Bundy could have a case

He claims to have water and grazing rights to the land in question.  However, it does not appear to be any proof of that claim.

So, one question to be answered is why doesn't this proof exist?  There ought to be some deed of ownership of some kind that establishes what Bundy claims.   Yet, if what he says is true, that his family has improved the land in question going back 137 years, then he should have a claim under the Homestead Act.  But if he doesn't, does that mean that he forfeits his rights?

His family improved the land in question.  In the passage of time, the laws changed, but what happened to the property rights of that land?  His rights couldn't have been revoked merely by the passage of an act of Congress.  In order to deprive him of those rights, he would have had to have done something that caused this occur.  The failure to pay a fee such an occurence?

Could be, but is the fee legal?

These things have to be determined in a fair trial.  I'm wondering if he really has received one.  I don't trust the government.  There has been way too much of this thing happening.  You can read about how the government has seized property, confiscated property, and strong armed people over matters that should not have been allowed.  This could be another case where a man has been unjustly deprived of his rights.  I think there should be an investigation of what really happened here and a fair determination of what should be done about it.