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 ...
How does Washington get off Claiming it owns land in Texas?
The only way Washington could possibly get land in Texas is if someone in Texas Sold it to em. But seeing as we got 2 Texas residents disputing ownership of a plot of land That don’t seem to be the case.
The State of Texas should have detailed records proving who owns what.
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.
“Strange that such a land grab is along a major river.
Water issues are getting hotter every day in the West.”
The river in Question is the river that divides Texas and Oklahoma.
The border should be quite clear Texas or Oklahoma side of the river, which leads me to suspect that the River in this location changed course leaving more land on the Texas side and the Feds ain’t following the Treaty. That land should belong to Texas the legal successor to the Texas Republic.
FTFY
Am I reading this right?
The BLM is stating they do own 140 acres along the Red River but will not be trying to add to that? In other words, they will be trying to kick anybody off of that 140 acres.
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.