Skip to comments.BLM ON TEXAS LAND: NOT A LAND GRAB, ITíS ALREADY OURS
Posted on 04/25/2014 11:04:36 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Oklahoma Field Office responded to Breitbart Texas about the so-called Red River land grab by emphasizing that parcels in question are already held in the public domain and BLM-managed. The Bureau claims it is not they who are declaring the ownership but that settled case law long declared it to be government land.
BLM Public Relations Specialist Paul McGuire agreed to a one-on-one telephone interview with Breitbart Texas after reading the original report published earlier this week. In contrast with the interview with Texas General Land Office Commissioner Jerry Patterson, McGuire expressed much more confidence about the ownership of the land and indicated little, if any, ambiguity about how or why the land should be under federal control.
Its not the BLM making any such claim as to the status of the land, McGuire said. That land was a matter that the courts adjudicated decades ago, going back to the 1920s in fact. The Supreme Court settled the matter as to where the public land in the Red River was. So, BLM is really just proceeding on those earlier court decisions.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
God bless Texas.
They don’t think think they are above the law. They think they are the law.
Didn’t Ayn Rand say something relevant here?
When the law no longer protects you from the corrupt, but protects the corrupt from you, your nation is doomed......
The classic liberal mantra. "It's settled. Now shut up."
"...and this time, we're bringing tanks."
It was "adjudicated" in 1836, 1845 & 1849 you ill-bred puddle-lapping mongrel of a revenuer.
If they click "go" on this.. hijinks will ensue.
Santa is making a list and checking it twice..Paul McGuire
If they bring a knife, you bring a gun.
If they bring a handgun, you bring a rifle.
If they bring a tank, you bring an A-10.
If they thought Bundy Ranch was bad, just let them try it here. There are still too many of us around who remember Waco. Never again.
Here’s a debate on the BLM controlling public lands. The smug progressive, ie, communist BLM bureaucrat even arrives about ten minutes late and then informs everyone that the real problems are that there is not enough money available for education and welfare and that our current problems actually began in the 80’s when the progressive tax rates were reduced. This is all about moving the communist agenda and not about anything else.
Direct link to debate:
Link to article:
Looks like it’s time for Texans to just go and take claim back from the BLM.
Case law is becoming an ever more unreliable basis for future determinations of either fairness or justice.
Because judicial courts do not determine “right” or “wrong”, they only designate what is either legal or illegal.
Case law, based on the old English law code, preceded the application of the standards of the US Constitution, and the framework of the Declaration of Independence. It has evolved since then to cover situations that may only exist in a certain set of circumstances, and in a given time period. As a result, case law has many contradictions and outright opposing precedents, which in the end, only succeed in enriching the legal profession.
And does not do a thing for their public perception.
Amen. God bless Texas.
If BLM shows up in Texas, tens of thousands of Texas Patriots will
>>God bless Texas.<<
God have mercy on BLM
Has anyone ever heard of the doctrine of “adverse occupancy”?
It varies from state to state, but if an individual has occupied a certain piece of property, enjoying its benefits as if in ownership, without challenge from any other individual or entity, up to and including the payment of land taxes (not necessarily fees), for a certain period of time (from maybe one or two, up to twenty years or more), title then may be awarded to the occupant of the land.
This also works on fractional parts of the bundle or rights that goes with property, including easements and water rights.
Your right Jim, The Federal Government doesn’t own the land the American People own the land and Parks and State, Federal Buildings!!!
>>too many of us around who remember Waco. Never again.<<
Waco? What was that? Oh, I remember. You mean the murder of innocent children by the federal gubbamint?
Exactly what I was thinking.
But, I am betting that it doesn’t apply to the government.
Well past time to be using GPS as part of the plot boundaries. Especially for land near and abutting moving water.
wow... How I loves me an understatement, yes I do.
It’s already been stated, if they surround someone, they themselves will be surrounded.
The BLM doesn’t own any of the land. The Fed, in reality based on original intent, manages the land until it is disposed of, and it is intended to be disposed of.
This Obama government needs a good dressing down. They “own” nothing, the people do.
Only hope for this country is their removal. What an arrogant bunch of bastards.
Thanks. Will read/watch this weekend.
[ From the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) — Oklahoma Field Office: ]
This land’s not your land, this land is MY land
From California to the New York Island,
From the Redwood Forests, to the Gulf stream waters,
This land belongs to only ME...
Yeah, but they dispose of it to foreign entities while lining their own pockets by selling out America.
“...and this time, we’re bringing tanks.”
I want the video rights to the moment when Mr. Track meets Mr. Ooze along that river’s bottom land.
The BLM is a raving band of morons if they think they can push Texas around like this.
As an odd coincidence, I watched the John Wayne movie “Red River” last night on TCM.
Start something up in Texas to take the pressure and closer looking off of what he and his family have been up to in Nevada?
Just doesn't make sense to start up in Texas, right now especially, except to use it as a distraction.
Ain't no way the BLM is going to win this and they know it.
Is it possible land is being put up as collateral on our debt??? I am not
sure if this a possibility!!!
That doesn’t seem to be what the State of Texas thinks. So maybe the BLM had better double check their facts?
This case is different than Bundy, and the BLM has less standing.
Of course, they will escalte it. Expect more mercs this time.
IIRC, the Feds can only own such lands as are defined in the Constitution. The Feds are merely the stewards of other such lands as the public entrusts to them.
PS IIRC, that stewardship is revocable subject to management success/failure.
I read an article last week that said land was being put up for collateral. Can’t remember what article it was. There are so many right now.
Obama continues to test the will and resolve of the states and the American people. In Marxist fashion, he's much more aggressive against the citizens of his own country than he is any foreign aggressor. Among other things, he wants to implement the U.N Agenda 21 here. As far as I'm concerned, that's treasonous as it surrenders U.S. sovereignty to a foreign power. I hope he meets his match in Texas as well as Nevada.
That was written by a communist..................
“Adverse occupancy” also applies to government land.
And of course, there was always the concept of “homesteading” and “proving up the land”. Much of the West was settled in just this way.
But territory once occupied by the nation that used to be known as “the United States of America” might no longer be subject to this old established tenet of English common law.
The citizens OWN THIS LAND!!! The government survives on us!!! HOW
can they put OUR land up for collateral WE PAY FOR IT???
There are only two ways by which the US Government is able to obtain land. Article II section 2 treaty with another country and Article I section 8 with the approval of the state legislature.
This does not appear to qualify for either.
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.