If such document exists, it is probably in an archive in Clark County Nevada or on microfiche somewhere. I doubt it's been put online. Most recorders' offices don't even have records from 1980s online yet, let alone 1880s. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 has language stating that nothing in a permit issued by it would confer title, etc.

As for what has been brought before a federal judge, I haven't read those cases yet. I'm sure they challenge the BLM's right to manage federal lands and I'm sure the federal judges will always uphold that right since the BLM was created by an act of Congress, likely via the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Once Bundy quit paying those fees and the BLM wanted him off the land, the clock started ticking for a claim of ownership via adverse possession. The timeframe required by Nevada law is 5 years and Bundy has been adversely possessing that land for 20 years. If he brought a claim of ownership before a Nevada state court, he would likely find that the court agrees with his assertion that he is entitled to do so under Nevada law. Since eminent domain is a state right, Nevada would be within its right as a sovereign state under the US Constitution to transfer that land to Bundy if the court ordered it to be so.

Nolo, you really ought to read my previous post on this thread, it will enlighten you to the entire backstory on this situation, going all the way back to 1864 when Nevada was admitted into the union. What you fail to understand is that Bundy is right, it is not the federal government's land. You see, when a territory gains statehood, it does so on an equal footing with every other state, particularly the original thirteen states. In order to become a state, the US Congress at the time required that Nevada include in its Enabling Acts that it will disclaim all unappropriated land within its borders. This is a violation of the Doctrine of the Equality of the States and there is previous court precedent to back this up. See the Supreme Court ruling on https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/44/212/case.html Pollard's Lesse v. Hagan (1845). The power of eminent domain always passes to the newly formed states so when unappropriated land is finally appropriated, it is the state that exercises eminent domain and controls that land, not the federal government. When the Congress acts in violation of the US Constitution, as it did with Nevada, the Supreme Courts sees these actions as void and nonexistent. It is a shame that Nevada never challenged the requirement that they disclaim the unappropriated land in Nevada and give the power of eminent domain to the federal government. So, from a legal standpoint, that land belongs to Nevada, not the federal government.

Now that I have that out of the way, let me go ahead and counter your claim that Bundy doesn't have rights on that federal land. Bundy's ancestors purchased grazing rights from the federal government in 1887. You see, prior to the passage of the Taylor Grazing Act, ranchers let their livestock roam freely. It wasn't much of an issue at first because there was so much open land and so few ranchers. Well, as more ranchers grew their herds and located closer to other ranchers, range wars broke out with ranchers fighting each other over the open land. So, the simple solution was to purchase the right to graze a particular allotment. That gave him the right to graze that land at the exclusion of other ranchers. Just as you can purchase a mining claim, ranchers purchase grazing rights. Eventually, the Taylor Grazing Act led to the creation of the Bureau of Land MANAGEMENT. I emphasize management because they were supposed to manage the land for the benefit of the public and the people with rights and claims on the lands. To offset the cost of managing the lands, the BLM would charge a monthly fee per head of livestock. Since the BLM would be working to improve the land, Bundy was willing to pay and did so for quite a while. However, the BLM lost its way and started harassing the ranchers and kicking them off the land. So Bundy fired them and quit paying. Just as you might do if a service provider was no longer providing a service to you.

Next, I will address the adverse possession rights that Bundy has. You see, I know a little about this because I've actually held a Nevada Real Estate license in the past. Adverse possession is when someone occupies or uses the land in clear violation of the owner's wishes. For twenty years, Bundy has not paid the BLM and they have wanted him off that land but have not removed him. He is using that land for the purpose of grazing his cattle. This meets the definition of adverse possession in Nevada Real Estate Laws. Nevada requires 5 years for the adverse possession to be recognized as a valid claim of ownership. Bundy has been on the land for 20 years. If he were to file suit claiming ownership of the land in question, he would likely win. To his benefit would be the fact that the issue would be decided in Nevada state court and not a federal court. The only way it could go to federal court would be if Nevada's law regarding adverse possession was challenged on its constitutionality.

Finally, if you are making an argument that Bundy is a bad person for using that land without paying for it, I say that turnabout is fair play. You see, the federal government owns 86.7% of Nevada's public lands. They don't pay any property taxes on the land that they possess, which is unlike private ownership. Think about this for a second...Nevada gains no revenue from a vast portion of the land within its borders. The government makes use of much of that land but doesn't pay a dime. Under the US Constitution, the federal government can only acquire land with the consent of the state legislature and must pay for that land. Nevada never got the benefit of selling the 86.7% of its land for any profit. As a matter of fact, the federal government screwed Nevada even worse. Upon statehood, states typically get 2 sections of every township for the benefit of common schools. This is 3.9 million acres in Nevada. Well, the federal government wasn't getting around to doing a survey anytime soon so in 1880, Nevada had to exchange that 3.9 million acres for 2 million acres of public land of its choosing. Finally, for all the federal workers in Nevada, they use roads, infrastructure, send their kids to Nevada schools, etc., all without contributing property taxes. That makes the federal government a mooch on 86.7% of Nevada's lands.

