Sovrun Cattle - The Sagebrush Saga of Cliven Bundy

[ArthurWankspittle]

Going back to what the judge was asking, he owes $1.35 per month for however many months of the year he was grazing there, which could be 12, times 900 cattle, times 20 years or so. That's $1.35 * 12 * 900 * 20 which equals $291600. Add any additional costs, interest and the like and he's well into six figures.

[Kestrel]

At what point do the squatter's rights rules kick in? He's been there without a lease for a long time, possibly long enough to claim adverse possession. Although some hot air has been blown his way by the feds over the years, no one made a serious effort to evict him before.

[fortinbras]

It turns out the militia-types who showed up with assault rifles to intimidate the BLM were subsidized by the Koch Brothers:

http://truth-out.org/news/item/23065-ko ... government

It's not enough that they'll disrupt your Town Hall meetings, buy all the TV time and ad space, they'll now send hired gunslingers.

[ArthurWankspittle]

At what point do the squatter's rights rules kick in? He's been there without a lease for a long time, possibly long enough to claim adverse possession. Although some hot air has been blown his way by the feds over the years, no one made a serious effort to evict him before.

The converse of this, though, is that there have been various transactions and court cases none of which have had an intervention of a claim of squatter's rights AFAIK. One of the great failings of sovereigns and their like is that they tend to ignore courts and court rulings instead of turning up at them to defend a position. Consequently, the real world has frequently discussed a situation, come to a conclusion and moved on. Mr sovereign:eejit turns up a day late and a silver dollar short as usual.

[LPC]

It turns out the militia-types who showed up with assault rifles to intimidate the BLM were subsidized by the Koch Brothers:

http://truth-out.org/news/item/23065-ko ... government

It's not enough that they'll disrupt your Town Hall meetings, buy all the TV time and ad space, they'll now send hired gunslingers.

The article talks about paid advertising and tweets; nothing about "subsidized" militia-types, or "send[ing] hired gunslingers."

The right wants to believe that this is about Harry Reid, and the left wants to think that this about the Koch brothers. Both are wrong.

[LPC]

At what point do the squatter's rights rules kick in? He's been there without a lease for a long time, possibly long enough to claim adverse possession. Although some hot air has been blown his way by the feds over the years, no one made a serious effort to evict him before.

Adverse possession requires a continuous 21 year period of unchallenged occupancy. The government got an injunction in 1993, and then got another court order in 2013 for the sale of the cattle. That's only 20 years. (And the 1993 judgment is res judicata barring any claim of adverse possession before then, because if Bundy thought it was an issue he should have raised it then.)

You may call it "hot air," but as long as the government acts to enforce its rights every 20 years, adverse possession shouldn't apply.

Two other possible problems:

1. Adverse possession requires an occupancy that is adverse. Bundy seems to be claiming that he made payments to Clark County that gives him the right to graze the land. If he admits he has to make payments, then his possession is not truly adverse.

2. Adverse possession might not apply against the sovereign, whether state or federal. (Not sure about that, but wouldn't put it past those tricky feds and their judicial stooges to exempt themselves from that kind of law. After all, why should the public be deprived of property just because a bureaucrat screwed up?)

[AndyK]

With respect to point #2 -- Should it ever come down to it; Eminent Domain trumps adverse possession.

[grixit]

Doesn't adverse possession require that the property was not otherwise in use? The fact that the BLM makes it available for legal grazers implies that it is in effect a going concern.

[LaVidaRoja]

Is 21 years Nevada State law or Federal law (as these were at least initially Federal lands)? When the land swap between Nevada and the Feds was arranged, to what extent was the unauthorized use discussed in the dealings? Did the Feds acknowledge that the unauthorized use was on-going and that they had done nothing to prevent it?

[obadiah]

I don't believe you can adversely possess against the feds, as it is state law. Even if all of the requirements are met, (open, notorius, adverse, continuous) the Supremacy Clause would trump. Unless someone can show me a case where someone succeeded.

[JamesVincent]

Anyone know where these morons are coming up with, "It is unconstitutional for the Federal government to own property"? I've seen at least 20 or more memes with that "fact" in it. Even had one dude tell me in his opinion the governments shouldn't have property.

[grixit]

They must have been absent from 7th grade US history the day the teacher referred to how some of the original states had to be persuaded to give up their latitudinal grants. And again when the Louisiana Purchase was discussed. Oh, and the Homestead Act, the railroad grants, and the land grant colleges.

[JamesVincent]

I asked them they explained national parks (which I live in one), Washington DC, military bases and Federal courthouses for starters. Was just told that's different.

[ashlynne39]

Anyone know where these morons are coming up with, "It is unconstitutional for the Federal government to own property"? I've seen at least 20 or more memes with that "fact" in it. Even had one dude tell me in his opinion the governments shouldn't have property.

I saw something about this last nite. This is paraphrased because the posting was pretty unreadable so I just skimmed but from what I gathered, the poster had cited a constitutional provision about the government not being allowed to own more than ten square miles of land. That was the point I stopped because I was too lazy to source check the cited constitutional provision and because the poster sounded a bit off.

