Posted on 04/11/2014 8:34:41 AM PDT by Kackikat
"The Bureau of Land Management has just cashed in with $1.27 million in oil and gas leases in Nevada. This was just reported two weeks ago in ShaleReporter.com, which states:
U.S. Bureau of Land Management geologist Lorenzo Trimble tells the Las Vegas Review-Journal the Elko County oil and gas leases sold
Tuesday for $1.27 million to six different companies. The auction took place in Reno. The leases are near where Houston-based Noble Energy Inc. wants to drill for oil and natural gas on 40,000 acres of public and private land near the town of Wells. The Review-Journal reports the project would be the first in Nevada to use hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to extract oil and gas from shale deposits.
The way this works, of course, is that BLM runs land theft operations by claiming they are “managing” the land and thereby kicking everyone else off it. "
(Excerpt) Read more at thesurvivalplaceblog.com ...
If I understand the history right (And I'm no expert. I googled for 10 minutes.) The Federal government acquired these lands by paying Mexico for them. Then the government allowed homesteading but didn't allow big enough tracts to be homesteaded to be viable. So settlers homesteaded the tracks near water supplies and grazed their cattle on the public lands still owned by the Federal government.
Initially grazing was free, but then the Federal government began imposing grazing fees some 25 years ago.
The homesteads aren't as valuable without the grazing rights. But at the same time, I doubt that the Feds ever promised to allow grazing indefinitely. That was a risk that the homesteaders took.
If it was Citizen B that owned the land, we would stand with Citizen B as having the right to repurpose the land as he chooses.
On the other hand, one might successfully argue that the government knew the homesteads were not viable without the grazing rights and that constitutes an implied promise of continuence.
Here are the relevant articles of the treaty (and note that Mexican citizens became US citizens unless they chose otherwise and in which case they had to leave):
ARTICLE VIII
Mexicans now established in territories previously belonging to Mexico, and which remain for the future within the limits of the United States, as defined by the present treaty, shall be free to continue where they now reside, or to remove at any time to the Mexican Republic, retaining the property which they possess in the said territories, or disposing thereof, and removing the proceeds wherever they please, without their being subjected, on this account, to any contribution, tax, or charge whatever.
Those who shall prefer to remain in the said territories may either retain the title and rights of Mexican citizens, or acquire those of citizens of the United States. But they shall be under the obligation to make their election within one year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty; and those who shall remain in the said territories after the expiration of that year, without having declared their intention to retain the character of Mexicans, shall be considered to have elected to become citizens of the United States.
In the said territories, property of every kind, now belonging to Mexicans not established there, shall be inviolably respected. The present owners, the heirs of these, and all Mexicans who may hereafter acquire said property by contract, shall enjoy with respect to it guarantees equally ample as if the same belonged to citizens of the United States.
ARTICLE IX
The Mexicans who, in the territories aforesaid, shall not preserve the character of citizens of the Mexican Republic, conformably with what is stipulated in the preceding article, shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States. and be admitted at the proper time (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States) to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States, according to the principles of the Constitution; and in the mean time, shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise of their religion without; restriction.
Our United States federal government did not purchase land from Mexico. Mexico was defeated and there was no obligation to pay them anything. However, our federal government in the interest of adjusting the border for jurisdictional control and to indemnify against any future lawsuits and to facilitate the Mexican government exit from the territories agreed to pledge $15 million in installments over time. It was never about purchasing land.
It should also be noted that Mexicans before their revolution had a landed gentry who in turn owned 'Haciendas' that were larger than many US western states. The Treaty specifically points out that their land ownership will be respected. That means they continued to hold title until they sold.
The land is jointly administered by BLM and the state of Nevada with Nevada holding states rights protections. Nevada has as a choice to haul the BLM into state or federal court and sue for damages. Bundy is hence armed with plenty of legal options in which to pursue damages against the BLM.
They paid money for the settlement of all claims, eviction and boundary adjustments, not for land. See the actual treaty articles in Post #115 and Post #142.
For better or worse, the Federal Government is the agent that we the public entrust to protect and manage our assets, including the land we bought from Mexico.
If you look at it that way, it's Bundy's vs the Greater Public. As part of the Greater Public, I'm okay with charging grazing rights. I'm even okay with re-purposing land. I'm okay with protecting some endangered species too.
“he didn’t sign the agreement” and there you have it. Bundy has been grazing w/o contract for the past twenty years.
He doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on and is suckering a great number of militia types and tea partiers into his windmill jousting.
The Constitution outlines the purpose of the Federal Government and this is a good explanation:
http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/private-property-and-government-under-the-constitution
Quote from body of writings:
‘The Founding Fathers upheld the economic view of property. They believed that private property ownership, as defined under common law, pre-existed government. The state and federal governments were the mere contractual agents of the people, not sovereign lords over them.
All rights, not specifically delegated to the government, remained with the people–including the common-law provisions of private property.’ the end of quote.
The Federal Government purchased lands with taxpayer money are actually owned by taxpayers, and should be public property, because the Feds are only property managers not owners according to the Framers of the Constitution, imho.
Of course, the control freaks would disagree. Leftist Judges would disagree...however, the intent and known statements of our founders are clear.
I am not okay with BLM stealing a man’s land through cutting off his water rights by ending grazing rights contracted through an agreement for BLM to maintain the land and they quit maintain the land, so he tried to pay the county and maintained the land himself. The BLM broke the grazing contract by not fulfilling it’s requirements, period. Then lying about an endangered species the same agency BLM was killing themselves a year ago. Enough said.
Are we saying Bundy's owned the land at the time we took it from Mexico? It sounds to me like the Bundy's homesteaded and never gained title to the grazing lands.
Are we saying Bundy's owned the land at the time we took it from Mexico? It sounds to me like the Bundy's homesteaded and never gained title to the grazing lands.
You assume that the Bundy family was settled in the Bunkerville area prior to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. You would be incorrect.
Mormons didn't settle the Bunkerville area until 1877, a full 29 years after the treaty. The Bundys, specifically, didn't purchase grazing rights until 1887 according to Cliven Bundy.
However, in 1887, the Bundys purchased grazing rights from the federal government not Nevada.
I will report for re-education immediately!
BLM broke the grazing contract by not maintaining the land as promised for the fee....then refused to re negotiate, get the facts straight, there was no grazing fee contract anymore. However Bundy tried to pay grazing fees to County but they would not take them, and he maintained the land himself, so actually they owe him, and he should bill the BLM, which would make things about equal, imho.
Do you have the BLM direct deposit your checks?
The feds already presented winning arguments in court, twice.
ROFLMTO to whom? Federal Judges from the left wing...laughable at best. A wrong interpretation of the law for political purposes is at best fraud.
Okay, but there were lands considered public and owned by the federal government at the time of the constitution.
So are you claiming that these lands actually belonged to the Bundy’s and not the government? And if so, on what basis?
Okay, but there were lands considered public and owned by the federal government at the time of the constitution.
So are you claiming that these lands actually belonged to the Bundy’s and not the government? And if so, on what basis?
No that is not the claim.
The claim is that the contract with BLM was broken by BLM not maintaining the land according to the grazing fee agreement, so Bundy maintained it and kept his grazing fee for doing so when the county would not let him pay the grazing fee to them.
The BLM premeditated to take his land because he wouldn’t sell, by not maintaining the land as agreed, like the other ranchers years ago. He was the hold out, and this was used to allow enough unpaid fees to add up, when the undone maintenance to get his land did not work.
There's a twist; there always is.
Nev. Rev. Stat. 568.010-568.210 recognize federal Taylor Grazing Act districts and allotments and set up a state, district, and county system to allocate the funds returned to the State of Nevada under the Taylor Grazing Act. The only administered right is the allocation of funds received from the federal government.
Nev. Rev. Stat. 568.225 is qualified "except as provided in the Taylor Grazing Act."
Multiple federal courts have ruled Nev. Rev. Stat. 568.230-290 violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution if applied to federal land.
Federal judges with lifetime appointments interpreting federal laws and the U.S. Constitution based on argument made by federal lawyers representing federal agencies with federal agendas. See Marbury v. Madison.
And if you read comment #63 from Mad_a$_hell you will be able to understand the Nevada law, that BLM is well aware of, that if Bundy does not use those waterways he will lose his water rights which may cause his ranch to be unusable....giving the BLM an advantage to buy it like they always wanted.
This is so much more deception than many are able to comprehend, I believe. There are so many issues, but the desert tortoise is not one of them, it’s a ruse.
Here is the 1000 degrees acreage of solar panels, that damage birds regularly who fly over the So Nevada Solar Company at Dry Lake....imagine this damage which also includes the desert tortoise, and no one in government is up in arms there:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.