Replies

... if ... if ... he has recourse in the federal courts ...

The federal courts have unlimited funds. Does he?

an Article III federal judge has jurisdiction

See post #22.

These lands are either owned by the government or they are owned by someone else.

Nevada became a state 31 October, 1864. "Our property, our livelihood, our ranch which has been in the family since 1862 ..." He owns the land, not the federal government..

Four, it is well past time that the federal government sell these lands, as there is no real legitimate national interest in its keeping all of them.

Something we can both agree on. Do a search on Klamath Basin Crisis or CARA for more info.

As for post 22, it contains a number of errors.

The first two points it makes is that we are living under admiralty law and admiralty law is the same thing as martial law. This does not follow at all from the constitutional citations given. Admiralty law is the body of law pertaining to the seas and rivers, which is delegated to the federal government under the Constitution. Martial law is something entirely different.

If that were not crackpot enough, the post implies there is such a thing as an Article IV judge, which there is not (there are only Article I and Article III federal judges) and that Article III judges do not have jurisdiction over claims made under Article IV of the constitution, which in fact they do and have exercised constantly throughout the history of the country.

The real crux of the argument seems to be that because the state of Nevada was formed, the land which belonged to the federal government must of necessity have been transmitted to the state of Nevada, or the people of Nevada, or somebody else. This is also a crackpot argument, in my opinion, because the quoted sections of Article IV of the constitution explicitly state that federal government has the right to own land and make regulations concerning that land, even if that land is within the boundary of a state.

Which gets us to the question of who owns the land. If he has the title to the land, he owns it. If the federal government has the title to the land, the federal government owns it, no matter how long his family has been leasing it, (or for that matter, squatting on it).

There is a difference between what is fair, and what is legal. He may have a moral and sentimental claim to continue the usage of his family on the government land, but that isn't a legal claim.