Do you consider the Constitution to be the Supreme Law of the Land?
If so can you show me where in the Constitution it gives the Federal Government the authority to own 85% of the real estate in a sovereign state?
Mr. Bundy represented himself against an army of Government lawyers in those cases. He then stood firm against an army of Federal goons armed with automatic weapons and assault vehicles.
Al Sharpton owes $1.9 million in back taxes and Obama and Reid treat him like their best friend. Then Obama spends millions of dollars hiring an army to confiscate Bundy's cattle and shoot his family and friends if the opportunity arose.
Just because some court rules against you doesn't mean you don't have a legal leg to stand on. I think it is pretty clear that from a strict Constitutional standpoint, the BLM had no constitutional authority to charge grazing fees on land within the boundaries of Nevada. The fees should have been collected by Nevada and then if Nevada chose to pay tribute, then they could have sent some of the money to the crooks in Washington.
As it stands, Nevada is not a legitimate state on an equal footing with states east of the Mississippi. If I were the governor of Nevada, I would have called out the National Guard to protect the Bundy family from the armed federal goons. Instead it was his family and friends who had to do that job.
Well, I’m disappointed in Cruz. He should have spoken out.
As for all the legal mumbo jumbo being against Bundy, well, the legal voodoo doctors say you can kill babies. Shows what they know.
The bottom line is that the Fed has had 150 years to divest themselves of Nevada public land, and they haven’t accomplished it. That means they’ve been derelict.
Moreover, they have permitted the range to be used for grazing for generations, so the Fed has identified its purpose, and the governor of Nevada should now be in charge of it, seeing that the Fed has determined its disposition.
Moreover, Bundy has legal water rights that can’t be removed from him.
Additionally, adverse possession can’t be applied to public land, according to some, but adverse utilization can be. In the past, under cabin rights, all a man had to do was build a cabin, clear land, and farm/ranch it.
That went away, but the Fed approved of open range for so long, that adverse utilization should apply.
The BLM has no authority of any kind to confiscate private property! They have no authority to enforce law! But they do it anyway. BLM is an organized crime racket.