Don't Mess with Texas?

[Katzndogz]

what are they?

There is the 140 acres that the BLM got from Tom Henderson 30 years ago. That went to court and the court held that the 140 acres was federal land because they redrew the border. Since Henderson had a deed for the fully paid for land in question, he still had to pay property taxes on it or lose his entire ranch as it was one parcel.

Today, separate from the 30 year old case is the issue of 90,000 acres of land in a 116 mile stretch along the Red River that is owned by multiple landowners. BLM again unilaterally redrew the border and says that the deeded land never belonged to the owners in the first place, when they bought it.

Two incidents thirty years apart.

The attorney general knows this. Texans probably know that it's two cases thirty years apart.

weird. the court doesn't have the power to redraw property lines - so my guess is you're full of shit on that count. and if Henderson's deed was so clear that he had to pay property taxes on that 140 acres he should have been able to prove his case in court. he could not.

as for the 90,000 acres - that's entirely made up. the blm says they are not interested in that land. the only people that claim they are are jackasses that want to thump their chests and say 'don't mess with texas'

I see that you just aren't cognizant enough of the issues. You are filling in your blanks with suppositions.

The facts are what the facts are.

 

[RKMBrown]

And how do the say they got title to that land? A court doesn't have the authority to give it to them when settling a private land dispute.

your right. if the court gave it to them that would be wrong.

but that's not what happened. the issue was decided in 1986, but the land already belonged to the federal government.

How could the court say the land belonged to the feds when deciding a boundary issue between two private land owners. The feds had not laid a claim to that point, they weren't even a party to the suit.

In this case there were three owners. OK, TX, and an Indian Reservation. The BLM are representing the lands handed to the indians by treaty.

The issue is the river banks change over time.

 

[Katzndogz]

your right. if the court gave it to them that would be wrong.

but that's not what happened. the issue was decided in 1986, but the land already belonged to the federal government.

How could the court say the land belonged to the feds when deciding a boundary issue between two private land owners. The feds had not laid a claim to that point, they weren't even a party to the suit.

pretty easy. if my neighbor to the west claims they own part of my land, and my neighbor to the east says they own that same land, and they take the issue to court the court would be right in telling them both to go to hell and that the land belongs to me.

or say i sell part of my land and a portion of my neighbors land to an individual. then i sell a different part of my land and the same portion of neighbors land to a second individual. they have a dispute over who owns that portion of land, take it to the court, and the court finds that neither of them do since i didn't have the right to sell it.

The boundary of your land is a stream. The stream changes course and moves two miles on your property. Do you still own the land up to the stream and lose the two miles on the other side, or do you own two miles past the stream.

When you get an understanding of the meaning of the words accretion and avulsion get back to us.

 

[ogibillm]

There is the 140 acres that the BLM got from Tom Henderson 30 years ago. That went to court and the court held that the 140 acres was federal land because they redrew the border. Since Henderson had a deed for the fully paid for land in question, he still had to pay property taxes on it or lose his entire ranch as it was one parcel.

Today, separate from the 30 year old case is the issue of 90,000 acres of land in a 116 mile stretch along the Red River that is owned by multiple landowners. BLM again unilaterally redrew the border and says that the deeded land never belonged to the owners in the first place, when they bought it.

Two incidents thirty years apart.

The attorney general knows this. Texans probably know that it's two cases thirty years apart.

weird. the court doesn't have the power to redraw property lines - so my guess is you're full of shit on that count. and if Henderson's deed was so clear that he had to pay property taxes on that 140 acres he should have been able to prove his case in court. he could not.

as for the 90,000 acres - that's entirely made up. the blm says they are not interested in that land. the only people that claim they are are jackasses that want to thump their chests and say 'don't mess with texas'

I see that you just aren't cognizant enough of the issues. You are filling in your blanks with suppositions.

The facts are what the facts are.

you're right. and the courts, as arbiters, looked at the facts and the blm now controls that land.

do you have any facts that prove that ruling wrong?

 

[nodoginnafight]

There is the 140 acres that the BLM got from Tom Henderson 30 years ago. That went to court and the court held that the 140 acres was federal land because they redrew the border. Since Henderson had a deed for the fully paid for land in question, he still had to pay property taxes on it or lose his entire ranch as it was one parcel.

