Trespassers on Our Own Land

Say What?

2013-09-17T06:28:00.000-06:00

Legitimate financial institutions no longer exist in our country, our world. In my opinion they have been replaced by continuing criminal enterprises -- imposters, who want us to believe they are financial institutions.

New Mexico Has Banned Pre-Statehood History from High School Text Books Since 1992

2013-05-17T10:39:00.000-06:00

In 1992 New Mexico's Board of Education changed its educational standards from what had previously been entitled: "Educational Standards for New Mexico Schools" to "Standards for Excellence.

The new Content Standard for social studies, grades 9-12 thereafter was changed from the way it had read in 1976 and 1982:

"Social Studies. All programs should emphasize the value of cultural diversity and recognize the intrinsic worth of each culture in itself"

to:

"Content Standard 1: Students are able to identify important people and events in order to analyze significant patterns, relationships, themes, ideas, beliefs and turning points in New Mexico [since statehood], United States, and world history in order to understand the complexity of the human experience. Students will:

"9-12 Benchmark 1-A. New Mexico: analyze how people and events of New Mexico have influenced United States and world history since statehood."

The significance of this change was that textbooks used in grades 9-12 after 1992 could no longer address pre-statehood history: No longer could the thousands of years of New Mexico's Indian history nor the hundreds of years of Spanish and Mexican history be included in textbooks used by grades 9 thru 12.

Ironically, the standards for grades 5-8 were not limited in 1992 as they were for grades 9-12. Upon inquiry I was advised that once students in grade 7 had studied pre-statehood history there was no longer a need to teach the subject in high school. My question regarding this response is: then why teach post-statehood history again in high school as it had also been taught in the seventh grade?

I must qualify what I have said about the 1992 limitations New Mexico placed upon grades 9-12 in regard to the textbook presently used for those grades. The authors of A History of New Mexico Since Statehood, the book currently used in grades 9-12, (which was published by UNM Press) namely, Richard Melzer, Robert Torrez and Sandra K. Mathews are to be commended for their efforts in stretching the limits of the regulation as far as they did.

At the very least, their Introduction and chapters allow inquisitive students to realize that New Mexico's history began centuries before January 6, 1912.

Mike Scarborough

trespasseronourownland.blogspot.com

My Review of Chicano Manifesto, Authored by Armando Rendon

2013-04-12T09:18:00.001-06:00

As the movement toward immigration reform has finally, once again, come to the forefront of important political issues I recalled having read Chicano Manifesto, the comprehensive history of the Chicano movement in the 1970s as studied and lived by its author, Armando Rendon. Upon rereading it I am even more convinced than I was when I first read it decades ago that there is no better reference material available for politicians, professors, teachers, students and supporters of immigration and the Chicano movement than Chicano Manifesto.

Seldom in historical research are we able to find available for comparison with current events such an excellent, decade’s old, microscopic analysis as author Rendon’s Chicano Manifesto.

It is indeed unfortunate that as we compare the excellent road map provided by Rendon in Chicano Manifesto over forty years ago with that which has occurred in the decades since that the movement has time and time again been met with numerous obstructions and unfortunate detours along the route he suggested— yet heartening that finally there isa brightening light at the end of the very lengthy tunnel.

I suggest that unless one reads Chicano Manifesto and compares it to the current interest in immigration reform it is not possible to fully comprehend how far along Rendon’s Chicano Manifesto road map the movement has come.

Thank you, Armando, for having taken the time and effort to write and publish Chicano Manifesto.

BLM's Management of Mineral Acreage is Grossly Inequitable

2013-02-28T07:27:00.000-07:00

Below is a listing of BLM managed subsurface and surface acreage in the various states.

This is a very important document as it shows the federal government's disparate approach to control of subsurface mineral rights across the country. For example, Texas, with 168 million acres has only 4.5 million acres of federally controlled subsurface mineral rights, Oklahoma, with 44 million acres has only 2.3 million acres of federally controlled subsurface mineral rights, while New Mexico, with 77 million acres, has 36 million acres of federally controlled subsurface mineral rights.

The result of this is that Texas and Oklahoma own, either publicly or privately, the vast majority of the oil and gas production royalties and therefore receive vastly more money than does New Mexico.

Only be setting up a Task Force is it possible for New Mexico to challenge the federal government to release New Mexico's mineral rights or, at a minimum, to return more of the 55% of the royalties the federal goverment keeps from our school sections.

This document also reflects not only the desperate treatment of the western states but as well the manner in which the federal government treats the "eastern states" compared to the western states: Only 40 million acres of the 699 million acres of mineral rights acreage across the country are within the "eastern states."

While our Legislature is scrambling to find a way to increase the amount of money available for education, a possible solution what would not require an amendment to our constitution or an increase in taxes is right before our eyes, we need to request an increase in the percent of royalties we receive from the school sections while, at the same time, demanding additional school sections.

Of course, without a vehicle to drive this request, we may go another 100 years without increasing the money we need for education by other than tax increases or withdrawing additional money from our permanent fund.

We need a Task Force to study this issue, along with many other issues. How, other than by establishing a Task Force, can we realistically confront this gross inequity?

MINERAL AND SURFACE ACREAGE
MANAGED BY THE BLM

State	Total State Acreage	Federal Minerals ^a	Federal Surface Lands^b	BLM-Managed Public Lands ^d
Alaska	365.48	237.0	237.0	73.0
Arizona	72.69	35.8	33.0	12.2
California	100.21	47.5	45.0	15.3
Colorado	66.49	29.0	24.1	8.3
Eastern States	^h	40.0	40.0	0.1
Hawaii	4.11	0.6	0.6	0.0
Idaho	52.93	36.5	33.1	11.6
Kansas	52.51	0.8	0.7	0.0
Montana	93.27	37.8	26.1	8. 0
Nebraska	49.03	0.7	0.7	0.1
Nevada	70.26	58.7	58.4	47.8
New Mexico	77.77	36.0	26.5	13.4
North Dakota	44.45	5.6	1.1	0.1
Oklahoma	44.09	2.3	1.7	0.1
Oregon	61.60	33.9	32.4	16.1
South Dakota	48.88	3.7	2.1	0.2
Texas	168.22	4.5	4.5	0.1
Utah	52.70	35.2	34.0	22.8
Washington	42.69	12.5	12.2	0.4
Wyoming	62.34	41.6	30.0	18.3

Total	1,529.72	699.7	643.2	247.9

Forty-five Shocking Facts Regarding New Mexico's Spanish and Mexican Land Grant History

2013-02-25T08:25:00.000-07:00

The Federal Government Just Doesn't Get It: The Land Belongs To The People!

2013-02-24T08:57:00.000-07:00

Listen to what a Forest Service supervisor had to say in 2005, just five years ago, regarding his mistaken belief that the Forest Service "owns" the land it manages:

Over the years line officers and others have received requests for assistance [sic] someone in perfecting claims to title on National Forest System (NFS) lands. In other words, to use agency personnel time, funds, and resources to perfect someone's claim to the public's lands--NFS lands. These requests can range from small and simple to quite complex. Either way they can involve serious legal ramifications.

Enclosed is a 1-page briefing paper—"Community Land Grant Claims & Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo Forest Service Actions" of March 11, 2005. It contains some background on this subject and reminders of our obligation to protect title to NFS lands.

Under "Current Status" the Briefing Paper had this to say:

Debate on this matter has intensified significantly with the release of a relatively recent General Accounting Office report …The following key points need to be kept in mind:

The Forest Service job is to protect and manage NFS lands, and to defend US title and rights to the land–not to assist in efforts that intend to undermine US title/rights.

