Monday, April 21, 2014

Prescriptive Rights

BLM: We are Worried Cliven Bundy Might Have Prescriptive Rights & He Might Use that Defense in Court
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/blm-worried-cliven-bundy-might-prescriptive-rights-might-use-defense-court/#w0LA5ej0EQLwdks6.99

4 comments:

  1. BLM: We are Worried Cliven Bundy Might Have Prescriptive Rights & He Might Use that Defense in Court

    Among the questions Devlin asked of the BLM, "Is it possible that this guy (Cliven Bundy) has prescriptive rights?" The response from top officials at the BLM, "We are worried that he might, and he might use that defense."

    So what exactly are prescriptive rights? Prescriptive right to property is an easement that gives some one the right to use land owned by someone else for a particular purpose. An example is using a path through Party A's land to get to your land; a prescriptive easement is allowed which gives the user the right to get to his land through A's property.

    In most states, if a trespass or use of land occurs regularly for at least 5 years without the "owner" of the land taking legal action, prescriptive rights come into play. Because Bundy stopped paying his grazing fees to the BLM in 1993, but continued to use the land for over 20 years, it is possible he now has prescriptive rights to the land. That might explain why the BLM has not taken this issue to court and never bothered to file a lien against the cattle.

    Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/blm-worried-cliven-bundy-might-prescriptive-rights-might-use-defense-court/#w0LA5ej0EQLwdks6.99

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You wont' get an argument from me that the BLM has botched this. The article, however, rings a little hollow to me. Really, there just happens to be this guy in Montana who is trying to solve this for the BLM? Not sure I believe that, but first the article says, "Why haven't court actions been taken in the last 20 years?" and then goes on to say, there have been court actions taken and Bundy has ignored them because he doesn't recognize the authority of the federal government.

      This is some of the worst magical thinking of the very far right and I'll even give the very far right some credit for believing in respect for laws. People like Bundy are those supporting him are just manipulators. Bundy wants to graze his cattle for free and the militia's that have shown up in full Saul Alinski glory are looking to find some way, any way possible to provoke the Feds into shooting someone so that the bloody revolution they desperately want can start to unfold.

      Delete
  2. http://www.shiftfrequency.com/ben-swann-michael-lotfi-prescriptive-rights-a-constitutional-perspective-on-the-bundy-ranch-crisis/

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Through the centuries, by the hand of corrupt federal judges, we arrive and the Bundy Ranch in Nevada. The Founding Fathers never imagined the citizens of a state would be subject to such treatment at the hands of the federal government. Furthermore, they certainly never imagined the state legislatures themselves would allow such treatment to go unchecked. The latest updates appear to show that Bundy has won his battle against the feds– for now. However, it remains a damn shame that the state of Nevada would allow for such a situation to arise in the first place.

    What does Nevada’s Constitution say about property? Section 1, titled “Inalienable Rights,” reads:

    All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness. [Emphasis added]

    In Section 22 of the Nevada Constitution, eminent domain is clarified. The state Constitution requires that the state prove public need, provide compensation and documentation before acquiring private property. In order to grant land to the federal government, the state must first control this land.

    Bundy’s family has controlled the land for more than 140 years.

    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which is an agency created by Congress, claimed that Bundy was “violating the law of the land”. Perhaps the agency has forgotten that the law of the land is the Constitution, and the only constitutional violation here is the very modern existence of the agency’s presence in Nevada."
    Ben Swann & Michael Lotfi

    ReplyDelete