Martin Armstrong Asks "Do The Feds Really Own The Land In Nevada?"

[Ares]

http://i1.wp.com/armstrongeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Nevada-Protest.jpg?resize=584%2C325

QUESTION: Is it true that nearly 80% of Nevada is still owned by the Federal Government who then pays no tax to the State of Nevada? This seems very strange if true as a backdrop to this entire Bundy affair.



Via Martin Armstrong of Armstrong Economics,



REPLY: The truth behind Nevada is of course just a quagmire of politics. Nevada was a key pawn in getting Abraham Lincoln reelected in 1864 during the middle of the Civil War. Back on March 21st, 1864, the US Congress enacted the Nevada Statehood statute that authorized the residents of Nevada Territory to elect representatives to a convention for the purpose of having Nevada join the Union. This is where we find the origin of the fight going on in Nevada that the left-wing TV commenters (pretend-journalists) today call a right-wing uprising that should be put down at all costs. The current land conflict in Nevada extends back to this event in 1864 and how the territory of Nevada became a state in order to push through a political agenda to create a majority vote. I have said numerous times, if you want the truth, just follow the money.

The “law” at the time in 1864 required that for a territory to become a state, the population had to be at least 60,000. At that time, Nevada had only about 40,000 people. So why was Nevada rushed into statehood in violation of the law of the day? When the 1864 Presidential election approached, there were special interests who were seeking to manipulate the elections to ensure Lincoln would win reelection. They needed another Republican congressional delegation that could provide additional votes for the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery. Previously, the attempt failed by a very narrow margin that required two-thirds support of both houses of Congress.

http://i0.wp.com/armstrongeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1864-Elections.jpg?resize=584%2C288

The fear rising for the 1864 election was that there might arise three major candidates running. There was Abraham Lincoln of the National Union Party, George B. McClellan of the Democratic Party, and John Charles Frémont (1813–1890) of the Radical Democracy Party. It was actually Frémont who was the first anti-slavery Republican nominee back in the 1940s. During the Civil War, he held a military command and was the first to issue an emancipation edict that freed slaves in his district. Lincoln maybe credited for his stand, but he was a politician first. Lincoln relieved Frémont of his command for insubordination. Therefore, the Radical Democracy Party was the one demanding emancipation of all slaves.

With the Republicans splitting over how far to go with some supporting complete equal rights and others questioning going that far, the Democrats were pounding their chests and hoped to use the split in the Republicans to their advantage. The New York World was a newspaper published in New York City from 1860 until 1931 that was the mouth-piece for the Democrats. From 1883 to 1911 it was under the notorious publisher Joseph Pulitzer (1847–1911), who started the Spanish-American war by publishing false information just to sell his newspapers. Nonetheless, it was the New World that was desperately trying to ensure the defeat of Lincoln. It was perhaps their bravado that led to the Republicans state of panic that led to the maneuver to get Nevada into a voting position.

The greatest fear, thanks to the New York World, became what would happen if the vote was fragmented (which we could see in 2016) and no party could achieve a majority of electoral votes. Consequently, the election would then be thrown into the House of Representatives, where each state would have only one vote. Consequently, the Republicans believed they needed Nevada on their side for this would give them an equal vote with every other state despite the tiny amount of people actually living there. Moreover, the Republicans needed two more loyal Unionist votes in the U.S. Senate to also ensure that the Thirteenth Amendment would be passed. Nevada’s entry would secure both the election and the three-fourths majority needed for the Thirteenth Amendment enactment.

http://i0.wp.com/armstrongeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1864-vote.jpg?resize=584%2C339

The votes at the end of the day demonstrate that they never needed Nevada. Nonetheless, within the provisions of the Statehood Act of March 21, 1864 that brought Nevada into the voting fold, we see the source of the problem today. This Statehood Act retained the ownership of the land as a territory for the federal government. In return for the Statehood that was really against the law, the new state surrendered any right, title, or claim to the unappropriated public lands lying within Nevada. Moreover, this cannot be altered without the consent of the Feds. Hence, the people of Nevada cannot claim any land whatsoever because politicians needed Nevada for the 1864 election but did not want to hand-over anything in return. This was a typical political one-sided deal.