This information is identified in my book, Trespassers on Our Own Land, under "Notes" as follows:

OVER THE YEARS LINE OFFICERS AND OTHERS HAVE RECEIVED REQUESTS FOR ASSISTANCE [sic]: The letter, dated March 26, 2005, was sent with a March, 2005 Briefing Paper to the Forest Supervisor(s) of the Carson National Forest, Cibola National Forest and the Santa Fe National Forest; Subject: Land Claims & Forest Service Actions—Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. It was signed: H. Wayne Thornton, Director, Lands and Minerals and had the March 2005 Briefing Paper as an "Enclosure;" copies were sent to: District Rangers-NMex & AZ, Forest Supervisors-NMex & AZ, Dir. Of Range Mgt-R3, Dir. Of Lands-WO, Mary Ann Joca-OGC, Jim Snow-OGC, Dir. Of PAO-R3. The last paragraph of the letter states: The enclosed briefing paper provides a clear framework for our actions in the management and protection of NFS lands.

The People Own the Private Domain--the Federal Government is only the Trustee.

2013-02-05T20:32:00.000-07:00

The statement below was made eighty-six years ago before a United States Senate Committee and was not refuted by any member of the committee.

[Mr. Summers] When this land was ceded, the United State did not want to go on record as taking 334,000,000 acres of land by conquest. Therefore, the Government insisted upon buying it. And we bought it from Mexico, and drew on the Treasury of the United States to pay Mexico. It was bought with the people’s money, and it is not the Government’s land, but the Government is holding it as trustee for the people. If the Government is a trustee and must exercise its trust—to use the language of the Supreme Court, the domestic branch of this Government is the guardian of the people’s rights in the public domain. And if that is true, then the people’s rights should be established. In addition, the Government says the statute of limitations never runs against the people; that open, notorious and adverse possession may run against an individual, but it never runs against the people and it never excuses a trustee in failing to discharge the duties of his trust. So that so far as these questions are concerned, it is not a matter of trying one case; it is a matter of clearing up a situation of vast importance that has remained for all these years in its present condition because of the manipulations to continue in control of enormous properties illegally held to control the Land Department in order.

Williamson S. Summers, attorney at law, Los Angeles, California, speaking for S. Res. 333, Mexican Land Grant Frauds, on February 17, 1927 before the Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, 69^th Cong. 2nd sess., p.24

List of Unlawful Forest Reserves Taking from New Mexico Territory, Indian Tribes and heirs of Spanish and Mexican Land Grants between 1902 and 1908

2013-02-04T10:51:00.001-07:00

The following is a list of President Theodore Roosevelt's unlawful Proclamations (Executive Orders) establishing and increasing the size of forest reserves. The fact that they were unlawfully taken is found in a number of Indian Claims Commission findings which stated that in the cases considered the ICC found that consideration was not paid for the taking and that the Pueblos were entitled to be paid for the unlawful taking. By the time the ICC had completed its consideration of all the claims of unlawful taking the government had paid out in excess of $800,000,000 to Indian tribes who had had their land unlawfully taken.
In one case in particular, the Jemez, Zia and Santa Ana Pueblos were found to have had over 26,000 acres of their land unlawfully taken by the establishment of the Jemez Forest Reserve.
The establishment of the Jemez Forest Reserve also took 800,000 acres from previous Spanish and Mexican Land Grants and 600,000 acres of New Mexico Territorial land, none of which was ever paid for or returned as the ICC did not provide States, Territories or Spanish and Mexican Land Grants the authority to seek justice for the unlawful taking:

Establishment of Lincoln Forest Reserve, New Mexico 7/26/1902

Enlargement of Gila Forest Reserve, New Mexico 582* (renamed 7/21/1905)

Modification of boundaries of Lincoln Forest Reserve, New Mexico 600

Establishment of Portales Forest Reserve, New Mexico 601

Establishment of Jemex Forest Reserve, New Mexico October 10, 2005 603

Enlargement of Lincoln Forest Reserve, New Mexico 1906 634

Establishment of Mount Taylor Forest Reserve, Territory of New Mexico 662

Establishment of Gallinas Forest Reserve, Territory of New Mexico 1906 667

Establishment of Magdalena Forest Reserve, Territory of New Mexico 1906 669

Establishment of San Mateo Forest Reserve, Territory of New Mexico 1906 670

Establishment of Peloncillo Forest Reserve, Territory of New Mexico 1906 671

Establishment of Manzano Forest Reserve, Territory of New Mexico 1906 685

Enlargement of Jemez Forest Reserve, Territory of New Mexico 11/11/06 691*

Establishment of Taos Forest Reservation, Territory of New Mexico * 692

Establishment of Big Burros Forest Reserve, New Mexico Territory 704 2/2/07

Establishment of San Jacinto Forest Reserve, New Mexico Territory 705 2/2/07

Establishment of Las Animas Forest Reserver, Colorado and New Mexico 718

Abolishment of Portales National Forest, New Mexico 741

Enlargement of Big Burros National Forest, New Mexico 742

Enlargement of Gallinas National Forest, New Mexico 744

Establishment of Guadalupe National Forest, New Mexico 746

Enlargement of Lincoln National Forest, New Mexico 748

Establishment of Sacramento National Forest, New Mexico 749

Enlargement of Magdalena National Forest, New Mexico 764

Partial revocation of withdrawal for Lincoln National Forest, New Mexico 801

Enlargement of Jemez National Forest, New Mexico 806 4/4/08

Enlargement of Gila National Forest, New Mexico 811

Establishment of Datil National Forest, New Mexico 812

Enlargement of Pecos National Forest, New Mexico Territory 835

Enlargement of Gila National Forest, New Mexico 843

Enlargement of the Datil National Forest, New Mexico 851

Enlargement of Lincoln National Forest, New Mexico 860

Enlargement of Alamo National Forest, New Mexico 862

Enlargement of Carson National Forest, New Mexico 863

Enlargement of Zuni National Forest, Arizona and New Mexico 864

*The number following each identified Forest Reserve is the proclamation number for that Reserve.

After 100 years of Statehood, New Mexico Finally Wakes Up

2013-02-04T10:05:00.000-07:00

House Bill 292 was introduced in the past week seeking the establishment of a Task Force to find ways to demand the federal government "return" millions of acres unlawfully taken from New Mexico Territory between 1891 and 1907. The bill reads as follows:

HOUSE BILL 292

51st legislature - STATE OF NEW MEXICO - first session, 2013

INTRODUCED BY

Yvette Herrell , Richard C. Martinez [and Debbie Rodella]*

AN ACT

RELATING TO PUBLIC LANDS; CREATING THE TRANSFER OF PUBLIC LANDS ACT; DEFINING PUBLIC LANDS TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO THE STATE; DEVELOPING A MECHANISM FOR THE TRANSFER OF FEDERAL PUBLIC LANDS TO THE STATE; CREATING THE PUBLIC LANDS TRANSFER TASK FORCE.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.--This act may be cited as the "Transfer of Public Lands Act".

SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS.--As used in the Transfer of Public Lands Act:

A. "public lands" means lands within the exterior boundaries of this state except:

(1) lands to which title is held by a person who is not a governmental entity;

(2) lands owned or held in trust by this state, a political subdivision of this state or an independent entity;

(3) lands reserved for use by the state for education and internal improvements, as described in the provisions of the Enabling Act for New Mexico;

(4) lands within the exterior boundaries as of January 1, 2013 of the following that are designated as national parks or national historical parks:

(a) Carlsbad caverns national park;

(b) Chaco culture national historical park; and

(5) lands within the exterior boundaries as of January 1, 2013 of the following national monuments managed by the national park service as of January 1, 2013:

(a) Aztec ruins national monument;

(b) Bandelier national monument;

(d) El Malpais national monument;

(e) El Morro national monument;

(f) Fort Union national monument;

(g) Gila cliff dwellings national monument;

(h) Kasha-Katuwe tent rocks national monument;

(i) Petroglyph national monument;

(j) Prehistoric trackways national monument;

(k) Salinas Pueblo missions national monument; and

(l) White Sands national monument; (6) lands within the exterior boundaries as of January 1, 2013 of the following wilderness areas located in the state that, as of January 1, 2013, are designated as part of the national wilderness preservation system under the federal Wilderness Act of 1964:

(a) Aldo Leopold wilderness;

(b) Apache kid wilderness;

(d) Bisti/De-Na-Zin wilderness;

(e) Blue range wilderness;

(f) Bosque del Apache wilderness;

(g) Capitan mountains wilderness;

(h) Carlsbad caverns wilderness;

(i) Cebolla wilderness;

(j) Chama river canyon wilderness;

(k) Cruces basin wilderness;

(l) Dome wilderness;

(m) Gila wilderness;

(n) Latir peak wilderness;

(o) Manzano mountain wilderness;

(p) Ojito wilderness;

(q) Pecos wilderness;

(r) Sabinoso wilderness;

(s) Salt creek wilderness;

(t) San Pedro parks wilderness;

(u) Sandia mountain wilderness;

(v) West Malpais wilderness;

(w) Wheeler peak wilderness;

(x) White mountain wilderness; and

(y) Withington wilderness;

(7) lands with respect to which the jurisdiction is ceded to the United States as provided in Sections 19-2-6 through 19-2-9 and 19-2-11 NMSA 1978 or under Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I of the United States constitution;

(8) real property or tangible personal property owned by the United States if the property is within the boundaries of a municipality; or

(9) lands, including water rights, belonging to an Indian nation, tribe, pueblo, band or community that is held in trust by the United States or is subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States;

B. "task force" means the public lands transfer task force; and

C. "net proceeds" means the proceeds from the sale of public lands, after subtracting expenses incident to the sale of the public lands.

SECTION 3. LAND GRANTS.--Nothing in the Transfer of Public Lands Act shall be construed as to prejudice or adversely affect any rights, claims or privileges of New Mexico's historic land grants.

SECTION 4. TRANSFER OF PUBLIC LANDS.--

A. On or before December 31, 2015, the United States shall:

(1) extinguish title to public lands; and

(2) transfer title to public lands to the state.

B. If the state transfers title to any public lands with respect to which the state receives title under Paragraph (2) of Subsection A of this section, the state shall:

(1) retain five percent of the net proceeds the state receives from the transfer of title; and

(2) pay ninety-five percent of the net proceeds the state receives from the transfer of title to the United States.

C. In accordance with Article 12, Section 2 of the constitution of New Mexico, the amounts the state retains in accordance with Paragraph (1) of Subsection B of this section shall be deposited into the permanent school fund.

SECTION 5. PUBLIC LANDS TRANSFER TASK FORCE.--

A. The "public lands transfer task force" is created. The task force shall be composed of the following members:

(1) four members of the legislature, two from each chamber, appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives and the president pro tempore of the senate;

(2) the commissioner of public lands or the commissioner's designee;

(3) the secretary of energy, minerals and natural resources or the secretary's designee;

(4) the state forester or the state forester's designee;

(5) the director of the state parks division of the energy, minerals and natural resources department or the director's designee;

(6) the secretary of general services or the secretary's designee;

(7) the state treasurer or the state treasurer's designee;

(8) the secretary of transportation or the secretary's designee;

(9) the secretary of cultural affairs or the secretary's designee;

(10) the secretary of finance and administration or the secretary's designee;

(11) the secretary of Indian affairs or the secretary's designee;

(12) the president of the land grant council or the president's designee; and

(13) the executive director of the New Mexico association of counties or the executive director's designee.

B. The co-chairs of the task force shall be the commissioner of public lands or the commissioner's designee, and the secretary of energy, minerals and natural resources or the secretary's designee.

C. The legislative council service, the state land office and the energy, minerals and natural resources department shall provide staff for the task force.

D. The task force shall hold its first meeting on or before July 1, 2013, shall meet regularly and shall report annually to the legislature with an update on the progress the task force has made concerning facilitating the transfer of public lands to the state. Staff for the task force shall meet before the first meeting of the task force to prepare for that meeting.

E. The task force shall report at least one time during the interim to the legislative finance committee and to any interim committee created by the New Mexico legislative council to consider Native American affairs, land grant issues, water and natural resources or economic and rural development. The task force shall promptly agree to any request for a report to any other interim legislative committee that desires an update on its work.

F. The task force shall take testimony from representatives of a wide spectrum of groups, including environmental organizations, farmers, hunting and fishing organizations, ranchers and outdoor sporting organizations, before proposing any legislation.

G. During the 2013 interim, the task force shall prepare proposed legislation:

(1) creating a public lands commission to:

(a) administer the transfer of title of public lands to the state; and

(b) address the management of public lands and the management of multiple uses of public lands, including addressing managing open spaces, access to public lands, local planning and the sustainable yield of natural resources on public lands;

(2) establishing actions that shall be taken to secure, preserve and protect the state's rights and benefits related to the United States' duty to have extinguished title to public lands, in the event that the United States does not meet the requirements of the Transfer of Public Lands Act;

(3) making any necessary modifications to the definition of "public lands" in the Transfer of Public Lands Act, including any necessary modifications to the list provided in Paragraphs (4) through (6) of Subsection A of Section 2 of the Transfer of Public Lands Act;

(4) making a determination of or a process for determining interests, rights or uses related to:

(a) easements;

(b) geothermal resources;

(d) land grants;

(e) mining;

(f) natural gas;

(g) oil;

(h) recreation;

(i) rights of entry;

(j) special uses;

(k) timber;

(l) water; or

(m) other natural resources or other resources; and

(5) determining what constitutes "expenses incident to the sale of public lands" described in Subsection C of Section 2 of the Transfer of Public Lands Act.

H. During the 2013 interim, the task force shall study and determine whether to prepare proposed legislation:

(1) administering the process for:

(a) the United States to extinguish title to public lands;

(b) the state to receive title to public lands from the United States; or

(c) the state to transfer title to any public lands the state receives in accordance with the Transfer of Public Lands Act;

(2) establishing a prioritized list of management actions for the state and the political subdivisions of the state to perform on public lands:

(a) before and after the United States extinguishes title to public lands; and

(b) to preserve and promote the state's interest in: 1) protecting public health and safety; 2) preventing catastrophic wildfire and forest insect infestation; 3) preserving watersheds; 4) preserving and enhancing energy and the production of minerals; 5) preserving and improving range conditions; and 6) increasing plant diversity and reducing invasive weeds on range and woodland portions of the public lands;

(3) establishing procedures and requirements for subjecting public lands to property taxation;

(4) establishing other requirements related to national forests, national recreation areas or other public lands administered by the United States; and

(5) addressing the indemnification of a political subdivision of the state for actions taken in furtherance of the Transfer of Public Lands Act.

I. The task force may study any other issue related to public lands as determined by the task force.

SECTION 6. TEMPORARY PROVISION.--The public lands transfer task force is terminated on July 1, 2016.

SECTION 7. SEVERABILITY.--If any part or application of the Transfer of Public Lands Act is held invalid, the remainder or its application to other situations or persons shall not be affected.

SECTION 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.--The effective date of the provisions of this act is July 1, 2013.
*Senator Richard Martinez (D), Rep. Debbie Rodella (D) and Rep. Yvette Herrell co-sponsored the bill. Others who signed on to the bill were: Rep. Paul Bandy (R), Rep. Patricia Lundstrom (D), Rep. Donna Irwin (D), Rep. Zach Cook (R), Minority Leader Rep. Don Bratton (R), Minority Whip Rep. Nate Gentry (R), and Rep. Candy Spence Ezzell (R).

