NV: Rancher Challenges Court's Jurisdiction

Sierra Times ^ | 21 November, 2001 | Sierra Times Staff

[Jackie222]

Thanks for the heads up.......pumpkin pies need to be baked so I will bump for later reading.

God bless America and FR this Thanksgiving Day in the year of our Lord 2001.

[Phil V.]

. He's a "Trust Fund Baby" and totally certain he's right in every respect and a bunch of Red-necked Right Wing Conservative Crazies with their Constitutional rhetoric are ever gonna change his danged mind, so fergeddaboutit!!!

Well, he's right, ya know!

I wasted 18 g*ddamned years milking cows and taking "vacations" helping my uncle round up cattle off'n g'vment leases - yellow jackets! rattle snakes! bumps & bruises - vacation??? bullshiT!

One day I got off the pharm. I went into one of them new-phangled super markets. . . .WOW! . . . Shelves & shelves of milk - beef, pork, eggs up the ol' wazoo! "They shore as hell don't need me tied down seven days a week doin' what I'm doin'", I thought to myself!

Today my call is, "Save the' pharmers! Phederalize pharmers! Phree th' pharmers!!!"

[brityank]

Today my call is, "Save the' pharmers! Phederalize pharmers! Phree th' pharmers!!!"

Sorry, Phil; the last thing 'Phederalizing' the 'Pharmers' will do is allow them 'Phreedom'!

[brityank]

Thank you for the informative post. Another reason why FreeRepublic is the best discussion board on the net.

[F-117A]

Thanks for the flag!

[Citizen Tom Paine]

The tresspass situation is something that a lot of persons don't know about. In New York state, the land owner is liable for any injury which occurs on his property. You may have legally posted the land, and if a tresspasser comes on it, say with an ATY, overturns and is injured, the land owner can be liable.

If the tresspasser is injured because of an "unsafe condition" on the land, the land owner is not only liable, but subject to penalities. What might such an unsafe condition be? How about the ATV driver running into a barbed wire fence? One then may have to convince a jury that one was not negligent because he had a fence to keep the cows in. Most city dewllers have no concept of what is required to operate a farm.

[farmfriend]

Guess I didn't word that well. It is similar in nature to the stories he tells. Does that work?

[farmfriend]

Most city dewllers have no concept of what is required to operate a farm.

The main reason we are working to get agriculture back in the classroom. I work with a coalition called Ag Net. One of our members went to a class to talk with the kids about ag and the teacher said "Mr. Smith is here to tell us what little animal cotton comes from." Ag Net has a grant through Cal Poly to make corriculum for K-12. It should be in the classroom by fall of 2002. We also work are on the advisory board for Ag in the Classroom.

[SuperLuminal]

BTTT

[OregonRancher]

A few facts: When a rancher leases land from the Goberment, he is not leasing the "Land". He is leasing the right to graze his cattle and improve the land for the benefit of the cattle. He has no right to keep others off the land. The reason ranchers get pissed off with "tresspassers" is that most of the time, they do harm to the land, the improvements -read water holes, etc. - and sometimes, the cattle. Most city slickers don't realize that when you open a gate, you need to close it!

[OregonRancher]

Couple of other points. Ranches in eastern Oregon and Nevada are usually made up of maybe 250 acres of deeded land and 25,000 acres of leased land. If it was not for the leased land, ranches in these areas would be non-existant. Not sure of the figures, but NV is about 98% federally owned - go figure... In eastern Oregon its about the same.... I know one ranch of 200,000 acres and only about 13,000 is deeded... Hey, you folks in the east, do any of you have any idea how big that is???? The Hearst ranch in Kalifornia is over 320,000 acres - over 500 sq miles...leased to the government..love it!!!!!

[JPJones]

bump!

[MissAmericanPie]

This is real hard for me to comprehend, all land in Texas is privately owned except for a tad here and there. What business does the government have owning state territory? This flies in the face of sovereign states, it's rediculous, how did this happen and why didn't the citizens slap their elected state officals in the face and make them do right?

[OregonRancher]

Morning! Now my history is really rusty...as you get older, you know the files are there, it's just that you can't remember where you filed them..... I think that one of the conditions of statehood for NV was all property not privately owned was taken by the government...

[MissAmericanPie]

Good grief, that's sad.

[n-tres-ted]

Sorry, can't help on NV politics. I don't live there, and have not followed it closely.

[n-tres-ted]

Unfortunately, the feds are not likely to sell any land. In fact, even Repubs are supporting the feds buying billions more land every year. I got irritated with Hugh Hewitt early this year when he was supporting the idea that the new Bush administration should spend even more that Clinton did to take over more acres for federal ownership, pushing out private use of the land.

As to inconsistencies in the Constitution, I think the major problem is the unwillingness of the SCOTUS to stand in the way of government when it wants to take property without paying for it.

[William Terrell]

This is real hard for me to comprehend, all land in Texas is privately owned except for a tad here and there. What business does the government have owning state territory? This flies in the face of sovereign states, it's rediculous, how did this happen and why didn't the citizens slap their elected state officals in the face and make them do right?

I know you won't like this answer. Don't like it myself. The North won the war. So what? Well, when they did, the 14th amendment came into being. Before, each state awarded citizenship to members of that state and by virtue of that those members were citizens of the nation.

The 14th amendment made citizenship only at the national level, with residence only at the state level. All rights, privileges and protections flow from citizenship. The mere fact that citizenship is defined at the national level reduce the sovereignty of the states to virtually nothing.

Let me repeat: that one action of taking away state citizenship changed the entire face of America, obsoleted sections of the state and federal constitutions, which, incidently, were not removed from the text thereof, the ommission of which was act of fraud and deceit.

It's been that way since the war, but little was done about it so as to not alarm the population until it was settled into custom and national thought.

The muscle is being flexed now and the only obstacle left is the American people's belief otherwise. But the courts knew, and knows.

Looking at the problem strictly objectively and unemotionally, probably the only way that can be reversed is another war. If you try to use the courts, "judicial notice" will eat your lunch every time.

I suspect that every politician in all offices at state and federal level understands this, but wouldn't dare breathe a word of it. When you make politics a profession it soon becomes filled with craven cowards addicted to the most corrosive substances to the human soul: power and money.

My opinion.

[MissAmericanPie]

Thanks for the education, I had no freakin idea. This news will not set well with native born Texans, we feel we are barely in the Union as it is. I'm floored really.

I will bookmark this to my profile page, your explaination gives an insight into our situation that I have never heard before. Happy Thanksgiving to you.