Wednesday, April 16, 2014

I Get Mail...

Obviously you are a card carrying democrat that wants more govt. You probably drink prince Reid's bathwater too.

Now that I’ve finished laughing hysterically, what else have you got?

The problem with your interpretation of adverse possession is you conveniently leave out the hundred years before 1997.

No.  No, I didn’t. In fact, I’m pretty sure that I was quite clear that the years in which he used the land with the express permission of the United States Federal Government don’t count toward the time frame for adverse possession, because he had permission to be there then.  Or are you really arguing that a guy who rents a house for long enough should be able to own that house after a certain period of time, free and clear? 

See how silly and poorly thought-out your (and Bundy’s) claim is?

Also, you may have missed the part where I stated, quite clearly, that you cannot condemn public land.  I don’t care if you use it without permission for 300 years.  You can’t condemn public land.  Period.  End of story.

So no, I didn’t “conveniently” leave the part out where they used it for a hundred years. I addressed that part fully and completely.  It was either your haste in reading my post, or poor reading comprehension that lead you to think that I hadn’t.

His family farmed the land and has an adverse claim due to his ancestory.

No, they didn’t.  For the reasons stated above, and for the reasons that the custom outfit that farms my family’s land cannot take that land from my family even after farming it for 20 plus years now.  The “claim” that Bundy thinks he has to this land fails on two tests – one, he did not possess it “adversely” for long enough.  He only possessed it “adversely” for four years before the land owner took steps to evict him.  Most of the 100 years that he’s been on the land, he was there with permission, so that doesn’t count.  And two, and really, I can’t stress this enough, YOU CAN’T CONDEMN PUBLIC GROUND! 

Is that really that hard for you to understand? 

You and all your snarky socialist buddies I see making remarks about Mr. Bundy are way out of line.

If the only reason that you think I’m out of line is because you don’t like the way the law works, and wish it were different, then may I suggest that you are the one who is out of line?

He is not a criminal for defending his heritage and way of life.

He is trespassing on someone else’s property and laying legal claim to it when he has none.  By definition, that is a criminal act. 

The funniest thing about all of this is that you are accusing ME of being a socialist, but you are the one who has no respect for property rights, whatsoever, and that’ the first thing to go down the tube when the socialists manage to take over.  By your argument, a renter who rents a house for long enough should have legal claim to it.  Do you know what that would mean?  Only a fool would ever rent his property to someone.  Renters that managed to find a property would be evicted after however long it is that you think they need to be in the place to have legal claim to it.  20 years?  So in year 19, expect an eviction notice?  Really?  You think that’s a good way to deal with it?

Or let’s put it this way – if you got your way, and the law was amended to make it so that ranchers who graze their cattle on someone else’s property eventually have legal ownership and claim to that property, what do you think would happen?

I’ll tell you what would happen, and you aren’t going to like it. 

No one would ever, ever, EVER allow someone else to graze stock on their property.  Including the BLM.  You want to preserve a way of life?  Your way of dealing with this would destroy that way of life faster than you can imagine. 

Property rights are sacrosanct.  They are THE MOST important thing that we have.  Enforcement of property rights is the most fundamental reason that we have government to begin with.  If you want to shit-can property rights so that anyone that wants to can just lay claim to a piece of ground because “reasons” like Cliven Bundy is doing, then you first.  What property do you own?  My family owns a bunch of it, and you are arguing that you want to give a big piece of it away to that custom outfit because they’ve farmed it for a long time now. 

Don’t you see how fucking stupid that is? 

Cliven Bundy is not a hero.  He’s a man who has decided to continue using a piece of property to which he has no legal claim, in defiance of that property owner’s wishes.  That is called trespassing.  That is criminal.

Cliven Bundy is a criminal.  He is also a fool.  He built a business that relied upon having the permission of someone else to use their property, or else his business would fail, and then just assumed that things would go along the way that they had been forever, never working on any contingency plan in case the property owner decided not to allow him to graze anymore.  When things changed, instead of seeing the massive failure in his business plan, he just decided to say “fuck this guy, I’ll just use his land, anyway.”  You want that to be your hero?  Be my guest.  Sounds like a fool to me.  You may worship this fool if you’d like… 

 He is more of a man than you'll ever be.You are also a fool if you think the govt wants this land over grazing rights.

Here’s the trick, skippy.  It doesn’t matter what the government wants the land for.  If you’re right and the Feds want the cows off so that they can turn it into a solar farm, then let me clarify things for you:


If you want to change that, then you’ll fundamentally change, and further SOCIALIZE property law in America.  My guess is that this isn’t your intent and goal, but it is what you’re arguing for, nonetheless.  You call ME a socialist, when it is YOU that is arguing the socialist party line right now. 

You are going to look even more stupid than you already do when it all comes out of what this is really about.You are no Perry Mason,not even a Matlock either

I couldn’t possibly look more stupid than you do right now.  Let’s see, while putatively claiming to be a conservative, you’ve argued for the socialization of property law.  You failed miserably in reading comprehension by claiming that I didn’t address the hundred years that Cliven and his family used the land with the government’s permission, when I very clearly did.  You failed to argue a point rationally, and instead are throwing out insults.  You failed to understand how property law works, and in fact, don’t seem to care, and just want it to work the way you want it to because ‘reasons’. 

Who looks stupid? 

I firmly believe that it will turn out that the feds want to use this piece of ground for a solar farm.  I also believe that changes nothing, because that is their right as the owner of that property.  The fact that you can’t see that further reinforces the fact that you’re a fool. 

Now, again, if you’d like to have a rational discussion about why the feds own so much property and whether they should, we’ll probably be in lockstep, because I believe that all of this land should belong to the State of Nevada, or the people of the state, not the Feds. But right now, no matter how much you might wish otherwise, it belongs to the Feds,and as long as it does, I’ll support their right to use it in whatever way is most beneficial to them, because that’s how property ownership works, jackoff!.  


  1. One point on "Property rights are sacrosanct."
    Rights should work both ways.
    Other than that, good explanation.

    1. Kelo was an abomination.

      Anyone that says that our Supreme Court is too "rightwing" I usually trot out their upholding of Obamacare and Kelo to prove them wrong.

      And when I said that property rights are sacrosanct, I was referring to the rights of all property owners, not just public owners.

  2. On the one hand, I think you've a pretty solid handle on both property rights and adverse possession. Anybody that gets shirty about that is trying very hard to fool themselves. Adverse possession is pretty solid, established law- if Bundy is arguing that, he likely knows that its not really a valid argument, but it makes a good smokescreen. One thing I should really go look for, though, is how/where his original grazing rights were granted. A good many of these rights were purchased from the Secratary of the Interior prior to the turn of the last century. If his family has been in continual use of the land since then, he may have a claim, not over the land itself, but over the grazing and water rights. I'm sure the Palouse echoes with the repercussions of the water rights battle in the Klamath Basin and elsewhere; people in the East (very much including people in high rank at the BLM, I'm sure) don't always realize how valuable water is in our semi-arid West.

    On the gripping hand, however, its not really about the land, or the cows, or the man; just like the last war here in the States wasn't about slavery, nor the Revolution about tea. When a fight is spoiling, waiting for the drop of a hat, most any hat will do. Cliven Bundy is a rancher, not a Saint, but he has the support of state-level officials, local groups, and he's a more sympathetic figure than Randy Weaver or the Branch Davidians. People saw the BLM acting like Stateist Thugs and called them on it. Despite Bundy's flaws, I think that was a good thing.

    1. I need to put up a post clarifying my stance on the subject as a whole. Essentially it boils down to:

      Nevada and all western states have legitimate greivance with the feds and the BLM. Nevada state is supporting Bundy because they want the feds out of Nevada. The other folks supported him for various reasons, all emanating from them being generally fed up with the feds.

      I support them all, but question heavily their choice of a poster boy in Cloven Bundy.

      When you go into something like this you should be 100% in the right. 2% in the wrong means you're still wrong. That's just the way it is in the court of public opinion. AndCliven Bundy is 100% in the wrong.

      As for his grazing rights, they were subject to periodic renewal. He stopped renewing them in 93. It's that simple.

    2. I get that, I really do. I'd love to be 100% in the right. Being 100% right rarely lends itself to being a firebrand case, though. Public opinion is a malleable thing, and much of it isn't shaped by us. A pliant media can make Saints of Sinners and vice versa, and there's precious few of us they couldn't pin SOMETHING on. The whole 5 felonies a day, after all.

    3. I agree, but Cliven isn't a "5 felonies a day without knowing it" guy, he's a "blatantly, knowingly, unlawfully, and with zero regard for the rule of law ignore several court orders and continue to trespass" type of a guy.

      There's a difference.

      No one is perfect. You'll never be 100% right, but if you're going to break out the torches and pitchforks and start shooting people, or at least threatening to do so, don't you think that you should at least TRY to be in the right?

      Because Bundy is not in the right, even a little bit.

      I'm all for symbolic civil disobedience in the face of tyranny, but Cliven hasn't been standing in front of the feds saying "I'm running them anyway, STOP ME!" for 20 years now. This isn't civil disobeidence. It's just disregard for the rule of law and disregard for property rights of any sort.

      I say that because he's just been doing it surreptitiously and making a buck off of it, instead of doing it blatantly to make a political statement. And when he got caught, he got violent.

      You can't be 100% right, but can we at least try to find someone who isn't quite so wrong?