Skip to comments.Texas rancher: How the federal government took my property - and didn't pay me one cent
Posted on 04/23/2014 7:52:44 AM PDT by Rusty0604
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Now, why did BLM seize the land in 1984?
HENDERSON: Well, there was a court case in Oklahoma City. And we were in the Oklahoma courts. And the judge there gave it to the BLM, even though the attorney general -- U.S. Attorney General John Greene sided with us on the Texas side.
VAN SUSTEREN: What has BLM done with this -- to 140 acres since 1984?
HENDERSON: Well, in the beginning, they didn't really want it and they asked me to file a title for it and all of that and they would get back to me.
And all of the sudden here in the last six months, they have shown back up and they are talking about taking another 90,000 acres by using my court case as the precedent to seize the other land.
VAN SUSTEREN: Why do they want it? What are they doing with it?
HENDERSON: ... They won't talk to us or be straight with us as to what their plans are. They keep talking about taking.
VAN SUSTEREN: And they seized it without any compensation?
HENDERSON: Yes. I bought the land in 1979. As a matter of fact, I borrowed a portion of the money from Farmer's Home Administration,... And they came out and inspected the land and said it was all here, surveyed it, and forced me to buy a title policy. And when we lost it, they refused to pay, even though they said that they guaranteed the title to this place whenever I was buying it and so, I have continued to have to pay for this land or the federal government would seize everything else I had. I made my last payment this January on land that I lost in 1984 in a lawsuit.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Interesting, now all of a sudden, they want to grab more land. I don't understand how they got away with this in the first place. When Texas became a State I thought part of the agreement was the Federal gov't couldn't grab land.
IIRC this case involved State border definition. Since the border is a river, it is constantly being reshaped and property lines become fluid, pardon the pun.
If indeed your supposition were the case, then the matter would be one to be settled between the two neighboring states. Involvement by the BLM seems both unnecessary and intrusive.
To say nothing of the apparent greed.
I have not seen as of yet the legal justification for the BLM taking this land. Can’t even find details of the Henderson court case.
I’ll stick my neck out, and say it’s all about controlling the cattle industry by our Leftist saturated government run by entrenched Leftists in support of one of the many tentacles of the agendapus. The agendapus is of course the giant squidlike thing the Leftists celebrate, and sacrifice all the rest of us to.
The goal is to control, eliminate those nasty, smelly methane creating cattle by driving the ranchers out of business, making the price for a burger that of a steak just like they are forcing the price of gasoline up to eliminate the infernal combustion engine.
Being Leftist must be similar to having severe cataracts. I have been there, but thanks to the VA I can see again. The Leftists apparently cannot.
I’m sure the cow-hating environmentalists have put their two cents in on the issue.
Texas AG Abbott who is running for governor is sayig no way Jose is the BLM getting that 90,000 acres.
Let the States duke it out. If the land is privately owned, I would think it still belongs to the owner regardless of which State it supposedly is in. If a State thinks it can legally grab someone’s land, they should at least be required to compensate the owner.
HENDERSON: The — underneath the repairing rights, the border moved with the river with erosion and abrasion. It stays sedimentary with avulsion. They claimed that it was avulsion but it was not an avulsion. It took 40 years for it to move. So, it was a slow and gradual process of erosion and abrasion (ph). But we never really made it to court. It was already decided before we could ever get to the courthouse.
Another state issue that Fedzilla has no business in.
The internet wasn't at everyone's fingertips back then.
Removing states rights is just part of the big picture if anything of worth on the land gas oil gold silver the feds will obtain it.
Total control is the goal.
The BLM siezed 140 acres back in the early 80’s and Henderson lost a law suit over the matter. This is indeed the dispute I was thinking of. It involves the Red River border between Texas and Oklahoma which was an issue in 1922 when the SCOTUS attempted to settle the matter with wooden stakes in the river bank. Been discussed a whole bunch two days ago here:
I was living here in Texas at the time and I don’t remember hearing about it, and I usually hang around people that would had something to say about it. Not in that area, so maybe you are right about better communication now.
Don’t worry, I’m sure our dear leaders have a plan to correct this./s
Heyyyyyy, Abbott!!! Take a page from Meldrim Thompson. Go to the mattresses.
The term “Leftists” is intended to encompass the perspectives, and goals of those on the Left involved in all the various tentacles of the Leftist’s celebrated “agendapus” including environmentalists.
IOW agree with your post.
I have heard that the BLM takes over the "Management of the land" in certain cases like intra-family disputes or in cases where the government has a compelling need.
At some point it changes to the government loaning the land to you and later renting it to you and finally to evicting you.
Yes, and I still dom’t see where the BLM gets a rationale for interfereing in a matter to be resolved between two sovereign states. Borders between states are of no concern to the feds except as the dispute may come before a federal court. And never a concern of the BLM.
Maybe with monetary compensation and free grazing forever. That would be fair.
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.