|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Posted on 04/26/2014 10:12:31 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
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 ...
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Would you please add me to the ping list?
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.
You’ve been added!
You’ve been added!
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.
Okay ted...if you keep this up Ill shoot..... I swear it
___
Keep it up Ted. Please.
Has there been any consideration or plans to defund or file charges against the BLM? :::crickets:::
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
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
This man is simply the best. Bob
PS, thanks for the links.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.