Slateman Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 So, from what I understand, ELI5 style: - Rancher let cattle graze on government owned land - Rancher did not pay grazing fees for years - Government seized cattle as payment for missed grazing fees - People with guns showed up - Government with guns showed up Did I miss anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEANDWARF Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 Some call Janet Reno. She would've taken care of this. Send in the drones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 Can I get some free steaks since I'm subsidizing his ranch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 So, from what I understand, ELI5 style: - Rancher let cattle graze on government owned land - Rancher did not pay grazing fees for years - Government seized cattle as payment for missed grazing fees - People with guns showed up - Government with guns showed up Did I miss anything? The Chinese interceding with Reid to keep it on the downlow .....or was that the frackers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 Can I get some free steaks since I'm subsidizing his ranch. A welfare recipient and he's a deadbeat too. Tools like this guy are going to ruin the sweet deal for all the non-deadbeat welfare ranchers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 A welfare recipient and he's a deadbeat too. Tools like this guy are going to ruin the sweet deal for all the non-deadbeat welfare ranchers. like the 50 other ones priced off the land? I hear the BLM spent 2 million on this circus act.....why not just use your court order to file a judgement? amusing the auction houses refused the cattle,and even Utah would prefer they settle this in NV http://www.thespectrum.com/article/20140404/NEWS01/304040025/BLM-responds-to-ultimatum?nclick_check=1 ranchers be odd folk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thekyle1591 Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 Because he owns guns and yells really loud about how evil the government is. Ah ok. That's what I thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 like the 50 other ones priced off the land? I hear the BLM spent 2 million on this circus act.....why not just use your court order to file a judgement? amusing the auction houses refused the cattle,and even Utah would prefer they settle this in NV http://www.thespectrum.com/article/20140404/NEWS01/304040025/BLM-responds-to-ultimatum?nclick_check=1 ranchers be odd folk They are indeed. I've worked real close with most of the dozen or so that ranch around my town and I really like most of them (not their politics so much) but they are not very good at seeing things from other peoples perspective. The auction houses run their adds on the same AM station that your pal Rush is played on. No surprise they are courting their clients and not some high falutin principles. I'd suggest that Mr. Bundy, aided by a misguided effort to protect the loser, cost the taxpayers $2 million. Can't ask those BLM dudes to go out their unprotected when people have been stirred up into such a frenzy. We would all complain loudly when the BLM got sued by the friendly, non-armed federal cowboy's families after they got bushwhacked trying to get those cows rounded up. We hold hikers who get lost and have to be rescued liable for the cost, here the old **** even has intent. BLM did go overboard considering what's really involved. I'll go with that. Anyone got killed and it's impossible to rationalize considering what's involved. When they realized what a **** storm was stirred up they should have let it die down before doing anything and start after his other assets. I'll have to look into the priced off federal grazing thing, doesn't seem reasonable to me knowing a little bit about forage value as I do but it's possible. Maybe the land was too marginal because of the drought and the feds didn't lower the price accordingly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 bad choices by blm cost the taxpayers, how you use your power is up to you much easier and less provocative ways to collect money than rounding up cows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 Deleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 bad choices by blm cost the taxpayers, how you use your power is up to you much easier and less provocative ways to collect money than rounding up cows Like? The issue wasn't the money. The issue was that he was not paying fees for using land. And he was ignoring court orders to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 bad choices by blm cost the taxpayers, how you use your power is up to you much easier and less provocative ways to collect money than rounding up cows You had to drive the one I gave you home, huh? Interesting that when Bush's forest service did the same thing to Kit Laney here in the Gila National Forest (more or less) it didn't rate any national attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 Except, his family was using the land for grazing cattle long before the Feds changed the rules. This argument should not be dismissed easily, he has a legitimate claim of adverse possession of the land which requires the, open, notorious, continuous, hostile, and adverse usage of land over a given period of time. In Nevada the time is five years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 I'm no legal expert, but what about Beneficial Use? Yet, another very strong argument, the whole reason land escheats to the government upon lack of an heir is so that the land will find a beneficial use, this is old British law that says that it is better for land to be used than not