OVERLOOKED CLERICAL ERRORS--How and Why The Federal Government Unlawfully Wound Up With More than 24,000,000 Acres of New Mexico Public Land (Trespassers on Our Own Land, Chapter 18)

2013-02-04T08:36:00.000-07:00

-18-

The Court Of Private Land Claims

Grandpa, I told my teacher what you had told me about the size of the San Joaquín del Río de Chama, Juan Bautista Valdez and La Petaca Grants before the government took the land and how many acres they wound up with. I told him you had mentioned so many numbers I was having a hard time remembering them and he suggested we could make it easier to understand if we divided all the acres you talked about by 640, the number of acres in a square mile to try and make it clearer how unfair the government had been. I divided all the acreage we've been talking about and it made a big difference for me. Can I go over the numbers before we move on to something else?

Sure.

I'll start with some of the grants that received patents from Congress before the Court of Private Land Claims got involved. The Maxwell and Sangre de Cristo Grants were supposed to be limited under Mexican lawto eleven square leagues or approximately 153 square miles each. The Maxwell Grant wound up with 2,679 square miles—2,527 more than it was entitled to and the Sangre de Cristo received 1,562 square miles—1,408 more than it should have had.

The Pablo Montoya and Preston Beck, Jr. Grants were only entitled to 76 square miles each yet the Pablo Montoya received 1,024 square miles and the Preston Beck, Jr. wound up with 498.

Those four grants together were entitled to 358 square miles and they wound up with 5,762—5,300 square miles more than they were supposed to have.

The grants on page 113 of the GAO Report, the Cañón de Carnué, Cañón de Chama [San Joaquín del Río de Chama], Don Fernando de Taos, Town of Galisteo, Petaca, San Miguel del Bado and the Santa Cruz were treated just the opposite—they were entitled to 1,776 square miles. Guess how many they wound up with, Grandpa?

How many, Hijo?

They only wound up with 26 square miles. The remaining 1,750 square miles wound up belonging to the government..

Did you figure the square miles for the Juan Bautista Valdez?

Sure did.

We used an estimate of 147,500 acres for the Juan Bautista. If the government had confirmed all the acreage Spain actually granted to the San Joaquin, the La Petaca and the Juan Bautista Valdez there would have been approximately 810,000 acres—that means they should have received over 1,266 square miles.

How much did they actually get, Hijo?

Six and a half square miles, Grandpa—6.5 of the 1,266 square miles they had been granted forty years before the United States even claimed to have any interest in New Mexico.

After we'd done the math, my teacher pulled out a copy of the census for the San Joaquín del Río de Chama that showed there were more than 400 people living there in 1880—in more than 140 homes. He said, like you had said earlier, Grandpa—they even had a school and a cemetery, but that all there is now are a bunch of National Forest signs—no houses—no schoolhouse, no cemetery—just Forest Service signs. The settlement that had been there for over 80 years is nothing but dust.

Last Monday my teacher brought a copy of the Sunday Albuquerque Journal to class. After he read an article about what the government is doing at a cemetery at Fort Craig, near Socorro, he told us that it's interesting how the Bureau of Reclamation can spend hundreds of hours and tens of thousands of dollars at a Cemetery recovering the remains of more than60 men, women and children—promising to provide them decent burials at the National Cemetery—but at the same time it won't spend a dime fixing up the San Joaquín del Río de Chama Cemetery—and the other land grant cemeteries around the state.

I saw the story you're talking about, Hijo. It was interesting to compare what the government was willing to do at Ft. Craig with what it isn't willing to do for our grants. When you stop to think about how the Forest Service has ignored the condition of the land grants it becomes clear how unimportant our ancestors are to the government.

To make it even worse many of the men who were born, lived and are buried on the San Joaquín and the other grants—fought as volunteers for the Union during the Civil War. They were veterans like the government claims some of the remains at Ft. Craig were, yet our volunteers continue to be ignored.

From what the article said, Hijo, the remains the government was finding at Ft. Craig weren't even Civil War casualties—a lot of the ones they identified didn't even get to New Mexico until after the battle at Glorieta, after the end of the Civil War.

Here's something I think our heirs will find interesting. It's a comparison of President Roosevelt's 1905 Proclamation establishing the Jémez Forest Reserve with the one President Harrison used to set aside the Pecos River Forest Reserve in 1892.

The first difference was that Harrison's proclamation number 316 had a township and range description of the land being withdrawn while Roosevelt's Jemez Forest Reserve proclamation didn't have a description—just a simple grid map, but that's not all. Harrison's proclamation had a paragraph that read:

Excepting from the force and effect of this proclamation all land which may have been prior to the date hereof embraced in any valid Spanish or Mexican grant or in any legal entry or covered by any lawful filing duly made in the proper United States land office ….

Roosevelt's proclamation for the Jémez Forest Reserve skipped that paragraph, Hijo. Even though the San Joaquín, Juan Bautista and La Petaca grants had been removed from the government maps they still physically existed. Since Roosevelt wanted all of the land in the three grants he probably left that paragraph out intentionally so questions about our grants wouldn't slow him down.

But you better believe that both proclamations say the same thing when it comes to timber. The words are slightly different but they make the same point. President Harrisons proclamation for the Pecos River Forest Reserve had this to say:

And whereas the public lands in the Territory of New Mexico within the limits hereinafter described are in part covered with timber, and it appears that the public good would be promoted by setting apart and reserving said lands as a public reservation.

Now listen to how that part of Roosevelt's Jémez Proclamation read:

And whereas, the public lands, in the Territory of New Mexico which are hereinafter indicated, are in part covered with timber, and it appears that the public good would be promoted by setting aside said lands as a public reservation …

Both show how important the timber was—and that the forests should be placed in public reservations.

Before we go to something else I want to read a Joint Memorial the New Mexico Legislature passed on February 4, 1905 and sent to Congress.

To The President of the United States Protesting Against

The Creation of the Río De Jémez Reserve.

That the said reserve has been established and set apart without the several thousands of people who live within the boundaries thereof and are mostly affected thereby, ever having any notice of the intent to establish it, and without being given any opportunity to protest against the same.

That the said reserve embraces a section of country almost as large or larger in area than the state of New Jersey … and including within its outer boundaries large tracts of land that are absolutely non-forest in character, and valuable only for mining, agricultural and grazing purposes, besides fifteen or more towns and villages and a large number of farms and stock ranches …

Your memorialists further represent that New Mexico's chief industry is that of sheep raising and that the territory has within the last four years, advanced from the fourth to the first place in the nation as a wool producer, and that a large portion of the country so included in this forest reserve has been for nearly a half a century last past the principal grazing ground for a large number of flocks [sic] of the territory and from which grazing ground all sheep will be thereby excluded, thus irreparably injuring the owners thereof as well as the territory at large.

That the establishing of this reserve practically amounts to the confiscation of all the ranches and homes of the people living within the boundaries thereof, and although they established themselves there more than fifty years ago and endured the great hardships and risks in the accumulation of the property they possess, they are to be driven out to begin life anew.…

Wherefore, your memorialists respectfully and earnestly pray that all that portion of the Río de Jémez reserve that lies within Taos and Río Arriba counties, may be restored to the public domain and consequent location and entry, relieving the people who will suffer thereby so much in consequence of the establishment of said reserve over such a large area of land of non-forest country: …

I'm glad we found that memorial, Grandpa, it makes it clear the New Mexico Legislature was against Roosevelt setting up the Río de Jémez Reserve. Do we have any other information that President Roosevelt was setting up reserves the people didn't want?

Here's one we can start with:

In January1907, there was considerable opposition to a Presidential proclamation that reserved thousands of acres of prime Douglas-fir timberlands in northern Washington State. The local press, chambers of commerce, and the Washington State congressional delegation protested that the reserve would cause undue hardship on residents by taking away homestead and "prime" agricultural lands (the land, in fact, was not agricultural, abut[sic] heavily forested) as well as impeding the future development of the State.

Why is it important to talk about what was happening in Washington State?

