the son...my Dad went to his maker wondering why (after years of litigation) I could not get a timely settlement on a financial and legal matter.
Part of the reason was an ex-employee of Harry Reid was involved, and his influence extended to local law enforcement, and the courts.

It also had to do with MONEY and PROPERTY.
That's why I am so drawn to this situation.

P.S. I eventually won, but like they say:
"when seeking revenge, it's best to dig two graves"...I've moved on.

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

There should be no federal land.

Its just land. Its Harry making deals with land he dont own then using the force of government to steal the land to acomplish Harry's deal.

REED HOW MUCH MONEY IS ENOUGH TO SATIATE YOUR GREED?

sovereign

Garan's picture

Rights Matter. What's "Ownership"?

Many if not most ranchers operate with large amounts of leased land.

Basicly, the state retains control over the land with various rights leased or sold to others (e.g. the right to extract natural gas, or the right to graze).

Also, previous owners of these land deals may retain some of the rights, such as mineral or timber rights.

Sometimes "owners" of the land must provide access to the general public in order to access other public lands.

Even when one "owns" land, there are many restrictions and required actions placed on the so called owner, who must continue to pay in order to keep what he/she supposedly owns.

In my experience, a land deal is much more clear if you only look at the rights and ignore any terminology that suggests ownership.

In my opinion, if you can't destroy something without repercussion, then you don't own it. So, almost everyone doesn't really own their house. ..it's more of a rental or lease situation.

In listening to Bundy ...

... it sounds like his position is that the land is owned by Nevada and he has paid grazing rights fees to Nevada.

The federal government employee thugs who are descending on Nevada's property are claiming some authority to enforce a federal court order to remove his cattle.

However, the federal government has no jurisdiction over this land since it is outside the constitutional authority of the federal government's enumerated powers.

Therefore, the federal court acted unlawfully and the court order is not valid. Also, the federal government employee thugs who are stealing his property are acting only under color of authority and their actions can and should be prosecuted as crimes against him and Nevada, and they should be held personally accountable.

The governor of Nevada has authority to end this peacefully by telling BLM to go away, but he does not have the balls to do so (and/or he does not know how to uphold his oath of office). The local sheriff also has authority to arrest the trespassers, but he, too, has no balls and/or has no understanding of how to uphold his oath of office.

Bundy is waiting for one or the other to take action, both of whom he has asked to uphold their official duties.

a comment by JTCyote explains...

...from the Harry Reid's Connection Post by JO4RP at http://www.dailypaul.com/316556/harry-reids-connection-to-bu...

I'm going to iterate this one more time in hopes that one of the guys or gals there in the Bunker will see it and check it out.

"Alex and all...

Stop calling it federally owned land.

It is not federally owned... it is federally protected public land!

Under the Constitution, the feds can only own 100 square miles as a center of administration, and small tracts purchased or donated by the states that can be shown as necessary to the administration of Constitutional federal jurisdiction.

Besides, the land being stolen by the feds here is land that is held by the state of Nevada! The feds have absolutely NO jurisdiction other than by contract to patrol it for the state ...The Nevada governor for his inaction should be impeached, and the sheriff of the county should be Arrested as an accessory to grand theft!"

JT

This is bigger than Cliven Bundy

Thank you! Awesome post from

Thank you! Awesome post from the locals there!

¶~~*~~Losing an illusion makes you wiser than finding a truth. ~Ludwig Börne~~*~~¶

Rancher Cliven Bundy interview

Mr. Bundy explains his position in an interview with Infowars reporter David Knight:

http://www.infowars.com/rancher-cliven-bundy-speaks-i-dont-r...

The Truth About the Nevada Rancher's Standoff (Stefan Molyneux)


http://youtu.be/GQb0qJLhea8

As I understand

The BLM was to manage the land, Bundy retained the rights to graze on the land. Something changed in 1993, where probably a regulation was enacted, that charged Bundy and other ranchers a fee to graze, which Bundy claimed violated his preemptive right to graze on the land.

In my opinion, other ranchers threw in the towel when the fees became such that grazing cattle on land managed by the BLM became excessive and they couldn't make a living (which is probably why Bundy is the last rancher in that part of the state).

The legislature of Nevada has final say over the BLM managing the land, which I don't believe was ever sought or granted.

If this is the case, the governor and sheriff have the right to order the BLM off the land.

NRS 328.075  Procedure; limits of federal jurisdiction.

1.  Upon application by an officer of an agency or instrumentality of the United States in accordance with Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States, the Legislature, or the Legislative Commission when the Legislature is not in regular session, may by resolution cede concurrent criminal jurisdiction to the United States respecting any land held by the United States for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards or other needful buildings, or for another governmental purpose authorized by the Constitution, subject to the conditions and reservations set forth in this section and NRS 328.085. Jurisdiction other than concurrent criminal jurisdiction may be ceded only by the Legislature when in regular session.

2.  Federal jurisdiction over land to which this State has not ceded its jurisdiction is limited to carrying out governmental purposes authorized by the Constitution of the United States, and federal jurisdiction over lands held for other purposes is limited to that exercisable by an ordinary proprietor under the laws of this State.