Today, separate from the 30 year old case is the issue of 90,000 acres of land in a 116 mile stretch along the Red River that is owned by multiple landowners. BLM again unilaterally redrew the border and says that the deeded land never belonged to the owners in the first place, when they bought it.

Two incidents thirty years apart.

The attorney general knows this. Texans probably know that it's two cases thirty years apart.

weird. the court doesn't have the power to redraw property lines - so my guess is you're full of shit on that count. and if Henderson's deed was so clear that he had to pay property taxes on that 140 acres he should have been able to prove his case in court. he could not.

as for the 90,000 acres - that's entirely made up. the blm says they are not interested in that land. the only people that claim they are are jackasses that want to thump their chests and say 'don't mess with texas'

I see that you just aren't cognizant enough of the issues. You are filling in your blanks with suppositions.

The facts are what the facts are.

Translation: Breitbart and FOX didn't cover that part nor tell me what to think about them so I have no clue how to respond.

 

[ogibillm]

How could the court say the land belonged to the feds when deciding a boundary issue between two private land owners. The feds had not laid a claim to that point, they weren't even a party to the suit.

pretty easy. if my neighbor to the west claims they own part of my land, and my neighbor to the east says they own that same land, and they take the issue to court the court would be right in telling them both to go to hell and that the land belongs to me.

or say i sell part of my land and a portion of my neighbors land to an individual. then i sell a different part of my land and the same portion of neighbors land to a second individual. they have a dispute over who owns that portion of land, take it to the court, and the court finds that neither of them do since i didn't have the right to sell it.

The boundary of your land is a stream. The stream changes course and moves two miles on your property. Do you still own the land up to the stream and lose the two miles on the other side, or do you own two miles past the stream.

When you get an understanding of the meaning of the words accretion and avulsion get back to us.

that's not really the issue though. that's what brought about the dispute between the two private land owners, but what the court found was that neither of them ever owned the 140 acres.

it's why you do a title search before buying a piece of property.

 

[Katzndogz]

weird. the court doesn't have the power to redraw property lines - so my guess is you're full of shit on that count. and if Henderson's deed was so clear that he had to pay property taxes on that 140 acres he should have been able to prove his case in court. he could not.

as for the 90,000 acres - that's entirely made up. the blm says they are not interested in that land. the only people that claim they are are jackasses that want to thump their chests and say 'don't mess with texas'

I see that you just aren't cognizant enough of the issues. You are filling in your blanks with suppositions.

The facts are what the facts are.

you're right. and the courts, as arbiters, looked at the facts and the blm now controls that land.

do you have any facts that prove that ruling wrong?

It proves that the courts are corrupt with predetermined outcomes. This is a return to the old feudalistic courts where the favor of the king is what determined court rulings.

 

[ogibillm]

I see that you just aren't cognizant enough of the issues. You are filling in your blanks with suppositions.

The facts are what the facts are.

you're right. and the courts, as arbiters, looked at the facts and the blm now controls that land.

do you have any facts that prove that ruling wrong?

It proves that the courts are corrupt with predetermined outcomes. This is a return to the old feudalistic courts where the favor of the king is what determined court rulings.

no, that's your opinion because you don't like the outcome. it has nothing to do with the facts of the case.

 

[Katzndogz]

pretty easy. if my neighbor to the west claims they own part of my land, and my neighbor to the east says they own that same land, and they take the issue to court the court would be right in telling them both to go to hell and that the land belongs to me.

or say i sell part of my land and a portion of my neighbors land to an individual. then i sell a different part of my land and the same portion of neighbors land to a second individual. they have a dispute over who owns that portion of land, take it to the court, and the court finds that neither of them do since i didn't have the right to sell it.

The boundary of your land is a stream. The stream changes course and moves two miles on your property. Do you still own the land up to the stream and lose the two miles on the other side, or do you own two miles past the stream.

When you get an understanding of the meaning of the words accretion and avulsion get back to us.

that's not really the issue though. that's what brought about the dispute between the two private land owners, but what the court found was that neither of them ever owned the 140 acres.

it's why you do a title search before buying a piece of property.

This was not a disipute between two private landowners. It was a dispute of two states. With a deed describing land boundaries. The court found that Mr. Henderson never owned the land even though that land was particularly described in his deed. A search would have done nothing but shown title to a parcel of land particularly described in the deed.

Now in this new case, BLM is claiming that several separate landowners don't own their property which happens to be 90,000 acres in the aggregate over a 116 mile stretch of the Red River. The ownership of the 140 acres was 30 years ago and is not in question today.

Maybe this will educate you.
Bureau of Land Management Wants 90,000 Acres Of Texas Private Property - Investors.com

"BLM is reviewing the possible federal takeover and ownership of privately held lands which have been deeded property for generations of Texas landowners."

The U.S. Supreme Court incorporated the Red River as part of the Texas border with Oklahoma nearly a century ago. The problem is that as the river moves, so does the border, which was defined then as the gradient line of the Red River's south bank, a definition that the feds have never accepted. A subsequent move between the two states to set permanent boundaries along the Red River has yet to be ratified by Congress.

The BLM may use a 1986 federal court case citing that 140 acres along the Red River no longer belonged to a private landowner in Texas, because the water moved the property line.

There is no dispute between two private property owners. There never was.

 

[ogibillm]

The boundary of your land is a stream. The stream changes course and moves two miles on your property. Do you still own the land up to the stream and lose the two miles on the other side, or do you own two miles past the stream.

When you get an understanding of the meaning of the words accretion and avulsion get back to us.

that's not really the issue though. that's what brought about the dispute between the two private land owners, but what the court found was that neither of them ever owned the 140 acres.

it's why you do a title search before buying a piece of property.

This was not a disipute between two private landowners. It was a dispute of two states. With a deed describing land boundaries. The court found that Mr. Henderson never owned the land even though that land was particularly described in his deed. A search would have done nothing but shown title to a parcel of land particularly described in the deed.

Now in this new case, BLM is claiming that several separate landowners don't own their property which happens to be 90,000 acres in the aggregate over a 116 mile stretch of the Red River. The ownership of the 140 acres was 30 years ago and is not in question today.

Maybe this will educate you.
Bureau of Land Management Wants 90,000 Acres Of Texas Private Property - Investors.com

"BLM is reviewing the possible federal takeover and ownership of privately held lands which have been deeded property for generations of Texas landowners."

The U.S. Supreme Court incorporated the Red River as part of the Texas border with Oklahoma nearly a century ago. The problem is that as the river moves, so does the border, which was defined then as the gradient line of the Red River's south bank, a definition that the feds have never accepted. A subsequent move between the two states to set permanent boundaries along the Red River has yet to be ratified by Congress.

The BLM may use a 1986 federal court case citing that 140 acres along the Red River no longer belonged to a private landowner in Texas, because the water moved the property line.

There is no dispute between two private property owners. There never was.

the 140 acres of land the blm controls was not in a dispute between states. it was a dispute between two private land owners in different states. and a title search does more than look at a deed. it looks at the history of the land and who might have claim to it other than the person trying to sell it.

further, the blm says they are not interested in lands on the red river. the only people claiming they are are chest thumpers like the texas ag.

finally, if the blm decides to take a land owner to court over property they are using as their own but the blm believes to be federal land i support them in doing so and trust the courts to look at the evidence and fairly decide who the rightful owner is.

 

[KissMy]

How could the court say the land belonged to the feds when deciding a boundary issue between two private land owners. The feds had not laid a claim to that point, they weren't even a party to the suit.

pretty easy. if my neighbor to the west claims they own part of my land, and my neighbor to the east says they own that same land, and they take the issue to court the court would be right in telling them both to go to hell and that the land belongs to me.

or say i sell part of my land and a portion of my neighbors land to an individual. then i sell a different part of my land and the same portion of neighbors land to a second individual. they have a dispute over who owns that portion of land, take it to the court, and the court finds that neither of them do since i didn't have the right to sell it.

The boundary of your land is a stream. The stream changes course and moves two miles on your property. Do you still own the land up to the stream and lose the two miles on the other side, or do you own two miles past the stream.

