Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ted Cruz Challenges BLM on Texas Land Grab
Breitbart ^ | 25 Apr 2014 | Bob Price

Posted on 04/26/2014 10:12:31 AM PDT by SoConPubbie

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz released a letter sent to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Director affirming a recent letter from Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, demanding more information regarding potential plans to re-purpose disputed tracts of land for federal uses.  The letter is in response to the BLM’s perceived attempt at taking 90,000 acres of land that Texas landowners believe belongs to them.

Sen. Cruz told BLM Director Neil Kornze that the public statement the BLM offered on its website does not address the questions raised by General Abbott. Sen. Cruz requested Kornze respond directly to the questions raised, to include new points of inquiry from the junior U.S. Senator.

Sen. Cruz responded to the BLM’s public statement where it denied any expansion of federal land holdings. 

“…this response does not answer General Abbott’s concerns. In addition, BLM’s statement does not address whether the agency takes the position that the 90,000 acres of land in question along the Red River is already BLM land, which would make the agency’s “categorical denial” an act of deceptive sophistry.”

Cruz then added the following request from the BLM Director.

“Please confirm that BLM does not take the position that it has rights to ownership or control of any of the 90,000 acres of land along the Red River that are at the center of this controversy or similarly situated land. If it claims any such rights, please identify with specificity the acreage, location and legal basis for claiming those rights.”

Requesting a response from the BLM as soon as possible, Sen. Cruz said, “If BLM indeed does not intend to claim any land which it does not already administer along the Red River, the answers to these questions should be quite straightforward.”

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: blm; cruz; landgrab; redriverland; tedcruz

"If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures." - Alexander Hamilton

 

"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all." -- President Ronald Reagan

 

"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." - Thomas Paine 1792

 

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams

 

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

 


1 posted on 04/26/2014 10:12:32 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie; ColdOne; Monterrosa-24; ilgipper; exnavy; MarMema; Bikkuri; o2bfree; 12th_Monkey; ...
Ted Cruz Ping!

If you want on/off this ping list, please let me know.

Please beware, this is a high-volume ping list!
2 posted on 04/26/2014 10:12:57 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Would you please add me to the ping list?


3 posted on 04/26/2014 10:20:20 AM PDT by Caipirabob (Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Please put me on the list.

It looks like Cruz is a man among boys in the early run up to the GOP nomination. Rand Paul is dying a death of a thousand paper cuts by opening his mouth. Cruz on the other hand knows how to do his job and get to the heart of the matter without stepping on a mine.


4 posted on 04/26/2014 10:20:30 AM PDT by Clump ( the tree of liberty is withering like a stricken fig tree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Clump

You’ve been added!


5 posted on 04/26/2014 10:23:10 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Caipirabob

You’ve been added!


6 posted on 04/26/2014 10:23:26 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
Okay ted...if you keep this up Ill shoot..... I swear it


7 posted on 04/26/2014 10:29:58 AM PDT by MeshugeMikey ( "Never, never, never give up". Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
1. I am not a lawyer.

2. The only Supreme Court case from the 1920's covering this topic was between Oklahoma and Texas over the Red River. The Court decided to go with the vegetation line and also listed the surveys from the 1800's. The way I read the finding the land which was in dispute either belonged to Oklahoma or Texas. No Federal Government was mention. Therefore this land on the Red River either belongs to Texas or Oklahoma, but not the Federal Government.

8 posted on 04/26/2014 10:33:20 AM PDT by Lockbox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeshugeMikey

Okay ted...if you keep this up Ill shoot..... I swear it
___
Keep it up Ted. Please.


9 posted on 04/26/2014 10:46:00 AM PDT by lakecumberlandvet (Appeasement never works.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Has there been any consideration or plans to defund or file charges against the BLM? :::crickets:::


10 posted on 04/26/2014 11:12:26 AM PDT by Blue Highway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lockbox

Grouping some info from various sources;

The Red River Boundary Compact

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/NR/htm/NR.12.htm

or

multiple articles here:

https://www.google.com/webhp?sa=N&tab=lw#q=red+river+boundary+compact

***********

If you can get the following to load it is the genisis of this BLM land review. It list the goals which culminate in 2017.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/219455667/OFO-Newsletter-Final-i

