Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Evidently someone wanted it and homesteaded it for 140 years.
Yet again, no they didn't. Any land that was homesteaded is now private property. The BLM land was never homesteaded. It was free-grazed at first, then as more people wanted access to the land than it could support they started selling grazing rights with rules for access. They made a change to these rules back in 1997 that this guy objected to which started this whole thing. This man has no more claim to this land than does any other tenant who violates the rules of his lease.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
The BLM has taken land..... The BLM now manages 84% of Arizona.
Counties still tax those within the boundaries for revenue.
Again, no. The land was acquired by the feds in 1848 at the end of the Mex-Am War. The residents of Nevada petitioned for statehood in 1864, but a large majority of the land in the state was given back to the feds because the state didn't want to have to deal with it. The BLM "took" nothing.
The legal theory underlying the vesting of title by adverse possession is that title to land must be certain. Since the owner has, by his or her own fault and neglect, failed to protect the land against the hostile actions of the adverse possessor, an adverse possessor who has treated the land as his or her own for a significant period of time is recognized as its owner.
Adverse possession consists of actual occupation of the land with the intent to keep it solely for oneself. Merely claiming the land or paying taxes on it, without actually possessing it, is insufficient. Entry on the land, whether legal or not, is essential.
I believe the conditions have been met, well before they took it.
Then he should have used this defense in court... instead of playing games and saying that wasn't his cattle. If he has a legitimate claim then show it it court.
Yet again, no they didn't. Any land that was homesteaded is now private property. The BLM land was never homesteaded. It was free-grazed at first, then as more people wanted access to the land than it could support they started selling grazing rights with rules for access. They made a change to these rules back in 1997 that this guy objected to which started this whole thing. This man has no more claim to this land than does any other tenant who violates the rules of his lease.
Looks like they entered a gated fence to round up the cattle.
The news crew verified that the Feds base is set up on Bundy land.
The legal theory underlying the vesting of title by adverse possession is that title to land must be certain. Since the owner has, by his or her own fault and neglect, failed to protect the land against the hostile actions of the adverse possessor, an adverse possessor who has treated the land as his or her own for a significant period of time is recognized as its owner.
Adverse possession consists of actual occupation of the land with the intent to keep it solely for oneself. Merely claiming the land or paying taxes on it, without actually possessing it, is insufficient. Entry on the land, whether legal or not, is essential.
I believe the conditions have been met, well before they took it.
It wasn't treated as "his or her own". It was leased for access/grazing/water only. He never lived on or "possessed" the land. He and his family signed lease agreements and paid rent up to 1997. Just like with lots of other rental agreements, the landlord chose to make changes to the agreement upon renewal in 1997. Mr. Bundy refused to pay for access, but stayed on the land. Other people (campers, hikers, etc.) also had access to the land, and regularly utilized it.
If Mr. Bundy's family had built a cabin on the land and occupied it since 1877, then I would agree with you. But that's not the case.
Maybe, maybe not........but you neglect to point out that the number of free blacks, especially in the South, was negligible.
Not really.
Quote:
On the other hand the black population in 1860 was 4.5 million, with about 500,000 living in the South. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. In New Orleans over 3,000 free blacks owned slaves, about 28 percent of the free Black population in the city.
So you think Africans went into Europe and kidnapped white children and brought them to America?
No, I'm saying it's entirely possible that free U.S. Blacks bought White children slaves. Do you have a source that definitively says that never happened?
But you cannot deny that a racial component DID grow out of the African slave trade.
Look at the Black slave owner statistics. I cited a link, above.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