Republican Ronald Reagan had argued for the turnover of the control of such lands to the state and local authorities back in 1980. Clearly, the surrender of all claims to any land for statehood was illegal under the Constitution. This is no different from Russia seizing Crimea. The Supreme Court actually addressed this issue in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845) when Alabama became a state in 1845. The question presented was concerning a clause where it was stated “that all navigable waters within the said State shall forever remain public highways, free to the citizens of said State, and of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost, or toll therefor imposed by said State.” The Supreme Court held that this clause was constitutional because it “conveys no more power over the navigable waters of Alabama to the Government of the United States than it possesses over the navigable waters of other States under the provisions of the Constitution.”

The Pollard decision expressed a statement of constitutional law in dictum making it very clear that the Feds have no claim over the lands in Nevada. The Supreme Court states:

The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.

So in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory.

Sorry, but to all the left-wing commentators who call Bundy a tax-cheat and an outlaw, be careful of what you speak for the Supreme Court has made it clear in 1845 that the Constitution forbids the federal rangers to be out there to begin with for the Feds could not retain ownership of the territory and simultaneously grant state sovereignty. At the very minimum, it became state land – not federal.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-20/martin-armstrong-asks-do-feds-really-own-land-nevada

[mick silver]

we the people own the land the feds work for us all and i just fired them all

[Libertarian_Guard]

Absent a time machine we'll never know for sure, but wasn't Nevada entered into the northern union primarily because of it's silver mine discoveries?

[Ponce]

But for a few very special places the government CANNOT own any real state property but only hold it for the people....... all of you, even if you have a mortgage, can have a land patent for your property and all to do is to follow the chain of command from the very first owner up to your name......I see great danger ahead for those with out the patent because they will tax all that is in and on your land, including water, sun, wind and so on......get ready for the future today, get a land patent.

V

[monty]

http://s19.postimg.org/5oj3u6a8z/image.png

http://s19.postimg.org/phqm94y8z/image.jpg

[monty]

But for a few very special places the government CANNOT own any real state property but only hold it for the people.......< >all of you.....get ready for the future today, get a land patent.

V

Under the Articles of Confederation the 13 original states agreed to turn over the territory between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississisppi River to the United States to create new states. The unappropriated or waste land, now known as public land was to be sold to pay the Revolutionary War debt.

When the Constitution was written Article IV was written almost word for word from the Articles of Confederation. The territories are to be held in trust for new states and the public land sold to pay the national debt.

However the Supreme Court has ruled that clause only applied to the Northwest Territory to pay the Revolutionary War debt.

They have also ruled the Constitution means what it said the day it was adopted.

After the California gold rush greed took over. Politicians could see the potential wealth in the western territories. The federal government began to renig on its promise to sell the public lands. The Nevada enabling act illustrates this.

The requirements of the congressional enabling act were duly incorporated at the beginning of the constitution in a section called "The Ordinance." This included the outlawing of slavery, and the statement that all undistributed public lands would be retained by the federal government and could never be taxed by the state. These provisions would be "irrevocable" without the consent of Congress and of the people of Nevada. - See more at: http://www.onlinenevada.org/articles/nevada-statehood#sthash.zc5rzobs.dpuf

[monty]

Absent a time machine we'll never know for sure, but wasn't Nevada entered into the northern union primarily because of it's silver mine discoveries?

There were reasons for both the rush to have a Nevada state, and for the irregular procedure. First, it was at a time when the nation was fighting a desperately fought Civil War, and Nevada Territory was universally and correctly perceived to be both pro-Unionist and strongly Republican. Thus, despite other territories having considerably more population, Nevada was pushed to the head of the line for statehood. As the 1864 Presidential election approached, there were certain perceived advantages in having an additional Republican state. For one thing, a Republican congressional delegation could provide additional votes for the Passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery, which earlier had narrowly failed to garner the necessary two thirds support of both houses of Congress. More overriding, however, at least in the spring of 1864 was the real fear that there might be three major candidates running for President that year, and that no party would achieve a majority of electoral votes. Then, as required by the United States constitution, the election would go into the House of Representatives, where each state would have only one vote, and where a Republican Nevada would have voting rights equal to those of populous New York or Pennsylvania. This made the admission of an additional safe Republican state seem quite necessary. - See more at: http://www.onlinenevada.org/articles/nevada-statehood#sthash.zc5rzobs.dpuf

[palani]

ARTICLE. 14. - Boundary.

Section. 1.  Boundary of the State of Nevada.  The boundary of the State of Nevada is as follows:

Commencing at a point formed by the intersection of the forty-third degree of longitude West from Washington with the forty-second degree of North latitude; thence due East along the forty-second degree of North latitude to its intersection with the thirty-seventh degree of longitude West from Washington ...

