nb_cid nb_clickOther -tt-nb this.style.behavior='url(#default#homepage)';this.setHomePage('http://www.aol.com/?mtmhp=acm50ieupgradebanner_112313 network-banner-empty upgradeBanner
14
Search AOL Mail
AOL Mail
Video
Video
AOL Favorites
Favorites
Menu

Nevada rancher says US may have damaged his cows



RENO, Nev. (AP) - A Nevada rancher says he's trying to determine whether federal agents damaged any of his cattle before they released hundreds of rounded-up bovines in a showdown with angry protesters over the weekend.

Bureau of Land Management Director Neil Kornze says the agency released the cattle to avoid a potentially violent situation in a decades-long dispute over states' rights and grazing on public lands. He says Cliven (KLEYE'-vihn) Bundy owes more than $1 million in grazing fees for trespassing on federal lands since the 1990s.

The BLM suspended the roundup Saturday after armed militia members joined hundreds of states' rights protesters at the scene.

Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore says she fears some of the calves that were seized won't survive because they were separated from their mothers.

Join the discussion

1000|Characters 1000  Characters
gordonrobroy April 15 2014 at 3:47 PM

it is cheaper to pay a fee for land like this than it is to pay taxes----of course is way cheaper to pay nothing...

Flag Reply +1 rate up
factsrfun1 April 15 2014 at 1:11 PM

The government owns 85% of the state of Nevada.

Flag Reply +1 rate up
1 reply
donpantanella factsrfun1 April 15 2014 at 1:17 PM

they stole it fair and squire

Flag Reply +1 rate up
frankiep923 April 15 2014 at 2:15 PM

Nevada Rancher Says U .S. A. may have damaged his cows; What about all of the AMERICAN
PEOPLE? Don't you think that this goverment has RUINED OUR COUNTRY. They sure have split
us apart.

Flag Reply +7 rate up
1 reply
drchicago1 frankiep923 April 15 2014 at 2:17 PM

FOX NEWS has

Flag Reply +2 rate up
1 reply
summerctz drchicago1 April 15 2014 at 2:20 PM

And do tell us what Cathy Crowley and Rachel Madcow have done f or unity???

Flag +3 rate up
et500et April 15 2014 at 2:02 PM

Limits of Federal Jurisdiction

in June 1957,
the government of the United States published a work entitled:

Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within The States:

Report of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of
Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States, Part II,

Therein, the Committee stated:
"The Constitution gives express recognition to
but one means of Federal acquisition of
legislative jurisdiction
by State consent
under Article I, section 8, clause 17 ....


Justice McLean suggested that the Constitution provided
the sole mode for transfer of jurisdiction,
and that if this mode is not pursued,
no transfer of jurisdiction can take place,"
Id., at 41


"It scarcely needs to be said that
unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction (1)
pursuant to clause 17 by a Federal acquisition of land with State consent,
or (2) by cession from the State to the Federal Government,
or unless the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction upon the admission of the State,
the Federal Government possesses no legislative jurisdiction
over any area within a State,
such jurisdiction being for exercise by the State,
subject to non-interference by the State with Federal functions,"
Id., at 45.


"The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its part,
acquire legislative jurisdiction
over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State ... ”
Id., at 46.


And in United States v. Benson, 495 F.2d 475, 481 (5th Cir. 1974),
for a robbery committed at Fort Rucker, the court stated:

"It is axiomatic that the prosecution must always
prove territorial jurisdiction
over a crime
in order to sustain a conviction therefor."


http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/fedjurisreport.pdf
.
.
.
.
.
.

Flag Reply +5 rate up
2 replies
msnova47 et500et April 15 2014 at 2:12 PM

I don't know the decision to site, (you sound like a lawyer who cites the cases that agree with you), but the Supreme court whose decisions supersede any "commission", has decided this in favor of the federal government.

Flag Reply +4 rate up
1 reply
et500et msnova47 April 15 2014 at 2:19 PM

The commission read the Constitution,
perhaps you can also,
after you are done reading the Bible.

Flag 0 rate up
windanseasalvage et500et April 15 2014 at 2:48 PM

All Legal crap..you know it and I know it. Barak just sent 5 billion to Ukraine. Barak can steal any portion of any state with the same simplicity. It boils down to tyrantical behavior. Who are the tyrants ? They are Bankers and their minions Lawyer.