On another topic here, from what I can tell, the Harry Reid thing has portions of legitimacy, just not with respect to this case. His former aide does seem to be a big wig with the BLM. So what. His son is heading some sort of Chinese consortium to buy land from the govt for solar plants. And the govt apparently sold the land for a fraction of its value. However, it also appears that the land is almost 200 miles from the land in the Bundy case so it doesn't seem to apply. Really though, the bigger issues for the Bundy folks seems to be the tortoise thing, the free speech zones and gun confiscation. The tortoise deal, I don't much care about and since it has been reported that hundreds are being euthanized, it appears that I'm not the only one who doesn't much care. The marked free speech zones,I believe are unconstitutional and since courts routinely find the same thing, it's pretty shady of the BLM to erect one. Way to stir up gun toting militia members. I find the alleged gun confiscation shady too. I don't know the gun laws in Nevada but if those folks were carrying legally, and hadn't done anything, in a situation where there had not been any physical violence by anyone on the Bundys side of things, then guns shouldn't have been confiscated. Just one more way to stir those folks up. As far as the Koch brothers, thanks LPC for pointing out what the article actually said. I don't think anything they did here was any different than what the media did. I read a lot of articles and I really didn't see much negative slant towards Bundy. At best some articles seemed neutral but most did their own job of publicizing Bundys plight. Just my take on the articles I read.

[Kestrel]

You may call it "hot air," but as long as the government acts to enforce its rights every 20 years, adverse possession shouldn't apply.

Two other possible problems:

1. Adverse possession requires an occupancy that is adverse. Bundy seems to be claiming that he made payments to Clark County that gives him the right to graze the land. If he admits he has to make payments, then his possession is not truly adverse.

2. Adverse possession might not apply against the sovereign, whether state or federal. (Not sure about that, but wouldn't put it past those tricky feds and their judicial stooges to exempt themselves from that kind of law. After all, why should the public be deprived of property just because a bureaucrat screwed up?)

If I hear you right, the fact that someone has a recent legal decision that they own the land is sufficient to negate any adverse possession claim, even though they do little or nothing to enforce that order. Right?

I found myself in an argument last week with an idjut who believes Bundy is in the right. If he crosses my path again I'm going to use both of these points to shoot him down, along with Andy's comment about Eminent Domain.

That's the great part about Q. If I can't think of an answer to that cuts such fools off at the knees, someone else here can.

[LPC]

This is paraphrased because the posting was pretty unreadable so I just skimmed but from what I gathered, the poster had cited a constitutional provision about the government not being allowed to own more than ten square miles of land.

That's Article I, Section 8, clause 17, which authorizes Congress to exercise exclusive legislation over a "District (not exceeding ten Miles square)" that States might cede to Congress as a "Seat of the Government of the United States," which we now know as the District of Columbia.

However, the very same clause goes on the say "and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings...." (Emphasis added.)

So, in addition to an inability to understand the meaning of "includes," we can add ignorance of the word "and."

And then there's Article IV, section 3, clause 2, which states that "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory and other Property belonging to the United States...."

So it was clearly understood that the United States could own property for a variety of different reasons.

Really though, the bigger issues for the Bundy folks seems to be the tortoise thing, the free speech zones and gun confiscation. The tortoise deal, I don't much care about and since it has been reported that hundreds are being euthanized, it appears that I'm not the only one who doesn't much care.

Different tortoises in a different part of the state.

If you track down that story, you'll find that there is a separate refuge in Las Vegas for desert tortoises that were raised as pets and were surrendered by their owners when the species was classified as endangered. Many of those tortoises are unable to survive in the wild, and the organization that has been feeding them and taking care of them has lost much of its funding, so they will be euthanizing many of the tortoises rather than have them starve to death.

But that story has been conflated with the wild tortoise habitat issue to make it sound like the government is killing off wild tortoises when it suits them, a conflation that is totally dishonest (to put it charitably).

[Pottapaug1938]

I don't believe you can adversely possess against the feds, as it is state law. Even if all of the requirements are met, (open, notorius, adverse, continuous) the Supremacy Clause would trump. Unless someone can show me a case where someone succeeded.

Advese possession also has to be exclusive (thus the acronym OCEAN); so it's not a valid issue here since that is not the case.

[The Observer]

And now Bundy does an interview with Glenn Beck, holding out on his theory of why the federal government does not own any land in Nevada. There is more evidence of sovrunspeak creeping into Bundy's vocabulary.

And BLM also confirms that they returned the cattle they seized back to Bundy. That is another error on the government's part, in my opinion, and only helps feed the myth that Bundy and others are creating about the land ownership.

[Lambkin]

I'm not surprised or even particularly disturbed that the government chose not to have a gunfight. It doesn't mean people won't be going to jail either, but in the short term it's preferable to deadly violence and pictures of dead cows on the nightly news.

[notorial dissent]

My understanding from what I learned in school was that it was "uncontested" possession for a period of years, like twenty. I would hardly say this has been uncontested as the gov't has been trying to get him out of their hair for decades from the sounds of it, so I don't think that dog will hunt either, and besides, I don't think you can claim adverse possession against the gov't to begin with, there is no statute I am aware of, and since there is no Federal "common law" they can fall back on I don't see that one working either.