BLM: We are Worried Cliven Bundy Might Have Prescriptive Rights & He Might Use that Defense in Court

by Ben Swann      of

April 16, 2014

In this ongoing story surrounding cattle rancher Cliven Bundy, there are a series of questions media has ignored. For instance, in the 20 years Bundy hasn’t been paying his fees, why hasn’t he been taken to court? Why this year, spend nearly $1,000,000 of taxpayer money to round up 400 cattle that ultimately have to be returned? Why didn’t the BLM just place a lien on the cattle rather than attempting to take them by force and then auction them off? The Bureau of Land Management has suffered a huge black eye this week because of their response to the Bundy situation. Perhaps though, there is a reason the BLM chose force over the courts.

In an exclusive interview with, Montana cattle rancher Todd Devlin says the BLM is now considering new ways of dealing with the Cliven Bundy situation. Devlin is not just a Montana cattle rancher, but is also a County Commissioner in Prairie County Montana. He has also worked with the Department of Interior, having taught workshops for the agency in the past. Monday, Devlin reached out to his contacts in the Department of the Interior to find out why the Bureau of Land Management has refused to work with Bundy rather than simply attempting to run over him.

Among the questions Devlin asked of the BLM, “Is it possible that this guy (Cliven Bundy) has prescriptive rights?” The response from top officials at the BLM, “We are worried that he might, and he might use that defense.”

So what exactly are prescriptive rights? Prescriptive right to property is an easement that gives someone the right to use land owned by someone else for a particular purpose. An example is using a path through Party A’s land to get to your land; a prescriptive easement is allowed which gives the user the right to get to his land through A’s property.

In most states, if a trespass or use of land occurs regularly for at least 5 years without the “owner” of the land taking legal action, prescriptive rights come into play. Because Bundy stopped paying his grazing fees to the BLM in 1993, but continued to use the land for over 20 years, it is possible he now has prescriptive rights to the land. That might explain why the BLM has not taken this issue to court and never bothered to file a lien against the cattle.

Granted, there have been court actions over the years. In 1998, a federal judge issued a permanent injunction against Bundy, ordering him to remove his cattle from the federal lands. He lost an appeal to the San Francisco 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Yet, the “trespass cattle” remained on the BLM land. In fact, it took until August of 2013 for a court order to be issued saying Bundy had 45 days to remove his cattle from federal land. 15 years went by from the time of the last court case over the cattle until the BLM attempted to remove the livestock.

Of course, Bundy has not made the claim that he will not pay the fees, he simply says he will not pay those fees to the BLM because he doesn’t recognize federal authority over the land. Bundy has said that in the past that he would pay fees to Clarke County, Nevada, though Clarke County has refused to accept them. The BLM has insisted that Bundy owes $1.1 million dollars in grazing fees for his trespass cattle.

“The actual number is probably around $200,000. The $1.1 million claimed by the BLM is probably mostly interest and penalties for trespass cattle.” says Devlin, who goes on to say that it is unlikely that Clarke County would be able to collect those penalties.

When Devlin reached out to the BLM, he suggested that the federal agency just allow Bundy to pay the fees to the county rather than continuing with these aggressive tactics to confiscate his cattle.

“Why don’t you just let him pay them there (Clarke County)? I got a call back from the liaison saying ‘Yes, pursue it.'” Devlin reached out to contacts in Nevada to get that process moving forward. If that were to happen, Clarke County could collect the grazing fees and if it desired to do so could hand those fees over to the BLM.

Finally, Devlin says instead of allowing the situation with Bundy’s cattle to grow completely out of control, the BLM could have simply placed a lien on the cattle in the first place. Of course, that lien might have been rejected in court if Bundy were able to demonstrate those prescriptive rights. Then again, the courts so far have sided with the government; therefore, it is even more baffling why the lien wasn’t placed on the livestock.

Days after the BLM has claimed they will stand down, they are now reportedly considering a lien on the cattle,

“I asked why you didn’t put a lien against the cattle?” Devlin asked the BLM. “They hadn’t thought about that, but they are considering it now.”


Obamacare Provision: “Forced” Home Inspections

Ladies and Gentlemen:

The title of this article alone should scare the pants off of potential and current Obamacare users. Federal agents, under this absurd, horribly mismanaged law, can, if they see fit, come into your or my home for any reason whatsoever. That is personally violative in so many ways that I cannot count the number. We have a constitution that forbids such activity.

