Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
The Feds vs Cliven Bundy
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 2477838" data-attributes="member: 13624"><p>Not quite. His contention appears to be that he has ancestral title, either to the land in fee simple, or at least to an easement providing for grazing rights (I suspect the latter, given his stated willingness to pay grazing fees to the county). If he actually does have such title, then BLM's denial of grazing rights could constitute a regulatory taking for the purpose of the 5th Amendment's takings clause.</p><p></p><p>The real question is whether such title is vested in him. He claims it by right of family use for generations, predating the existence of the BLM. It's a weak claim, but not impossible. I'd be very interested to know if there has ever been any formal grant in the past, whether there was a claim staked and recorded, or whether he's just trying to lean on "it was never given to us, but we've always done it." The latter <em>can</em> be a basis for adverse possession, though adverse possession is almost never effective against a sovereign (government) landowner.</p><p></p><p>Based on very limited information, I think he's probably a crank, but this isn't necessarily the same as an illegal moving where he knew he didn't belong and then demanding normalization; Mr. Cliven--or his ancestors--appear to have been there for quite some time. The details matter.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 2477838, member: 13624"] Not quite. His contention appears to be that he has ancestral title, either to the land in fee simple, or at least to an easement providing for grazing rights (I suspect the latter, given his stated willingness to pay grazing fees to the county). If he actually does have such title, then BLM's denial of grazing rights could constitute a regulatory taking for the purpose of the 5th Amendment's takings clause. The real question is whether such title is vested in him. He claims it by right of family use for generations, predating the existence of the BLM. It's a weak claim, but not impossible. I'd be very interested to know if there has ever been any formal grant in the past, whether there was a claim staked and recorded, or whether he's just trying to lean on "it was never given to us, but we've always done it." The latter [I]can[/I] be a basis for adverse possession, though adverse possession is almost never effective against a sovereign (government) landowner. Based on very limited information, I think he's probably a crank, but this isn't necessarily the same as an illegal moving where he knew he didn't belong and then demanding normalization; Mr. Cliven--or his ancestors--appear to have been there for quite some time. The details matter. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
The Feds vs Cliven Bundy
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom