Does Cliven Bundy Have Something Called “Prescriptive Rights”

I love the "He paid Nevada." argument. I think I will start paying my rent to the maintenance guy instead of the landlord. How many will defend me when I am evicted? After all does the landlord own the land at all? It was there for 1000 years before he was alive.

 

Except that didn't happen for 20 years after the dispute started. If this were a private dispute, the local police would have handled this situation long before it got to this point. And the way the government responded in no way changes the facts of the situation which are that Bundy wants to keep his cattle grazing on land he doesn't own and is not paying for. I happen to think the government acted like asses here but it changes nothing about Bundy's guilt. If you weren't so blinded by hate for the federal government maybe you'd be able to see clearly too.

- - - Updated - - -

But...but...if you choose not to "recognize" your landlord as being the landlord, that means you don't have to pay him, right? Right?

 

And he want the Sherriff to disarm the BLM and bring the guns to him. Bundy is a pshycopath.

 

Just another knuckle dragging right winger refusing to accept that times change and that in order to have a modern, competitive, society you need to have a strong federal government that is funded to a healthy degree. Right wingers think the small town self functioning ways of 1940's and before is viable.

 

To be totally honest with you I don't think that either Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi are wrapped all that tight. I mean we all knew that Nancy was a bit crazy but of late Harry Reid seems determined to give the dingbat a real run for her money in that department.

 

No, he doesn't have prescriptive rights. When Bundy quit paying the BLM, he sent a check to Clark County for the same amount that he had been paying the BLM. They returned it. I understand that his cattle have also grazed on Nevada public lands. He may be paying the state for that. Then again, I doubt that he paid anyone when his cattle grazed at the local golf course.

This dispute, and its attendant conspiracies, are too much for Glenn Beck. Maybe you'll believe him.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...right-now-about-the-nevada-rancher-situation/

 

Actually no it would be like you were paying the land lord your rent and you got maintenance service as part of the rent. Then for whatever reason a Federal Agency decides that they will charge you that rent but NOT maintain the property. How long would you put up with that?

 

Hmmm. Seems there is a fly in the soup, to attempt to use this defence he would have to go to court and since he does not believe the government has any jurisdiction over him he would go to court. You guys seem to forget what sort of nutcase your supporting here.

 

Most people would either move out/take they cattle off the property or they would mantain the property themselves and use the expensis to offset the rent. You hero descided to keep living there/keep his cattle there even though he stppoed paying, sorry the law does not work that way. Hey, I thought you said it was his land, now you admit it is not his???? My how the stories change.

 

He isnt my hero first off i do not idolize people like some *ahem*

He was the maintenance by building roads/corrals/watertowers etc etc etc. There is no "offset" here

I have said over and over again to prove that that land is Federal and they have all the rights to it. Just because you own land does not mean you have all the rights to it as in mineral and water for examples. That is why who owns the land truly can be damn confusing and complicated. He had the right to graze on that land. He improved that land. He WAS paying fees and sent them to Clark County. They were helping to maintain the land. The BLM has done nothing to help and actually designated that area as a mitigation area because of the Solar Power companies. I guess them causing damage is fine though eh?

 

Yep, most any American with a brain larger than a pea knows these two are senile old goofy people, but those with that pea brain believe and support the irresponsible divisive rhetoric these old loons spew. I can't believe there isn't any leadership from the democrats asking them to shut the (*)(*)(*)(*) up with the incendiary comments.

 

The federal government owns the lands in question. They also own all rights. Bundy did try to pay Clark County, but since Clark County does not own the land, they returned the check. Bundy has paid no one.

If you screwed up and built a house on a lot that I own, it would be my house. You would have no claim to anything on my land. So, whatever "improvements" Bundy has done on land that he does not own belong to the federal government.

 

I clearly see you covering for a wayward wanna be tryrannical govt. , but I do not have a BLIND hatred for the govt. Governments are the most potentially dangerous things on earth, but not all realize their negative potential.

- - - Updated - - -


But hey if your tenant doesn't pay, just gather up some buddies and get some rifles and shoot him if he doesn't pay up, Right? Right?

- - - Updated - - -

Actually after a certain time period has passed, he gains rights to your property if you have done nothing to make it clear that he is not welcome there.

 

He said the Fed doesnt have Jurisdiction not any Government whatsoever. He believes are far as i can tell its a local and state issue.

 

Don't you wonder why they didn't or maybe tried to forward it to the BLM? Why wouldn't any common sense bureaucrat make the obvious adjustment?

 

A lot of people seem to think that squatter's rights exist. They are wrong. Moot point anyway. The federal government has made it abundantly clear that they own the land.

 

Am not going to do the research, but believe that the theory of title by adverse possession does not apply against the federal government. It certainly -is- a valid equitable remedy of quieting title in every state I'm aware of though. I could be wrong of course. The more fruitful research term is "adverse possession" as opposed to "prescriptive rights" in case anyone is interested in researching facts instead of shooting off at the mouth. I'm amazed at the number of people here who think they can make declarative, conclusory statements about the state of the actual law based only on partisan sentiment. If any of you have legal issues in life, particularly you hyperemotional lefties, please hire a competent lawyer rather than letting your partisan sentiments guide you towards legal disaster.

 

So when you back someone he is not your hero but when I do they are my hero, Con Logic?
I see him doing nothing but building stuff for his own use, is that what you call managing the land, that is not how it is defined here in Texas.
He should go to court, let the law do its duty, why is it he is not doing so???????
Pssst, You and others were calling it His Ranch, there is a BIG difference between His Land and Government Land, but I will let it go you guys have gotten caught with your pants down on more than one occasion on this subject so one more does not matter. As I said before I am still surprised you and some other righthanders have gone this far with this issue, especially with the man in the center of the conflict, I thought better of some of you and your opinions, but I admit somethimes I am Wrong.

Law and order, something the right used to support, now when people ignore the rules we have set in place the right cheers, freeking amazing.

 

Why don't you run along and figure out what prescriptive rights and adverse possession are.

it has to do with not being challenged for 20 years on that very issue. HTH