48 votes

Why the Nevada vs. BLM Land Ownership Issue is Confusing

It is a shame that Cliven Bundy is not more articulate in expressing his viewpoints. Most people think the federal government owns the land his cattle are grazing upon, and when asked he says no but does not have a clear explanation.

I did a little digging and found out why he does not have a clear explanation: because it IS confusing! But here is the gist of the story.

In 1787, the Constitution for the United States of America was written, and ratified in 1789, fully in 1791. Also in 1787, the Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance, which detailed how new states would be formed within the Northwest Territory. In that document, the concept of "equal footing" was established. The basic idea is that any new state would have equal footing (rights, powers, authority, whatever) as the original 13 states had. They would be equal partners in the union of states.


In 1845, there was a dispute over land between the United States government and the newly-formed State of Alabama (formed partly from land that Georgia ceded to the United States). The case went to the United States Supreme Court in the case of Pollard vs. Hagar 44 US 212 (1845), where they decided that when a new state is formed, it must be on equal footing (the principle established in the Northwest Ordinance) and this meant that once a new state is formed from land that was a United States territory, all sovereignty turns over to the new state. Furthermore, the federal government cannot "retain" jurisdiction over land that was a federal territory and becomes a state.

... if an express stipulation had been inserted in the agreement, granting the municipal right of sovereignty and eminent domain to the United States, such stipulation would have been void and inoperative: because the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a state or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted.

Alabama is therefore entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law, to the same extent that Georgia possessed it before she ceded it to the United States. To maintain any other doctrine, is to deny that Alabama has been admitted into the union on an equal footing with the original states, the constitution, laws, and compact, to the contrary notwithstanding ... and no compact that might be made between her and the United States could diminish or enlarge these rights.

So, it was established that Congress could not "retain" property or jurisdiction within any new state, the same as it did not own property or have jurisdiction within the original 13 states, except for the express exceptions enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.



In 1864, Congress passed an act to allow the people of the Territory of Nevada to create a constitution and form the State of Nevada. They did this, but there was a catch.

Remember, Lincoln was president and the war was going on. Congress (the Union, not the Confederacy) put in a clause that said that the people of Nevada must give up any rights to the land owned by the federal government within Nevada (which turned out to be over 90% of all land). But, it also said that such a condition was only valid until Congress waived it, in which case the federal government would no longer own that land.


But Congress never waived it. Not even to this day. No matter, it is irrelevant, since Congress does not have the constitutional authority to own ANY land outside of the District of Columbia, except for those properties specified in Article 1, Section 8 (military bases, post offices, federal court buildings, etc.). Congress also has NO authority to make these sorts of conditions on a state to be admitted into the Union. Remember, Lincoln was president and he corrupted the Congress at that time. None of them were following the Constitution or any other laws at that time. He was acting as a dictator.

This all happened during a war that saw all sorts of illegal behaviors by the federal government, and let's also not forget that silver was discovered in Nevada in 1858. The federal government wanted the land to pay for war and other debts.

Unfortunately, the state legislators of Nevada have had no backbone for more than 100 years. That land does not lawfully belong to the federal government. It never did.

In 1979, the Nevada legislature passed something -- it can't really be called a law, but it's not really a resolution, either -- that details these facts, and claims that Nevada has a "moral claim" to the lands claimed by the feds. The people in the Nevada legislature at least documented the facts, and put it into their legal code, while at the same time showing they have no guts to uphold the Constitution they claim to support and defend.


So, this is why Cliven Bundy says his cattle are not grazing on federal land. He's right. They are grazing on state land, but the state legislature has no guts to enforce their rights against the federal government. The claims by the federal government apologists that Nevada gave up that land when it was admitted into the Union is false. Such a congressional condition is not valid and has no legal force or effect.

Of course, that has not stopped the FEDERAL courts from siding with the FEDERAL government in the Bundy lawsuits. Yes, those federal courts have decided against Bundy, but they have done so in violation of the law.

This is why it seems so confusing in the media. Because it is!

Comment viewing options

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

Thanks, great post!

You did an excellent job with this! Did you get a chance to review the court case I posted here? This NV Rancher won his case!


Would love your thoughts on it when you have time to review it. Thanks, again for your very informative post!

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

Proceeds according to the common law

Here is another good source explaining such things as Land Patents and a title abstract.


Free; not holden of any lord or superior; owned without obligation of vassalage or fealty; the opposite of feudal.
as found in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.
Land held absolutely in one's own right, and not of any lord or superior; and not subject to feudal duties or burdens.
as found in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.

When property is held in allodium, all police powers are removed from the property. There are no building permits required and there are no property taxes (feudal duties) due. When property is held in allodium, the title is called a Land Patent.

Anyone in this country not knowing the information offered in that link is weakened severely because of that ignorance, and that individual weakness contributes to a very large amount of overall or "collective" weakness, and what happens when the people are weak?



If a living breathing member of the people does not produce the title to the land, whereby the title abstract goes all the way back to the Land Patent, thereby having allodial tite or a tile in alludium, then there is a cloud on the title, and the title can be cleared according to the common law.

Who knows how our common law works in our mutual defense?




Millage may vary.


OH, and P.S., why are whistle blowers running away from slavery into Russia, and why is one of the most competitive places to find information on Ron Paul a Russian source?


Paul — the former Republican congressman for Texas and a three-time contender for the office of US president — said on Monday that things aren’t necessarily over on the Bundy ranch, even though the feds have for now relinquished their war with the rancher.

“They may come back with a lot more force like they did at Waco with the Davidians,” Paul told Fox News host Neil Cavuto on Friday, adding that he wished for a non-violent resolution.

Only days earlier, the rancher’s wife told the Huffington Post that the mobilization of heavily armed federal agents around her land was all too similar to the 1993 raid on the Branch Davidians’ Waco, Texas compound that ended with the deaths of 87 civilians.

"If you saw the artillery and their presence -- the intimidation they are trying to put on us -- it could turn into that," Carol Bundy said she feared.

Speaking to Paul, Cavuto claimed that the potential for violence to erupt at the Bundy ranch on par with what occurred 20 years ago in Texas was on a “very slight trigger,” to which the former congressman responded, “That’s the great fear….especially if the financial crisis gets much worse which I anticipate.”



Land Patents and Allodial Title

This has been discussed several times, and no one has ever answered my question. Where is an attorney who can get me a Land Patent (I'm in PA) and how much does he/she charge?

Surely if this was possible some lawyer would have made a boatload of money doing it. How much is it worth to never pay property taxes? Five thousand? Ten? More?

I've read the team law website and others that claim they can "teach" me how to do it. Well I'm not a lawyer and I don't have unlimited time.

So unless you (not you personally, Josf, but anyone) can give me the name of a lawyer who can do it, I'll not spend any more of my time reading unsubstantiated claims on the internet.


...let it not be said that we did nothing.
-Ron Paul

From my research

i have learned while you can get a certificate of allodial title, its basically just a wall hanger and grants you no special privileges of your land you still owe taxes and are in effect renting form the federal government, even IF that state gives it to you.


Lies gain currency

Accurate accounting gains currency too.

Which wins in any case?



Lies give advantage to the liar at the expense of the abject believer in falsehood without question.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder?


Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Pay into one or the other and you will get what will come to you in due time.


Ignorance is a sound foundation?

What happens next?


‘There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation.’

Land Patents are the beginning title transfers from authorities known as United States of America, at the Federal level, and although that authority is based upon a lie, the actual fact of the matter is that is the law of the land.

If you are in Pennsylvania looking for a Land Patent, then you are barking up the wrong tree, and no fool in their right mind would ever try to convince you of doing something better with your time.

Pennsylvania is one of the original 13 States (actually Constitutional Republics) involved in The Declaration of Independence and subsequent Revolutionary struggle between significant forces of arms.

The winners seized property. The winners, the authorities, in this land then gave out Land Patents for other people in other Constitutional Republics.

Pennsylvania, as far as I know, was a Title transfer, free and clear, or title in allodium, to William Penn. You can stop barking and start looking into a true, accurate, real, title abstract for any property in Pennsylvania, and if you expect a BAR Lawyer to do your dirty work for you, and go against his real bosses (not you) then you had better expect to pay a high price for his services.

I can offer a small measure of advice which is nothing for nothing as far as you are concerned - I suppose.

Quick, pro bono, search:


I am the owner of the original Charter which founds the liberties of Pennsylvania.

It is on two skins of parchment, dated 25th April, 1682.

If you think it worthy of the attention of the Society of Antiquaries, I beg to produce it for their inspection.

Bridge for sale in Brooklyn, or Nigerian offers you can't refuse?


A re-examination of the difficult writing on the Harrisburg
Charter discloses that its endorsement has not only never been
understood, but also has never been correctly transcribed. It should
properly read "xxvij mo die Junii 1682 Irr[otulatur] p[er] John Shales Aud[itorem]," i.e., "27 June 1682 enrolled by John Shales Auditor." This note, which perfectly complements the note in the Enrolment Book was made by John Shales to indicate that the patent had been duly recorded in his department. Far from furnishing proof that the Harrisburg Charter is not the original, this note may be taken as conclusive evidence that that document is the original patent. An interval of a year or more between the date of the granting of a patent and the date of its enrollment by the Auditors of the Land Revenue was not unusual.

More clouds on title?



bla, bla, bal, then:

"We, the representatives of the freemen of Pennsylvania, in general convention met, for the express purpose of framing such a government, confessing the goodness of the great Governor of the universe (who alone knows to what degree of earthly happiness mankind mav attain, by perfecting the arts of government) in permitting the people of this State, by common consent, and without violence, deliberately to form for themselves such just rules as they shall think best, for governing their future society, and being fully convinced, that itis our indispensable duty to establish such original principles of government, as will best promote the general happiness of the people of this State, and their posterity, and provide for future improvements, without partiality for, or prejudice against any particular class, sect, or denomination of men whatever, do, by virtue of the authority vested in use by our constituents, ordain, declare, and establish, the following Declaration of Rights and Frame of Government, to be the CONSTITUTION of this commonwealth, and to remain in force therein for ever, unaltered, except in such articles as shall hereafter on experience be found to require improvement, and which shall by the same authority of the people, fairly delegated as this frame of government directs, be amended or improved for the more effectual obtaining and securing the great end and design of all government, herein before mentioned."


"I. That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

Note: it says property

"VIII. That every member of society hath a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, and therefore is bound to contribute his proportion towards the expence of that protection, and yield his personal service when necessary, or an equivalent thereto: But no part of a man's property can be justly taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of his legal representatives: Nor can any man who is conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms, be justly compelled thereto, if he will pay such equivalent, nor are the people bound by any laws, but such as they have in like manner assented to, for their common good."

More property stuff.

Settling any dispute over property:

"IX. That in all prosecutions for criminal offences, a man hath a right to be heard by himself and his council, to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses, to call for evidence in his favour, and a speedy public trial, by an impartial jury of the country, without the unanimous consent of which jury he cannot be found guilty; nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; nor can any man be justly deprived of his liberty except by the laws of the land, or the judgment of his peers."

"X. That the people have a right to hold themselves, their houses, papers, and possessions free from search and seizure, and therefore warrants without oaths or affirmations first made, affording a sufficient foundation for them, and whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded or required to search suspected places, or to seize any person or persons, his or their property, not particularly described, are contrary to that right, and ought not to be granted."

Who owns who, or what, and how are disputes settled according to the law of the land in any case in Pennsylvania?

"XI. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the parties have a right to trial by jury, which ought to be held sacred."

I've had enough with the free work for someone who is so confident in his ignorance.

Good luck with it.

I may have to coin a phrase about common law: So simple a German Shepard can understand it better than a BLM corporate employee = attacking innocent people is a crime so don't do it.


