# Next fed land grab



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Here is the next one... even though they have had a deed for over 70 years and have paid taxes... sorry that land is ours

Feds Tell Texas Ranchers The Government Owns Their Land Despite Owners Having Deeds, Paying Property Taxes On The Land


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

They can take any land they want any time they want for any reason. Supreme Court ruled on that some time ago.
So it would not be a stretch to see them try this also. They are likely white people so if the resist they will just gun them down.


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

The article states he has a deed and a title. Any of you ever hear of title insurance ? 

It's sold for a reason. 

Now let's just say there was a mistake and they take the land back. 

They should be paid all the money back with interest from day one plus any improvements they have made. 

I'm not going to argue what's constitutional because it's one big " yes it is" " no it isn't" merry-go-round.

If the rancher is paid what I'm suggesting he will not only never have to work again he would be an extremely wealthy man and the Feds have the money to make it happen. 

If the rancher has sentimental feelings about the land, they should provide him counseling. Lol !!!!!


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Operator6 said:


> The article states he has a deed and a title. Any of you ever hear of title insurance ?
> 
> It's sold for a reason.
> 
> ...


 Not sure that was a requirement 70 year ago and if it was good chance the company has been sold off by now.
Abstract for our farm goes way back no mention of title insurance in any of the documents, until 18 years ago when We built the new house. The purchase price then and now all the years of taxes title insurance would be a non issue I think.
I would lean more on time. The government had time to correct it, they did not. Same thing happens here some times with farm land. Fence lines moved a bit farmer Joe works land for 20 years and then suddenly someone shows up says I bought the place next door you are 20 feet on my property.
The Law says tough luck, you aint getting your 20 feet back. To much time has passed.


----------



## Prepper News (Jan 17, 2016)

Government = Brad Wesley

"You got insurance don't cha?"


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

Smitty901 said:


> Not sure that was a requirement 70 year ago and if it was good chance the company has been sold off by now.
> Abstract for our farm goes way back no mention of title insurance in any of the documents, until 18 years ago when We built the new house. The purchase price then and now all the years of taxes title insurance would be a non issue I think.
> I would lean more on time. The government had time to correct it, they did not. Same thing happens here some times with farm land. Fence lines moved a bit farmer Joe works land for 20 years and then suddenly someone shows up says I bought the place next door you are 20 feet on my property.
> The Law says tough luck, you aint getting your 20 feet back. To much time has passed.


Title insurance can be purchased at anytime until there's a lien placed on it.

I agree the time that has passed will be an issue the government would have to overcome if they want to be successful.

There's a place to hash this out, it's called court.

I'm all for the rancher keeping his land but it doesn't matter what I want or think, it's a matter that will be decided by a court.


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

​


neonoah said:


> What if money and sentiment doesn't mean everything?
> Oh I forgot
> View attachment 14624


Well you could always want with one hand and crap in the other and see which one fills up first.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Apparently another example of things never being enough to satisfy government appetites for wealth and power.


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

I will admit that the government likes to take advantage on stupid people. Rise up stupid people and unite !!


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

2003 they had money burning a whole in their pockets. They decided to spend it making hwy 16 wider right by my farm. They took a path 33 feet wide by 1/4 mile. Then extend their right of way into my land another 33 feet. They paid less than half of the value and far less than they had been taxing me on it. Only option I had was to go into a Madison court one run by people that do not think you own land you are barrowing it. And you did not buy it you stole it. If you went before them and lost and you will lose. Then you must also pay the states court cost. It took two years of fighting to get my field access roads back. Lucky there was a old state law requiring them to replace them. At the hearing one state official said right in court they were not required to follow state law. Hearing Judge disagreed.


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

Eminent domain can be abused but if used correctly I agree with it. 

If not for eminent domain we wouldn't be able to travel or we would be on someone else's land. In other words we wouldn't have an interstate system or most roads.


----------



## BuckB (Jan 14, 2016)

Operator6 said:


> Eminent domain can be abused but if used correctly I agree with it.


Not to start a fight... But you are dealing with the government. If any law can be abused, it WILL be abused by the government. I do not know what the solution is. But there needs to be a MUCH higher standard for eminent domain before it can be used to steal folks' property for pennies on the dollar.


----------



## BuckB (Jan 14, 2016)

duplicate


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

BuckB said:


> Not to start a fight... But you are dealing with the government. If any law can be abused, it WILL be abused by the government. I do not know what the solution is. But there needs to be a MUCH higher standard for eminent domain before it can be used to steal folks' property for pennies on the dollar.


I appreciate your thoughts on the subject. Infact if you read my post again you will see that I agree that it can be abused, but if used correctly I agree with it.

Recently I lost some frontage to a major roadway adding lanes. It desperately needed to be done, it's going to be less congestion now and ultimately a safer roadway. My property value actually increased because of the project. Make no mistake it was eminent domain and it was the right application of it.