Joshua Cook presents the evil, despicable details below.

While this story is almost 1 year old, it bears reading, as another piece of our freedom is taken away and the public remains apathetic toward this law, in part, because of all the freebies involved.


by Joshua Cook    August 14, 2013

from freedom

“Clearly, any family may be visited by federally paid agents for almost any reason.”  

According to an Obamacare provision millions of Americans will be targeted.

The Health and Human Services’ website states that your family will be targeted if you fall under the “high-risk” categories below:

  • Families where mom is not yet 21.
  • Families where someone is a tobacco user.
  • Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities.
  •  Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States.

There is no reference to Medicaid being the determinant for a family to be “eligible.”

In 2011, the HHS announced $224 million will be given to support evidence-based home visiting programs to “help parents and children.” Individuals from the state will implement these leveraging strategies to “enhance program sustainability.”

Constitutional attorney and author Kent Masterson Brown states,

“This is not a “voluntary” program. The eligible entity receiving the grant for performing the home visits is to identify the individuals to be visited and intervene so as to meet the improvement benchmarks. A homeschooling family, for instance, may be subject to “intervention” in “school readiness” and “social-emotional developmental indicators.” A farm family may be subject to “intervention” in order to “prevent child injuries.” The sky is the limit.

 Although the Obama administration would claim the provision applies only to Medicaid families, the new statute, by its own definition, has no such limitation. Intervention may be with any family for any reason. It may also result in the child or children being required to go to certain schools or taking certain medications and vaccines and even having more limited – or no – interaction with parents. The federal government will now set the standards for raising children and will enforce them by home visits.”

Part of the program will require massive data collecting of private information including all sources of income and the amount gathered from each source.

A manual called Child Neglect: A Guide for Prevention, Assessment, and Intervention includes firearms as potential safety hazard  and will require inspectors to verify safety compliance and record each inspection into a database.

Last session South Carolina Rep. Bill Chumley introduced a bill, H.3101 that would nullify certain provisions of Obamacare. The bill would give the state attorney general the authority to authorize law enforcement to arrest federal agents for trespassing. It would make forced home inspections under Obamacare illegal in South Carolina. It passed in the House but died in the senate.

Kent Brown and Rep. Rick Quinn discuss “forced” home inspections under Obamacare in the video [link] below.                              I put this in

UPDATE: Politifact has said this article is a lie. Snopes has claimed it is false. Both are left leaning sites, of course, but we have refutation of their claims from Constitutional attorney Kent Brown. Click here to read the refutation.


To The Legislators Of Missouri

Written to my legislature in Missouri. This is a letter that was composed via electronic form and will get to the Chairman of The General Laws committee in the Senate. It dealt with Article 5 of the United States constitution and the need for Missouri to take it up and overwhelmingly pass it.

Here it is:

“It is critical we stop the intrusive, unwanted, continual overreaching of the executive arm of our federal government. Inaction will send a deeply troubling message to all who value liberty and our inspired, limited federal constitution, which should remain tied in its proper place with “chains” as described by founding father, Thomas Jefferson.

In his farewell address to this nation, George Washington enunciated the following:

“Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.” Farewell Address, September 19, 1796.

It is because of this “pretended patriotism,” amongst other factors, by our president, Barack Hussein Obama, that we are forced to elevate Article V of the Constitution of the United States to operational status in the state of Missouri.

It is now imperative and necessary that the legislature of the state of Missouri do its aforementioned duty and endorse Article 5 of this favored nation with all the political muscle of a biblical Sampson. To do less than that, at this time, would be heinous inaction.

Gary Allen, author of the 1971 book titled, “NONE DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY”, laments to an audience, through the technology of YouTube, the following:

“Under a constitutional republic {the United States},it is absolutely impossible to have a dictatorship. The reason is that no person can get his hands on enough power to be a dictator. Under the form that we are rapidly arriving at in this country, where everything is under the executive branch, you can’t AVOID a dictator.”

It is my hope that we will avoid a dictator and pass Article 5 of our limited constitutional republic. Let the state of Missouri stand up for what is right and endorse Article 5 of our beloved constitution. Thank you.