So next time a few thousand people show up someplace pissed off at the government over something you don't agree with, perhaps you should try playing Devil's advocate and try to understand why they are so upset. You might learn something. Never take a side without considering both sides first.

Explanation of the Bundy Ranch situation and why the BLM is out of line.

To understand this, we have to go back to the original US Constitution and also Nevada's admission to statehood. In order for the BLM to assert any claim against Bundy for his use of the land in question, we have to consider whether or not the US lawfully owns that land. So the first thing is to examine the method by which the US can own property. As we know, the federal government is supposed to be constrained by the Constitution to only those powers specifically listed there. All other powers belong to the States and the people, respectively, according to the Tenth Amendment. The Constitution only allows for the creation of a District for the government to operate but also prescribes a means of acquiring land for federal use. The methods are via treaty with other nations, purchase from a state with consent of that state's legislature, and finally, eminent domain. Eminent domain would allow for the just taking with compensation of private property within the District or within any other lawfully owned federal property. The land in question originally belonged to Mexico but after our war with them, the federal government acquired much of the western US via treaty.

Now that we know how the federal government acquired the land, we have to look at their ability to maintain possession of it. When a territory becomes a state, it does so under equal footing as the original thirteen states. Nevada did not get this equal footing when it was admitted to the union. In 1864, Lincoln and the Congress of the time was waging a war against the seceeded states and had substantial debt. It was discovered that Nevada had a lot of silver and so the federal government admitted Nevada with the requirement that all land that wasn't privately owned would belong to the federal government. Upon admission to the union, a new state maintains control of all public lands except navigable waterways. To lose control of 86% of its land as a condition of statehood violates the Doctrine of the Equality of States as well as previous Supreme Court precedent. Unfortunately for Nevada, she had a spineless legislative body for about 100 years. In fact, it wasn't until 1979 that Nevada passed AB 413 into law as NRS Chapter 321. Nevada can not collect property taxes on that 86% of federally held land but must still provide infrastructure, schooling, etc. This essentially makes the federal government a state welfare case as they haven't ever paid a property tax on that 86% of land within Nevada.

In western states, there were no regulations regarding grazing on open ranges. The Bundy family had been grazing their cattle on that land since 1887. Well, because of range wars between ranchers, etc., it was decided that regulation was needed. The Taylor Grazing Act was passed in 1934 to regulate grazing on federal land. Eventually, this led to the BLM and their management of the federal lands. Bundy was paying the management fees and BLM was actually doing a lot of good at keeping the land up. However, the BLM lost its way like all federal agencies and started being used for political dealings. This led to the BLM switching from managing land to using the management fees the ranchers were paying in order to kick ranchers off the lands by reducing and suspending the amounts of animals that can graze the land. When the money no longer went to land management and instead into harassing ranchers, Bundy quit paying. He hasn't paid since 1993.

So there are a few key things at work here. The land should belong to the state of Nevada under the Doctrine of the Equality of States so BLM should have no legal grounds for even initiating this action against Bundy. There is also a legal concept regarding real estate called adverse possession. Under adverse possession, if a person is using property for a specified length of time (differs by state), and the use is known and against the will of the owner who does nothing to stop it, the disseisor can make a claim of ownership. Bundy should be claiming ownership rights in Nevada state courts since he has used the land for 20 years without federal government's permission.





TLDR:  US gov lost claim to land with NV admission to US and Bundy has squatter's rights.

Maybe we should ban meth too since people are using it as well.

Donation sent. Keep up the good work.

mct.aacrjournals.org/content/10/1/90.abstract

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20516734

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3339795/?tool=pubmed

Cannabis is an effective treatment for cancer. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a cure because to be a cure, it would have to end the cancer and any possibility of remission. When I was 15, my best friend had type A.L.L Leukemia.  After a while of having it, he decided to enjoy the few days where he felt well enough to not be bedridden. He smoked a lot of dope, figuring he couldn't make himself any worse off. Maybe it helped, maybe it didn't. In any case, having a case of munchies and eating a lot of food helped to restore body mass between bouts of chemotherapy. In fact, his oncologist had him on prescription Marinol, which gives a pretty intense high as it is very potent. The prescription was to induce appetite because he weighed 96 pounds as a normal height  teenage boy and had no appetite and couldn't keep food down from all the nausea.

Wise words from ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius:

American baseball all wrong...man with 4 balls is not going to walk.