When you get an understanding of the meaning of the words accretion and avulsion get back to us.

Moving Channels

If the current changes gradually, then the boundary line changes as well. O.C.G.A. § 44-8-2. On the other hand, if the channel changes suddenly, the boundary remains where it was.

 

[Katzndogz]

that's not really the issue though. that's what brought about the dispute between the two private land owners, but what the court found was that neither of them ever owned the 140 acres.

it's why you do a title search before buying a piece of property.

This was not a disipute between two private landowners. It was a dispute of two states. With a deed describing land boundaries. The court found that Mr. Henderson never owned the land even though that land was particularly described in his deed. A search would have done nothing but shown title to a parcel of land particularly described in the deed.

Now in this new case, BLM is claiming that several separate landowners don't own their property which happens to be 90,000 acres in the aggregate over a 116 mile stretch of the Red River. The ownership of the 140 acres was 30 years ago and is not in question today.

Maybe this will educate you.
Bureau of Land Management Wants 90,000 Acres Of Texas Private Property - Investors.com

"BLM is reviewing the possible federal takeover and ownership of privately held lands which have been deeded property for generations of Texas landowners."

The U.S. Supreme Court incorporated the Red River as part of the Texas border with Oklahoma nearly a century ago. The problem is that as the river moves, so does the border, which was defined then as the gradient line of the Red River's south bank, a definition that the feds have never accepted. A subsequent move between the two states to set permanent boundaries along the Red River has yet to be ratified by Congress.

The BLM may use a 1986 federal court case citing that 140 acres along the Red River no longer belonged to a private landowner in Texas, because the water moved the property line.

There is no dispute between two private property owners. There never was.

the 140 acres of land the blm controls was not in a dispute between states. it was a dispute between two private land owners in different states. and a title search does more than look at a deed. it looks at the history of the land and who might have claim to it other than the person trying to sell it.

further, the blm says they are not interested in lands on the red river. the only people claiming they are are chest thumpers like the texas ag.

finally, if the blm decides to take a land owner to court over property they are using as their own but the blm believes to be federal land i support them in doing so and trust the courts to look at the evidence and fairly decide who the rightful owner is.

The 140 acres was decided thirty years ago. BLM is NOT saying they aren't interested in lands along the Red River. They said they weren't expanding land holdings, which doesn't affect land they claim they already own.

Of COURSE you support BLM. You are a statist.

 

[eagle1462010]

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/oagnews/release.php?id=4718

April 22, 2014

The Honorable Neil Kornze
Director
Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street NW, Rm. 5665
Washington, DC 20240

Dear Director Kornze:

Respect for property rights and the rule of law are fundamental principles in the State of Texas and the United States. When governments simply ignore those principles, it threatens the foundation of our free and prosperous society. That is why I am deeply concerned about reports that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering taking property in the State of Texas and that it now claims belongs to the federal government. Given the seriousness of this situation, I feel compelled to seek answers regarding the BLM’s intentions and legal authority with respect to Texas territory adjacent to the Red River.

I understand that your office is in the early stages of developing a plan—known as a Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (RMP/EIS)—to regulate the use of federal lands along a 116-mile stretch of the Red River. As Attorney General of Texas, I am deeply troubled by reports from BLM field hearings that the federal government may claim—for the first time—that 90,000 acres of territory along the Red River now belong to the federal government.

Private landowners in Texas have owned, maintained, and cultivated this land for generations. Despite the long-settled expectations of these hard-working Texans along the Red River, the BLM appears to be threatening their private property rights by claiming ownership over this territory. Yet, the BLM has failed to disclose either its full intentions or the legal justification for its proposed actions. Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box.

Nearly a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the gradient line of the south bank of the Red River—subject to the doctrines of accretion and avulsion—was the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma. Oklahoma v. Texas, 260 U.S. 606 (1923). More recently, in 1994, the BLM stated that the Red River area was “[a] unique situation” and stated that “[t]he area itself cannot be defined until action by the U.S. Congress establishes the permanent state boundary between Oklahoma and Texas.” Further, the BLM determined that one possible scenario was legislation that established the “south geologic cut bank as the boundary,” which could have resulted “in up to 90,000 acres” of newly delineated federal land. But no such legislation was ever enacted.

