Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This is a couple hours down the road from me and could get a lot bigger and uglier than it already is:

http://www.infowars.com/federal-snipers-train-guns-on-family-for-filming-cattle/


From the local area paper:

http://mvprogress.com/2014/04/06/one-of-bundy’s-sons-arrested-in-roundup-incident/

That's some quality journalism in the first article. Jesus.

Go turtles!

So, it is not his land... but he claims it is his land because his family has been using it for hundreds of years.

It ain't his land. He has no rights to it. If I went to a random park or person's land, and had a pack of animals tear it up and crap all over it, I would probably have my animals seized and be arrested.

Sounds like he can use the land if he pays... which is how it should be.

Yeah, guy breaks Law, constantly harrasses those who is telling him he is breaking the law, and is a Martyr?

Not that simple. The family wasn't told the charges or where he was taken. The family has also grazed and improved the land since the late 1800's.
The question here is if the government is going to go Ruby Ridge on this family.

A bit more from Fox:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/07/feds-move-in-on-nevada-rancher-herd-over-illegal-grazing/

Both sides are going too far over the top here.

That first article was a certain kind of special. And yeah, guy breaks the law for 10 years, and then they finally get around to going after him and he's all outraged? What an idiot.

I thought this was going to be about a Black Mage versus a ranching family. I was, and am, disappointed.

 motyak wrote:
That first article was a certain kind of special. And yeah, guy breaks the law for 10 years, and then they finally get around to going after him and he's all outraged? What an idiot.

Yeah.

It's getting interesting out here now. Half the comments in the local news are coming out for the family and half are saying they should have long ago been booted.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
A blogspot has been created this should be interesting in the next few days to see what happens:

http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2014/04/red-white-and-blue.html


And abit more information, bringing Wild Mustang advocates into the mix along with county commisions.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/05/tension-growing-between-ranchers-mustang-backers/

Is the only person saying the 'snipers' were there still the family? Because it seemed to start with them, and everything since has either referenced them, or just not referenced anything and gone 'ermagerd sniperz'. I'd love for there to have been none, that'd make me chuckle

 motyak wrote:
Is the only person saying the 'snipers' were there still the family? Because it seemed to start with them, and everything since has either referenced them, or just not referenced anything and gone 'ermagerd sniperz'. I'd love for there to have been none, that'd make me chuckle

This is something that has apparently been building up over the past couple of decades and looks readyto come to a head, so we'll see what goes on. It wouldn't surprise me to find there were snipers since gunplay is a very real possibility here. The issues involved are complex and there seem to be more players in this game coming out of the woodwork.
The thing is a lot of these ranchers out here have been grazing this land since the mid 1800's abd feel that theFederal government is stealing their livlihood out from under them.

nkelsch wrote:
So, it is not his land... but he claims it is his land because his family has been using it for hundreds of years.

It ain't his land. He has no rights to it.

In the eyes of the law, he probably has a compelling legal argument. Most venues have archaic laws on the book allowing for adverse possession. If you're not familiar with this concept, essentially: if you use property long enough that you have no right to, and the property owner doesn't give you permission, but they also don't enforce it for a long enough period of time, you can lodge a claim towards the property. It's a gakky law but it is the law.

There was a notable case a few years ago, where a guy wanted to expand his fence (or whatever) onto his yard, and his neighbors sued him under the argument that since he had allowed the neighbors passage through his yard for a long enough period, they legally owned that part of his yard. The neighbors won.

This is why when my neighbor's renters would park on my property, I would go over and make them move their car. I don't like being a jerk and it wasn't hurting me, but Iowa has a weak adverse possession law.

Relapse wrote:
The thing is a lot of these ranchers out here have been grazing this land since the mid 1800's abd feel that theFederal government is stealing their livlihood out from under them.

Then maybe they should have taken steps to secure their livelihood and bought sufficient grazing land instead of just assuming that they'd be allowed to use someone else's land forever.

Of course the whole concept of "free speech zones" is completely absurd, and anyone attempting to enforce them should be fired and banned from ever working as a police officer again, if not thrown in prison until they get the point.

 Peregrine wrote:

Relapse wrote:
The thing is a lot of these ranchers out here have been grazing this land since the mid 1800's abd feel that theFederal government is stealing their livlihood out from under them.

Then maybe they should have taken steps to secure their livelihood and bought sufficient grazing land instead of just assuming that they'd be allowed to use someone else's land forever.

Of course the whole concept of "free speech zones" is completely absurd, and anyone attempting to enforce them should be fired and banned from ever working as a police officer again, if not thrown in prison until they get the point.

It's a pretty twisted situation shaping up here and hopfuly no one gets killed.

Free speech zones? What?

edit: ha I just googled it, that sounds so silly. Why do you need a special zone to have free speech in it? When you step outside the zone can you suddenly not speak against a government or something? Also, can you post a link to what the free speech zones have to do with this? I can't find it...I fail at google apparently.

Because, if you where able to protest whereever you wanted, you would intefere with the govt officials

Sigh, so the free speech zones have returned. One of the most unamerican ideas in recent history - I thought they had been abandoned.

 Ouze wrote:
One of the most unamerican ideas in recent history

It's funny how this is one of the few things that pretty much everyone, liberal or conservative, agrees on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 motyak wrote:
Why do you need a special zone to have free speech in it?

You don't. It's blatantly unconstitutional, but the police have sometimes decided that protests are inconvenient so it's best to move them away to some random box where nobody has to deal with them.

Also, can you post a link to what the free speech zones have to do with this? I can't find it...I fail at google apparently.

The articles in the OP claim that someone was arrested for taking pictures outside of the designated "free speech zone" after refusing to obey an illegal order to leave public property. It's the kind of thing that makes it very hard to have any sympathy for the police if the confrontation does turn violent.

Adverse possession needs to be tested in court.

I think the whole idea of squatters rights is nonsense, but the law's the law, I guess. I think if a few really outrageous cases happen the state legislations will remedy it by striking it from the record - much has how the Kelo decision wound up with a lot of states tightening up their eminent domain laws.

In this case I may have raised a red herring in that I don't think you can bring an adverse possession claim against the government.

nkelsch wrote:
So, it is not his land... but he claims it is his land because his family has been using it for hundreds of years.

It ain't his land. He has no rights to it. If I went to a random park or person's land, and had a pack of animals tear it up and crap all over it, I would probably have my animals seized and be arrested.

That depends on how well the facts of the case meet with adverse possession - basically a law that says if you and your family have been the sole users of a piece of land for a really long time, the law may well treat the land as yours now.

But it's a pretty tough case to make.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
Not that simple. The family wasn't told the charges or where he was taken. The family has also grazed and improved the land since the late 1800's.
The question here is if the government is going to go Ruby Ridge on this family.

First up - Alex Jones? What the hell? Do you actually read that stuff?

Second, mmm, yes, both sides. It remains one of the great paradoxes of US law that people obsessed with government heavy handedness refuse to deal with government in a sensible manner, and so end up provoking that heavy handedness they were so concerned about in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Adverse possession needs to be tested in court.

From the articles it says this has been through the courts for 20 years, so I'm guessing that is what he has been trying to do. Given these final actions from BLM, I'm guessing he's lost that claim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
I think the whole idea of squatters rights is nonsense, but the law's the law, I guess. I think if a few really outrageous cases happen the state legislations will remedy it by striking it from the record - much has how the Kelo decision wound up with a lot of states tightening up their eminent domain laws.

In this case I may have raised a red herring in that I don't think you can bring an adverse possession claim against the government.

I think there's a basic legal necessity at the core of adverse possession - that history is a legal mess full of people taking stuff that didn't belong to them and it'd open all kinds of bizarre historical stuff if people could go looking for every past injustice to lay claim to stuff that's been in a family for generations.

