PDA

View Full Version : Gov’t Tells Texas Rancher His Land No Longer Belongs to Him



Ares
10th January 2016, 09:48 AM
Gov’t Tells Texas Rancher His Land No Longer Belongs to Him — He Knew It Was Serious When He Claims Official Said These Six Words

Texas rancher Ken Aderholt said he emerged frustrated from a Tuesday night Bureau of Land Management meeting in Fort Worth — full of many of the same unanswered questions and growing concerns about the land that’s been in his family for over 70 years.

Well, it used to be his land.

Aderholt’s family has been running cattle on 1,250 acres of earth in Harrold near the Red River, which borders Oklahoma, since 1941 — and he took on the task himself long ago.

It’s his livelihood, and it’s his life.

“It has been running through generations and handed on down to me,” Aderholt told KAUZ-TV in Wichita Falls, adding that he’s hoped his two sons could someday take over the family business.

But Aderholt said the federal government is threatening those dreams — along with the dreams of other landowners in three counties.

He told TheBlaze on Wednesday that the BLM has claimed up to almost half the acreage on his property — including where his home sits — after redefining the boundary line.

Aderhold told TheBlaze he discovered his home was in danger during an early 2014 phone call with a BLM official who laid out what acres now belonged to the agency. When Aderhold remarked, “That’s gonna get my home,” he said the official replied, “You have reason to be concerned.”

And the rancher said he was instructed to list that among other concerns for future consideration as the BLM moves toward finalizing a plan.

Not that it’s much consolation, since Aderhold and other land owners consider theirs private property — which the government “stole from us,” he told TheBlaze.

And all this after years of paying property taxes and having a deed and title in hand.

“The BLM is saying we should have never had a deed to it,” Aderhold told KAUZ. “That Texas should have never produced that deed.”

Paul McGuire, a BLM public affairs specialist, on Thursday told TheBlaze that Aderhold’s understanding of exactly what constitutes public land on his property isn’t a done deal until a land survey is completed — and that the official Aderhold spoke to on the phone isn’t a surveyor and wouldn’t have told him what land was public.

McGuire added that disputes such as Aderhold’s are coming up because the BLM began the process of revising land management plans in Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas almost two years ago. The land in question has been federal for a long time, McGuire added, but never actively managed.

Aderhold could apply for “color of title,” McGuire said, which takes into consideration improvements made over time on federally owned land and could allow him to hold on to it.

In the end, McGuire said, the process for determining what happens to the disputed land is lengthy and complex — a final BLM plan won’t be ready until 2018, he said.

But Aderhold — who said his family has never been bothered by the government in over 70 years — isn’t laying down over what he told KAUZ is “a land grab.”

And it’s a big one: After redefining the boundary to a half mile inland from the river, the BLM has claimed up to 625 of his property’s 1,250 acres, Aderhold said.

At the moment the BLM is figuring out what to do with the land through a “scoping” process. Aderhold said the agency could designate the land for activities such as birdwatching or horseback riding or exploring foliage. Or it could condemn it. It also could lease it back to him — or to somebody else.

Whatever the outcome, none of it sits right with the rancher.

He said other landowners have banded together and retained attorneys. U.S. Rep. Mac Thornberry from Texas’ 13th district has introduced a bill to assist landowners along the Red River.

But in the meantime, Aderhold said the land claim has made life very difficult for him and other property owners — and far beyond simply losing their long-tended acreage.

Titles, Aderhold said, have become “clouded.” Money can’t be borrowed against land, properties can’t be bought or sold and no improvements are being made.

“This affects people’s lives — everyday things,” he told TheBlaze.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/10/15/govt-tells-texas-rancher-his-land-no-longer-belongs-to-him-he-knew-it-was-serious-when-he-claims-official-said-these-six-words/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=ShareButtons

monty
10th January 2016, 09:57 AM
It is time to call out the Texas Rangers to defend his home. He should have a land patent. As Ponce says the Supreme Court has never overturned a land patent.

