This post sux.
kthxbye!
This post sux.
kthxbye!
No. "Squatters" do not get title to land if they sit on it long enough and definitely not if they are not physically living on it, at least not under Nevada law or Federal law. This is Federal land and is not in his possession.Originally Posted by LHutton
No, that is not how progressive democracy works. That is how mob rule works.
I'm not sure why you think it is acceptable (let alone desirable) for 5,000 easily led, well-armed, angry automatons to show up and physically threaten law enforcement in the name of defending an avowed lawbreaker who has stated for the record that he does not believe in any legitimate legal authority from the government.
In this case, a person has broken a civil contract and there are consequences to it. It is not "democracy" when a group of people with perhaps a second grader's understanding of the Constitution come in and start ranting nonsensically and brandishing guns to prevent the rule of law from being applied and administered. It is mob rule and terrorism. Ignorance of the law is not a defense.
This individual is not paying his rent. His landlord is the government in this case, and they have every right to take back their property and sell off whatever he leaves on it and, if necessary, send him to jail if he continues to trespass.
Check adverse possession on that.
They are not completely exclusive.
After the period of 1877 to 1973 uncontested, it is his land. Statements about automatons are somewhat comical but irrelevant. They lost their rights after the 19th century ended. The Feds have as much right to sell off his cattle as Mexicans have rights to sell off Feds.
First, Adverse Possession is a dicey argument at best - but second, note where I say "living on." If your actions do not change the land from a wild and natural state, there is no possibility of a claim. Even if it does, it's a serious longshot and - in this case - impossible, as the Federal Government clearly OWNS THE LAND.
In this case, yes they kind of are. We have a group of people with little or no understanding of the law who are angry about basically nebulous things who are interfering directly with the enforcement of laws they do not like. They are free to use their votes to change those laws but have instead chosen to brandish high powered firearms and threaten agents of the law who, as it happens, actually know the law they are talking about because that is their job.
The only conclusion of the actions displayed in conjunction with this incident is that if enough radical right wing militia guys don't like something, they can stop the law from enforcing that thing or protecting that thing. That is not at all democracy - that is mob rule in the street, and it is untenable in a society based on the rule of law.
The law is quite clear that the Federal Government owns this land (and alot of other land in Nevada) and that this individual is trespassing on it. He can use it, like anybody else, if he pays the fees that are required. He is not. Ergo, the landlord has every right to seize any property he's left on it and auction it off, and hopefully, put him in jail if he continues to trespass.
As far as automatons, I have no other definition for people who are totally ignorant of the law but talk about it all the time and are willing to band together into a kind of frenzied mob wielding high-powered rifles to get their way "in the name of freedom" when it is so clearly "in the name of whatever we feel like." It isn't comical at all, it's deeply depressing. And since our country has had some experience with nutjob militias before, rather distressing. But not so distressing as the various far-right media outlets doling out the red meat as if there are no consequences.
Last edited by Taimar; April 18th, 2014 at 01:14 PM.
Exactly. This is akin to someone losing a court case then holding the judge at gunpoint until they change their mind, the next step toward anarchy.
After 137 years says who?
To put things in perspective, if you were on land for 4 generations, with inheritance passing it on, you would assume that land is yours. High powered firearms were only a counter-balance to those who first nabbed the land from the Mexicans bringing the same.
It's a large scale protest + civil disobedience, no different from a gay rights parade. Nobody wants a Ruby Ridge, they just want the Feds to walk away.
Should have told him back in the 19th century after the Civil War rather than after the Vietnam War.
Taimar, all governments of the world are just mobs wielding high-powered weapons to get their way, occasionally tossing in the word 'freedom', when it is so clearly "in the name of what they feel like." It is comical, but I have ceased being depressed. And since countries are ran by nutjob militias anyway, all's fair. Consequences? Toss a coin, roll a dice, all be warned, it won't end nice.
If you have never gotten a deed to land you got from the government legitimately and the Government has never ceded any claim to said property, if the property is very clearly part of Federal territory, then the Federal Government owns the land. If you own it, produce a deed. Produce tax receipts. Don't have these things? That's probably because you do not own it and the Government does.
With no paperwork, no proof, no estate taxation, no nothing? I think not. This is not a family heirloom rocking chair, it's a piece of land. There are civil laws that govern that transfer.
No, they were explicitly and specifically intended to be a physical threat to the safety of law enforcement officers who were acting in accordance with the law. "Law Enforcement" is called that for a reason - those people are there to enforce the law. And the law is quite clear.
