http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...not-own-the-land-where-his-cattle-grazes

All Federal rights were terminated when Nevada became a State.

LOL
Not true at all
If it were, none of this would have taken place

THINK

Can a private citizen buy this "Bundy land" in question from the BLM? Will a title company provide clear title and title insurance to this property? If Bundy could buy this land from the BLM (that's who owns it, right?) he could run as many cows as he wanted, and everyone would be happy, right? I wonder what this property would appraise for? Anyone know?

Yeah, that sure is news to Nevada...

I found it funny that the Author used an Anti-Federalist paper to say what the Constitution was for, when the Anti-Federalist papers were largely written to discredit the Constitution.

To understand exactly why tings were written the way they were concerning this issue, consider Federalist Paper 43...

It's "public land"
It's not for sale now

The Fish and Wildlife sells land here, can the BLM sell this specific "Bundy land"? The question wasn't if it was for sale now, it was more along the lines of can a private citizen buy it, and can the BLM sell it? Will a title company give title insurance and clear title to this specific land? Thanks...

If it could be bought, I imagine someone would have tried that by now.
Why not ask the BLM?
They are the only ones who can answer you
http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en.html

I'm sorry. I must be mistaken. I thought you had knowledge of this particular case. There's some good reading on the Hage cases and history for a little background info.

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2014/04/13/

United States v. Gardner
107 F.3d 1314 (9th Cir. 1997)
�Historically, when the US acquired new territory (like the acquisition of Nevada from Mexico), the general process was that all of the land was considered the property of the Federal government, and they would divvy it up and sell most of it off to private individuals, and give the rest to the State.
◦This land sale included most of the land acquired early in US history (like the Louisiana Purchase), but as time went on, the Federal government retained more and more of the land for military bases, national forests etc.
◾For example, over 80% of the land in Nevada has been retained by the Federal government.
�Gardner owned a cattle ranch in Nevada next to a National Forest. He had a permit that allowed his cattle to graze in the Forest.
�There was a forest fire that burned the land Gardner's cows were grazing on. The US Forest Service reseeded the area, and closed it to grazing for two years in order to allow the land to recover.
�Gardner disobeyed the order and sent his cattle in. The US Forest Service fined Gardner for trespassing. Gardner refused to pay the fine and the US Forest Service sued.
◦Gardner argued that the Federal government didn't have title to the land, and so he couldn't be convicted of trespassing.
◾Gardner argued that when the US acquired the land from Mexico, it was only to be held in trust for the creation of future States, the Federal government didn't have the right to retain it for its own purposes, they were required to sell it off to private individuals.
�The Trial Court upheld the fine. Gardner appealed.
�The Appellate Court affirmed.
◦Gardner had argued that the decision in Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan (44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845)), meant that the US only held land in trust, but the Appellate Court distinguished that decision by saying that that only applied to land acquired from the 13 original States (mostly Virginia and Georgia), and it did not apply to land acquired by the US later.
◾In those cases, the Federal government wasn't the original owner of the land, it was owned by the States. As part of the agreement to give the land to the Federal government, the Federal government agreed to hold it in trust.
◾In this case, the Federal government directly acquired Nevada from Mexico, so they didn't have to abide by the same agreement they made in Pollard.
◦The Court found that under the Property Clause (Article IV, �3, cl. 2) the Federal government has the authority to administer Federal lands anyway they choose, including the establishment of national forests and stopping Gardner's cattle from grazing there.
◦Gardner argued that the Equal Footing Doctrine meant that the Federal government was required to give Nevada the same rights as they gave other States, but the Court found that only applied to political sovereignty, not to economic or physical characteristics.
◾Gardner's argument was that the land in the eastern US was mostly owned by the States or private landholders. Therefore it wasn't fair that most of the land in the western US was mostly owned by the Federal government.

1. Govt says its their land,having acquired/purchased it from Mexico for approximately 15-18 million dollars in 1848.

2. The US purchase predated the Bundy family and perhaps even Mormonism in that region.

3. Nevada says its the government's land and reaffirmed such in their Ordinance provision of their state constitution.

4. There has never been a Nevada vs. US litigation as Nevada knows the ownership of the land is well settled.

5. 16,000 other ranchers have concluded its the government's land and they are paying the nominal leasing fees.

6. The Nevada Cattleman's Association will not support Bundy.

7. Bundy says its not the governments land even though 2 Federal courts have ruled otherwise.

Excellent piece.