Flag Reply +1 rate up
john April 15 2014 at 2:28 PM

Who is "right" here remains to be seen in my mind as Lawyers will have a field day. I just can't believe our stupid government used totally inappropriate tactics (guns, snipers, etc), spent all kinds of money to seize the cows, then turned around and let them loose. What a bunch of idiots.

Flag Reply +10 rate up
1 reply
chrischev1234 john April 15 2014 at 2:51 PM

And their very lucky none of them got killed, they were down in a bad spot with no cover and surrounded by 100s of militia on high ground. When they looked around and saw that they hauled ass, literally. They had to have someone else go clean up their crap they left .

Flag Reply +3 rate up
quarterz25 April 15 2014 at 2:26 PM

Why don't all you people who say he should go to jail and is a freeloader, etc ask yourself this question. If he has lost all these court cases over decades, why is he still out there going about his business? When the government "wins" its case you either pay up, go to jail or have assets seized. If it was a legitament suit brought by the federal government why has it been decades and counting? Something smells here and my advice is follow the money to see why this is such an issue now.

Flag Reply +12 rate up
1 reply
summerctz quarterz25 April 15 2014 at 2:38 PM

Excellent points!

Flag Reply +5 rate up
THE MUSIC STUDIO April 15 2014 at 2:14 PM

YeeeeEEEEEE HAWAAAAAAaaaaa

Flag Reply +1 rate up
gordonrobroy April 15 2014 at 3:50 PM

and the BLM will sell of tracts of land to people that want the pride of ownership and want to pay real estate taxes....

Flag Reply +1 rate up
lreidsgoelpaso April 15 2014 at 12:16 PM

Bundy and family have stated that they (had) have no problem with the payment for grazing rights fees and in fact tried to make appropriate payments to thecounty/state, but were refused. (I think I heard county officials verify this) It would have seemed the proper action would have been to deposit yearly grazing fee payments into an escrow account, the distribution of which could have subsequently been determined by further court actions and thus elimination of the basis for BLMs claim that their actions were based soley on Bundy's failure to pay grazing fees.

Flag Reply +3 rate up
4 replies
MARLENE April 15 2014 at 11:59 AM

When my husband and I purchased this house in 1963 I did not know where our property line was. The people to the left of us kept cutting the grass within five feet of our house so I assumed the fifteen feet between our house and theirs belonged to them. (Their house was build prior to building code) I planted three rose buses on this side of the five feet and her son cut them down with the lawn mower. I later heard there is equal amount of land between the houses so I tried to make a flower bed there and the lady gave me all sorts of heck, stating her son could not cut the grass there with those stakes to make my flower bed. Anyway; I found by the county 'I' was the one that had 15 feet and she had 5. If she could have gotten by with it long enough a five foot by 250 foot strip of my land could have been claimed by her. That is not nearly all. She kept moving the rear steak over more, and more into my property. We put in a swimming pool which had to be 16 feet from the property line and she had moved the stake so far into our property she would have have taken about 15 feet of the rear. I finally told her to stay on her own side. She and her husband began to put up a chainlink fence between us as we were building the swimming pool. That was fine with us; saved us money, but by coininsidence there strip of land going behind all the houses was being surveyed. The surveyer saw them at (almost) the end of putting up the fence and told them they were (only by now) 9 inches on our property. They said, they guessed they would have to remove the fence and the surveyor told them they were not allowed to touch the fence as it now belonged to me. For another forty years she complained if anyone touched the fence. Finally one day she was complaining so I said, "I want you to know something; I know...that you know......that I know that fence is on my property and I do not want to hear another word from you about it. My two year old was bitten by their dog the day we moved in as the husband was sitting on our property with his dog leashed to his chair. He saw my son walking to the "nice doggie" and allowed him close enough so the dog nipped him in the face. I did nothing because I assumed it was my fault; I was not being a good mother and allowed my son to cross the property line; I did not even know where it was. But it turned out he was sitting on my property. That is how mean those people were. As I was 29 then and 80 now, they have both died. The son-in-law tried to start some crap and as he was my age (the others were my elders that is why I did not speak up) I told him I did not want to hear another word from him, I guess my eyes told hime to shut up; he went into the house and I have not seen him since

Flag Reply +1 rate up
2 replies
drchicago1 MARLENE April 15 2014 at 12:12 PM

your point?

Flag Reply +1 rate up
fatoldfloyd MARLENE April 15 2014 at 12:16 PM

Kind of random sort of story.

Flag Reply 0 rate up
aol~~ 1209600

Voting...

1414241735303

World Series

More From Our Partners