Poul Andersen once wrote, in The Grey Prince, that title to every parcel of real estate derived from an act of violence, more or less remote, and that title to the parcels was only as valid as the strength and will required to maintain it.Originally Posted by blues
(See, eg, Kelo v. City of New London.)
If we have to march off into the next world, let us walk there on the bodies of our enemies.
It so Ironic at the tribal christmas party they always give out blankets, no lie......wtf
Maybe it's a way of keeping the memory alive. Then again, despite the evil that was done to them, I guess a blanket is still a pretty useful item.
There's nothing civil about this war.
Tribal sovereignty is a mixed bag. Adverse possession can't work against the state here. I don't think this is a simple case of adverse possession because it involves a sovereign nation. Congress will likely have to decide this. It may be that the land never legally passed out of ownership of the tribes. In that case there is no claim because the tribes are the only legal owners of the land since the treaty.
Like I said, you can't sell something you don't own.
Last edited by Borderland; 07-10-2020 at 11:31 AM.
In the P-F basket of deplorables.
That may be true, but it's also pretty tough to boot somebody off of a piece of land that has been in their family's physical and legal possession for > 100 years, and which their ancestors bought legally as far as they were aware. If you're going to take it away from them, it would not be unreasonable of them to expect compensation in some form.
Adverse possession generally cannot be asserted against sovereign entities.
If we have to march off into the next world, let us walk there on the bodies of our enemies.
If AOC and her friends take control of congress and the White House, eminent domain and redistribution may be the least of it. Hopefully we won't see that in any of our lifetimes.
There's nothing civil about this war.
Those may be the operative words here. I'm not saying anyone should be booted off of anything.
Legal ownership and compensation are two different matters. A lease is a form of that. Whoever is occupying and using the land may be entitled to compensation because of something the fed did but that may not be grounds for legal ownership passed thru title if the sale wasn't legal to begin with. Treaties along with boundaries as determined in those treaties are binding unless there are other documents that the nations signed to indicate otherwise. This isn't a matter of me claiming that I now own 100' strip of land that I've used for 20 years that I don't have deeded title to which is what adverse possession is.
There has been some sales of tribal land by the tribes to oil companies, but I believe it is now illegal for tribes to sell tribal land by an act of congress. What happens now is 100 year leases of tribal land. Some of those just expired about 20 miles from me on a nearby reservation. The tribe didn't renew the leases and the structures built by the lease holders were demolished.
As I understand it, there are negotiations in progress in congress right now to come to some terms with the nations in question over the that land in OK. The SC didn't just discover this error of the federal gov't selling treaty land to the public. My guess is some sort of resolution will be reached but congress will be making the decision and not the courts. Treaties are by act of congress, not the courts. The SC doesn't want anything to do with this and they can walk away if they want and have in the past.
Here is a little know example of how tribal lands can be illegally appropriated by the fed and eventually returned to the tribe thru a congressional act. So that might happen here.
https://www.crit-nsn.gov/crit_conten...s/080305.shtml
Can you imagine the calamity when the banks find out they can't reposes your house if you don't pay your mortgage. It will make the great OK land rush look like a Sunday walk in the park.
Last edited by Borderland; 07-10-2020 at 01:58 PM.
In the P-F basket of deplorables.
Quote Originally Posted by 0ddl0t
"Adverse possession may come into play if the lawful owners did not do enough to recover their property within the statutory time limits."
Oddlot
What are the factors under OK law for adverse possession?
What are the statutory time limits for an adverse possession action under OK?
Does it change if the opposing party is the state or fed or tribal govt?
What is the effect of the title previously resting in the hands of the United States vis a vis the general prohibition against adverse possession claims against the US?
What is the effect of the title now apparently resting in the hands of said tribes before the US pre treaty and/or today?
My point is simple- State your qualifications to talk about OK/Fed property law in general and and the intricacies of adverse possession actions regarding 3 separate sovereigns of over at least 3 separate time frames or STFU.
Cue the tape...crickets and owl sounds now.
Last edited by vcdgrips; 07-10-2020 at 02:41 PM.
@vcdgrips strikes again...
There's nothing civil about this war.
Reply With Quote