Horny man who going through airport turnstile sideways is going to Bangkok.

Woman who trip on dead rooster is going down on limp cock.

Man who beat his meat in bank vault going to come into money.

You should post a bitcoin address. I would like to throw a small donation your way for your efforts.

Everybody wants freedom as long as that level of freedom is contained within their own worldview.

It starts with people who think "there ought to be a law against...(whatever they oppose).

My version of freedom is to allow people to make mistakes. All rights belong to the individual and end at the next man's nose. That level of freedom scares a lot of people because they think chaos would reign.  For example, what if there were no DUI laws? We would have to punish drivers who kill people while intoxicated by charging them with the proper charge...murder. We punish people whose actions hurt no one simply because what they did COULD have hurt someone.

so you would trade the ability to defend yourself against an armed assailant because you doubt your ability to not go apeshit on a guy fornicating with your wife?

Why is divorce so expensive?

Because it is worth it.

It's called future-proofing. If you don't feel the need to, then don't. I would still consider upsizing the wire that you run.

240v is two 120v power sources but at different phases. It is more efficient. You should only operate at about 5760 Watts continously on that circuit but you aren't far over it. If you have to run a lot of wire, consider a larger size wire so you can size up your breaker and change out your receptacle to make more power available.

What size in amps is your current panel, 200amp or less? You might want to install a subpanel in the garage if your non-mining power consumption in your house is pretty low.

i doubt they will visit us. Earth is probably the ghetto of the galaxy.

If Americans didn't resist King George's attempt at disarming colonists, we would still be under crown rule.

The right to defend yourself is an inherent natural right. This data simply states the obvious...that Americans see an enemy in their midst and are preparing for it.

I do believe in aliens, but then again, I don't. Let me explain.

To believe in aliens, you have to believe that there is at least one other planet capable of fostering intelligent life. I don't dismiss this possibility, so to that extent, I believe in aliens.

As for why I don't, it is a matter of time. Earth is a little over 4.5 BILLION years old. Homo Sapiens have only been around for about 200,000 years. We've only achieved behavioral modernity 50,000 years ago. We've only developed radio communication within the last 130 years. We left the planet about 5 decades ago. We have yet to get a human on another planet. 4.5 billion years and the most advanced species on this planet has never set foot on another planet. I don't know what the future holds but if the human species is in any kind of decline, our window of opportunity is closing real fast.

For all the planets that are in the habitable zones of their respective stars, it is possible that some of these will eventually create life. However, if the timeline of that occurrence is similar to the timeline here on Earth, then each one of those planets, ours included, will only see intelligent life capable of space travel for just a blink of time in a span of billions of years. I don't think intelligent life is created at the same speed or that the planets themselves were created at the same time.

So for us to see aliens or them to see us, our planets have to have their opportunities for intelligent life capable of interstellar communication or travel to exist at the same time. I don't see that being possible. Mars may very well get intelligent life someday through no influence from us. Will it happen during the period of our existence? I doubt it.

We are not a democracy, we are a republic. Learn the difference.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." US Declaration of Independence

These secession attempts are people that feel that our current governments are destructive towards their rights. When that happens, you can try to alter it or abolish it. That is what is happening here. Since the Declaration of Independence is the root of our nation, the US should recognize that the course of action taken by it should be a valid course of action for those within its jurisdiction. Try reading it for understanding. Here is a link: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html It is basically a giant list of gripes we had with England's rule. How many of those same gripes apply today to our current governments, both at state and federal levels? Several.

With government officials in the newsrooms pressuring news agencies about which stories to run, America will essentially have state-run media. It is a shame that a lot of people don't see this for what it is:  sanitizing the news that is critical or dissenting in nature of any current administration's policies. It's doubleplus ungood.

Alcohol and drugs are banned in prison. People still seem to get both in there. Any hope of preventing their use through the use of government force is a futile effort. The best method is educating people.

I think people talk to their teens in the completely wrong way about drugs and alcohol. You can't just tell them not to do them or that you don't want them to do them, etc. As teenagers, they are trying to find their level of independence and trying to grow that independence. Telling them that they can't do drugs will just create a rebellious feeling about the issue. When I talked to my kids about this subject, I told them that they are free people and are free to make their own decisions. However, they need to figure out for themselves if this is something they need in their lives. Tell them that you are hopeful that they will decide on their own that they don't need them.

I always laugh at those who think they can legislate a sense of morality. Prohibition was already attempted once and all that gave us was the Chicago mobsters and gangsters who brought it in from Canada, much as the current gangs bring drugs in from Mexico and other points south. People have the right to make bad decisions. If a man drives drunk and kills someone, you charge him with the crime of murder. It's as simple as that.