I would challenge any surveyor to take a plumb bob and place it on any point called 'Washington'. The boundary description of Nevada is very flawed. Since I don't know where it is I doubt if I have ever been there.

[Serpo]

Maybe its to do with whats under Nevada.......water

Also rumor of sub base here at ATS.................http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread300230/pg1

[monty]

Maybe its to do with whats under Nevada.......water

Also rumor of sub base here at ATS.................http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread300230/pg1

one of the commenters states Walker Lake is a fresh water lake. It is brackish. In the last 20 or so years the fish have been dieing because it is so brackish. All the businesses have closed. The reason it is salt water is it has no outlet. The level is decreasing because it evaporates more than the Walker River flows into it. Walker Lake is the remains of the prehistoric Lake Lahontan that came from the melting glaciers of the last ice age. 10,000 years of evaporation have resulted in it being a saltwater lake. Pyramid lake north of Reno is also a saltwater lake.

There are a lot of aquifers under Nevada. The Desert Research institute told my father there was more underground water in Big Smoky Valley than in Lake Mead. He filed for a desert entry homestead based on that information. The BLM denied his application for lack of sufficient water. Three or four years ago a farmer put in several alflalfa fields in the same area. I delivered several mixer truck loads of concrete to the farmer for his pivots. I saw the ditch the new well had cut through the sagebrish when they testd it. The farmer told me it had tested 4200 gallons a minute. They had drilled three big wells like thya for their alfalfa fields. There is water under that desert.

[Serpo]

Or gold , this company is surveying it...............http://www.futuremoneytrends.com/gold?utm_source=Future+Money+Trends&utm_campaign=abe4286d70-Astonishing+_Gains_&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9a1f3a75ec-abe4286d70-174635125

[monty]

Or gold , this company is surveying it...............http://www.futuremoneytrends.com/gold?utm_source=Future+Money+Trends&utm_campaign=abe4286d70-Astonishing+_Gains_&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9a1f3a75ec-abe4286d70-174635125


Nevada is a big gold producer.

[Ponce]

Any mining company that has a land patent only own what is under the ground and not the ground itself........ they can have a shack to keep the tools but not a house........

V

[monty]

Any mining company that has a land patent only own what is under the ground and not the ground itself........ they can have a shack to keep the tools but not a house........

V

I think there is another type of land patent called a millsite patent. where the mining company can get 5 acres patented for the mill buildings.

My house is on a patented mining claim. I only have surface rights to fifty feet deep. The mining company owns below the fifty feet.

[monty]

Alaska claims they own the land under the navigable rivers. According to Pollard's Lesee v Hagan they do


The stipulation contained in the 6th section of the act of Congress, passed on the 2d of March, 1819, for the admission of the State of Alabama into the union, viz.:"that all navigable waters within the said State shall forever remain public highways, free to the citizens of said State, and of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost, or toll therefor imposed by said State,"
conveys no more power over the navigable waters of Alabama to the Government of the United States than it possesses over the navigable waters of other States under the provisions of the Constitution.
And it leaves as much right in the State of Alabama over them as the original States possess over navigable waters within their respective limits.
The shores of navigable waters, and the soils under them, were not granted by the Constitution to the United States, but were reserved to the States respectively, and the new States have the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction over this subject as the original States.
The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.
Upon the admission of Alabama into the union, the right of eminent domain, which had been temporarily held by the United States, passed to the State. Nothing remained in the United States but the public lands.
The United States now hold the public lands in the new States by force of the deeds of cession and the statutes connected with them, and not by any municipal sovereignty which it may be supposed they possess or have received by compact with the new States for that particular purpose.
That part of the compact respecting the public lands is nothing more than the exercise of a constitutional power vested in Congress, and would have been binding on the people of the new States whether they consented to be bound or not.


https://i1.wp.com/freerangereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/knik.jpg?zoom=2&resize=601%2C188

Alaska sues federal government, contending state controls riverbed, not BLM (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/04/23/alaska-sues-federal-government-contending-state-controls-riverbed-not-blm/)
(http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/04/23/alaska-sues-federal-government-contending-state-controls-riverbed-not-blm/)
April 23, 2017 (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/04/23/alaska-sues-federal-government-contending-state-controls-riverbed-not-blm/) editor (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/author/editor/) Leave a comment (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/04/23/alaska-sues-federal-government-contending-state-controls-riverbed-not-blm/#respond)


