Exclusive: Does Cliven Bundy Have Something Called “Prescriptive Rights”, Why The BLM May Be Afraid To Go To Court
_http://benswann.com/exclusive-does-cliven-bundy-have-something-called-prescriptive-rights-why-the-blm-may-be-afraid-of-going-to-court/#ixzz2z9nwmSJN
Apr 16, 2014 - In this ongoing story surrounding cattle rancher Cliven Bundy, there are a series of questions media has ignored. For instance, in the 20 years Bundy hasn’t been paying his fees, why hasn’t he been taken to court? Why this year, spend nearly $1,000,000 of taxpayer money to round up 400 cattle that ultimately have to be returned? Why didn’t the BLM just place a lien on the cattle rather than attempting to take them by force and then auction them off? The Bureau of Land Management has suffered a huge black eye this week because of their response to the Bundy situation. Perhaps though, there is a reason the BLM chose force over the courts.
In an exclusive interview with Benswann.com, Montana cattle rancher Todd Devlin says the BLM is now considering new ways of dealing with the Cliven Bundy situation. Devlin, is not just Montana cattle rancher but is also a County Commissioner in Prairie County Montana and he has worked with the Department of Interior, having taught workshops for the agency in the past. Monday, Devlin reached out to his contacts in the Department of the Interior to find out why the Bureau of Land Management has refused to work with Bundy rather than simply attempting to run over him.
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.
Granted, there have been court actions over the years. In 1998 a federal judge issued a permanent injunction against Bundy, ordering him to remove his cattle from the federal lands. He lost an appeal to the San Francisco 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Yet, the “trespass cattle” remained on the BLM land. In fact, it took until August of 2013 for a court order to be issued saying Bundy had 45 days to remove his cattle from federal land. 15 years went by from the time of the last court case over the cattle until the BLM attempted to remove the livestock.
Of course, Bundy has not made the claim that he will not pay the fees, he simply says he will not pay those fees to the BLM because he doesn’t recognize federal authority over the land. Bundy has said that in the past, that he would pay fees to Clarke County, Nevada, though Clarke County has refused to accept them.
The BLM has insisted that Bundy owes $1.1 million dollars in grazing fees for his trespass cattle. “The actual number is probably around $200,000. The $1.1 million claimed by the BLM is probably mostly interest and penalties for trespass cattle.” says Devlin, who goes on to say that it is unlikely that Clarke County would be able to collect those penalties.
When Devlin reached out to the BLM, he suggested that the federal agency just allow Bundy to pay the fees to the county rather than continuing with these aggressive tactics to confiscate his cattle.
“Why don’t you just let him pay them there (Clarke County)? I got a call back from the liaison saying ‘Yes, pursue it.’” Devlin reached out to contacts in Nevada to get that process moving forward. If that were to happen, Clarke County could collect the grazing fees and if it desired to do so could hand those fees over to the BLM.
Finally, Devlin says instead of allowing the situation with Bundy’s cattle to grow completely out of control, the BLM could have simply placed a lien on the cattle in the first place. Of course, that lien might have been rejected in court if Bundy were able to demonstrate those prescriptive rights. Then again, the courts so far have sided with the government, therefore it is even more baffling why the lien wasn’t placed on the livestock.
Days after the BLM has claimed they will stand down, they are now reportedly considering a lien on the cattle,
“I asked why you didn’t put a lien against the cattle?” Devlin asked the BLM. “They hadn’t thought about that but they are considering it now”
Why The Bundy Ranch Issue Has So Much Controversy
_http://www.drawaline.org/
One of the main issues arising out of the Bundy Ranch fiasco, is the underlying issue of allodial title in all states that has been ignored by the federal government and most state governments.
Allodial title is “non-feudal” title. At America’s founding, this was commonly termed as “fee simple absolute.” When the Treaty of Paris was signed, there were many meetings with the English Parliament to explain that we would NOT be under a feudal form of land (or other property) ownership where the government, kings or other "nobles" actually held primary ownership of all land.
At the signing, ALL land was to be turned over to the people directly and not to the individual colonies/states under common law. This was now a fundamental property right that "shall not be infringed." This was the original meaning of the “Castle Doctrine” and where we got the quote “A Man’s Home is His Castle.”
Most of the western states (including Texas) reinforced this doctrine. Property taxes are a fairly recent usurpation and most states had no property tax at all until the 1940's and 1950's. In most of the United States, we were all open range where “first usage” was applied to rights to water, mineral, and forage rights. Actual purchase of the land was a completely separate set of rights and could be (and often was). “Real Estate” refers to everything that is built ON THE LAND and not necessarily anything that either grows on it, or like water or minerals, that are found under it. This is where land patent law comes into play.
The court cases the Bundy’s have been fighting have been ignoring these fundamental principles.
In Texas, there are many instances where people have traced their land back to Allodial title (Mexican land grants) and, since once land is held in Allodial title “it can never be otherwise,” they have had judges rule and no longer pay property taxes. Texas is one of the few states that still recognize allodial title, but it is not common knowledge. The state would not want that to be very public for obvious reasons.
We can expect that Harry Reid and the BLM (or the Chinese) will not just let this issue go. They will back up and find a new strategy to get these lands and kick the Bundy family off their ranch.
I would imagine that the Chinese, who are intent on finding a way to convert the massive amounts of U.S. debt they have covered into real, tangible assets, are having long-winded conversations with Reid and the White House.
What this has really exposed is that laws, regardless of how long they have been in force and "on the books," when they violate the fundamental tenets of our Supreme Law, the Common Law, and have no moral authority, are null and void (nunc pro tunc as in the verbiage of Marbury vs Madison) from their inception.
As a blatant example, the prima nocte law was in force in England for hundreds of years. This was the law that allowed nobles to have intercourse with a bride on her wedding night. This was morally and ethically wrong and everyone knew it, but this law continued until it was finally overturned by a massive outcry from the people.
Violations of our fundamental unalienable rights, as guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights as "rights the government SHALL NOT INFRINGE UPON, such as our right to property, our freedom of speech and the press, freedom of assembly, right to travel and, of course, our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, all fit into the same category.
Until we stand up and exercise these rights in the face of immoral, unconstitutional laws, they will continue to be enforced by a tyrannical government and their thugs.
This past week's standoff at Bundy Ranch is just a stepping stone, a small victory, but it is obviously not over until we actually turn this government and its immoral and unconstitutional laws back to what our founders intended.
