Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Lavoy Finicum on his side of the story

The articles of all that land within western states was addressed when the territories became states. They had to agree to rescind control of the land to the federales or they would not be given statehood.

So, under such duress, any contract nowadays is null and void.

This particular case has not been tested much.

That is an interesting point to consider.

However, would a voluntary application for statehood and a condition placed upon it that was voluntarily accepted would be a difficult argument to make as far as "duress". Hawaii's case for duress (literal occupation by an invading military, capture of the ruling family, subjugation by them, and then a forced "deal" for statehood) would be an argument for duress, but I'm not seeing how a territorial government petitioning for statehood and agreeing to terms set forth by the U.S. for acceptance as a state could be considered "duress".

Please explain, and you know I'm legitimately interested in your answer.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people."

"The ebb and flow of Tenth Amendment Jurisprudence reflects the delicate constitutional balance created by the Founding Fathers. The states ratified the Constitution because the Articles of Confederation created a national government that was too weak to defend itself and could not raise or collect revenue. Although the federal Constitution created a much stronger centralized government, the Founders did not want the states to lose all of their power to the federal government, as the colonies had lost their powers to Parliament. The Tenth Amendment continues to be defined as courts and legislatures address the balance of federal and state power."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tenth+Amendment

Where this becomes a two headed snake is who's name is on the deed, so many of these "ranchers" consider land that they lease is "their land", instead of "Americans land".

The pasture in the becoming of the video for granted, did that man buy and pay for that pasture that he hadn't "grazed" for six years or did he pay for the right to be allowed to graze his cows there?

Great; you can Google. That's a start. It still has NOTHING to do with the 10th conveying any "rights" to a renter/leaser. You've thus far gotten Constitutionally enumerated and guaranteed rights mixed up with contractual obligations, and conflated 10th Amendment restrictions on the government with restrictions/obligations on contractual parties.

You are absolutely right and this is even Stated in the Constitution of the State of Nevada. But this premise has been litigated and upheld that the 10 Amendment of the U.S. Constitution takes Precedent.

After ranching BLM for many years, and knowing the full gamut of ranchers that did likewise, I never actually ran across one that thought of the land as "theirs". (some were good guys. Some I couldn't stand. Most treated the land and managed it well.)

I have however shared the knowledge that when you pay for the grazing permit per animal unit and pay the annual lease, then you do indeed own the grazing rights.

Those grazing rights can be bought, sold, traded or bartered and have a real value very comparable to deeded land.

Citation?

Yes, but it is a contractual right; one that stems from the lease contract. That contract, like any lease contract, is subject to change. If the landowner wants to change the provisions of leasing their property, they have the real property right to do so. That, then, changes the contractual right under any such lease. A leaseholder can transfer their contractual right to another, and it does have value. However, they cannot force the owner of real property to continue to convey to them any contractual right beyond that desired by the property owner.

Take, for example, a hunting lease. X owns property. X leases property to Y for a term of years and for a set fee, and within that X retains the right to change the terms of the lease while Y, so long as they pay the lease fee, has the right to transfer their contractual right to another. During that lease, Y can sell his rights under the contract to Z; Z then is subject to payment of fees to X and the contractual obligations and benefits of the lease. X can also rescind the lease subject to any penalty clauses within the lease, or change the provisions accordingly. Y can then opt out, not renew, or agree to the new provisions. Y CANNOT, however, force X to guarantee Y the same rights and privileges in perpetuity under an old lease should X decide to change the provisions, and Y CANNOT force X to allow Y to continue practices previously conducted under the lease should Y stop paying the lease fees.

That's the situation with the Bundys and others. They have a contractual lease agreement with the landowner (Feds). The landowner has, and can under the law, change provisions of that lease. The Bundys have decided that they are not bound by the law because they don't like the new lease terms, so not only are they refusing to pay the lease fees but they are insisting that they can continue to operate ON SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY outside of a lease agreement, just because they used to be able to operate that way under an old lease.

Contract agreements supersede all other rights under UCC and Maritime Law. Like I said...if you sign to give up your First Born just try to keep a Judge from making you uphold this Contract you signed. Not going to happen, even if you are the Mother of that Child...Seriously...I have actually been on the other side of this exact type of Contract with a Child we adopted. There wasn't even an exchange of argument. "Did you sign this?"..."Yes"..."Then we are done here...the Child goes with who you gave it too."

The point? Don't sign nothing you are not ready to actually agree to because the Judge is going to award it without question. Fact.

Contractual agreements are subject to the terms of the CONTRACT. Can you prove that the lease contract granted an in perpetuity use right to the Bundys and disallowed the landowner the right to transfer the land or change management protocols? No, you can't because the lease did not state that. The grazing leases have provisions in them reserving the rights of the property owner to transfer ownership of the property, change management and use protocols, and fee agreements, among other points. The Bundys signed those leases with the reserved right provisions to the landowners, and THEY (the Bundys) are now the ones that don't want to abide by the enforceable provisions of the contracts THEY voluntarily signed.

Your reductio ad absurdum argument holds no water because it doesn't actually get into the LAW on the matter; that is, the terms of the contracts in question. In fact, it undermines and destroys your own position because of the same points: the law in question is the law governing the actual provisions of the contracts in question.

Absolutely...Just like Mineral Rights or Water Rights if you form an incorporated "Mining District Inc." or "Water District Inc." that might also be on Fed lands or even on/under your next door neighbor's Property

The Commercial loopholes are endless in these cases.

Bugout4x4,

I'm happy to continue this discussion, and do so in a civil manner (fair enough?). Perhaps it would be a good place to start if you could state your full position on this; starting with the Constitution, going through the various steps to and including the lease agreements, citing cases as appropriate along the way, and then sum things up. Yes, it will take some time and effort, but if you've got a clear, cogent, and concise argument to make on this issue with the information and legal basis to back it up, it'd be worth it.

From there, it'll be easier for me (and anyone else) to follow your argument and critique as appropriate.

Make sense?

Bug out:

You keep bringing up the UCC and "commercial loopholes". Neither of which have anything to do with this. Commercial law doesn't apply to real property or leases of real property not even to grazing leases. Commercial law deals with the sales of movable goods. Also the UCC isn't binding law anywhere. All it is is a position taken by the ALI, a bunch of law professors of what they think a model commercial code should be

Contractual agreements are subject to the terms of the CONTRACT. Can you prove that the lease contract granted an in perpetuity use right to the Bundys and disallowed the landowner the right to transfer the land or change management protocols? No, you can't because the lease did not state that. The grazing leases have provisions in them reserving the rights of the property owner to transfer ownership of the property, change management and use protocols, and fee agreements, among other points. The Bundys signed those leases with the reserved right provisions to the landowners, and THEY (the Bundys) are now the ones that don't want to abide by the enforceable provisions of the contracts THEY voluntarily signed.

Your [i]reductio ad abs

Ever hear of a Rancher by the Name of Wayne Hage? This is a case where a federal judge ruled in favor of the Rancher's Estate and Property Rights and against the BLM's attempted abuses of power pior to the Bundy ordeal.

A Federal Judge had already ruled on these Bundy issues.

Hage v. United States

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/final-judgment-award-the-estate-of-wayne-70273/

Now do you remember what actually started the Bundy issue? They destroyed his Water Reservoir in the name of an Endangered Species.

Unfortunately we no longer have a Common Law Justice System. Everything Civil, even Children in a Divorce, are viewed and Judged upon just like Commercial Assets. So UCC or not this is how it is all handled in the current system.

It sucks but it is truly the reality of how the System now works.

Actually I very much appreciate your view on this. These things need to be brought to light because you know the Mass Media isn't going to share the whole truth about these issues.

I will make a presentation for you in the next couple days to support my stance on this. Like I said, I have myself been on the other end of this being part of a Ranching Family that was Ranching before the BLM was even born.

My Family started Ranching in 1912. My Grandkids are the 6th generation now.

Rule #1 when stopped by the police: stay in the car, keep hands visible, no fast moves, obey the cops directions.

This thing is much bigger than the Road Block. Unfortunately that is what they want us to focus on to distract from the much larger problems at hand. And it is working out quite well...

Take your time. I'll be quite interested in what you put up.