[exit82]

How about “adverse possession” of the land as a Bundy defense?

That’s what these prescriptive rights sound like.

[BADROTOFINGER]

Two totally different things. Adverse possession is an actual taking, and has no chance in a court. Think of prescriptive like this: You own a tract of land, and have a home and the back end of it. You access that home by means of a gravel road from the main road, and have ever since you took ownership of the land. You decide you would like to subdivide. The local governing authority would most likely insist that you declare that gravel road an easement, whether your subdiv plan has it or does away with that road in some fashion. This is considered a prescriptive easement.

[Joe Marine 76]

You wrote: “How about “adverse possession” of the land as a Bundy defense?”

I worked for my late father-in-law in his small family land surveying company years ago. “Adverse Possession” was the first thing that came to mind when I read the headline.

[MamaTexan]

How about “adverse possession” of the land as a Bundy defense?

How about people research a little HISTORY instead of squealing "nanner-nanner boo-boo"?

From the Library of Congress
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsb&fileName=040/llsb040.db&recNum=818
(line 12)
Provided, this privilege shall not extend to lands upon which there many be rightful claims under the preemption and homestead laws

-----

Preemptive rights (also called land usage or 'range' rights) were given as an incentive to settle the West. These rights would be enumerated in the Deed held by Bundy's family since the 1800's. These rights are transferable, inherited along with the property, and stipulate WHO the fees would be paid to.

This Deed is a contract, and the federal gov/BLM impairment of the obligation of this contract by insisting Bundy pay them instead of the Original payee is unconstitutional according to Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1: .......or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts

Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation.
James Madison, Federalist #44

[mad_as_he$$]

Adverse possession is a common law concept. According to several FR trolls there is no ability to gain adverse possession of Federal lands; just on private and state lands. Just because it hasn't doesn't mean it can't. But let's try this. Bundy has water rights that are controlled by the State of Nevada on Federal land. If he can't get AP of Federal “land’ can he get it for the forage it produces since that what he has been consuming?

BTW Bundy is not very good at expressing his views on this. Took me a few minutes to understand his position when I first heard hi speak in January.

[taxcontrol]

The only federal law for adverse possession limits the land size in question to 160 acres... far short of the 600,000 acres in question.

[SgtHooper]

I believe a legal action tolls the time for AP. May actually reset the clock.