Posted on 04/22/2014 1:56:16 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Yeah, on my way over here a couple of hours ago, I was just reflecting on her vast, wide, deep experience in the Foreign Service before she took the top job.
How fortunate we are! </flaming sarc>
Oldest question in the book (after "how much per hour, and how much for all night?"), gets to the point: "Cui bono, for whose benefit?" It's so old, it's still in Latin.
You've been hanging around CIA guys. It's thir version of IBM's famous "THINK" slogan.
Not by Slick.....
That would cause a runaway freight train to take a dirt road.
Shhhhhh!!!
;-)
Well...I can’t exactly claim it as the FIRST to coin the phrase...but it’s been a while....(according to Google there’s our exchanges...and this:
http://www.fark.com/comments/3744212/42599295#c42599295
you have to look down the way a bit...BMulligan on 7/8/2008 even...
One of the articles said the BLM was looking at land in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas.
All correct as far as it goes. Start with Spain. Additional reasons why Texas is different.
The ADAMS/ONIS TREATY of 1819:
http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojects/TAHv3/Content/PDFs/Adams_Onis_Treaty_1819.pdf
SUPREME COURT CASES:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/260/606
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/457/172
Rule of ERROSION and ACCRETION: If a stream changes gradually due to natural errosion and accretion, the boundary changes and follows the course of the river.
Rule of AVULSION: If a river suddenly leaves it’s bed and forms a new one whether by natural or some other means, the boundary does not change and follow the course of the river.
A brief description of each and how they impact Texas and the HENDERSON CASE.
This treaty settled the boundaries of USA purchase/ownership of land. One of the issues was the boundary between current day Oklahoma and Texas.
Adams was determined to have the whole of the Red River belong to the USA. The Spanish representative wanted it to be the medial point of the River, but eventually aquiesed to Adams.(Note many states do use the medial line of a river as the boundary between them). If the medial point had been chosen, there would not have been as much contention.
Both parties agreed that the people of both nations could continue to use the Red River. Any islands in the River were to also be the property of the USA. Any grants made prior to Jan 24, 1818 to individuals were to be honored.
The Supreme Court relied heavily on the Treaty in their decision regarding the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma. There is also the treaty with the Indians to consider, which I haven’t had time to track down.
The various court rulings have resulted in the following:
1. Oklahoma Plaintiffs awarded the lands north of the medial line of the Red River.
2. Lands lying in the bed of the river south of the medial line are in trust for the Indians (owned by USA).
3. Lands of the south bank belong to Texas Land Owners subject to the rules of erosion, accretion, and avulsion.
4. The bank of the river on the south side was determined by the Supreme Court to be the high water mark - not the low water mark.(I agree with the dissenting opinion here - it should have been the low water mark).
The judge who ruled on the Henderson case relied on the prior court rulings and the rules of erosion, accretion, and avulsion. Here’s a link to the case:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/220303420/Currington-v-Henderson-1986
It sucks. I think if Henderson could trace the ownership back to an original Spanish Land Grant which included ownership to the medial point of the River, or even to the low water mark, he might have been able to prevail.
Some of the previous court cases related to the Texas/Oklahoma border were related to oil/natural resources ie: who was going to get the taxes from the companies developing the natural resources.
With all the drought in Texas, it could even just be the water supply that the Feds want to control.
That is an interesting thought...You may have something there..
As it always is, find out who benefits from this “takeover”, both power-wise and monetarily...
Follow the money is always a good investigative step.
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.