That was my best guess anyway. Who knows what these people have in their skulls.
.
” 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”
Uh,,color me confused.
Two PRIVATE landowners,,seeking to adjust boundary lines,,,,and then we segue to the 140 acres (was 116 in Abbott’s letter) was “at no time held in private ownership”
Is that Obamaspeak? Can I get a translator please?
That was my best guess anyway. Who knows what these people have in their skulls.
.
LOL! I don't 'speak' Obama, but I was married to a sociopath for over 15 years, so, if you don't mind, I'll take a shot at it.
-----
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.
A lawsuit was filed between 2 landowners because of a property line contention. The BLM was neither a party nor a witness in the suit.
The 140-acres were at no time held in private ownership”
THIS is where it gets interesting. While the Constitution gives the feds authority over certain types of 'waterways', these were originally meant for major shipping conduits, whereas today, the feral government has decided it means anywhere a body can float.
So, to THEM, the 140 (116) acres “at no time held in private ownership” because it falls under the waterway provision.
Hope that helps. :-)