Posted on 04/23/2014 1:47:11 PM PDT by kingattax
In a statement posted on the U.S. Bureau of Land Management website (BLM), federal officials denied any expansion of holdings along the Red River after Breitbart Texas brought the matter to national attention.
The nuanced denial has drawn critical reactions from a number of elected Texas officials.
BLM spokesman Paul McGuire said “The 140-acres in question were determined to be public land in 1986 when the U.S. District Court ruled on a case brought by two private landowners, each seeking to adjust boundary lines for their respective properties. The BLM was not a party to any litigation between landowners. The 140-acres were at no time held in private ownership.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Might want to disperse any small arms/ammo and mobile weapons systems out of the NG armories before the Feds can secure them.
They'll say he doesn't have standing and completely ignore it.
I was aware of their existence for a while before the Bundy Ranch incident. However the were always low key, never head of armed (well maybe they had a shot gun for defense against wild animals in the trucks) BLM agents before Bundy.
Where’s Billy the Kid these days?
He has filed about 30 lawsuits against the feds as AG.
You are right. That’s exactly what they are doing. It’s a common Leftist tactic, and what you posted is almost verbatim what I told my wife they were up to.
Typical Leftist.
One has to loudly call them on it, and yank the discussion back onto topic. They do it all the time, then look at you with their faces all screwed up (’cause you raised your voice), and say in their whiney, nasally tone “what’s the matter with you?” (Trying to change the topic even more by making you a bad guy, causing the discussion to become about you instead of what was originally the topic two twists back.)
They are infuriatingly incorrigible.
He also said the BLM didn't even want the land, and was not prepared to administrate it. They asked him to file some sort of paperwork, so that they wouldn't have to mess with it, but he refused.
How could an Oklahoma court take a Texan’s land? If the dispute was between to private individuals, why would the land be awarded to the BLM?
Why does the BLM claim rights to half the river? Does anyone have any links or knowledge regarding what really happened here? I just can't make head nor tails.
One thing I am sure of, the BLM is lying about not being interested in taking the thousands of acres, and the water that no doubt they are just itching to control.
/johnny
/johnny
The feds currently manage based on preservation and humans=evil. By law, they are supposed to manage for multiple use, but they ignore the law...and Congress turns a blind eye.
denied any expansion of holdings along the Red River”
*******************************************************
That just means that according to them, they already own it, hence it’s not an expansion.
I remember this. IIRC, the back story was that one of Clintoon’s supporters was in the coal business, and profited from eleimination of the potential competition.
I am so confused.
It was a Federal Court that happened to be in Oklahoma.
/johnny
>>probing the enemy’s defenses before a battle.<<
Might get their @$$e$ handed to’em. Just sayin.
Hello,
Title Insurance is one of the biggest scams ever, unless you are the bank involved in the transaction. Trust me, I know from experience... (My Dad always said that “experience is what you get when you didn’t get what you wanted”, and he was so right...)
MOgirl
That I get. How a dispute between 2 private parties wound up with land going to neither party, but to the BLM makes no sense to me.
Also, the disputed land had to be in either Oklahoma or Texas, so why would the feral court have jurisdiction to begin with?
I have been searching for a link to the case and legal justification, but haven’t found it yet.
Makes you want to puck something up and use it doesn’t it?
There is no counter point when they won’t address the subject truthfully and objectively is there?
One of my sayings is that you can’t push what doesn’t push back.
I love what Judge Napolitano said: “They picked the wrong side of the river”.
Can they be ‘Called Wet Backs’ then?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.