In its complaint, Alaska said it gained title to submerged lands and navigable waters when it acquired statehood, unless the federal government made any claims prior. The state said the federal government based its claim to ownership on a 1984 administrative decision of the Alaska office of federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
Chris Ford
Frontiersman.com (http://www.frontiersman.com/news/alaska-files-lawsuit-over-knik-river-ownership/article_6bbf966e-26c0-11e7-95ce-5bc3f2c22e3b.html)

Alaska files lawsuit over Knik River ownership

WASILLA — The state of Alaska filed suit against the federal government this week over a land ownership dispute regarding submerged Knik River lands.

https://i1.wp.com/bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/frontiersman.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/9/05/9052a5ca-26c0-11e7-b2bb-67e53fd2e322/58fa4fd1c2735.image.jpg?zoom=2&resize=586%2C379Approximately 28 miles of the Knik River from Turnagain Arm east to the Knik glacier is involved in a lawsuit. The State of Alaska is suing the federal government over the bottom land rights in the stretch.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court on Wednesday.

According to a spokesperson from state attorney general Jahna Lindemuth’s office, Alaska wants to assert ownership after failed past attempts to have the United States recognize Alaska ownership of the riverbed.
According to documents filed in federal district court for the District of Alaska, the United States in 2015 conveyed ownership of portions of the Knik River to Eklutna Inc. On its website, Eklutna, Inc. states it owns significant holdings in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, with approximately 67,000 additional acres due to be conveyed from the Bureau of Land Management. It also owns 90,000 acres within the Municipality of Anchorage, including areas of Eagle River, Birchwood, Chugiak, Peters Creek and Eklutna.

"Such action casts a cloud a cloud over the state’s title,” legal document filings by the state said. “In bringing this lawsuit, the State of Alaska seeks to confirm and retain its right to manage its own lands and waters…the United States claims ownership of other lands in dispute vial this complaint because of its ownership of lands abutting the Knik River.”

In its complaint, Alaska said it gained title to submerged lands and navigable waters when it acquired statehood, unless the federal government made any claims prior. The state said the federal government based its claim to ownership on a 1984 administrative decision of the Alaska office of federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM). That office concluded the stretch of river is not navigable.

The BLM amended the decision in 2002. In September of 2015, relying on its 2002 decision, the BLM issued a decision approving certain lands — chosen by Eklutna Inc. for conveyance to the corporation which represents approximately 175 shareholders, according to its website. It is an Alaskan corporation created under the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act for the Native village with the same name.

This month, the state, BLM and Eklutna officials entered into a settlement agreement to resolve state public easement concerns. BLM has indicated it would review its decision in portions within and adjacent to the disputed bottomland areas.

“This case is an important step towards clarifying ownership and access rights for the Knik River,” Lindemuth said. “I would have preferred to avoid litigation, but the federal government refused to recognize the state’s rights to these lands and waters. We are hoping that filing litigation will spur the federal government to quickly overturn its prior decision.”

The state is also seeking to recover costs and attorney fees in the case. Federal officials have yet to respond to the court.

https://i1.wp.com/freerangereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/knik.jpg?resize=640%2C456
Free Range Report

Related

BLM dumps 'experimental' survey method on Alaska that will be costly for state, private property owners (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2016/12/28/blm-dumps-experimental-survey-method-on-alaska-that-will-be-costly-for-state-private-property-owners/)December 28, 2016In "Bureau of Land Management"
Obama Antiquities Act abuses challenged by Oregon lumber companies (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/02/21/obama-antiquities-act-abuses-challenged-by-oregon-lumber-companies/)February 21, 2017In "Federal Overreach"
Arizona senators move to give Mojave County more control over public lands (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2016/09/22/arizona-senators-move-give-mojave-county-control-public-lands/)September 22, 2016In "Public Lands"

[monty]

Cliven Bundy’s Lawsuit claiming Nevada owns the land.

Mitchell doesn’t say if the lawsuit imcludes that Clark County where Bundy Ranch is was not part of the original Nevada State. It also doesn’t mention the Supreme Court opinion Barden v Northern Pacific Railroad Co. stating once rights have been established the land is no longer Public Land.


https://4thst8.wordpress.com/2018/09/07/newspaper-column-bundy-lawsuit-addresses-public-land-ownership/#respond


4TH ST8 (https://4thst8.wordpress.com/)


Newspaper column: Bundy lawsuit addresses public land ownership
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/66168421/hatpix_400x400.jpg
Sep7 (https://4thst8.wordpress.com/2018/09/07/newspaper-column-bundy-lawsuit-addresses-public-land-ownership/)by Thomas Mitchell (https://4thst8.wordpress.com/author/thomasmnv/)

A civil lawsuit filed on behalf of Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy in state district court asks the court to declare that the public land on which Bundy grazes his cattle is owned by Nevada and Clark County, not the federal government.

The chances of success are most likely slim and none, but the suit raises some salient points about the power of the federal bureaucracy to hold sway over more than 85 percent of the land in Nevada.

Bundy and his sons are notorious for the 2014 armed standoff with Bureau of Land Management agents who attempted to confiscate his cattle for his failure to pay $1 million in grazing fees and fines over two decades. Federal criminal charges against the remaining defendants in that case were dismissed when the judge ruled the prosecution failed to turn over potentially exculpatory evidence to the defendants.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/10092456_web1_10036526_web1200_bundymetro_011018cs _009_3147811.jpg (https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/bundy-blm/prosecutors-want-judge-to-reconsider-dismissal-of-cliven-bundy-case/)Cliven Bundy (R-J pix)

The civil lawsuit (https://www.scribd.com/document/386831961/Bundy-Lawsuit#download&from_embed) — drafted by Larry Klayman, often described as an activist right-wing lawyer and founder of Judicial Watch, and Craig Mueller, who earlier this year lost a primary bid for attorney general — cites court cases, U.S. and Nevada constitutional history, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in which Mexico ceded much of the West to the United States and legislative proclamations.

The suit notes the state Legislature has never consented to allow the U.S. government to own more than 85 percent of the land within the state’s borders.
When the Constitution was being drafted James Madison raised concerns about giving Congress too much power to purchase land in the states, saying “that this power might be made use of to enslave any particular state by buying up its territory, and that the strongholds proposed would be a means of awing the state into an undue obedience to the general government.”

Constitutional Convention delegate Rufus King moved to add the phrase “by consent of the legislature of the state (https://4thst8.wordpress.com/2016/11/11/newspaper-column-bundy-acquittal-renews-debate-over-federal-land/)” to the section that mentioned the federal government owning forts, docks and “other needful Buildings.” It passed unanimously. With the exception of the Nevada Test Site, few of the federal land holdings in Nevada have been with the consent of the Legislature.

Bundy’s suit further explains the intent of a section of the Nevada Constitution known as the Disclaimer Clause that said the state does “forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States.”

Klayman and Mueller write, “The intent of the Territorial Legislature was not to ceed (sic) the land to the US Government ‘forever’, but to clear title of all unappropriated lands within the Territory so U.S. Congress could dispose of the lands to the State of Nevada.”

Which is probably why the admission document promised 5 percent of the proceeds to Nevada when land would be “sold by the United States subsequent to the admission of said state into the Union …”

In fact, though the suit doesn’t mention it, that so-called Disclaimer Clause was repealed (https://4thst8.wordpress.com/2014/12/08/to-attorney-general-elect-laxalt-about-that-disclaimer-clause-in-the-state-constitution/) by the voters in 1996, “effective on the date Congress consents to amendment or a legal determination is made that such consent is not necessary …” Might the court make such a legal determination? Doubtful.

The lawsuit also mentions a section of Nevada Revised Statutes 321 (https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-321.html#NRS321Sec596) that declared, “The State of Nevada has a legal claim to the public land retained by the Federal Government within Nevada’s borders because: … The intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States was to guarantee to each of the states sovereignty over all matters within its boundaries except for those powers specifically granted to the United States as agent of the states. … The purported right of ownership and control of the public lands within the State of Nevada by the United States is without foundation and violates the clear intent of the Constitution of the United States.”

Not only has the Legislature not consented, it has vehemently protested.

The lawsuit points out on four occasions that the Bundy ranch has been in existence for 141 years, during which it has held water, grazing and property rights, adding that Bundy “has suffered substantial injury, as his cattle are his only source of income … (and) is entitled to declaratory judgment that the lands upon which he and his family have conducted its ranching, The Bundy Ranch, for generations is property belonging to the People of Nevada and its subdivision, Clark County …”

The suit raises some serious questions.

A version of this column appeared this week in many of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times (http://www.elynews.com/), the Mesquite Local News (http://mesquitelocalnews.com/), the Mineral County Independent-News (http://mcindependentnews.com/), the Eureka Sentinel (http://eurekasentinel.com/) and the Lincoln County Record (http://www.lccentral.com/) — and the Elko Daily Free Press (http://elkodaily.com/).

[Bigjon]

Bundy is notorious; nothing like throwing some negative bias from the scumbag press.