When was the last time you saw 5,000 armed people at a Gay Pride Parade (or any Gay Rights event, ever, for that matter)? This is not to say that all demonstrations for civil rights have always been 100% peaceful. But they did not come at end of a gun barrel.
Did Gandhi use armed militias? Martin Luther King? Harvey Milk? We did not achieve equality under the law for Gay people by showing up with guns saying "You're not going to enforce these unfair laws or I'm going to start killing people." We demonstrated why the laws were unfair and in time, most rational people (and I'm specifically going to exclude American Right Wing Militias from this) realized that yes, those laws were unfair.
But there's nothing unfair about asking somebody to pay rent on land they are using that is not theirs and for which ownership and use permissions are quite clearly delineated.
There is -
A. nothing analogous here to a civil rights march of any kind and
B. nothing analogous here to civil disobedience. Bringing large quantities of firearms and threatening to shoot people if you don't get your way is not civil disobedience, it's a criminal temper tantrum.
That doesn't seem to be the case when you gather hundreds, maybe thousands, of armed people in one place to deter law enforcement from doing it's job and then complain that you are besieged, nor does it seem to be the case when you call it a "battle" after you "win."
Some, yes. There is an element of truth there, but it's under a big layer of paranoia, among other things.
Governments are not all the same and run the gamut from very representative of their people's interests in a benevolent way to, say, North Korea or Eritrea - totally repressive regimes ruled by small cabals controlling all the force.
But we do not live in Eritrea or North Korea.
But in the United States, we choose our elected representatives and they make laws. We pay taxes to support the infrastructure of the world around us - not only physical infrastructure but the systems of business, commerce, and law enforcement that make our lives possible. We voluntarily agree to this because the alternative is essentially anarchy where whomever has the largest gun does whatever he/she pleases. In a society like this, compromises must be made. I must pay for things I do not want or do not agree with - I must give up the ability to do some things in exchange for the ability to continue doing others and to have the opportunity to do still more.
The "civil" in "civil disobedience" implies that it is non-violent and that it uses, in some respects, the existing legal system to effect change. It preserves, in many senses, the social compact of living in a civil society.
The problem here is that a group of people do not believe they should have to be part of that social compact - which is at the heart of all Democratic Governments - and they are willing to use force to do whatever they want, which is a detriment to the rest of us in many very serious ways.
Unless you are an anarchist, then you have to acknowledge the difference between a group of angry people on the street and an elected, representative government. There may be some semblance of similarity but no, the two are not analogous. Particularly given that the specific angry people in the street here seem more obsessed with "getting back at the government" for perceived oppression (it's unclear what real oppression they have ever experienced) than with any actual legal cause. And again, they talk and talk about the Constitution but seem never to have actually read it or studied it.
If your argument is "this is okay because governments are similar" or "this is okay it's just civil disobedience" then I'm sorry, you've failed to make a case for this kind of activity.
Why did inheritance documents pass?
Turn that around. Where's the evidence from the other side?
In the broad scale of things, the law is just the will of a criminal gang, who have provably taken several lands by same said force.
They certainly weren't 100% peaceful. The folk at the Bundy ranch are just cutting a long point short by bringing guns. That's for sure.
Gandhi's eyes were blue, you know the rest. As I said, the guns are just there to speed up the process of realising what's fair.
After 96 years uncontested and 137 years total occupation, who says it isn't theirs?
That's a matter of perspective. Same can be said the other way round too. Feds bringing ARs to a protest is a Federal temper tantrum.
People in concentration camps were just doing their job, WTF does that even mean? If you bring assault rifles to a dispute don't complain when the opposition brings them too.
Those are just very honest, up-front dictatorships, not pretending to be anything else.
The laws of commerce that allow people in banks to commit fraud (e.g. LIBOR etc.) without personal detriment? Largest gun does as he/she pleases, directed by largest wallet. Man on 6-figure salary at end of career with millions and millions in the bank.
Well it was civil. Nobody fired, did they?
Nope, the problem here is that some sweaty old man has been paid to let the Chinese build a solar farm on land that has been occupied and managed by a US citizen for over a century and he is willing to use both force and farce to obtain his cash.
Well now, would this be the same elected representative government who recognised an angry bunch of Ukranian people on the street over an elected, representative government? It's really wibbly-wobbly morality. Two choices only. People pick the least crap. May not really be representative.
Last edited by LHutton; April 18th, 2014 at 03:12 PM.
I think Taimar hit the nail on the head. Let's give this guy the benefit of the doubt and the land. Then hit him for 137 years of unpaid property tax. See what happens then. Fairly sure it goes something something jail time.
Perhaps not after a suit for harassment and property damage.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote