In case you missed it, I was saying that the idea that her family had done this for generations doesn’t count for much in the end. They never said the land was theirs. If an owner choses to exercise its rights not to permit people onto coming onto their land, that is the owner’s rights.
What's missing is the "why". This administration, by it's own admission, only enforces the laws it wants to. What's making them want to enforce this one so badly?
I haven’t followed this story much, to be honest, but it seems like the daughter is saying that the cattle belong to them but are being stolen by the feds, and that the fees they’d been forced to pay were used AGAINST the very people who were supposed to be served by those fees.
As an aside, maybe some of us could buy out the land that the US capitol and White House sit on, and then maybe we could set our own rules for what could go on in those places...
Oh, wait, we supposedly already DO own that land, and supposedly already DO have established rules for what can be done there...
Maybe however the feds choose to get rid of this family.... is how we the people who own the Capitol and White House should get rid of the squatters there... who have broken every contract we the people have ever made with them - namely, the Constitution.
It does matter that they had been doing it for years on public access land. And the “owner” is us. It is not the Fed.
We are the people...the FIRST branch of Government.
We are the first branch mentioned: “We the PEOPLE of the United States...”
“I was saying that the idea that her family had done this for generations doesn’t count for much in the end.”
IANAL, but wouldn’t the continuous use of the property for the past 100 years create some kind of property easement?
prescriptive easement
grazing rights (historical)
not so cut and dried
and protector of the turtles and killer of cattle?