You'll see what I'm getting at soon enough. Here's more of the article:

After considerable pressure, Pinchot and President Roosevelt relented by, by[sic] saying that the reserve had been a "clerical" error. Soon thereafter, Senator Charles W. Fulton of Oregon, who had been implicated in the land frauds in that State, introduced an amendment to the annual agricultural appropriations bill.

I thought it was important that Roosevelt, when he got caught setting up that Forest Reserve in Washington, claimed it had been a "clerical error," withdrew the proclamation and returned the land to the State of Washington.

It's too bad he wasn't pressured into declaring the Jémez Forest Reserve a "clerical error."

Our world would have been a completely different place if that had happened. Here's the rest of the part I wanted to read:

This amendment, the Fulton Amendment prohibited the President from creating any additional forest reserves in the six Western States of Washington Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Colorado; took away his power to proclaim reserves, established under the Forest Reserve (Creative) Act of 1891; and gave Congress alone the authority to establish reserves. However, before this bill was signed into law on March 4, 1907, Gifford Pinchot and the President came up with a plan.

On the eve of the bill's signing, Chief Forester Pinchot and his assistant Arthur C. Ringland used a heavy blue pencil to draw many new forest reserves on maps. As soon as the map was finished and a proclamation written, the President signed the paper to establish another forest reserve. On March 1st and 2nd, Roosevelt established 17 new or combined forest reserves containing over 16 million acres in these six Western States. These have since been referred to as the "Midnight Reserves."

What did the Forest Service have to say about that?

Well—one thing it couldn't do was deny that President Roosevelt and Chief Forester Pinchot established all the reserves that the article mentioned because the article I was reading was from a Forest Service Newsletter. By publishing the article in a Forest Service Newsletter the government was actually blowing a whistle on itself.

The article said Roosevelt had established 17 new or combined forest reserves containing 16,000,000 acres in the six Western States. We looked into what actually happened in those 2 days and the documents we found indicated that, counting other forest reserves they proclaimed outside the six Western States, they had actually converted more like 30,000,000 acres to forest reserves. Instead of seventeen new or combined reserves like the article claimed, our documents show that thirty-three reserves were actually created, combined, enlarged or modified. Of those five were new, eight were set apart from existing reserves, fifteen, including the Jémez Forest Reserve, were enlarged, and five others were modified.

Did you find any other articles about Pinchot and Roosevelt making the reserves—any other information to support what you just said? It's pretty serious, Grandpa, for you to say that the President and Chief Forester were ignoring Congress when they were making those reserves. It sounds like you're saying Roosevelt and Pinchot were intentionally converting millions of acres of private lands into public lands at the same time Congress was trying to take his power to establish forest reserves.

That's exactly what I'm saying, Hijo. I don't know of any better evidence of what I just said than what I'm going to read next—from President Roosevelt's own words—from his own memoir:

While the Agricultural Appropriation Bill was passing through the Senate, in 1907, Senator Fulton, of Oregon, secured an amendment providing that the President could not set aside any additional National Forests in the six Northwestern States. This meant retaining some sixteen million of acres to be exploited by land grabbers and by the representatives of the great special interests, at the expense of the public interest.

But for four years the Forest Service had been gathering field notes as to what forests ought to be set aside in these States, and so was prepared to act. It was equally undesirable to veto the whole agricultural bill, and to sign it with this amendment effective. Accordingly, a plan to create the necessary National Forest in these States before the Agricultural Bill could be passed and signed was laid before me by Mr. Pinchot. I approved it. The necessary papers were immediately prepared. I signed the last proclamation a couple of days before by my signature, the bill became law; and when the friends of the special interests in the Senate got their amendment through and woke up, they discovered that sixteen million acres of timberland had been saved for the people by putting them in the National Forests before the land grabbers could get at them.

The opponents of the Forest Service turned handsprings in their wrath; and dire were their threats against the Executive; but the threats could not be carried out, and were really only a tribute to the efficiency of our action.

Have we found any information on exactly how many acres President Roosevelt placed in forest reserves during the time he was President?

Yes. We've found some information and believe it's accurate:

The forest reserves of the United States quadrupled to about 194,000,000 acres under President Roosevelt's orders, equal in area to all the states on the Atlantic coast from Maine to Virginia and the states of Vermont, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. This is a greater area than France, Belgium, and The Netherlands combined.

Over Roosevelt's articulate objections, "An Act Making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and eight," H.R. 24815, Public Act No. 242, U.S. Congress. 59th. 2nd Session was passed on Feb. 25, 1907. Unwilling to pocket-veto the entire appropriations act, Roosevelt permitted Gifford Pinchot and his staff to identify some 16,000,000 acres of forest in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Colorado and Wyoming which the President then designated as new national forest lands by executive order, between Congress's passage of the bill and its signing on Marth [sic] 4th by the reluctant President, who was now forbidden to create or enlarge the newly designated National Forests.

Do you have the names of the New Mexico reserves and the dates they were established?

We sure do. The Jémez was established, as we've already discussed, on October 12, 1905; the Lincoln and Portales were proclaimed on October 3, 1905; the Lincoln was enlarged on June 25, 1906; the Mount Taylor was proclaimed on October 6, 1906; the Gallinas, Magdalena, Peloncillo and San Mateo were established on November 5, 1906 and the Manzano was established on November 6, 1906.

As we said earlier, Roosevelt increases the Jémez Forest Reserve by over 223,000 acres and created the Taos Forest Reserve, all on the same day—November 7, 1906 and he created the Big Burros on February 6, 1907, and the Las Ánimas in Colorado and New Mexico on March 1, 1907.

The Jémez Reserve was enlarged in 1906?

Sure was. It was extended east toward the Río Grande Gorge and took in more land to the west.

On May 2, 1907, two months after Pinchot and Roosevelt established the "Midnight Reserves," James Wilson, the Secretary of Agriculture approved a pamphlet for publication that you're going to find interesting. Its' called, The Use of the Forest.

Here's some of what it says:

At first a great many of the National Forests were made without knowing exactly where the boundary lines should run. This was unfortunate; because some agricultural lands which should have been excluded were taken in, and a good deal of timber land which should have been included was left out. This could have been avoided by making examinations on the ground, but there was no money for the work, and so the boundaries had to be drawn very roughly …

Since 1900, however, men and money have been available for field examinations and rough and inaccurate work has been done away with entirely. The old and carelessly made National Forests have been surveyed and mapped, and the President has put back into the public domain those lands which should not have been included. Now, before new Forests or additions to old ones are made, all the lands are examined on the ground.

The greatest care is used in this work. Every section of land is examined, mapped, and described, and the boundaries are drawn to exclude, as far as possible, everything which does not properly belong in a National Forest. Two very detailed maps are made. One shows just what is growing on the land, the other shows who owns or claims the land. Every bit of cultivated land is located and mapped, as well as the land which is suited to cultivation but which is not cultivated at present …

Before any new National Forest is made it is known just why it should be made, just what effect it will have, and just where it should be located.

What do you think about that, Hijo?

All I can say, Grandpa, is whoever wrote that had no clue what Pinchot and President Roosevelt had been up to two months earlier.

Why do you say that?

Because it was the exact opposite of what they had done. Do you have any idea who wrote it?

Sure do—Gifford Pinchot.

It's Time for the Federal Government to Return Land it Took From the Western States under its claim of Manifest Destiny

2013-02-02T09:35:00.000-07:00

How Many Acres of Public Domain Land are there in the twelve Western States and including North and South Dakota?

504,920,073 acres

How Many Acres of Public Domain are there in the remaining states?

3,039,551 acres

Texas has a total of 168,217,600 acres. If the federal government owned the same percentage of Public Domain land in Texas as it has in New Mexico, (24,093,960 acres which is 30.9% of New Mexico's total acreage), it would own 519.8 million acres of Texas' land.

How much public domain land did the government take from Texas?