But the law as it stands now is manipulated, I agree, and does need tightening up in lots of places, but it seems to me those reforms are as much about process as the law itself (getting the more ludicrous squatters claims reviewed and rejected should be a matter of hours, not weeks). And there should, of course, be some kind of penalty, including possibly jail time, for people who falsely claim squatter's rights.

Are you sure you can't make an adverse possession claim against government? I know in Australia you can, though of course the land laws in both countries are very different.

Relapse wrote:
This is a couple hours down the road from me and could get a lot bigger and uglier than it already is:

http://www.infowars.com/federal-snipers-train-guns-on-family-for-filming-cattle/


From the local area paper:

http://mvprogress.com/2014/04/06/one-of-bundy’s-sons-arrested-in-roundup-incident/

Thats some seriously weird stuff. Either its militia nonsense or infowars is right.
Given the predliction to Polizei up everything I'm thinking male genitalia vs. Big Brother. Whoever loses, we win!
As policy I'd proffer all ranchers should be thrown off government property, and any other permitted "developer." Thats subsidized rich people making money off MY LAND.
Remove them Trail of Tears style.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:
So, it is not his land... but he claims it is his land because his family has been using it for hundreds of years.

It ain't his land. He has no rights to it. If I went to a random park or person's land, and had a pack of animals tear it up and crap all over it, I would probably have my animals seized and be arrested.

Sounds like he can use the land if he pays... which is how it should be.

Well it couldn't have been too long. The rightful owners held that property until the mid 1800s when they lost the case of US Army vs. Native Tribes (settled by the court of .45-70). Thats likely guvment property, and if not its Paynee or some such (who lived there?)

Oh wait thats Nevada. Some places should never be fought for. Chernobyl, the Sahara Desert, New Mexico, Hobokken. Nevada?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
Not that simple. The family wasn't told the charges or where he was taken. The family has also grazed and improved the land since the late 1800's.

So he says. its still goverment land. If its not government land its Shoshone or somebody his family stole it from. He's stealing from me. Burn him down.

The question here is if the government is going to go Ruby Ridge on this family.

Militia nonsense. Don't act like a psycho criminal who's going to shoot it out with the federales and you won't get sniper rounds coming at you.

A bit more from Fox:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/07/feds-move-in-on-nevada-rancher-herd-over-illegal-grazing/

Both sides are going too far over the top here.

Thats what the government does. The King always ramps it up when there is a threat to power.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

 motyak wrote:
Is the only person saying the 'snipers' were there still the family? Because it seemed to start with them, and everything since has either referenced them, or just not referenced anything and gone 'ermagerd sniperz'. I'd love for there to have been none, that'd make me chuckle

This is something that has apparently been building up over the past couple of decades and looks readyto come to a head, so we'll see what goes on. It wouldn't surprise me to find there were snipers since gunplay is a very real possibility here. The issues involved are complex and there seem to be more players in this game coming out of the woodwork.
The thing is a lot of these ranchers out here have been grazing this land since the mid 1800's abd feel that theFederal government is stealing their livlihood out from under them.

Which is pathetic since its MY LAND (TM) not theirs. Go buy your own land and graze and quit being a welfare cheat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

In the eyes of the law, he probably has a compelling legal argument. Most venues have archaic laws on the book allowing for adverse possession.

You can't adverse possess government property.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 motyak wrote:
Free speech zones? What?

edit: ha I just googled it, that sounds so silly. Why do you need a special zone to have free speech in it? When you step outside the zone can you suddenly not speak against a government or something? Also, can you post a link to what the free speech zones have to do with this? I can't find it...I fail at google apparently.

yea that is pretty stupid.

 sebster wrote:
But the law as it stands now is manipulated, I agree, and does need tightening up in lots of places, but it seems to me those reforms are as much about process as the law itself (getting the more ludicrous squatters claims reviewed and rejected should be a matter of hours, not weeks). And there should, of course, be some kind of penalty, including possibly jail time, for people who falsely claim squatter's rights.

Are you sure you can't make an adverse possession claim against government? I know in Australia you can, though of course the land laws in both countries are very different.

No, I'm not sure.



Sorry, tangent.

Anyway, so you think adverse possession should remain a thing? Man, I dunno. I can see the argument for a tightly-defined eminent domain, but but I have a hard time seeing the value in an obscure way of legally stealing.

The value is that it returns properties neglected and unused by absentee or deceased and unknown landlords into the public domain by people occupying them, doing them up and selling them on.

In this case, as the ranchers have been through the courts and failed in their claim, there doesn't seem much justification in their continuing to contest the issue.

Whatever its faults, the USA is a country with the rule of law, in which the gubmint can be held to account by the courts and public opinion.

 Ouze wrote:
Anyway, so you think adverse possession should remain a thing? Man, I dunno. I can see the argument for a tightly-defined eminent domain, but but I have a hard time seeing the value in an obscure way of legally stealing.

The concept has some value, to prevent cases of "surprise, here's this old deed that completely screws you over" where everyone honestly thought that they were doing things right. For example, let's say we've been neighbors for the past 20+ years and there's always been a fence between our houses. Now you sell your house, and the new owner discovers that the property line isn't where we've been assuming it was: instead of matching the fence it is actually inside my wall. I think it's pretty reasonable to say that I have a claim to ownership of the property, despite someone long ago making a mistake in recording the boundaries.

The problem, like the problem with eminent domain, is when someone tries to exploit it to take property they just feel like owning. It should be a rare solution to messy disputes, not a way to claim new property just because you haven't been punished sufficiently for trespassing on it. And you'll notice that, like cases of eminent domain abuse, the Boulder adverse possession case involved someone with a lot of influence in the local government taking the property. That seems like the problem has more to do with corruption and making sure "important" people get what they need than the law itself.

Yeah, for them to say 'we been using it and 'keeping it up'... it is NATURE. It keeps itself up. It is a government habitat for wildlife which is a GOOD THING for all of us. We pay taxes so land can be sustained and not developed on so we can try to keep some of our countries natural land.

If he was trying to claim he owned 600,000 acres, then I want to see 600,000 worth of property taxes for 180 years... hell, how about the past 20 years which he has claimed it is his... No? Then he can either get off the land or go to jail with Wesley Snipes.

He needs to go, his cattle which are off his land should be taken from him due to him neglecting them. Apply leash laws to them. Stampeding your cattle onto some government land doesn't mean it is yours.

 Peregrine wrote:
The concept has some value, to prevent cases of "surprise, here's this old deed that completely screws you over" where everyone honestly thought that they were doing things right. For example, let's say we've been neighbors for the past 20+ years and there's always been a fence between our houses. Now you sell your house, and the new owner discovers that the property line isn't where we've been assuming it was: instead of matching the fence it is actually inside my wall. I think it's pretty reasonable to say that I have a claim to ownership of the property, despite someone long ago making a mistake in recording the boundaries.

Alright, I suppose I see it.

Anyway the more I read on the OP the more this guy seems like a class-A assclown.

So...It was publicly known at least a week before this kicked off what was going to happen? I stand by my assessment of 'idiot'.

More like 15 years. And apparently the last roundup was cancelled due to threatening statements, which is why they're coming heavy this time.

Not that that would justify, like, shooting his wife with babe in arms through a screen door; or running over his dog with a tank, as is the wont of other federal bureaus.

nkelsch wrote:
Yeah, for them to say 'we been using it and 'keeping it up'... it is NATURE. It keeps itself up. It is a government habitat for wildlife which is a GOOD THING for all of us. We pay taxes so land can be sustained and not developed on so we can try to keep some of our countries natural land.

If he was trying to claim he owned 600,000 acres, then I want to see 600,000 worth of property taxes for 180 years... hell, how about the past 20 years which he has claimed it is his... No? Then he can either get off the land or go to jail with Wesley Snipes.

He needs to go, his cattle which are off his land should be taken from him due to him neglecting them. Apply leash laws to them. Stampeding your cattle onto some government land doesn't mean it is yours.

Agreed on all points.