Nevada Rancher Standoff

[Cedar Park Dad]

I have no sympathy for a grifter that does not pay his fees to run his cattle on Government (read my) land, loses two lawsuits, and continues to do so.

His family owned that land in 1877. The Federal government stole it from them and then insisted they pay fees to graze their cattle there.

How would you feel if one day the Feds came in waving the deed, which they had gotten in court against your will, to your property and said you could live there but you have to pay them rent?

Think about it.

He never owned the land. The native Americans did then it became federal property.

[Jim Beaux]

. "Well, it's not over. We can't have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it's not over," [Sen.]Reid said

http://www.mynews4.com/news/local/story ... GhESg.cspx

....but he advocates rewarding the foreigners who violate our immigration laws.

[Jim Beaux]

I have no sympathy for a grifter that does not pay his fees to run his cattle on Government (read my) land, loses two lawsuits, and continues to do so.

His family owned that land in 1877. The Federal government stole it from them and then insisted they pay fees to graze their cattle there.

How would you feel if one day the Feds came in waving the deed, which they had gotten in court against your will, to your property and said you could live there but you have to pay them rent?

Think about it.

He never owned the land. The native Americans did then it became federal property.

What "native Americans" are you referring to ? Also, there is a valid claim that the real grifter just may be the federal government:

The rancher took his argument back to the 19th century, when Nevada became a state. According to him, the federal government did, in fact, control the land when Nevada was a territory. But, he claimed, when the territory became a state, the government turned that land over to the sovereignty of the state of Nevada, and thus the federal government lacks the power to control it today.

“At the moment of statehood, what happened?” Bundy asked. “At the moment of statehood the people of the territory become people of the United States with the Constitution, with equal footing to the original 13 states. They had boundaries allowing them a state line. And that boundary was divided into 17 subdivisions, which were counties. Which I live in one of those counties, Clark County, Nevada.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04 ... authority/

His argument sounds credible.

Also from Judge Napolitano:

“The federal judiciary should not be deciding what land the federal government owns,” said Napolitano, adding that the feds should have placed a lien against Bundy’s property to collect grazing fees and not conducted a raid backed up by armed agents to seize his private property.

“The government’s option is to take the amount of money he owes them and docket it, that is file the lien on his property….the federal government could have done that, instead they wanted this show of force,” said Napolitano, adding, “They swooped in….with assault rifles aimed and ready and stole this guy’s property, they stole his cattle, they didn’t have the right to do that, that’s theft and they should have been arrested by state officials”.

http://www.infowars.com/judge-napolitan ... -the-sand/

Napolitano is no lightweight. Maybe we shouldnt be so quick to pass judgement until we really know just what the facts are.

[EEllis]

His argument sounds credible.

Why? There is nothing anywhere that says all the land inside the boundaries of what becomes a state doesn't still belong to the Feds. The argument has been made before and failed. Court cases have allowed the feds to even reserve lands that would generally belong to state if notified when the territory became a state. So basicly if when a State forms the land is assigned ownership in act that establishes the state. If the constitutional committee that was set up to form the state wanted to claim all the land. which at that time would belong to the feds, then they had to do so at that time. The fed legislature would then vote to see if they would accept it or not. There is no precedent for the State automatically assuming ownership of all the land encompassed by the boundaries of a newly established State so why would there be some special reason that over 100 years later the State should of owned the land the whole time?

[Cedar Park Dad]

[quote

The rancher took his argument back to the 19th century, when Nevada became a state. According to him, the federal government did, in fact, control the land when Nevada was a territory. But, he claimed, when the territory became a state, the government turned that land over to the sovereignty of the state of Nevada, and thus the federal government lacks the power to control it today.

Then he's wrong, a liar, and a grifter. Two courts affirm he's wrong.

I can't believe people are taking the side of a grifter and welfare queen just because he's ginning up anti government resentment.

[Jim Beaux]

His argument sounds credible.

There is no precedent for the State automatically assuming ownership of all the land encompassed by the boundaries of a newly established State so why would there be some special reason that over 100 years later the State should of owned the land the whole time?

I stated his argument sounds credible. You should provide specifics to support your supposition if you dispute that.

History lends credibility to the argument. The original 13 colonies where promised much during the effort to form the U.S. - there was a lot of reluctance that required negotiation & demanded concessions to state rights - which have slowly been infringed upon bit by bit as the years go by. You can bet your bottom dollar that the feds didnt do a lot of bullying in the early youth of the U.S.

States Rights once meant a whole lot more than it does today. Case in point, consider the amount of land claimed by the feds in the younger western states verses what is held in the eastern....Not by any means equitable; The feds paid for much of the eastern lands it now possess while "assuming" land in the west.

At one time a state was a state governed by the local values of its citizens - which doesnt seem to be the case currently in Nevada. In a country based on local governance, the fed gov has greatly overstepped its original charter.

Sorry but I still believe there is a credible argument involved here.

[mojo84]

For what reason or purpose does the government own this land?

[Jim Beaux]

For what reason or purpose does the government own this land?

Power and control.

[Cedar Park Dad]

For what reason or purpose does the government own this land?

Because it stole it from its rightful owners, the Native Americans. Unlike the East there was not a lot of settlement when these areas were taken over by the US as territories.

[sjfcontrol]

His argument sounds credible.

Why? There is nothing anywhere that says all the land inside the boundaries of what becomes a state doesn't still belong to the Feds. The argument has been made before and failed. Court cases have allowed the feds to even reserve lands that would generally belong to state if notified when the territory became a state. So basicly if when a State forms the land is assigned ownership in act that establishes the state. If the constitutional committee that was set up to form the state wanted to claim all the land. which at that time would belong to the feds, then they had to do so at that time. The fed legislature would then vote to see if they would accept it or not. There is no precedent for the State automatically assuming ownership of all the land encompassed by the boundaries of a newly established State so why would there be some special reason that over 100 years later the State should of owned the land the whole time?

Here is an argument against your claim. http://benswann.com/lofti-who-actually- ... z2ymLdGQqf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As far as the argument failing in court, would that be "Federal Court"? Might there be a conflict of interest there?

[philip964]

For what reason or purpose does the government own this land?

Because it stole it from its rightful owners, the Native Americans. Unlike the East there was not a lot of settlement when these areas were taken over by the US as territories.

My understanding was that Native Americans did not have a concept of land ownership by Native Americans. The land belonged to God.

[Cedar Park Dad]

And what court do you think would be better served?

He didn't own the land.
He refused to pay the fees to graze cattle.
He ran them on land that was not his own.

He has no leg to stand on.

[Cedar Park Dad]

For what reason or purpose does the government own this land?

Because it stole it from its rightful owners, the Native Americans. Unlike the East there was not a lot of settlement when these areas were taken over by the US as territories.

My understanding was that Native Americans did not have a concept of land ownership by Native Americans. The land belonged to God.

Comanches, Lakotah, Cherokee, etc. would disagree.
It sure didn't belong to Bundy.

[mojo84]

Seems to be standing pretty strong so far. His cattle are still grazing.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Seems to be standing pretty strong so far. His cattle are still grazing.

Only because the feds backed off to avoid a blood bath before the election.
Just because a fraud still has his cattle doesn't mean he's not a fraud.

If I were him I'd get out of dodge before November 6.

This seems like the reasonable plan.
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wir ... ndoff-ends" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;