Not confusing issue really . . .

but your post was quite good & informative.

What it fails to address are ranchers and other people that have been driven off their land, Agenda 21, and the continued restrictions on American citizens ability to enjoy & use their own public lands. (We have experienced this in public lands near where I live. There are now huge wind farms in places that used to be completely open for hunting, camping, & other activities in the past. What is public has been given over to private interests to profit from. And, the wind power costs more to produce than that from our abundant hydroelectric dams.) What also wasn't addressed was the Reid deal with the Chinese for a solar energy facility. (This has received practically no coverage in the mainstream media.) This reeks of corruption, in a system of cronyism which is corrupt from top to bottom.

The issues are broader than what you covered in your article. (Perhaps it would take several articles to get into those other areas.) It is about far more than Bundy paying grazing fees, and your article did an excellent job on some of the legal issues. Thanks for your work

And if the media would spend less time talking about Bieber

They'd have more time to explain the facts.

Thank you for taking the time to research and explain this for us. It's a shame the news professionals won't.


The legal aspect of all of this is what I have been confused about since day one. Although I still think that it could probably be argued, legally speaking, that the BLM agents had legal authority to do what they did, I strongly believe that they have no moral standing; and as such, Bundy and his supporters are justified in the use of force to defend against their encroachment. Because of how muddied the matter is if you look at from a legal, and even a Constitutional, point of view, I have only been using arguments based on morality (principles of property, homesteading, non-aggression, etc) when speaking in favor of the Bundy's and against the feds. Fundamentally, the moral arguments are the only ones that should even matter at this point (where push has come to shove), even if all the laws were clear and straight forward in favor of Bundy.

"Truth is treason in the empire of lies"

Nice post!

Thanks for the research!

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!


Thanks Tommy Paine,

Here is a link to much more info on "Homesteading" {1862}:


Snip: "Claimants were required to “improve” the plot by building a dwelling and cultivating the land. After 5 years on the land, the original filer was entitled to the property, free and clear, "

And I heard them mention something about a "GOLD" hill or deposit on Mr. Bundy's land:


The General Mining Act of 1872 is a United States federal law that authorizes and governs prospecting and mining for economic minerals, such as gold, platinum, and silver, on federal public lands. This law, approved on May 10, 1872, codified the informal system of acquiring and protecting mining claims on public land, formed by prospectors in California and Nevada from the late 1840s through the 1860s, such as during the California Gold Rush. All citizens of the United States of America 18 years or older have the right under the 1872 mining law to locate a lode (hard rock) or placer (gravel) mining claim on federal lands open to mineral entry. These claims may be located once a discovery of a locatable mineral is made. Locatable minerals include but are not limited to platinum, gold, silver, copper, lead, zinc, uranium and tungsten.

There is also something that the Bundy's may be entitled to called, "Squatters Rights" !



Additionally, It Is Very Possible

...that there is a simple Rule of Law to be applied here.
I submit for consideration (again):
The Right to Property by Prescription:

A method of acquiring a nonpossessory interest in land through the long, continuous use of the land.

prescription n. the method of acquiring an easement upon another's real property by continued and regular use without permission of the property owner for a period of years required by the law of the state (commonly five years or more).

Prescription is a title by authority of law, deriving its force from use and time.
Not that I am a fan, but.....
As I am writing, Mark Levin, once Legal Counsel member of Dept of the Interior has stated, that since the tortoises are no longer threatened (the protection management successful) the need to maintain this property as "environmentally protected, no longer exists.
...Let me repeat that: NO LONGER EXISTS.

He also mentioned how the BLM was about to quit this fight years ago, but were threatened with a lawsuit by environmentalists; most notably to be considered as a suspect?
Every other word on their website? "Abusive grazing"
Partnered with the NPLGC
Their "Mission"? To PERMANENTLY END GRAZING PERMITS on Western Land.
...they must be vegans or own cattle ranches in Buenos Aires.....
the link:

Eco-Terrorists if anything; they need to be disbanded and broken up.