********

If you can get the following to load it is the genisis of this BLM land review. It list the goals which culminate in 2017.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/219455667/OFO-Newsletter-Final-i

***********

Another case from back in 1986 in a US Federal District Court in Oklahoma. Currington v Henderson 1986.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/220303420/Currington-v-Henderson-1986


11 posted on 04/26/2014 11:29:11 AM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

AG Abbott’s letter to the BLM which Cruz referenced and added his question;

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

Specific Questions that were asked:

Accordingly, I hereby request that you or your staff respond in writing to this
letter by providing the following information as soon as possible:

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

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

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

end snip


12 posted on 04/26/2014 11:32:48 AM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clump

This man is simply the best. Bob


13 posted on 04/26/2014 11:40:31 AM PDT by alstewartfan (She's frosty as the face of Phineus Leaves me feeling igloominious. Al Stewart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: lakecumberlandvet



14 posted on 04/26/2014 11:55:26 AM PDT by MeshugeMikey ( "Never, never, never give up". Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: deport
The spokesperson for the BLM released a statement that their land grab was based upon a 1920's Supreme Case. All the documents you supplied are recent. My goal to to find the case and either prove or disprove the BLM's statement. If disproven then we have proved they lied and they have no authority to take the land. I do not care what the say after being disproven. They had their chance to explain their case, and if disproven, then they lied and case closed!

PS, thanks for the links.

15 posted on 04/26/2014 12:11:55 PM PDT by Lockbox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

I Heard the Wichita County treasurer on the radio friday. (A county that borders the Red River).

He said they (the BLM) had requested (and did) meet with various counties along the Red River, and they were surveying the land, and that they would want to take the lands between the tree line (supposedly the tree line indicates the highest the water can rise in a flood) and the river.

As you might imagine, along the course of the Red River, this is a lot of land.

More importantly, they will own the land along the river (and can control access) and I am SURE they will claim control of the water as well.

But now they claim they had no such designs.....yeah right.


16 posted on 04/26/2014 12:12:26 PM PDT by BereanBrain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Senator all I can say is good luck getting a response from any of these arrogant so and so’s. Their orders from headquarters are clear. Shut down ranching, farming and mining in the western states.


17 posted on 04/26/2014 12:42:32 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose o f a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lockbox; greeneyes

greeneyes can you provide any info to Lockbox about his inquiry in post #15?

Lockbox I paged greeneyes with hope she may can help you with your quest.

Thanks all.


18 posted on 04/26/2014 2:17:35 PM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Lockbox; greeneyes

greeneyes has some comments on this thread

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3148619/posts


19 posted on 04/26/2014 2:20:08 PM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: deport; Lockbox
I am still researching. I can tell you what I have learned so far:

The 1986 Currington vs Henderson case was decided by the Federal District Court in Oklahoma. The judge relied on a Supreme Court decision in making his finding for quiet title:

1. The owners on the North side in Oklahoma owned their property, with riparian rights out to the medial line of the river.
2. The government owned the rights in trust for the Indians from the mid point of the river to the South bank of the river on the Texas side, and any islands located in this portion of the river.
3. For the land in Texas, the Property rights begin South of the south bank of the river. The individual on the Texas side of the river had no riparian rights.

This is a paraphrase, and I might have accidentally included some of the Supreme Court's decision inadvertently to this Judge.

I started to read the Supreme Court cases, but the reference to the treaty of 1819 with Spain, led me to decide that I needed to know what that treaty was about, so I read through info on that treaty first, and haven't completed looking at the Supreme Court cases.

TREATY OF 1819 also known as the Adams/Onis Treaty:

Considered a good bit of diplomacy by Adams to settle disputed Territory between the US and Spain. In asserting US rights, Adams was determined that the entire River Bed should belong to the USA.

Onis on behalf of the Spanish Crown wanted the boundary to be the medial line of the River, but eventually acquiesced to Adams view. This was well documented in Adam's notes as well.

Hence the boundary between the USA Territory and Spanish Territory(Texas being included with Spanish at that point) was agreed by treaty to be the South Bank of the Red River.

All islands in the River were to be held by the USA. Now there was some specific language that this did not include individual property rights already established. The USA agreed that Spain would have full rights to navigate the River.