58,646 Acres

TREATIES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE “THE LAW OF THE LAND”

2012-12-25T17:50:00.003-07:00

In 2005 I learned of an International Court of Justice decision holding that the United States had failed to abide by terms of the decades old Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. It piqued my interest to the point that I included the issue in an unpublished manuscript I was writing at the time. The following is the manner in which I addressed the issue.

         “Let me tell you,” Officer Smith continued, in a calm, pleasant tone. There are lawyers, public defenders that hang out here in the station from time to time. They’re here to protect the rights of criminals—protect your rights. When I was out there trying to contact your boss I mentioned to one of them that you were here. I can have him come in and explain what’s going on. Tell you what you should do. You want me to send him in?”

         “How will I know he’s a defender?”

         “I offer to get you a free lawyer, and what do you do, you act like I’m lying. You’re really starting to piss me off—you want me to see if he’ll come in here and explain everything to you—help you figure out what you need to do—or not?”

         “I guess,” Ernesto answered. “If I can’t talk to my boss. If he isn’t where I can talk to him—since I don’t know what to do.”

         Smith left the room and returned a short time later with a man dressed in street clothes.

        “I was lucky to find a lawyer that can speak Spanish. Mr. Escudero, this is Ernesto Garza. I’m going to be charging him with Murder One. I appreciate you offering to help, let me know when you’re through,” he said as he was closing the door behind him. “Mr. Garza,” Escudero said, speaking in Spanish, “I’m Rey Escudero, an attorney with the Public Defender’s Office. We provide legal services to people like you, people who can’t afford to hire a lawyer. If you want, I can listen to what you have to say about what happened and advise you what to do. Do you have any questions before I explain what is happening?”

          “Yes. I guess. I’ve never been in trouble. I don’t know nothing about this.”

          “Well, first,” Escudero said, “why don’t you tell me what happened?”

         “I was at work. I work at SouthSide Cleaners. My boss, Jack, Mr. Straight, he told me Maria, my sister Maria, had called that my daughter, Tina, was very sick. He told me I needed to go home. When I got home I went to Tina and she was sicker than I have ever seen her. Maria told me she had called the clinic, La Clinica, for a doctor and after that, a doctor came.”

         “Before we go further, where you from—Mexico?”

         “Yes.”

          “Do you have papers to be here?”

“Yes. I am legal.”

“Okay. Did the man say, did he tell you he was a doctor?”

“I don’t remember for sure, I think he did. Maybe it was Maria that told me. You need to ask her.”

“Go ahead,” Escudero said.

“He came into the room where I was, where Tina was. He checked her a little and then he told me he wasn’t going to do anything and went to the kitchen. I begged him and all he did was look around. He started to leave, like he wasn’t going to help, like Tina wasn’t worth it.

I begged him to help—to do something—to use what he had in his bag. But he just said he needed to make a call.

“Before I knew it he was falling to the floor and I asked Maria what happened. She said I had got a knife from the table and hit him with it. That’s what she told me.”

“Sounds like you got mad and stabbed him because you thought he didn’t care about your daughter?”

“I must have—but I don’t remember hitting him with the knife.”

“From what you say, Ernesto, my best advice is—you should tell the officer everything—like you just told me. Because. Even though it might be murder, it doesn’t sound like it would be—you probably won’t have to worry about the death penalty—or spending the rest of your life in prison. You need to tell him what you told me?

“I don’t know. But—since you’re a lawyer, and you tell me I should—I guess I should.”

“You’ll need to sign some papers. A paper saying you agree to answer questions and one saying you don’t want to talk with anyone from the Mexican Consulate. It’s better not to talk to them; they can make it worse for you. Here—sign this one. It says you don’t want to talk with anyone from the Consulado, Mexican Consulate.

After Ernesto signed the papers and Escudero had left the room, Ernesto heard an announcement over the loudspeaker: “Detective Escudero, Rey Escudero, you have a call on line three.”

I have followed the issue over the years and find it disheartening how the United States ultimately approached the issue. The following are scholarly recitations of the matter as it unfolded.

THE MEDELLIN CASE - ACCESS TO A CONSULATE AFTER AN ARREST

The International Court of Justice, the United Nations’ highest, has unanimously ruled that the United States defied its order last year when Texas authorities executed Jose Medellin, a Mexican convicted of rape and murder. The court said the U.S. remained obliged to review the cases of about 50 other Mexicans on death row because they were denied access to their consulate after their arrest. The case hinges on the spotty compliance by U.S. state and local authorities with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which provides that arrested aliens, have access to diplomats from their home country and which the U.S. ratified in 1969.

Former President George W. Bush directed the states to comply with the world court's ruling, but Texas argued that neither that court nor the president could override the decisions of its state courts. Last March the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the president lacked authority to intervene in state criminal proceedings. AARO joined an amicus curiae brief in that case, pointing out that U.S. citizens abroad could be jeopardized if other countries also refused them access to their consular officials.

http://www.aaro.org/index.php?Itemid=28&id=14&option=com_content&task=view

AVENA AND OTHER MEXICAN NATIONALS (MEXICO V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

In January 2003, Mexico instituted proceedings in the International Court of Justice ("ICJ") against the United States, alleging violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations ("Vienna Convention"). The Vienna Convention provides that foreign nationals must be informed, without delay, of their right to communicate with their consulate when they are detained by law enforcement officials. It also requires law enforcement officials to notify the appropriate consulate if the foreign national so requests. In Avena, Mexico argued that the United States had failed to comply with the Vienna Convention in 54 separate cases involving Mexican nationals who had been convicted and sentenced to death. On March 31, 2004, the ICJ issued its ruling in the case, holding that the United States had violated the Vienna Convention in most of those cases and calling for the United States to provide review and reconsideration of the convictions and sentences in the underlying criminal proceedings.

I. Background

For decades, Mexico has provided consular assistance to its nationals traveling in the United States. In 1942, Mexico and the United States entered into a bilateral consular agreement "because of their geographic proximity and the frequent inter-state travel of their respective citizens." In 1965, Mexico ratified the Vienna Convention in order to supplement its bilateral consular agreements and to provide additional protection to Mexican nationals traveling abroad. In 1986, Mexico developed the Program of Legal Consultation and Defense for Mexicans Abroad in order to improve the work of its consular officials in representing the interests of Mexican nationals, particularly in legal proceedings. In 2000, Mexico established the Mexican Capital Legal Assistance Program in the United States. The program works with consular officials and defense counsel in the United States to promote awareness and compliance with international norms, including the Vienna Convention. Through the program, Mexico has intervened to protect the rights of Mexican nationals in over 100 capital cases. In some of these cases, Mexican representatives assisted defense counsel in obtaining evidence or presenting arguments to the courts. In other cases, Mexico submitted diplomatic protests or requests for clemency to state and federal officials. To enhance these programs, Mexico adopted legislation and corresponding regulations in 2002 that "establish a comprehensive legal framework pursuant to which Mexican consular officials must intervene directly to protect the rights of Mexican nationals."

Despite these actions, Mexico's efforts to promote compliance with the Vienna Convention in the United States have met with limited success. State and federal courts have declined to overturn convictions or suppress evidence when violations of the Vienna Convention have occurred, even in capital cases.

II. Mexico's Application to the ICJ

On January 9, 2003, Mexico filed an application instituting proceedings against the United States in the International Court of Justice. Mexico's application based the jurisdiction of the Court on the Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes ("Optional Protocol") that accompanies the Vienna Convention and that both countries have accepted.

The Mexican application alleged that 54 Mexican nationals had been "arrested, detained, tried, convicted, and sentenced to death" in proceedings in which the competent authorities failed to comply with their obligations under the Vienna Convention. These violations "prevented Mexico from exercising its rights and performing its consular functions pursuant to Articles 5 and 36 . . . of the Vienna Convention." As a result of these violations, Mexico argued that it "had suffered injuries in its own rights and in the form of injuries to its nationals."