The tyrrany is neverending.

palani
10th January 2016, 10:54 AM
Anyone takes something that belongs to you ... send them a bill. Don't argue that they can't do it. They do it all the time. Question is "HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PAY FOR WHAT YOU TOOK?"

You do this by completing administrative process. Notice. Fault. Default. Do it with a notary. Put them into dishonor. Keep track of what you do because this becomes your DOCKET. You take your DOCKET to any court and have them notice it as a foreign judgment.

Then you send a bill.

Arguing is the attribute of those who prefer to join in battle and get themselves slaughtered. Better to go along and figure out how to get paid for it.

Ponce
10th January 2016, 11:11 AM
He made the mistake not to die for his land...... set the sample for others, only then the government would know to what extend the people are willing to go to keep what is theirs.... LIKE I WILL.....I have already been told that I would die here , me and who else?

Those who fight for what is theirs will fight harder than those who try to take it away.......as the US is learning overseas.

V

palani
10th January 2016, 11:18 AM
He made the mistake not to die for his land
How 'ya gunna get paid when you are DIED?

Seems to me this is making a GIFT of the land to he would take it for nothin'.

Abatement is where a stranger gets in to seize the land before the heir can get it.

I would prefer to abate the other guy than have him abate me.


ABATEMENT OF A FREEHOLD. The entry of a stranger after the
death of the ancestor, and before the heir or devisee takes
possession, by which the rightful possession of the heir or
devisee is defeated. 3 Bl. 1 Com. 167; Co. Lit. 277, a; Finch's
Law, 1 195; Arch. Civ. Pl. 11.


Bouvier's Law Dictionary : A1 : Page 12 of 118


2. By the ancient laws of Normandy, this term was used to
signify the act of one who, having an apparent right of
possession to an estate, took possession of it immediately after
the death of the actual possessor, before the heir entered.
Howard, Anciennes Lois des Frangais, tome 1, p. 539.

monty
10th January 2016, 11:39 AM
Anyone takes something that belongs to you ... send them a bill. Don't argue that they can't do it. They do it all the time. Question is "HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PAY FOR WHAT YOU TOOK?"

You do this by completing administrative process. Notice. Fault. Default. Do it with a notary. Put them into dishonor. Keep track of what you do because this becomes your DOCKET. You take your DOCKET to any court and have them notice it as a foreign judgment.

Then you send a bill.

Arguing is the attribute of those who prefer to join in battle and get themselves slaughtered. Better to go along and figure out how to get paid for it.


If they are successful in taking it he can file a claim in the Federal Court of Claims. E. Wayne Hage did. it was a long and costly battle, starting in 1991. I don't know if it is settled yet. Hage prevailed, BLM appealed and on and on . . .

palani
10th January 2016, 11:43 AM
I don't know if it is settled yet. Hage prevailed, BLM appealed and on and on . . .
Seems to me I heard he died and his heirs collected on the order of 4-5 million.

They don't like to deal directly with the land owner. They prefer to deal with his estate.

And if you have a dog he is going to be the first target. Just a word of caution.

If you like to study up on things like this a movie called ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST is a good source of info.

Ponce
10th January 2016, 11:46 AM
palani?......to me is more than just money......the power to be knows this and that's why they are getting away with murder.

Why have money if you cannot enjoy it freely?...... I only have my Social Security and I enjoy it freely, and happy I am. If I am ever taken to court for anything I can loose nothing.....only put in jail.....but loose nothing.

V

monty
10th January 2016, 11:47 AM
Seems to me I heard he died and his heirs collected on the order of 4-5 million.

They don't like to deal directly with the land owner. They prefer to deal with his estate.

And if you have a dog he is going to be the first target. Just a word of caution.

He died, the son is managing the family ranch for the estate. I don't know if they ever collected because of all the appeals. I will ask my sister-in-law. She a Hage

palani
10th January 2016, 11:54 AM
palani?......to me is more than just money......the power to be knows this and that's why they are getting away with murder.
First, there is no money. There is only contract. And contract is nothing more than offer and acceptance.

