I’ve underlined in the article those portions I thought applied to Bundy’s case, in particular.
Assuming that open range, as Natelson says, should have been disposed of long ago, then that actually adds legitimacy to Bundy’s looking to the state of Nevada rather than to the federal government.
The other alternative that I see is that the Fed’s decision to accept grazing open range in the past was a provable “dispositioning” of the land that has the multiple effects of: (1) adverse utilization, and (2) control by Nevada.
Are you suggesting these issues for the ‘next Bundy’ or a different Bundy transaction, or are you suggesting an exception to res judicata/collateral estoppel regarding the previous final judgments against Bundy?