In a separate request for the indication of provisional measures of protection, Mexico emphasized that three of its nationals-César Roberto Fierro Reyna, Roberto Moreno Ramos, and Osvaldo Torres Aguilera faced executions in the next six months. The request also noted that other Mexican nationals could soon face execution in the United States. Thus, the request for provisional measures sought to ensure that no Mexican national would be executed until the Court determined Mexico's claims on the merits.

III. The ICJ's Provisional Measures Order

On February 5, 2003, the Court announced its unanimous decision on the request for the indication of provisional measures. Of the 54 named individuals, the Court found that only three of them did, in fact, face the risk of execution in the coming weeks or months. Moreover, these executions "would cause irreparable prejudice to any rights that may subsequently be adjudged by the Court to belong to Mexico. . . ." Accordingly, the Court issued the following order: "[t]he United States of America shall take all measures necessary to ensure that Mr. César Roberto Fierro Reyna, Mr. Roberto Moreno Ramos and Mr. Osvaldo Torres Aguilera are not executed pending final judgment in these proceedings . . . ."

IV. The ICJ's Judgment in Avena

On March 31, 2004, the Court issued its judgment on the merits. As a preliminary matter, the Court dismissed all the jurisdictional and admissibility challenges raised by the United States. The Court found that the jurisdictional challenges were more appropriately addressed at the merits stage. Several admissibility challenges were also dismissed for this reason. The remaining admissibility challenges were dismissed on various grounds. For example, the Court found that exhaustion of local remedies within the United States was not necessary because Mexico was requesting the Court to rule on the violation of rights that it claims to have suffered both directly and through the violation of individual rights conferred on Mexican nationals. In addition, the Court held that Mexico had not waived its right to bring the case before the ICJ, even if it had delayed in doing so. "[O]nly a much more prolonged and consistent inaction on the part of Mexico . . . might be interpreted as implying such a waiver." The Court also rejected the claim that Mexico's own alleged failure to comply with the Vienna Convention precluded its action against the United States. The Court found that the Vienna Convention was designed to facilitate consular practice and promote friendly relations among member states. "Even if it were shown, therefore, that Mexico's practice as regards the application of Article 36 was not beyond reproach, this would not constitute a ground of objection to the admissibility of Mexico's claim."

Having resolved the jurisdictional and admissibility challenges, the Court then considered the merits of Mexico's claim. First, the Court found that the United States had breached its obligations under the Vienna Convention in the following manner:

      (1) by failing to inform, without delay, 51 Mexican nationals of their rights under the Vienna Convention;
     (2) by failing to notify, without delay, the appropriate Mexican consular post of the detention of 49 Mexican nationals, thereby depriving Mexico of the right to render assistance to its nationals;
    (3) by depriving Mexico of the right to communicate with, and have access to, 49 Mexican nationals in a timely fashion;
   (4) by depriving Mexico of the right to arrange for legal representation of 34 Mexican nationals in a timely fashion; and
   (5) by not permitting the review and reconsideration, in light of the rights set forth in the Vienna Convention, of the convictions and sentences of three Mexican nationals currently awaiting execution.

To remedy these violations, the Court held that the United States must provide "by means of its own choosing, review and reconsideration of the convictions and sentences of the Mexican nationals." In order to satisfy the Court's judgment, such review and reconsideration must take into account the rights set forth in Article 36 as well as the relevant portions of the Court's opinion on this issue. The Court indicated that review and reconsideration must be effective and must provide "a procedure which guarantees that full weight is given to the violation of the rights set forth in the Vienna Convention, whatever may be the actual outcome of such review and reconsideration." Thus, the procedural default rule cannot be used to preclude a defendant from raising a Vienna Convention violation. In addition, the Court stated that review and reconsideration must occur "with a view to ascertaining whether in each case the violation of Article 36 committed by the competent authorities caused actual prejudice to the defendant in the process of administration of criminal justice." Thus, the Court declined Mexico's request to find that a Vienna Convention violation must automatically result in the partial or total annulment of conviction or sentence.

The Court also averred that it was not determining the correctness of any conviction or sentence issued by a U.S. court. It continued:The question of whether the violations of Article 36, paragraph 1, are to be regarded as having, in the causal sequence of events, ultimately led to convictions and severe penalties is an integral part of criminal proceedings before the courts of the United States and is for them to determine in the process of review and reconsideration. In so doing, it is for the courts of the United States to examine the facts, and in particular the prejudice and its causes, taking account of the violation of the rights set forth in the Convention.

Finally, the Court indicated that such review and reconsideration must apply to both the conviction and sentence. It must also take place within the judicial process and not through the clemency process. "[T]he clemency process as currently practiced within the United States criminal justice system . . . is not sufficient in itself to serve as an appropriate means of 'review and reconsideration."

The Court also focused on prospective relief. First, the Court acknowledged the considerable efforts of the United States to ensure, in good faith, that law enforcement authorities complied with the Vienna Convention. These efforts included extensive outreach efforts by the U.S. State Department to inform state and local law enforcement officials about the Vienna Convention and its attendant obligations. Thus, the Court found that the U.S. commitment to ensure implementation of specific measures in performance of its obligations under Article 36 constituted a sufficient guarantee and assurance of non-repetition. Second, the Court held that any failure of the United States to inform Mexican nationals of their right to contact their consulate in future cases where Mexican nationals are sentenced to severe penalties would raise a new set of obligations. In these cases, the United States "shall provide, by means of its own choosing, review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence, so as to allow full weight to be given to the violation of the rights set forth in the Convention. . . ." Finally, the Court indicated that its analysis of the Vienna Convention should not be limited to Mexican nationals. According to the Court, "the fact that in this case the Court's ruling has concerned only Mexican nationals cannot be taken to imply that the conclusions reached by it in the present Judgment do not apply to other foreign nationals finding themselves in similar situations in the United States."

V. Conclusion

For the second time in three years, the International Court of Justice has found the United States to have violated the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. But the Avena decision is different from the earlier LaGrand decision in several respects.

In Avena, the Court indicated that law enforcement officials must inform a foreign national of his or her consular rights once there are grounds to believe that the person is a foreign national. Indeed, the Court suggested that this notice could be issued along with the reading of Miranda rights.

The Court also clarified the meaning of review and reconsideration, a remedy first recognized in LaGrand. The Court held that review and reconsideration requires judicial review and that the clemency process alone is insufficient. Furthermore, the Court held that review and reconsideration requires a determination of whether the Vienna Convention violations caused actual prejudice to the defendant. Such determinations can only be made on a case-by-case basis. While ICJ decisions have no binding force except between the parties and in respect to that particular case, the Court made clear that its analysis in Avena was not limited to Mexican nationals and that it applies with equal rigor to cases involving other foreign nationals.

The influence of the Avena decision will soon be measured in the United States. The State of Oklahoma has scheduled the execution of Osvaldo Torres, one of the Mexican nationals referenced in Avena, for May 18, 2004.

Consular Notification and the Death Penalty: The ICJ's Judgment in Avena William J. Aceves April 2004 http://www.asil.org/insigh130.cfm)

A JAILHOUSE LAWYER’S MANUAL

IMMIGRATION AND CONSULAR ACCESS

SUPPLEMENT

Chapter 2, Footnote 25:

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice sent a letter to the U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, informing him that the United States “hereby withdraws” from the Optional Protocol. See Charles Lane, U.S. Quits Pact Used in Capital Cases, Wash. Post, Mar. 10, 2005, at A01….See Frederic L. Kirgis, Addendum to ASIL Insight, President Bush’s Determination Regarding Mexican Nationals and Consular Convention Rights, Am. Soc’y of Int’l L., Mar. 2005.

