BLM ON TEXAS LAND: NOT A LAND GRAB, IT’S ALREADY OURS

Breitbart ^ | April 25, 2014 | By Bob Price

[Jim Robinson]

I believe this will be fighting words to a lot of Texans.

God bless Texas.

[driftdiver]

They don’t think think they are above the law. They think they are the law.

[bicyclerepair]

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......

[Army Air Corps]

Texas Ping.

[Colonel_Flagg]

The Bureau claims it is not they who are declaring the ownership but that settled case law long declared it to be government land.

The classic liberal mantra. "It's settled. Now shut up."

[GeronL]

bump

[Alex Murphy]

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. “It’s 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.”

"...and this time, we're bringing tanks."

[wideawake]

So the BLM's argument is that they can seize hundreds of thousands of acres of land based on an obscure court decision almost 100 years ago that was never enforced?

Wow.

[humblegunner]

“That land was a matter that the courts adjudicated decades ago, going back to the 1920s in fact.

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.

[rolling_stone]

Santa is making a list and checking it twice..Paul McGuire

[grobdriver]

we're bringing tanks...

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.

[Army Air Corps]

Ping.

[Ancient Man]

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.

[Jim Robinson]

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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y_Mqkpivcg

Link to article:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57855791-90/state-federal-blm-lands.html.csp

[PowderMonkey]

"Come and take it."

[TADSLOS]

Looks like it’s time for Texans to just go and take claim back from the BLM.

[alloysteel]

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.

[tennmountainman]

Amen. God bless Texas.
If BLM shows up in Texas, tens of thousands of Texas Patriots will
greet them.

[servantboy777]

>>God bless Texas.<<

God have mercy on BLM

[alloysteel]

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.