The federal and state governments have vast financial resources and if I were in control of eminent domain that made a persons property useless for its intended purpose resulting in a financial loss, that the person be paid twice the fair market value and a zero percent 30 yr loan to relocate.

That's how I would use eminent domain if you elect me POTUS.

Now with that, my girl says I can have intimate domain tonight.......I like the sound of that better !


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

I think we should all start a land grab ourselves.


----------



## pakrat (Nov 18, 2012)

Operator6 said:


> Eminent domain can be abused but if used correctly I agree with it.
> 
> If not for eminent domain we wouldn't be able to travel or we would be on someone else's land. In other words we wouldn't have an interstate system or most roads.


So, the end justifies the means? Don't pay a man what his property is worth. Society will benefit, so just steel it... legally? So, since my stored food, water and other prep's could benefit other people, they're not really mine? You'd be in favor of the government taking them from me and my family? Would it be OK for them to shoot me if I resisted? Oh, maybe that would fall under your caveat regarding abuse, but we know the government would never abuse such power.


----------



## Prepper News (Jan 17, 2016)

pakrat said:


> So, the end justifies the means? Don't pay a man what his property is worth. Society will benefit, so just steel it... legally? So, since my stored food, water and other prep's could benefit other people, they're not really mine? You'd be in favor of the government taking them from me and my family? Would it be OK for them to shoot me if I resisted? Oh, maybe that would fall under your caveat regarding abuse, but we know the government would never abuse such power.


O6 is busy with his intimate domain. He'll be back in a minute or two.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

The way the Wisconsin law is written makes it hard to beat them unless they want to be beat. It states willing seller and willing buyer.
Mean it is to be treated as if both sides a re willing going into it. So the state being a willing buyer say $10,000 it is assumed you are now a willing seller. Even if you know it is worth $20,000. Now if you are a connected person, like the one that sold the state land for a school and just happen to be on the local school board. The land was rezoned and sold to the state for 3 times what anyone ever though it was worth.
If you looking for justice , if you have strong feelings about right and wrong avoid contact with government. You will lose a lot of sleep.
Justice, right , wrong have flexible meanings.


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

pakrat said:


> So, the end justifies the means? Don't pay a man what his property is worth. Society will benefit, so just steel it... legally? So, since my stored food, water and other prep's could benefit other people, they're not really mine? You'd be in favor of the government taking them from me and my family? Would it be OK for them to shoot me if I resisted? Oh, maybe that would fall under your caveat regarding abuse, but we know the government would never abuse such power.


Yes, the end does justify the means.

That's right, I wouldn't pay a man what it's worth, I'd pay him double what it's worth. You need to read the thread, especially what I've posted if you're going to criticize it.

It's not "steeling". It's land needed to for good of everyone and you're paid for it.

Yes, I would be in favor of the government taking your land and paying you for it if it was eminent domain implemented properly.

I would have you removed from the property by any means necessary.

If these things had not been done we would have no roadways or interstate system.


----------



## stevekozak (Oct 4, 2015)

Operator6 said:


> Yes, the end does justify the means.
> 
> That's right, I wouldn't pay a man what it's worth, I'd pay him double what it's worth. You need to read the thread, especially what I've posted if you're going to criticize it.
> 
> ...


What what else are you willing to give up if tne government decides it "is for the good of everyone"?


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Most land taken is not for the good of the people but to support an agenda.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Operator6 said:


> Yes, the end does justify the means... It's land needed to for good of everyone and you're paid for it.
> 
> Yes, I would be in favor of the government taking your land...I would have you removed from the property by any means necessary.


Thomas More and Karl Marx would be so proud!


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

stevekozak said:


> What what else are you willing to give up if tne government decides it "is for the good of everyone"?


It depends, do you have any proposals ?


Smitty901 said:


> Most land taken is not for the good of the people but to support an agenda.


I understand but that is more of a problem with the current politicians, not the proper implementation of eminent domain. 


Slippy said:


> Thomas More and Karl Marx would be so proud!


I doubt it, I'm for compensating generously for land that is needed to build roads and bridges.......my roads and bridges.

Personally I like being able to drive from Mississippi to Florida on the interstate, or anywhere in the country without having to take back roads or ask permission from hillbilly Jim if I can drive through his farm that I'm probably subsidizing with my tax dollars anyway.

I do not support eminent domain for private projects. Only roadways and government projects.


----------



## chocks141 (Nov 21, 2015)

unless you live in the western US, you really have no idea about size and scope of what the Feds are doing.
This is not about burning off 138 acres in Oregon or taking 625 acres from a Texas Rancher.
This fight is going on in every western state on a daily bases and involves millions and millions of acres that have been deeded to families for generations.


----------



## Will2 (Mar 20, 2013)

Title insurance often doesn't protected against governmental claims, laws etc..

However in general squatting rights usually creates default title after 10 years of uninterupted use, prior to the change of the torrens system of land registry. I am not aware of the Texas not being under a defined land registry, so it should be their land under squatting laws, which in general create land transfer after a period of uninterupted use, regardless of prior title.

It is very clear after 70 years of use, without a land registry, regardless of if it was federal land, it would no longer be federal land under
land rights since it wasn't challenged within a reasonable period of time

http://www.landlordstation.com/blog/what-are-squatters-rights-in-texas/

Tell the BLM to lookup "Adverse possesion."

U.S. Code › Title 43 › Chapter 25A › § 1068
43 U.S. Code § 1068 - Lands held in adverse possession; issuance of patent; reservation of minerals; conflicting claims

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

US Code
Notes
Authorities (CFR)
prev | next
The Secretary of the Interior (a) shall, whenever it shall be shown to his satisfaction that a tract of public land has been held in good faith and in peaceful, adverse, possession by a claimant, his ancestors or grantors, under claim or color of title for more than twenty years, and that valuable improvements have been placed on such land or some part thereof has been reduced to cultivation, or (b) may, in his discretion, whenever it shall be shown to his satisfaction that a tract of public land has been held in good faith and in peaceful, adverse, possession by a claimant, his ancestors or grantors, under claim or color of title for the period commencing not later than January 1, 1901, to the date of application during which time they have paid taxes levied on the land by State and local governmental units, issue a patent for not to exceed one hundred and sixty acres of such land upon the payment of not less than $1.25 per acre: Provided, That where the area so held is in excess of one hundred and sixty acres the Secretary may determine what particular subdivisions, not exceeding one hundred and sixty acres, may be patented hereunder: Provided further, That coal and all other minerals contained therein are reserved to the United States; that said coal and other minerals shall be subject to sale or disposal by the United States under applicable leasing and mineral land laws, and permittees, lessees, or grantees of the United States shall have the right to enter upon said lands for the purpose of prospecting for and mining such deposits: And provided further, That no patent shall issue under the provisions of this chapter for any tract to which there is a conflicting claim adverse to that of the applicant, unless and until such claim shall have been finally adjudicated in favor of such applicant.

(Dec. 22, 1928, ch. 47, § 1, 45 Stat. 1069; July 28, 1953, ch. 254, § 1, 67 Stat. 227.)

This is no brainer stuff, really the BLM needs to read up on adverse possession rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Adverse_possession_US.pdf

http://www.gabriellawoffice.com/?page_id=102 <---- Well that is odd, apparently adverse possession doesn't apply to land owned by the United States of America. Interesting if the BLM or Federal land is owned by the United States of America or some other entity.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Will2 said:


> Title insurance often doesn't protected against governmental claims, laws etc..
> 
> However in general squatting rights usually creates default title after 10 years of uninterupted use, prior to the change of the torrens system of land registry. I am not aware of the Texas not being under a defined land registry, so it should be their land under squatting laws, which in general create land transfer after a period of uninterupted use, regardless of prior title.
> 
> ...


According to the Constitution of the United Slippy States, Squatters Have No Rights.
Thanks


----------



## Will2 (Mar 20, 2013)

Slippy said:


> According to the Constitution of the United Slippy States, Squatters Have No Rights.
> Thanks


You are wrong.

Article III of the Constitution

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

Also bearing that the common law was continued and that is where at base the rights derive, and were continued under judicial authority.


> The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in *law and equity*





> -to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of ano
> ther state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.


http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/jurisdiction_equity.html


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Where, exactly, do you think Article III allows you to pitch tent on Slippy's property?


----------



## BuckB (Jan 14, 2016)

Will2 said:


> Also bearing that the common law was continued and that is where at base the rights derive...


That is what Canadians and Europeans fail to understand. Our rights do not derive from ANY government. Our rights are given to us directly by God. The 2nd Amendment to our Constitution was put in place so we could hold the government at gunpoint (literally) if they decide to infringe on our rights.

Anybody that tries to tell you different is part of the problem and deserves a swift dispatch with a 9mm to the face.


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

Maine-Marine said:


> Here is the next one... even though they have had a deed for over 70 years and have paid taxes... sorry that land is ours
> 
> Feds Tell Texas Ranchers The Government Owns Their Land Despite Owners Having Deeds, Paying Property Taxes On The Land


Tell me something, you just picked up on this? If I'm not mistaken it was reported back sometime last summer.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Part of understanding the original intention of America is to understand the government and its legal system.

We went to war against the Crown, and not common law. As a matter of fact, our notion of law is heavily based on it. It, too, is based on the concept of a Creator and that Creator being the Giver of rights as well as law. Laws of nature and nature's God, to be a tad concise.

