“The 140-acres were at no time held in private ownership.”
Then explain this:
VAN SUSTEREN: And they seized it without any compensation?
HENDERSON: Yes. I bought the land in 1979. As a matter of fact, I borrowed a portion of the money from Farmer’s Home Administration,... And they came out and inspected the land and said it was all here, surveyed it, and forced me to buy a title policy. And when we lost it, they refused to pay, even though they said that they guaranteed the title to this place whenever I was buying it and so, I have continued to have to pay for this land or the federal government would seize everything else I had. I made my last payment this January on land that I lost in 1984 in a lawsuit.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3147677/posts
That’s pretty much bleeped up. If he purchased title insurance, and an FHA loan would have required it, then it looks like time for the insurance to pay up. OR for BLM to pack up and go home. If there is a title insurance claim then the fight would be over which feral agency pays it?
While the feds are explaining how the land was never held in private ownership, perhaps they could explain how They rather than the Texas State or Local Government ain’t the owners then.
Washington Never owned any part of Texas before Statehood, and if the Texas State Government sold it to Washington there should be some Record of that in Austin. Somehow I don’t think there is such a record.