Instead, in 2000, the U.S. Congress enacted legislation ratifying an interstate boundary compact agreed to by the State of Texas and the State of Oklahoma. With Congress’ ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact, federal law now provides that the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma is “the vegetation on the south bank of the Red River . . .”—not the “south geologic cut bank.” Given this significant legal development, it is not at all clear what legal basis supports the BLM’s claim of federal ownership over private property that abuts the Red River in the State of Texas.

This issue is of significant importance to the State of Texas and its private property owners. As Attorney General of Texas, I am deeply concerned about the notion that the BLM believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations. Accordingly, I hereby request that you or your staff respond in writing to this letter by providing the following information as soon as possible:

Please delineate with specificity each of the steps for the RMP/EIS process for property along the Red River.

Please describe the procedural due process the BLM will afford to Texans whose property may be claimed by the federal government.

Please confirm whether the BLM agrees that, from 1923 until the ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact, the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma was the gradient line of the south bank of the Red River. To the extent the BLM does not agree, please provide legal analysis supporting the BLM’s position.

Please confirm whether the BLM still considers Congress’ ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact as determinative of its interest in land along the Red River? To the extent the BLM does not agree, please provide legal analysis supporting the BLM’s new position.

Please delineate with specificity the amount of Texas territory that would be impacted by the BLM’s decision to claim this private land as the property of the federal government.
In short, the BLM’s newly asserted claims to land along the Red River threaten to upset long-settled private property rights and undermine fundamental principles—including the rule of law—that form the foundation of our democracy. It is incumbent on BLM to promptly disclose both the process it intends to follow and the legal justification for its position.

Sincerely,

Greg Abbott
Attorney General of Texas

 

[eagle1462010]

That is the direct letter from the AG's office in this situation.

And yes they will fight the Federal Gov't over this.

I'll take the word of Texas over the words of our Gov't at this time, which would include the BLM.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[eagle1462010]

Perhaps the BLM, who is claiming the land will allow the cattle to drink water from the River that the BLM says they own.

Will they grant them permission to use the land that Texans have been using for a very long time now...............

Or will they come up with a NEW REGULATION..........A water usage fee per cow..................

This area is Fucking Texas and Oklahoma. These two states are still arguing over the water rights. Oklahoma actually won a water rights issue with the Supreme Court. It's not the damned BLM's property.

But they do as the F....g wish, as they are Supreme.

Which is why I created this thread on Don't Mess with Texas...........

This fight is hardly begun.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I understand Abbot and the other gubernatorial hopefuls have also recently issued strong statements (in fund-raising mass mailings) daring armed federal officials to enter Texas and force Methodist ministers to perform gay marriage ceremonies that include ritualistic abortion.

In a P.S. they vowed to "fight to the death" to defend Texans against a suspected move within the federal government to make apple pie illegal.

 

[LoneLaugher]

This is a great issue for simpletons.

 

[eagle1462010]

I understand Abbot and the other gubernatorial hopefuls have also recently issued strong statements (in fund-raising mass mailings) daring armed federal officials to enter Texas and force Methodist ministers to perform gay marriage ceremonies that include ritualistic abortion.

In a P.S. they vowed to "fight to the death" to defend Texans against a suspected move within the federal government to make apple pie illegal.

As the DEEDED property owners in the disputed areas still pay taxes on land that the BLM is claiming. They will send them permission slips to graze from the land and permission slips to drink the water.................

Of course for a fee........as the BLM doesn't recognize the deeds..............

According to what I just read.

How about a damn novel idea. Tell the BLM to butt the F out of it and leave the land disputes to the 2 States involved and not try to nullify the private property owner's deeds in the area..................

I've read your posts and your views have an odor...........

Who's side are you own...............The Feds in this issue or the rights of the private property owners in the area.................

This will be a Supreme Fight just as the Water Rights fight between these 2 states.

Why does the dang Gov't have a dog in this fight at all??????????????

 

[eagle1462010]

The BLM will have to comply with the AG's demands when this goes to court and it will.

The AG is demanding the legal justification for the BLM's actions.