Article I of the constitution outlined the needs for land of the federal government. The rest was not entitled to it. So, who was to own it? The states and the people. Ultimately, the people were expected to own land that was not required for the operation of the governments and what was required for common good, and common good was not meant to be the government declaring lands too worthy of private ownership. 

The dream has been perverted to the point where our countrymen not only understand the original intent of the founders, but even side with an overreaching federal government as it takes land from private citizens of the states for no other reason but to have ultimate control of land.

Are we to have another Magna Carta moment in order to exert our authority as the citizens who are ultimately supposed to be masters of the government?


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Slippy said:


> According to the Constitution of the United Slippy States, Squatters Have No Rights.
> Thanks


 Depends how you define it. In Wisconsin if you possess land for 20 years and owner has failed to protest it, has failed to care for the land ect you have a 99% chance of claiming it. It has happened. Often in Fence line cases.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Wanna Bet Willtwo?

Pitch a tent on Slippy Lodge uninvited and refuse orders to leave and you better hope your tent is sheathed with High Carbon Abrasive Resistant Steel otherwise some Winchester PDX1 and a handy 12 g will most certainly change your mind.



Will2 said:


> You are wrong.
> 
> Article III of the Constitution
> 
> ...


----------



## BuckB (Jan 14, 2016)

Slippy said:


> Wanna Bet Willtwo?
> 
> Pitch a tent on Slippy Lodge uninvited and refuse orders to leave and you better hope your tent is sheathed with High Carbon Abrasive Resistant Steel otherwise some Winchester PDX1 and a handy 12 g will most certainly change your mind.


That's why I stay as far away from Slippy Lodge as possible when I am wearing my pineapple underpants! - I cannot help but pitch a tent!


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Slippy said:


> Wanna Bet Willtwo?
> 
> Pitch a tent on Slippy Lodge uninvited and refuse orders to leave and you better hope your tent is sheathed with High Carbon Abrasive Resistant Steel otherwise some Winchester PDX1 and a handy 12 g will most certainly change your mind.


Which, with regard to our common law roots, would be A-OK.


----------



## pakrat (Nov 18, 2012)

Operator6 said:


> Yes, the end does justify the means.
> 
> That's right, I wouldn't pay a man what it's worth, I'd pay him double what it's worth. You need to read the thread, especially what I've posted if you're going to criticize it.
> 
> ...


I criticized the statement I quoted.

Eminent domain has touched my life three times. 
1.	My grandfather's farm taken to expand a military base&#8230; 3 generations of family heritage lost. They used his house and barns as tank targets and have never used the land again since. 
2.	New York State's 765KV power line was pushed through my personal farm land, cutting it up in pieces. All so the power authority could pull in bigger profits.
3.	The city of New London, CT took a close friend's home&#8230; forced them out legally and handed the land over to a private development corp. The deal fell through and the land still sits vacant and unused.

In each case no one was paid market price for their land. The greater good was not served&#8230; special interest filled their pockets&#8230; or tried to. Eminent domain is a tool too often used by the corrupt to benefit the powerful. I guess it depends on ones vision of the greater good and how much they trust the government to handle it with respect, fairness and honestly.

Private ownership of property is one of the pillars of the American ideal. It disappoints me that you would willingly not only give away my land, but also my life. I fail to see great good in either.


----------



## Will2 (Mar 20, 2013)

If I understand their argument correctly, basically their position is that only the district of columbia or lands allocated with permission of the states are to be used as federal land

"To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And"

That is the only instance in which exclusive legislation should exist on federal territories if I understand their argument.

As per article 1 of the US constitution.

Other federal lands should be subject to state laws, which includes state precedent for adverse possesion based upon occupation and use for periods of greater than the states set timeframe for adverse possesion.

The US gov should not be regulating state land taxes as that is reserved by the states.

likewise the argment of prior appropriation vs riparian rights it seems that prior appropriation was well established in common law prior to the changes in the 1970s which were contested by some parties.

None the less their argument seems clear, I havn't heard the federal position on this really, I am starting to think there is really no basis other than that they want to control the land but in fact it should be under state law not exclusive federal control because it doesn't fall under article 1 of the constitution..

none the less it is clear the feds don't feel that article 1 limits their exclusive legislation to lands covered in it.


Since these large land tracts, national parks ect.. arn't for buildings or forts etc.. then they are not governed under constitutional authority and should be under state controls. 

That is the whole premise of the land argument, and it makes sense.

As it seems very clear the framers of the constitution wanted to limit federal authority over land to be limited to DC and military/administrative posts.

This was all before the federalist issues and federal power started growing though, as in fact the several states didn't vest extreme authority in the federal government over internal land disputes or ownership since most were in fact estate owners with local power.


I'm thinkin when those states were created by the federal government the land should have been turned over to the states except for the purposes in article I.


----------