Probably not many will bother to read this... But, I'll bet others are about now.

http://4thst8.wordpress.com/2012/02...rtue-when-your-rights-are-being-ignored/

I'd like to hear what some of our resident lawyers think about this. Does it make a difference in Mr.Bundy's fight against the Federal Government?

Bart...one can't unilaterally void a contract. What has Nevada done to judicially seek back the land for the state? What has Nevada attempted to negotiate with the Feds in regards a purchase of the US owned property? The short answer is nothing for they are well aware the Fed government owns the land and at this juncture, it appears the US isn't selling.

I don't see this guy much different than anybody else who runs cattle on somebody elses land and hopes nobody notices. Happens all the time around here. The percentage of crooks in the cattle business ain't any lower than any other.

Setting aside emotions, I'd have to agree Pat.

Below is a Breitbart article which is rather thorough. Of some significance is the fact there are court pleadings filed by all parties that are available for viewing.

Much of Bundy's problem was that he allowed his unbranded cattle to venture on lands outside his allotment. He admitted so under oath in court. Had he paid his lease fees like the 16000 other cattle ranchers had paid, he'd have some ray of hope but since he refused to do so, he lost that privilege, as well.

Read the artcle, review some pleadings and draw your own conclusions. The article covers the Reid rumor, as well.
====

http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Breitbart-Texas/2014/Bundy/Bundy-Ranch-Sign.jpg

link no workee...

Ratified as of 1996

I apologize. Don't know if it's Breitbart or me. Try this.
====

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/12/The-Saga-of-Bundy-Ranch

The Citizens of Nevada need to go after their own State Laws. The Federal Government is doing exactly what the State of Nevada allows them to do.

What's required to make that valid law is an amendment to the United States Constitution authorizing it to acquire and hold title to lands not meeting the specifications laid out in Section 8 of Article I. Short of that, it's null and void, since it was already established law that all states entering the Union since the founding of the nation possess the same rights as those preexisting it, i.e., states are powerless to alienate from themselves said rights, one of which is sovereignty over the lands within their borders.

I don't think the Nevada land negotiations I am going to write about had anything to do directly with the BLM lands of Bundy, but Nevada did work out a deal with the Federal Government related to lands they thought they were deprived up as part of their statehood Enabling Act. IIRC, that settlement satisfied all claims Nevada had as to Federal lands within the state. This is all going from recall, based on a year of Nevada history taken while attending college in Reno.

In the 1950's Nevada entered into a negotiation with the US Goverment to settle some of the land issues as it related to how Nevada did not receive the same State School Trust Land Grants that many other states received when admitted to the Union. If you look at most other western states, there are large chunks of State Trust Lands (usually blue on a map) that were granted to the states for purposes of funding the school systems. In Montana, in every Township, Sections 16 and 36 were granted to the state for funding of the school system. They are held in Trust by the State Land Board. All monies are earmarked to be distributed to the schools of Montana.

When this deal was struck with Nevada, the Federal Government stated that the land being transferred could not be sold for more than $1.25 per acre. Yeah, $1.25 per acre. Imagine what kind of corruption that created when the local politicians got to start handing out development land to their buddies that was probably worth $500 per acre, and they were able to direct it to their pals for $1.25 per acre.

While going to college in Nevada, I took a year of Nevada history, so some of this is recollection on dates. I think it was in 1955 +/- a few years that a big corruption scandal hit where state legisators and local politicians were peddling all of this state land to their pals. Some of the biggest names in Nevada business and politics were associated with the scandal. In exchange for making sure their buddies got the lands they wanted, for $1.25 per acre, a lot of the elected folks were given some big bribes. Imagine that.

That agreement with the Feds supposedly settled any remaining land claims that Nevada had. And in normal fashion, the politicians converted those public assets into some sort of private income strem for them and their pals.

I will try to research the details on this and post links. What I have posted is all going off memory from the classes in which I was paying attention. You don't see much state land left in Nevada, even after that Federal settlement. It all got sold (gifted) for $1.25 per acre back in the 1950's. I doubt any of the lands in the Bundy issue were part of that settlement and gifting to the wealthy.

From my recollection, that settlement resolved all land claims Nevada had against the Federal Government. And as such, there would probably be no claim that would substanitate that Nevada owned any of the BLM lands that Bundy had his cattle on.

HAJ...his errors have been pointed out countless times to him. Federal courts have settled this issue with near 200 years of jurisprudence. He seems to enjoy arguing the constitution on the one hand and then arguing against the same constitution with the other.

He's either deliberately being obtuse,greatly confused or lacks the skillset to understand.

that one works. thanks!

Oh, I know...

Here is a good article that relates to the Nevada Enabling Act, how statehood happened, what rights the state acquired and what rights the state gave up.

It is by the UNLV law school.

http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1421&context=nlj

I see it also writes about how the State of Nevada entered into large swaps with the Department of Interior, prior to DOI form the BLM to take over land management, to trade some of the State Trust Lands for more productive BLM lands. That seems to have been in the 1920s.

It also tells of the attempts Nevada made to claim other Federal Lands within it boundaries.

Page 28 talks about the scandal of politicians selling the state lands to their pals. If only I had been around in those days and could have bought the south end of the Vegas Strip for $1.25 per acre.

These are not mutually exclusive.

Some really good "FACTS" in this opinion piece.

https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/a...unter-opinion-on-range-war/#.U0skrijfU86

Bundy put his money on the wrong horse (state of Nevada) back when the tortoise debacle from the Clinton administration started back in the 90's. Fast forward to today another enviro friendly administration, all the court rulings are still looming over his head... The problems that need to be addressed are the environmental activists in our government and each state gaining control over it's own lands. That is not to say that the BLM has done a bad job in the past as long as they did not have environmentalists at the helm...

Often, the belief is that large tracts of land were sitting empty, and the federal government took original ownership. To the contrary, in some cases, settlers owned the land and deeded it to the government. The current fracas in Nevada apparently does NOT have this history.

Here in Utah, my wife's family had ownership of a large tract of grazing land in the mountains east of Manti, now part of the Manti-LaSal National Forest. They deeded it to the federal government for a nominal price, and the promise of future grazing rights. I've seen the letter from the government summarizing the deal.

More recently, the government unilaterally terminated those grazing rights.

In that case, I think the family would have a claim. But they are long since out of the cow business and don't need the conflict in their lives.

I wondered if Bundy might have had a similar history. The reports I've read say otherwise.

Perhaps the answer and solutions to the Bundy situation and many, many more cases like it are not all that hard to figure out and implement.

This one case has gone to the headlines for obvious reasons, but there are literally hundreds of cases like this throughout the U.S., not only involving the ranching industry, but impacting the recreational purposes and other industries such as mining and logging.

The heavy handed tactics by federal agencies, spurred on by radical environmental groups has gotten to the point where not only are citizens placed in danger by the confrontations, but by mismanagement of the forests, that produce deadly wildfires in those areas.

The simple answer to the problem is to pass legislation that offers some assurances to the multiple use of the land can be continued. That the government and regulatory agencies that enforce the laws cannot be made to do away with such lawful activities, and the multiple uses in which we all use the land has assurance backed by documentation and law they can't be forced to stop those activities.

This alleviates the issues. When ranchers KNOW that they can continue to ranch, and when loggers can continue to harvest the forests, and when the public can continue to use the lands for hunting and shooting and other recreational activities, a peace will fall over the entire issue.

The only ones that will be pissed will be the environmental terrorist groups that cause all of the trouble to begin with... [bleep] 'em anyway.

Give folks a guarantee that what they are legally doing today they can legally do tomorrow, and the problem ceases.

A family that helped settle a country and bring industry and continues to be conservative of the land SHOULD have those assurances. If you hunt on public lands, you should have assurances that you can continue to do so.

The agencies like the BLM and USFS will by the largest part be very pleased with that legislation because they won't have to spend money they have budgeted for lawyers and litigation and studies to dispel the non-stop barrage of lawsuits from environmental groups. Furthermore, the monies the agencies have in the budgets could then be spent on improvements and proper implementation of what is needed to help the public lands thrive, instead of lawsuits.

Ain't that the damned truth. It's actually a bit higher in my opinion.

For sure.

Do y'all really want to go down the road of attacking a person's character based on occupation?

Acknowledging the fact that there are a whole lot of criminals involved in the cattle business is not attacking anybody's personal character.

There's good and bad in all walks of life, no matter the occupation. You, above all should see that, Pat.

Perhaps you could provide a bit of documentation to prove what you say, if you feel the numbers are higher to have criminals as ranchers, versus other occupations?

I certainly doesn't compute to my experience with ranchers. And I have had more contact with them than most people.

A similar situation exists in law enforcement.