The USA also by treaty agreed to a sum of money to pay Spain for anticipated claims against them by Americans regarding disputed property rights (if I understood the language correctly).

The Supreme Court apparently has relied heavily on this treaty in their prior decisions regarding Texas/Oklahoma boundary and ownership issues. Search for State of Oklahoma v State of Texas for the Supreme Court cases.

The Treaty of 1819 was revoked and replaced with a new treaty in 1902 referred to as the Treaty of Friendship. I am not finished reading that, but when scanned, I did not see anything to address property ownership issues. It was more of a commerce/trade treaty. So they revoked the agreement, but didn't redefine it either.

So far, unless an individual land owner can trace ownership back to a date before the 1819 treaty and a land grant from Spain, it's it is shaping up to be an uphill battle for them to be able to assert rights to the property.

It's ironic that the assertion on behalf of the USA now puts Texas at a disadvantage when compared to other states. In general it appears that states usually use the medial line of the river for determination of their state boundaries. Apparently, Texas did not specify this as part of their contract to enter the Union..

None of which gets to the point of the BLM/Feds owning property in perpetuity, when they are constitutionally expected to divest of all but necessary ownership of the enumerated powers.

I will also quibble with use of USA ownership as Trustee for the Indians. In general, the use of the word Trustee does not mean ownership. For example, a bank may be named trustee for the estate of a minor child, but the bank does not and will not own the property in question.

Another avenue to look into is the adverse property rights. If the individual has been using the property for the specified period of time, and paying property taxes for that period too, then they might get some ownership/usage rights based on that.

So that's all I have at the moment, and I won't be able to get back to more research for a while, so please let me know any additional info you may find, as I am quite interested in the legal tangle that got us here, and any legal remedies that could be pursued.

20 posted on 04/26/2014 3:34:33 PM PDT by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: greeneyes; deport; Lockbox

Probably going to have to look into whatever treaty the US made with the Indians too. They have established through the courts that the property between the medial point of the river and the vegetation line on the south bank is the property that they are to hold in trust for the Indians.

Why do the Indians need the Feds to do that? The Indian tribes are educated, and perfectly capable of managing stuff these days it would seem to me.


21 posted on 04/26/2014 4:03:26 PM PDT by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BereanBrain

The following link is to the master plan of what the BLM is trying to accomplish. It
encompasses many areas which they hope to have final plans in place by the end of 2017.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/219455667/OFO-Newsletter-Final-i


22 posted on 04/26/2014 5:03:32 PM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: deport; Lockbox
Here's a very good link to one of the Supreme Court Cases Oklahoma v Texas Decided 1/15/23. It is quite interesting.

It defines what is meant by the South bank as being the high water mark. However, I find compelling the arguments of the dissenting opinion, that the boundary should be the low water mark.

Primarily because the Treaty of 1819 clearly intended to let the people on both sides of the river full access and use. Using the low water mark accomplishes this.

Using the High-water mark leaves a strip of ground that would be foreign territory to the occupants of the remaining Spanish territory, which is not likely. Also the fact that it was necessary to state in the treaty that the islands were USA territory.

There would be no need to do this if the high water mark was intended to be the boundary. Also, this finding means that there is no set boundary, as it is subject to change of the river by accretion.

Using the low water mark would make for a more set/permanent boundary. JMHO Supreme Court erred in deciding to use the high water mark. I am not a lawyer, but I do think logically.

The decision to use the high-water mark essentially robs the Texas landowners of there riparian rights, since for example, their cattle can only access the river by crossing land that is now claimed to be held in trust for the Indians, and under BLN control.

Using the low water mark, would give them direct access to the river, at all times.

The boundary issues really came up when oil was discovered along the river. Oklahoma and USA tried to extend the boundary as far south as possible. Texas tried to extend it's claim North to the medial point of the river.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/260/606 The Texas/Oklahoma boundary compact now speaks of the vegetation line on the South bank. I'm not sure that is going to be of any more benefit to the people living on the Texas side of the Red River. It may be that Texas is once again going to have to go to court in order to preserve the property rights of their citizens. With the current court, I am not sure that's gonna work.

23 posted on 04/27/2014 12:57:52 AM PDT by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: greeneyes

there riparian = their riparian

BLN = BLM


24 posted on 04/27/2014 1:00:54 AM PDT by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson