Clark County (Vegas) commissioner tells lawful Americans to make funeral plans

Then he has no rights at all, correct?

The land belongs to the federal government. Period.

If you want to graze on federal lands, then you SIGN the contract they require. This gives you LIMITED grazing rights.

If you do NOT sign the contract, then you have NO RIGHTS AT ALL.

So Cliven Bundy is dead wrong. What is the other alternative? Originally Posted by ExNYer

Why you such a nyH8Ter?

http://www.shoosmiths.co.uk/client-r...tion-6146.aspx


At least 20 years continuous and uninterrupted use- This needn't be on a daily basis, but any gaps in use should be relatively short, and any gap of more than a year certainly has potential to cause problems

The same use- If a right of way was used by foot only for 10 years and with vehicles only for a further 10 years, then no right would be acquired. The same type of use must be demonstrated for the full 20 year period

'As of right'- The right must have been exercised without force, secrecy or permission. By implication, this means that a right cannot be acquired where the same person is in possession of the land being benefited and burdened

No fucking way you are one of us, mouth-breathing redneck. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Yea, I'm Irish but not a Mick like you... LOL

The government bought the land that became several western states after the treaty following the Mexican war, The federal government owns about 82% of Nevada. Bundy is just a fucking freeloader get over it. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Sorry I'va.

I did not see your post before I responded to JDIgnorant above.

Why you such a nyH8Ter?

http://www.shoosmiths.co.uk/client-r...tion-6146.aspx

At least 20 years continuous and uninterrupted use- This needn't be on a daily basis, but any gaps in use should be relatively short, and any gap of more than a year certainly has potential to cause problems

The same use- If a right of way was used by foot only for 10 years and with vehicles only for a further 10 years, then no right would be acquired. The same type of use must be demonstrated for the full 20 year period

'As of right'- The right must have been exercised without force, secrecy or permission. By implication, this means that a right cannot be acquired where the same person is in possession of the land being benefited and burdened Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Dipshit, you are trying to make a case for "adverse possession". Stop quoting British law.

And there are at least three problems with your theory.

1) Prior to fighting the federal government over fees, Bundy grazed with permission. Those years do not count towards the 20 years needed to establish a claim of adverse possession.

2) If the other party is disputing your claims to the land, and you have been fighting in court for 20 years, you cannot claim 20 years of "uninterrupted" use. The time in court also does not count towards the 20 years need to establish a claim of adverse possession.

3) You cannot adversely possess government land. That only works with private land. Game, set, match.

Next argument?

Yea, I'm Irish but not a Mick like you... LOL Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

I guess that means you don't have the minimum number of teeth (8) required to be a mick...

The ones who give up are the ones who finally figure out they are wrong. Like JDB, Iffy and now you.

Or do you think Bundy has some rights to federal land that the rest of us do not?

You are a lawyer, let's hear it. Or do you lack the mouth-breathing ferocity, JL? Originally Posted by ExNYer

Go back and read what I said already. I just like to watch Iffy fuck with you. He has brought up a few interesting points, and I appreciate where his heart is on this one. Obviously, the anti-government sentiment is there, we just need a better guy with a better name and a more obvious case of government bullying. The people are fed up. However, you are right and have the law on your side, but we all agree you are still an asshole.

However, you are right and have the law on your side, but we all agree you are still an asshole. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Don't sell me short.

The facts are on my side, too.

Is that asshole-ish enough for you, JL?

Don't sell me short.

The facts are on my side, too.

Is that asshole-ish enough for you, JL? Originally Posted by ExNYer

When the Iranians pay their civil judgments on the hostage crisis. Then maybe you will be able to speak all high and mighty on Bundy... till then STFU... nyH8Ter.

You are the most asshole-ish and could easily get more asshole-ish... as a matter of fact you are the KING of ASSHOLE-ish on eccie and will be the greatest ASSHOLE-ish mother fucker in the history of eccie... congratulations your asshole-ish MOFO!

Dipshit, you are trying to make a case for "adverse possession". Stop quoting British law.

And there are at least three problems with your theory.

1) Prior to fighting the federal government over fees, Bundy grazed with permission. Those years do not count towards the 20 years needed to establish a claim of adverse possession.

2) If the other party is disputing your claims to the land, and you have been fighting in court for 20 years, you cannot claim 20 years of "uninterrupted" use. The time in court also does not count towards the 20 years need to establish a claim of adverse possession.

3) You cannot adversely possess government land. That only works with private land. Game, set, match.

Next argument? Originally Posted by ExNYer

Looks like Bundy got his cattle and the land back... next

Looks like Bundy got his cattle and the land back... next Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Stupid fuck no land just cattle. Next stupid response from you.

People always remember the famous declaration, "No taxation without representation" and the Boston Tea Party, but people forget the anger aroused in the colonies by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 wherein the king forbade the colonies, thus the colonists, from using land west of the Appalachian Mountains. "Some historians have argued that colonial resentment of the proclamation contributed to the growing divide between the colonies and the mother country" and ultimately to war.

It appears Bundy paid the necessary grazing fees until the BLM directed him to cut the size of his herd. Bundy viewed the BLM decision regarding land his family had been using since the 1870s to be bureaucratic and arbitrary (RE: "No taxation without representation"), and Bundy refused to cut his herd, evidently, because it would hurt his earnings. At that point, the BLM began imposing fines; whereupon, Bundy quit paying the grazing fees. Meanwhile, while Bundy and other ranchers are being driven off the land by the BLM, Reid, et al, were seeking to profit by developing and exploiting the land in other ways.

Stupid fuck no land just cattle. Next stupid response from you. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Independent Ozombie iv'e meathead... the cattle are on the same land... LOL

I don't believe in federal land. I would like to see a law that forces the government to sell off, by lottery, 1% of all the land it owns every year. That would be thousands of acres every year, probably hundreds of thousands of acres. All the proceeds can be used to pay down the debt and nothing else.

Independent Ozombie iv'e meathead... the cattle are on the same land... LOL Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Remove head from ass if possible infodumb. You are doubling down on stupid.

I don't believe in federal land. I would like to see a law that forces the government to sell off, by lottery, 1% of all the land it owns every year. That would be thousands of acres every year, probably hundreds of thousands of acres. All the proceeds can be used to pay down the debt and nothing else. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Otherwise you believe in the Feudal system where the rich own the land and the serfs work for them.