Biblically you are told to agree with your opponent. I think this is a good idea. While you and I both know there is no money your opponent believes there is so this is his weak spot and this is where you are likely to extract the most in exchange for what he wants. So make him an offer. After all, when he comes after your property isn't he making you an offer?


Why have money if you cannot enjoy it freely?...... I only have my Social Security and I enjoy it freely, and happy I am. If I am ever taken to court for anything I can loose nothing.....only put in jail.....but loose nothing.

V
Again ... THERE IS NO MONEY. But others believe there is so why not take a look at THE ART OF WAR with the idea that what your opponent believes is his weak point. Use his own beliefs to throw him off balance and win. If he accepts your offer you have no grievance, nothing to go to war about. Instead you have a pocket full of money that you can offer to someone else in exchange for their QUIT CLAIM (I know they like to call it a warranty deed but without money all they have is naked possession to exchange themselves).

In the end the one who is the most successful is the one who dies with no enemies and control of a lot of personality.

palani
10th January 2016, 11:56 AM
I will ask my sister-in-law. She a Hage
Isn't this about like asking a rancher how many cows he has ... or asking Trump the size of his purse?

7th trump
10th January 2016, 11:58 AM
If any of you believes anything Palani has to say....you're a bigger fool than he is!

Palani hasnt yet proven anything he has yet said, spoken of or informed to this day....and that is just sad!
Theres more to this story thats not being told and the quack joker Palani is already concluding its about money and accepting an offer.
Gee .... now theres an idea thats been around for centuries ...accepting an offer....just reinventing the wheel here is all this is except palani wants credit for it
This is along the lines of Palani's bullshit fallacy that Fiat money is evil and no good and it should be replaced with the equivalent system of only needing just enough gold and silver to represent money (definition of fiat)....dont even have to have enpough gold and silver to cover all the fiat notes out there....just as long as you can represent it.
Just reinventing the definition to fiat currency but the fool Palani want the credit for repackaging the same problem that will blow up in the future.....bravo palani!!!!
Ding ding ding....you're the winner of the stupid bullshit award.

palani
10th January 2016, 12:23 PM
If any of you believes anything

This fool is laboring under the penalty of my curse so he is nothing more than my sock puppet now.

SWRichmond
10th January 2016, 01:16 PM
Those who fight for what is theirs will fight harder than those who try to take it away.......as the US is learning overseas.

V

You are correct, sir.

Bigjon
10th January 2016, 02:15 PM
This fool is laboring under the penalty of my curse so he is nothing more than my sock puppet now.

I have believed that all along.

midnight rambler
10th January 2016, 02:31 PM
In the end the one who is the most successful is the one who dies with no enemies and control of a lot of personality.

"To have 100 victories in 100 battles is not the acme of skill; to win without fighting is the acme of skill." --Master Sun

palani
10th January 2016, 02:48 PM
"To have 100 victories in 100 battles is not the acme of skill; to win without fighting is the acme of skill." --Master Sun

This is one reason why they always shoot the dog. It is to get the owner off balance and emotional so he does something stupid.

It they shoot your dog you calmly tell them that the animal was valued at $50,000 and after completing administrative process and obtaining a foreign judgment against them you lien up their house.

Fair exchange. Your dog for them sleeping in the snow.

Glass
10th January 2016, 06:55 PM
there is a historical authority for police to shoot dogs. It's rooted in common law. There is also the issue of rabbies and I think you'll find that every dog is considered to be infected with rabbies until proven otherwise.

That really leaves only one course of action which is to shoot the animal. People need to chain their dogs up if they don't want them shot. Even so, they should realise that chaining the dog in the yard in full view of the PoPo may not be enough. If the cop can see the dog he can shoot the dog.

palani
10th January 2016, 07:59 PM
there is a historical authority for police to shoot dogs

A copicemans' action(s) are intended to cause a reaction in those predisposed to violence toward the system. The reaction is then taken to be the reason for termination or charge. They are then awarded for their commendable actions, promoted a grade and invited to date the commanders' eldest daughter. I'm not sure which of these rewards they are thinking of but I guess that won't matter much to the guy who they want to make the villain.