Does Cliven Bundy Have Something Called “Prescriptive Rights”

Bundy represents himself... He would have been smart doing what you claim though.

 

There is no prescriptive right to federal property.

 

As far as I know the last court proceeding were in 1998 and the arguments wouldn't have applied then.

 

Please post the statute for that.

 

"There are NO Prescriptive
Easements on ANY Federal
Property, including tribal or
individual trust property. "
http://www.ewu.edu/Documents/CBPA/NWTTAP/2013_Symposium/Rights-Of-Way through Indian Country.pdf

" A prescriptive right cannot be obtained over government land (such as the National Forest)."
http://www.landusecoalition.org/rights.htm

"No, it is not possible to obtain a prescriptive easement against land held by local, state and federal government. The courts have long held that “time does not run against the King.” See also Civil Code Section 1007. "
http://www.dirtlawyer.com/pe-summary.html

 

Here is the definition of an easement.

An easement are right to use property, "but legal title to the underlying land is retained by the original owner for all other purposes."

 

He could sleep in it all his life and never get a prescriptive easement, it is government land.

 

Please provide the evidence that prescriptive rights have been hashed out in court?

 

That pertains to Indian "Sovereign Nation" land, the part you quoted cited no CFR that states that, so no cigar.

Colorado law from 1996. Still no CFR that states that cited.

California law. Still no CFR that states that.

Your sources claim there are no prescriptive easement on federal land, but NONE cite the Code of Federal Regulations that specifically state it, as though they simply "assumed" there was.

With that in mind, please cite the CFR that bars prescriptive easements on federal land.

 

48 U.S. Code § 1489 - Loss of title of United States to lands in territories through adverse possession or prescription forbidden

On and after March 27, 1934, no prescription or statute of limitations shall run, or continue to run, against the title of the United States to lands in any territory or possession or place or territory under the jurisdiction or control of the United States; and no title to any such lands of the United States or any right therein shall be acquired by adverse possession or prescription, or otherwise than by conveyance from the United States.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/48/1489

 

Only a fool represents himself. I never claimed Bundy was intelligent, and in my opinion he is a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing idiot getting himself in this mess, but I will not blindly trust our government either, especially the liar Harry Reid my lips.

 

Thank you, it's all I've asked for. I stand corrected in that respect. However, Bundy Ranch has been using the property since 1870 since WAY before the 1934 law you cited and I can't find any part of it that would "backdate" the law, thereby "grandfathering" Bundy Ranch's rights.

 

Does not matter, they never had legal claim to it.

 

While you are correct, the bug in the ointment is that the Bundy's family has been using the land that BLM now manages since around the 1860's.....before it was even designated as Federal land (I believe) and shortly after Nevada became a State. The Bundy family might have grandfather rights of a prescriptive easement that predates the 1934 creation of 48 U.S. Code § 1489.

Another hurtle for the Government is the Federal Land Policy and Management of 1976 where Title IV, Section 401b(1) which states:

http://www.blm.gov/flpma/FLPMA.pdf

However if Bundy has not been paying his fees.......

- - - Updated - - -

Legal claim is not necessarily a requirement.

 

And you know that HOW?

 

the guy was not even alive in 1870... lol

 

Was the BLM land in question properly fenced with the appropriate signage to keep grazing animals out? Case law (triers of fact) shows that is a absolute requirement for a property owner to take any action other than herd the wayward animals back on to their own land.

- - - Updated - - -

Doesn't matter, the Ranch has been.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

any proof his elders had possession of the land pre his lifetime....

I can say my dogs been roaming the neighbors yard for years, sense before I was born, but without proof, it means nothing...

.

 

As long as he's was born before the BLM was formed, what's your point?

 

You dog does not have rights of property. Humans however, pass on rights through their heirs. You need no 'proof' other than testimony pertaining to the fact that the property was used continually by ancestors. It is more complicated than that, but that is it pretty much it in a nut shell.

 

Harry Reid has nothing to do with it??? You keep bringing his name up as to why we would all like to know. The conspiracy theory the right is trying to make true has been debunked by everyone.

 

No, once again it hasn't. The BLM page google cache was found. Reid is in it up to his neck. Live with it.

 

From Reuters.............

 

You can believe what you want, but Harry Reid my lips is a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing liar, and he injected himself into this civil matter by dividing people more than they already are by calling peaceful protesters terrorists . No republican has ever called protesters that have never harmed anyone terrorists, Reid is a pathetic human being and one of the most divisive failed leaders

 

Do you have a cite for that?