quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

The evening news where I'm working in Texas covered the Bundy story.
It seems Nevada State Troopers and local Sherriff's department personnel were on hand to protect Bundy and the protesters.

BLM has backed off after stories surfaced that the Bundy lands in dispute were planned to be used for a Solar Energy project pork barreled by a Nevada Senator. And a Chinese company to build it to boot.

http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_35234.php

http://www.westernjournalism.com/shocking-allegations-link-harry-reid-nevada-ranch-standoff/

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Okay, it seems there was this rancher in Nevada who has been grazing his cattle on public lands since 1993 without paying grazing fees. His permit was revoked then because he violated regulations protecting an endangered species.

So for 20 years he has been breaking the law. His reason, his family settled the area, and have been grazing cattle on the land for 157 years, claiming ancestral rights to the land.

quote:

LAS VEGAS (AP) -- Images of a forced cattle roundup on a rural Nevada range sent ripples through the West on Friday, prompting elected officials in several states to weigh in, militia members to mobilize and federal land managers to reshape elements of the operation.

Bureau of Land Management officials dismantled designated protest areas Thursday and Nevada's governor urged calm as the fight over rancher Cliven Bundy's cattle widened into a debate about states' rights and federal land-use policy.

The dispute that triggered the roundup dates to 1993, when the BLM cited concern for the federally protected tortoise. The agency later revoked Bundy's grazing rights.

Bundy claims ancestral rights to graze his cattle on lands his Mormon family settled in the 19th century. He stopped paying grazing fees and disregarded several court orders to remove his animals.
Ripples of Nevada range showdown spreading in West

Now right wing militia groups are heading west to support this rancher against the Federal government, with statements " I’m not “afraid to shoot,”

quote:

Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s decades-long battle against the federal government over grazing rights has heated to the point where militia groups have joined in and taken up spots against the feds who’ve circled his land — and talk is, they’re not afraid to open fire.

A spokesman for the one of the militia groups said as much to local 8 News Now: I’m not “afraid to shoot,” he said.

Margaret Houston, Mr. Bundy’s sister and a cancer survivor, said at a town hall gathering this week that the situation “was like a war zone” and that she felt “like I was not in the United States,” The Daily Mail reported.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal described it this way: “Serious bloodshed was narrowly avoided,” in a story about how dogs were unleashed on a woman who was pregnant while the rancher’s son was hit with a taser.

On Tuesday, armed Bureau of Land Management agents stormed Mr. Bundy’s property, escalating a court dispute that’s wound for two decades over the rancher’s refusal to pay for grazing fees.

Read more:Source

Now I have a problem with his argument because there are thousands of ranchers who have been doing the same thing and have been following the law as well.

Why does this guy feel he is above the law?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

Bundy has supposedly paid all fees due under state law. The problem, as I understand it, is that BLM came in and changed the agreement, adding its own fees which Bundy objects to. Involves turtles, or something about them. I've heard reports that the turtles are doing fine and even that there are so many they are being destroyed.

I've also read that Harry Reid (D-NV) is supportive of a foreign business, Chinese I think, developing a wind farm on that property, along with there being minerals and other valuables business wants to get its hands on.

Information is slowly coming out that its about more than what's being reported. There are supposedly deals in the backroom worth millions, if not billions, and Bundy is standing in the way.

edit:

For more information see here, here, and here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

Bundy has supposedly paid all fees due under state law. The problem, as I understand it, is that BLM came in and changed the agreement, adding its own fees which Bundy objects to. Involves turtles, or something about them. I've heard reports that the turtles are doing fine and even that there are so many they are being destroyed.

I've also read that Harry Reid (D-NV) is supportive of a foreign business, Chinese I think, developing a wind farm on that property, along with there being minerals and other valuables business wants to get its hands on.

Information is slowly coming out that its about more than what's being reported. There are supposedly deals in the backroom worth millions, if not billions, and Bundy is standing in the way.

edit:

For more information see here, here, and here.

Tacking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
This has nothing to do with a cancelled solar energy project.
http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/green-building-news/740-mw-solar-project-canceled-nevada
But why let reality get in the way?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
This has nothing to do with a cancelled solar energy project.
http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/green-building-news/740-mw-solar-project-canceled-nevada
But why let reality get in the way?

KCET said the ENN Mojave Energy project was to have been built on 9,000 acres of county land near Laughlin, Nevada, which is near the California state line.

I don't think it's the same land, DK. Bundy's ranch is outside of Mesquite, NE of Las Vegas. Not on the Cali border.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
This has nothing to do with a cancelled solar energy project.
http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/green-building-news/740-mw-solar-project-canceled-nevada
But why let reality get in the way?

KCET said the ENN Mojave Energy project was to have been built on 9,000 acres of county land near Laughlin, Nevada, which is near the California state line.

I don't think it's the same land, DK. Bundy's ranch is outside of Mesquite, NE of Las Vegas. Not on the Cali border.

And just what project do you think that Alex was talking about? So what if he had the location wrong?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

Bundy has supposedly paid all fees due under state law. The problem, as I understand it, is that BLM came in and changed the agreement, adding its own fees which Bundy objects to. Involves turtles, or something about them. I've heard reports that the turtles are doing fine and even that there are so many they are being destroyed.

I've also read that Harry Reid (D-NV) is supportive of a foreign business, Chinese I think, developing a wind farm on that property, along with there being minerals and other valuables business wants to get its hands on.

Information is slowly coming out that its about more than what's being reported. There are supposedly deals in the backroom worth millions, if not billions, and Bundy is standing in the way.

edit:

For more information see here, here, and here.

Tacking.

How precisely does tacking apply? There is only one entity with a legal ownership interest in the land, the BLM. The state statute is clearly unconstitutional.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Well, that's what the fools are trotting out in court.

The argument stems from the fact that the state of Nevada passed a law that basically annexed Federally owned land.

The simple fact of the matter is that, like many belonging to this particular cult, they feel certain laws do not apply to them. Look at the history of the Mormon "church," polygamy, Mountain Meadows, and the various offshoots of the cult that still defy the government on multiple wives.

You could even throw in the sovereign citizen movement, which basically promotes the idea that there is no legal government higher than the county.

It does not help that Alex Jones and similar conspiracy theorists have jumped on this and screaming government conspiracy.

Now, you might find this interesting.

Then there is United States v. Gardner

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
This has nothing to do with a cancelled solar energy project.
http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/green-building-news/740-mw-solar-project-canceled-nevada
But why let reality get in the way?

KCET said the ENN Mojave Energy project was to have been built on 9,000 acres of county land near Laughlin, Nevada, which is near the California state line.

I don't think it's the same land, DK. Bundy's ranch is outside of Mesquite, NE of Las Vegas. Not on the Cali border.

And just what project do you think that Alex was talking about? So what if he had the location wrong?

Alex? I was responding to DK's link... the one he posted about it being shelved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

Bundy has supposedly paid all fees due under state law. The problem, as I understand it, is that BLM came in and changed the agreement, adding its own fees which Bundy objects to. Involves turtles, or something about them. I've heard reports that the turtles are doing fine and even that there are so many they are being destroyed.

I've also read that Harry Reid (D-NV) is supportive of a foreign business, Chinese I think, developing a wind farm on that property, along with there being minerals and other valuables business wants to get its hands on.

Information is slowly coming out that its about more than what's being reported. There are supposedly deals in the backroom worth millions, if not billions, and Bundy is standing in the way.

edit:

For more information see here, here, and here.

Tacking.

How precisely does tacking apply? There is only one entity with a legal ownership interest in the land, the BLM. The state statute is clearly unconstitutional.

10 years. Includes any previous (purchased) property rights as to previous maintenance (also includes some rights as to maint. not purchased if maintained, and provably so, regardless of venue or higher rights {such as military}, but generally not inclusive of feds...which {generally, but not always} have higher authority).

Ergo, if there's any debate, and the previous owner maintained for 8+ and the new owner maintained for 5, the new owner picks up the previous (ergo...."tacking on to") and he/she has 13, ergo....above 10....ergo....done....over.

(I only play an attorney online, but I buy shitloads of dirt every year).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

fr

Nevada Revised Statute 321.596

I find these parts interesting.

2. The State of Nevada has a legal claim to the public land retained by the Federal Government within Nevada s borders because:

(a) In the case of the State of Alabama, a renunciation of any claim to unappropriated lands similar to that contained in the ordinance adopted by the Nevada constitutional convention was held by the Supreme Court of the United States to be void and inoperative because it denied to Alabama an equal footing with the original states in Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845);

(b) The State of Texas, when admitted to the Union in 1845, retained ownership of all unappropriated land within its borders, setting a further precedent which inured to the benefit of all states admitted later on an equal footing ; and

(c) The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, adopted into the Constitution of the United States by the reference of Article VI to prior engagements of the Confederation, first proclaimed the equal footing doctrine, and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, by which the territory including Nevada was acquired from Mexico and which is the supreme law of the land by virtue of Article VI, affirms it expressly as to the new states to be organized therein.


5. The attempted imposition upon the State of Nevada by the Congress of the United States of a requirement in the enabling act that Nevada disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, as a condition precedent to acceptance of Nevada into the Union, was an act beyond the power of the Congress of the United States and is thus void.

6. The purported right of ownership and control of the public lands within the State of Nevada by the United States is without foundation and violates the clear intent of the Constitution of the United States.

7. The exercise of such dominion and control of the public lands within the State of Nevada by the United States works a severe, continuous and debilitating hardship upon the people of the State of Nevada.


Bundy may have more of a case than some of you think.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

Bundy has supposedly paid all fees due under state law. The problem, as I understand it, is that BLM came in and changed the agreement, adding its own fees which Bundy objects to. Involves turtles, or something about them. I've heard reports that the turtles are doing fine and even that there are so many they are being destroyed.

I've also read that Harry Reid (D-NV) is supportive of a foreign business, Chinese I think, developing a wind farm on that property, along with there being minerals and other valuables business wants to get its hands on.

Information is slowly coming out that its about more than what's being reported. There are supposedly deals in the backroom worth millions, if not billions, and Bundy is standing in the way.

edit:

For more information see here, here, and here.

Tacking.

How precisely does tacking apply? There is only one entity with a legal ownership interest in the land, the BLM. The state statute is clearly unconstitutional.

10 years. Includes any previous (purchased) property rights as to previous maintenance (also includes some rights as to maint. not purchased if maintained, and provably so, regardless of venue or higher rights {such as military}, but generally not inclusive of feds...which {generally, but not always} have higher authority).

Ergo, if there's any debate, and the previous owner maintained for 8+ and the new owner maintained for 5, the new owner picks up the previous (ergo...."tacking on to") and he/she has 13, ergo....above 10....ergo....done....over.

(I only play an attorney online, but I buy shitloads of dirt every year).

There's only been one owner, BLM.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

fr

Nevada Revised Statute 321.596

I find these parts interesting.

2. The State of Nevada has a legal claim to the public land retained by the Federal Government within Nevada s borders because:

(a) In the case of the State of Alabama, a renunciation of any claim to unappropriated lands similar to that contained in the ordinance adopted by the Nevada constitutional convention was held by the Supreme Court of the United States to be void and inoperative because it denied to Alabama an equal footing with the original states in Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845);

(b) The State of Texas, when admitted to the Union in 1845, retained ownership of all unappropriated land within its borders, setting a further precedent which inured to the benefit of all states admitted later on an equal footing ; and

(c) The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, adopted into the Constitution of the United States by the reference of Article VI to prior engagements of the Confederation, first proclaimed the equal footing doctrine, and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, by which the territory including Nevada was acquired from Mexico and which is the supreme law of the land by virtue of Article VI, affirms it expressly as to the new states to be organized therein.


5. The attempted imposition upon the State of Nevada by the Congress of the United States of a requirement in the enabling act that Nevada disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, as a condition precedent to acceptance of Nevada into the Union, was an act beyond the power of the Congress of the United States and is thus void.

6. The purported right of ownership and control of the public lands within the State of Nevada by the United States is without foundation and violates the clear intent of the Constitution of the United States.

7. The exercise of such dominion and control of the public lands within the State of Nevada by the United States works a severe, continuous and debilitating hardship upon the people of the State of Nevada.


Bundy may have more of a case than some of you think.

Nope. This has been litigated to death. State law does not super cede federal law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

fr

Nevada Revised Statute 321.596

I find these parts interesting.

2. The State of Nevada has a legal claim to the public land retained by the Federal Government within Nevada s borders because:

(a) In the case of the State of Alabama, a renunciation of any claim to unappropriated lands similar to that contained in the ordinance adopted by the Nevada constitutional convention was held by the Supreme Court of the United States to be void and inoperative because it denied to Alabama an equal footing with the original states in Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845);

(b) The State of Texas, when admitted to the Union in 1845, retained ownership of all unappropriated land within its borders, setting a further precedent which inured to the benefit of all states admitted later on an equal footing ; and

(c) The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, adopted into the Constitution of the United States by the reference of Article VI to prior engagements of the Confederation, first proclaimed the equal footing doctrine, and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, by which the territory including Nevada was acquired from Mexico and which is the supreme law of the land by virtue of Article VI, affirms it expressly as to the new states to be organized therein.


5. The attempted imposition upon the State of Nevada by the Congress of the United States of a requirement in the enabling act that Nevada disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, as a condition precedent to acceptance of Nevada into the Union, was an act beyond the power of the Congress of the United States and is thus void.

6. The purported right of ownership and control of the public lands within the State of Nevada by the United States is without foundation and violates the clear intent of the Constitution of the United States.

7. The exercise of such dominion and control of the public lands within the State of Nevada by the United States works a severe, continuous and debilitating hardship upon the people of the State of Nevada.


Bundy may have more of a case than some of you think.

Nope. This has been litigated to death. State law does not super cede federal law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

fr

Nevada Revised Statute 321.596

Nope. This has been litigated to death. State law does not super cede federal law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

fr

Nevada Revised Statute 321.596

I find these parts interesting.

2. The State of Nevada has a legal claim to the public land retained by the Federal Government within Nevada s borders because:

(a) In the case of the State of Alabama, a renunciation of any claim to unappropriated lands similar to that contained in the ordinance adopted by the Nevada constitutional convention was held by the Supreme Court of the United States to be void and inoperative because it denied to Alabama an equal footing with the original states in Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845);

(b) The State of Texas, when admitted to the Union in 1845, retained ownership of all unappropriated land within its borders, setting a further precedent which inured to the benefit of all states admitted later on an equal footing ; and

(c) The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, adopted into the Constitution of the United States by the reference of Article VI to prior engagements of the Confederation, first proclaimed the equal footing doctrine, and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, by which the territory including Nevada was acquired from Mexico and which is the supreme law of the land by virtue of Article VI, affirms it expressly as to the new states to be organized therein.


5. The attempted imposition upon the State of Nevada by the Congress of the United States of a requirement in the enabling act that Nevada disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, as a condition precedent to acceptance of Nevada into the Union, was an act beyond the power of the Congress of the United States and is thus void.

6. The purported right of ownership and control of the public lands within the State of Nevada by the United States is without foundation and violates the clear intent of the Constitution of the United States.

7. The exercise of such dominion and control of the public lands within the State of Nevada by the United States works a severe, continuous and debilitating hardship upon the people of the State of Nevada.


Bundy may have more of a case than some of you think.

Nope. This has been litigated to death. State law does not super cede federal law.

And you read this....where?

States rights (nearly) ALWAYS supersede federal rights....(there's a document....if I recall it's called the Constitution, has this shit that follows on/attached to..."Bill of Rights"....that kind of shit).

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

And since everyone has seemed to have not noticed, the state of Nevada is not trying to push the claim by saying the BLM is out of their jurisdiction.