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

Now this is something that, finally, makes . . .

sense. Thank you.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

1979 The Sagebrush Rebellion

Why the State of Nevada didn't follow through with their "resolution"?
In 1980 President Reagan declared, "I am one who supports the Sagebrush Rebellion. Count me in as a rebel." He then appointed Robert Burford, one of the leaders of the Sagebrush Rebellion, as Director of BLM. He was the Director of BLM from 1981-1990.

So was Reagan just being cunning--

or was he the real deal?

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Reagan was a real actor

for the most part.

The real deal.

The Federal Land Policy & Management Act of 1976, raised concerns with a few western states about the loss of local control over federal lands. Which coalesced into the "Sagebrush Rebellion". They were concerned that the BLM "Bureau of Livestock and Mining" would transform itself into "Best Land Manager". (Which it has) The Reagan Administration implicitly used the threat of the "Sagebrush Rebellion" to implement "good neighbor" policy that gave more weight to the preferences of local people rather than national preferences. The most dramatic change was to largely abandon efforts to identify and restrict livestock overgrazing on BLM lands.

Thanks, again


AAAAAAAND this means nothing

because we have a government who will enforce the laws against YOU but there is nobody to enforce the laws against THEM. The militia has the only means of enforcing the law right now and, when the Fed finally gets butt hurt enough, they will be extremely outgunned. I pray for them.

The worst thing is that the idiot sheriff over there that can, but won't, stop this garbage will probably get re-elected.

Oh SUH-WEET! Upvote!

Get this up in that Originals box people and it gets syndicated out.

Some of the best, most timely and comprehensible scholarship I've seen here. It's outa the park.

There is nothing strange about having a bar of soap in your right pocket, it's just what's happening.

Thank you for posting Tom...!

Geesh...how much more don't we know about our own country...

Excellent, Tommy Paine!!

I have a deep appreciation for the work you put into this research, and the way you covered the bases so clearly and succinctly!

You are a real asset to the DP and the liberty movement at large.

Thank you!

I have linked this comment on our website:


Freedom is the ability to do what you want to do.
Liberty is the ability to do what you ought to do.
"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." 2 Corinthians 3:17

Go back even further to understand state sovereigty

King George didn't recognize the United states when they won their independence from England. He recognized 13 sovereign independent nations. Those sovereign independent nations later banded together for common defense, and formed a federal government, with limited enumerated powers.

The limited enumerated powers were put in place to avoid the exact type of over reaching (out of control) government we have today.


"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon

What is the mechanism the United States

Used to get other land...ie national parks? Does the United States claim to own other land that was aquired in other manners, or does it only claim management rights? Is there other land within other states that was federally aquired in such an obviously illegal manner? Has any state other than Alabama sued under "equal footing" doctrine? I don't know if you know these answers, but they seem like obvious questions, and yet no one seems to be answering them. Thanks in advance.

Take a look at this map ...

... on Ben Swann's website (the article is excellent, too):


You will see that most of the "federal land" is in the western states.

I haven't looked at them all, but most likely the feds pulled the same crap in those states as it did in Nevada.

The other states have "federal parks," which were started when Teddy Roosevelt was president. Some of those MIGHT have been ceded by the states, but the Constitution does not allow the feds to OWN land within the states for parks. So, if they own it, it would also be unconstitutional.

Other states with small federal land amounts might be military bases, which MIGHT be legit, depending on how it was done.

I have only looked up the info for Nevada because of the Bundy situation, but it is a MUCH bigger issue than Bundy.

It is about constitutional limitations and how the American system of government *IS* (not how the big government people want it to be).

Thanks for the post

It does clear up some confusing issues over the land in question.

Really though, I don't see any state ownership of land - be it at the Federal or "state" level - as valid. The land should be considered wild or at the very least be parceled and placed in auction.

*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*


i've been looking for this info for hours, thanks.

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
My ฿itcoin: 17khsA7MvBJAGAPkhrFJdQZPYKgxAeXkBY