3.  An application for a cession of jurisdiction must set forth:

(a) The purpose of the application and the nature and extent of the jurisdiction sought;

(b) The legal description of the land involved, together with a map of the land;

(c) A statement of the governmental purpose to be carried out on the land and the federal statute authorizing that activity; and

(d) A verification by an officer of the agency or instrumentality who has knowledge of the contents of the application.

4.  The Legislative Commission, upon the advice of the Attorney General and after a hearing, may cede concurrent criminal jurisdiction to the United States on behalf of this State if it finds that the contents of the application are true and the cession is in the best interests of this State. Notice of its hearing must be given as required by law.

(Added to NRS by 1981, 918)

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-328.html#NRS328Sec075

...may by resolution cede concurrent criminal jurisdiction to the United States respecting any land held by the United States for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards or other needful buildings,

Did anyone notice any forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards or other needful buildings on the property?

The excuse of protecting the desert tortoise is a distraction. Running 1000 head of cattle on 600,00 acres wouldn't endanger the tortoise based on the word of some yahoo environmentalist.

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

Why is the Governor taking so long to correct this?

Is the Governor getting a kick-back from Harry Reid?

Good Question.

From William Grigg:

"One of the first initiatives undertaken by Secretary Babbitt in pursuit of his vision of a “New West” was to seek a 230 percent increase in grazing fees charged to ranchers on federally administered lands. Although the proposed fee increase was thwarted by a Senate filibuster, the effort to destroy the ranching industry continued."

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/04/william-norman-grigg/wou...

I remember this in the news:

"After the fee increase was proposed, an Interior Department memo surfaced which revealed that Babbitt wanted “to use price increases as a straw man to draw attention from management issues.” While ranchers fought the grazing fee increase, Babbitt and company created “Range Reform ’94,” a cluster of proposed federal land use and environmental regulations which Pendley describes as “A Thousand and One Ways to Get Ranchers off Federal Land.”During the late 1990s – a period in which Babbitt, appropriately, was mired in a scandal involving decades of federal fraud, embezzlement, and graft in the Indian Trust Fund System – ranchers rallied to hold off the federal assault."

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/04/william-norman-grigg/wou...

Replace Bruce Babbitt and the tyrants of the 1990's, with Harry Reid, his son and the Chinese tyrants in 2014.

"To exercise exclusive

"To exercise exclusive legislative jurisdiction in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may"

they have no jurisdiction outside of D.C. for this. where in the constitution is Land Management? this exceeds 10 square miles.

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.

The US government

can be ceded land by the legislature to erect buildings. Does anyone see a building on any of the 600,000 acres.

I agree with you. The BLM has no rights to this land.

Sheriff DeMeo from Nye County

Sheriff DeMeo from Nye County talked about who owns the land in a video regarding a similar previous incident: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaEKB8pU2Tw&t=5m40s He basically says that public lands are not owned by the federal government but are owned by the people. The fed gov simply manages the land. He also stated that Nevada owns its public lands under the 10th amendment. If all that is correct, maybe Nevada's state gov can step in.

...

thanks john2k

good info and clarity on this issue!

clear as mud

well the whole thing is clear as mud. But at least he is getting some attention and hope the real facts get out there. Someone needs to make a timeline.

Prescriptive Easement from

Prescriptive Easement from over a century and a half of continuous use by his family. So he doesn't own the federal land but he claims right to continue to use it through easement. And the federal government will claim not to recognize the easement. The federal government would almost certainly win that case in federal court...doesn't make it right.

Mr. Bundy has stated that..

...he has no contract with the federal government and that is what is unique about his situation.

Furthermore the Feds recognize it as HIS property as they have tried to buy it from him but he has refused to sell it.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a rEVOLution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

The "Feds Recognize it as His Property" is half correct

...or should I say;
"half of the story".
Bundy, in an interview today, explained how he had been paying for the "grazing rights" to the STATE of NEVADA.
So...the only "recognition" of his "ownership" resides within the legality of his possession of "grazing rights" which granted a sort of "exclusive right" to that "property.
Since he paid his grazing-rights fees to the STATE of NEVADA, and the land being "public property of the State", Bundy has asserted that the Federal Government has no jurisdiction.
He asserts that he does not recognize their authority...only the State of Nevada.
"Whatever rights, not granted to the Federal Government, or to the states, are held by the people"; this is his Constitutional "viewpoint" regarding this.
During the course of his "exclusive grazing rights", the property has been "claimed" by various FEDERAL "Alphabet Agencies", and each for a different reason....with most agencies unaware of the other's agenda, until now.....Fracking?....sounds about right.
BTW:
If you're wondering what the backhoe is needed for?
(the one inquired about in the video)
ANSWER: To "load" the cattle into the dump-truck, and then to bury their carcasses in the desert.....along with all the tortoises they are also killing.
They must dispose of the carcasses....cover the crimes.

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

Carcasses… oh sad.

And chilling, especially after hearing that AJ interview. Mr. Bundy really does care about his cows.

god i hate statism

...

Séamusín

That was 20 years ago...

The man brought the land into production and has been using it for quite a long time. It is his.

7+ years uncontested.

He owns the land.

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.