used, which is why adverse possession is statutory in every state. It will be interesting to see what the Feds say the land was being used for if other than grazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 Like? The issue wasn't the money. The issue was that he was not paying fees for using land. And he was ignoring court orders to do so. Judgments and liens are traditional Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 Amazing to me the number of people who seem to believe that using somebody else's land for a long time means you're allowed to use it forever. Honestly, that's how real property law works...no kidding. It is called adverse possession, and it is based on beneficial use which is based on the idea that land is better used than not. Every state has its own time frame before than adverse possessor can make rightful claim to the property, and then through the courts claim title to that property away from the owner without compensating the owner a single dime. I kid you not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 Judgments and liens are traditional Plenty of judgements against Bundy. He was given plenty of notices and paperwork. He chose to ignore all of it. He chose to trespass. Frankly, he should have had his whole ranch confiscated and sold off to pay his bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 they will get right on that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 Wow, who gave two ****s about this a week ago? ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 Honestly, that's how real property law works...no kidding. It is called adverse possession, and it is based on beneficial use which is based on the idea that land is better used than not. Every state has its own time frame before than adverse possessor can make rightful claim to the property, and then through the courts claim title to that property away from the owner without compensating the owner a single dime. I kid you not. Do you think Bundy is in the right? Honest question. Federal property cannot be lost through adverse possession. Recreation, which almost all BLM land in west is subject to, is a valid use. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/adverse+possession The legal theory underlying the vesting of title by adverse possession is that title to land must be certain. Since the owner has, by his or her own fault and neglect, failed to protect the land against the hostile actions of the adverse possessor, an adverse possessor who has treated the land as his or her own for a significant period of time is recognized as its owner. Title by adverse possession may be acquired against any person or corporation not excepted by statute. Property held by the federal government, a state, or a Municipal Corporation cannot be taken by adverse possession. As long as the property has a public use, as with a highway or school property, its ownership cannot be lost through adverse possession. - more at link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 Do you think Bundy is in the right? Honest question. Federal property cannot be lost through adverse possession. Recreation, which almost all BLM land in west is subject to, is a valid use. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/adverse+possession Do I think he's right? No I don't, but that doesn't mean that he may not have actual claim to title and use of the land, whethe that claim in verified is made and or upheld is yet to be seen. The key part of the legal dictionary regarding adverse possession is "As long as the property has a public use". The Fed can't just say, "Well, it was there for public use" but not have that property be actually used just to avoid adverse possession. Now, where I think his case will fail if he attempts to employ adverse possession is the fact that any notice given by the land owner within the window of possession (state specific) to the person who is adversely possessing the land makes null the claim of the person seeking to adversely possess the land. It seems that the Fed has done that through injunctions and fines levied against the rancher. As such I think he loses. But, I think most people simply don't realize that adverse possession is completely legal, and if you do not manage your real property it will be taken from you and given to those who are using it and make claim to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 Do I think he's right? No I don't, but that doesn't mean that he may not have actual claim to title and use of the land, whethe that claim in verified is made and or upheld is yet to be seen. You're also assuming that he has not attempted to make that goofball claim, in any of the numerous court proceedings over the last 20 years (all of which he lost). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Judgments and liens are traditional They should just ask the IRS to take over. He'd be wishing for an armed standoff by the time they are done with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 . It's pathetic that so many people would side with this guy. He's stealing from every one of them. . . How easily the lemmings are sucked in by their heroes.. Hannity, Ron Paul, alex jones, etc. They say jump their crowds jump. Thankfully most of the American public is not that dumb and these idiots remain to the right what code pink is to the left Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 You're also assuming that he has not attempted to make that goofball claim, in any of the numerous court proceedings over the last 20 years (all of which he lost). do you know why the cow roundup became a urgent matter now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.