Does Cliven Bundy Have Something Called “Prescriptive Rights”

He does, but it's from 1934 well after the Bundy Ranch was grazing that land and well before the BLM ever existed.

 

His arguments for "prescriptive rights" was lost in his court battles. He tried that defense and lost in Federal court.

 

ah, but your saying this guy would get those rights cause his cows used the land, same as my dogs would be doing to my neighbors land, see how crazy it sounds

 

Do you have a link that that was his defense? He doesn't seem to be the sharpest crayon in the box, so I am highly skeptical that he would have the wherewithal to use that defense

 

Define debunked. Because I don't think it means what you think it means or want it to mean.

Reid and son are up to their necks in this attempt to dispossess the Bundy family. Harry Reid has been to China trying to drum up interest in bringing some solar farms to Nevada (Clark county specifically, where former commissioner Rory Reid wanted to sell nearly a thousand acres at below appraised value to his own clients, ENN Energy).

And on the BLM's own website (which has been linked in these threads many, many times) talk of "mitigation" in Bundy's neck of the woods
has been proposed if cattle there can be removed. But you know this all already, right?

 

The two court documents in United states vs Bundy. First court document was in 1998 and the second was in 2012. The second was the permanent injunction on Clive Bundy. Bundy initially claimed that it was his land and not the federal government. He then claimed it was state land with him having rightful easements when his family settled. And then he claimed that the federal court has no jurisdiction. He tried this already in federal court.

United States vs Bundy Case No. 2:12-cv-0804-LDG-GWF (2012)
United States vs Bundy No CV-S-98-531-JBR 1998 (D. Nev Nov 4, 199.

And when he argued it was his land, he was effiectively arguing that he had prescriptive rights, or easements to said land. That is hwy he still claims he wants to pay the fees to Nevada and not to the Feds.

 

As it is said, "only a fool represents himself"

 

Moot point, the state seceded to the federal government.

Moot point there is no grandfather clause in the US Code. It was land that belong to the Nevada Territory and was seceded to the federal government when Nevada became a state. That is LAW and Bundy has no legal claim otherwise.

I don't know what is so hard to understand here. The man is an idiot an doesn't know what he is talking about or what he is doing. He has NO CLAIM to the land. PERIOD. It is settled and will NOT be REVERESED.

This is NOT a cause conservatives should rally around not a man they should rally around.

Yes the federal government manages the land and can rent it out and the funds will be used according to this statute. That does NOT grant Bundy title to the land nor exclusive rights to it.

And should be kicked off of it.

It is the only necessary thing and he has no legal claim to it. If I rent a house from you and raise all my children in it and my grandchildren and my dogs and cats and then stop paying rent to you because I declare your little brother owns and go to court and lose on every issue you have NOT LEGAL claim to my house and I can kick you out on your arse.

 

Because they cannot provide a document granting it to them and the history of the land and it's title is QUITE clear. The state does not dispute the fact the land belongs to the federal government and they trump this idiot in this matter. This man and this cause is not one to rally around.

 

Yes already posted, now cite me the court case that found federal property come under prescriptive easement and case of it ever happening.

- - - Updated - - -

It's CURRENT LAW and when the BLM was created is of no matter.

 

Already did as well you just choose not to believe it color us all shocked. Bundy has no right to the land period end of file. At this point they need to put him and anyone who interferes in this in jail.

 

What are you talking about I am the one who posted the US Code showing he had no claim under prescriptive rights, yes he has no legal claim to the land and never did AS I HAVE SAID ALL ALONG. Color us all shocked you had a problem reading what I posted and keeping up we're on the same side of this debate.

 

I hear ya talkin, but where's the link?

 

What link? To what? I gave you the link to the law which is quite clear, you give me a link showing his clear title to the land, give me the link where the Governor states the land is state land not federal land and the Nevada law stating that prescriptive rights exist on state owned land. You're claiming he has prescriptive rights....then prove it.

 

Yes but his access to the property wasn't for easement but for grazing rights, which was established under a contractual agreement, which he recognized by paying the lease originally.

 

Do you have a cite for that case?

 

That was my point. I do not know if the idea has ever been tried in federal court. It has under common law in the UK and we use pretty much the same body of common law here...My post was asking for info.

 

Yes it is established law there is no challenge to be made, the Constitution gives the federal government to authority to establish such law over the land it owns and controls.

What would the challenge be? This idiot took it to court and lost all the way through appeal, he has no further recourse.

 

I mean easement law....I know it exists at the state level but I do not know the case law at the federal level.

 

I cited and quoted the US Code which is established law and of course the Constitution gives absolute domain to the federal government of all land and assets it owns.

You know it is time your side in this did some research and back up your claims or answer your own questions as to the law. Prove that a citizen has prescriptive easement rights to federal land, either by statue or court ruling. Else the law stands as written and that is the law Bundy came under and lost and has no further legal recourse.