This Chapter was revised by Manfred Gabriel based in part on a previous version written by Lara A. Ballard.

http://www3.law.columbia.edu/hrlr/jlm/ica-section-ii.pdf.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE

WASHINGTON

March 1, 2005

Dear Mr. Secretary-General:

I have the honor on behalf of the Government of the United States of America to refer to the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, done at Vienna April 24, 1963.*

This letter constitutes notification by the United States of America that it hereby withdraws from the aforesaid Protocol. As a consequence of this withdrawal, the United States will no longer recognize the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice reflected in that Protocol.

Sincerely,

Condoleezza Rice

His Excellency

Kofi A. Annan,

Secretary-General of the United Nations,

New York.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/87288.pdf

Unfortunately, from time to time, there exist stark reminders that treaties are not always shown the respect due “the law of the land.” This is clearly one of them.

In this instance we learn that a Secretary of State took it upon herself to alter the United States acceptance of a decade old treaty by simply drafting a letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations: altering our commitment to a treaty that had been confirmed by the Senate. Several questions arise from this act. First, how can a Secretary of State nullify our obligation to a treaty that has been accepted by the Senate? Second, if we withdraw from the Protocol what is to keep other countries from withdrawing and thus refusing to allow our consulates around the world to visit Americans who are being held for crimes that may not have occurred, or Americans who have been falsely charged. Shouldn't our government be cognizant of the fact that when we take unilateral action regarding treaties we are inviting other countries to make short shrift of their obligations.

It would seem that no consideration went into unintended and detrimental consequences may occur because of our omnipotence: shouldn't we consider that it is not wise to do unto others that which we would not wish to be done to us?

This is a very important issue, one which we should correct immediately. If Secretary Rice was acting within her power then surely the current administration could undo what she did with a simple letter from Secretary Clinton to the current Secretary-General reestablishing our obligation to abide by the Protocol.

Mike Scarborough
Justice1o1@aol.com*

*The "o" in justice1O1 is a capital "O" not a zero.

The 1846 Capture of New Mexico and the 1945 Battle for Okinawa: What They Have and Don’t Have in Common*

2012-12-12T08:37:00.006-07:00

In 1846 Stephen Watts Kearney along with 1700 soldiers marched from Ft. Leavenworth to and through New Mexico on their way to California. Kearney and his troops strolled through Las Vegas and Santa Fe capturing the Territory without firing a shot. Upon his arrival, General Kearney addressed those present, as quoted in Ralph Emerson Twitchell’s, The History of the Military Occupation of the Territory of New Mexico from 1846 to 1852:

“New Mexicans:—We have come amongst you to take possession of New Mexico, which we do in the name of the government of the United States. We have come with peaceful intentions and kind feelings toward you all. We come as friends, to better your conditions and make you a part of the Republic of the United States….You are no longer Mexican subjects; you are now become American citizens, subject only to the laws of the United States….We mean not to rob you of your property.” [Emphasis added].

Ninety-nine years later, during late spring and early summer of 1945 the United States attacked and captured the Island of Okinawa. The battle lasted less than three months and when it was over between two hundred and two hundred fifty thousand had died: Of those killed, our military reported that approximately 150,000 were civilians and 100,000 were Japanese military. Our loss of military personnel was reported at 12,000 killed.

Within thirty years of the Battle of Okinawa the United States began to return (and continues to return) virtually complete control of Okinawa and the hundreds of islands that make up the Ryukyu Island chain to Japan.

During the one hundred sixty-six years since Kearney’s capture of New Mexico our federal government established the Court of Private Land Claims, a court that would ultimately divest New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado of over 30,000,000 acres of Spanish and Mexican grant lands, proclaimed it federal public domain and has refused in those hundred sixty-six years to return control of a single acre to any of the Grants.

Our government’s lack of response to land grant claims since World War II raises a serious question of moral equivalency.

What is it about the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, its capture of the Philippines and its capture, imprisonment, and slaughter of more than half of the New Mexico soldiers who made up the 200th Coast Artillery Regiment that entitled the return to Japan of virtually total control of Okinawa and the other Ryukyu Islands, while at the same time refusing to the return the control of even an acre of the land grants to their rightful owners.

To put Okinawa and the Land Grants in clearer perspective, the geographical size of only one of the New Mexico land grants is necessary. Okinawa, with its 300,000 acres, was much smaller than the San Joaquín del Río de Chama Land Grant’s original 472,736 acres yet much larger than it was after the Court of Private Land Claims reduced it to a mere 1,423 acres.

Shouldn’t the thousands of New Mexican soldiers who volunteered to fight for the Union during the Civil War; who during World War II were imprisoned and slaughtered by the Japanese at Bataan and in Japan—the thousands who fought in Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan—shouldn’t their sacrifice for our country, their country count for anything? Have they fight and died in vain?

Mike Scarborough

* The research regarding the 200^th Coast Artillery Regiment was completed after Trespasser on Our Own Land was published. The references to the San Joaquín del Río de Chama are contained within the book. Trespassers is presently available at Amazon for $17.31+shipping for the paperback, and $5.99 for the e-book. Trespassersonourownland.blogspot.com

THE DAWES ACT OF 1887, COURT OF PRIVATE LAND CLAIMS ACT OF 1891 AND GAO'S 2004 TREATY OF GUADALUPE HIDALGO REPORT

2012-11-09T15:08:00.000-07:00

THE DAWES ACT OF 1887, COURT OF PRIVATE LAND CLAIMS ACT OF 1891 AND THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE (GAO'S) 2004 TREATY OF GUADALUPE HIDALGO REPORT ARE MIRROR IMAGES OF THE GOVERNMENT'S NEGATIVE ATTITUDE TOWARD INDIAN, SPANISH AND MEXICAN TREATIES AND PROPERTY RIGHT'S DURING THE LATE 1800's AND EARLY 1900's.

INTRODUCTION

The following is written in hopes that it might cause further research into various ways to approach the necessity of undoing grave injustices perpetrated upon the Indian, Spanish and Mexican people and the unlawful taking of vast portions of their Reservations and Land Grants during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s.

The information represents a comparative history of the groups addressed and invites further research in seeking remedies to heal the open veins of a century of intentional governmental maltreatment.

THE HISTORY

It is not enough that historians research and document the maltreatment of individual protected groups. They must also draw comparisons of the maltreatment of different protected groups within the same time period if they are to fully comprehend the consequence of such maltreatment.

It is the purpose of this paper to draw a comparison not only of the difference in treatment of the general population compared to the Native American; or the difference in the treatment of the general population compared to the treatment of the Spanish, Mexican and Pueblo Indian land grantees in the Southwest in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries—but to also draw a comparison of the difference in treatment of these protected groups compared with each other. In other words, in order to arrive at an accurate historical understanding of the prevalent adverse treatment, it is essential that we draw comparisons between the manner in which each of these groups were being maltreated during the same period of time.

While researching the disregard Congress had for Native American, Spanish and Mexican citizens property rights between 1887 and the present, two facts became abundantly clear, Congress had no moral compass—and the executive and judicial branches were in lock-step with Congress.

            The first congressional act I will address is the 1887 Dawes Act, the title and purpose of which began quite innocuously. The title simply stated that the law was being enacted to:
             …[P] rovide for the Allotment of Lands in Severalty to Indians on the Various Reservations, and to Extend the Protection of the Laws of the United States and the Territories Over the Indians, and for Other Purposes.
             It wasn't totally unreasonable to conclude from those words that the true purpose of the act was to allot land to Indians in severalty. However, in reading further, Congress’ use the of the term "over the Indians” rather than "to the Indians,” and its addition of the term "and for other purposes,” jumped off the page as they well should have. The term "for other purposes," offers no hint of what Congress was planning to accomplish. All that was clear was that its use was a clear forewarning of an ominous result.

The true intent of the act did not surface until Section Five: Congress’ true intent was to establish a process granting the president the power to remove lands from reservations which had been created for the use of the Indians by "treaty stipulation, by virtue of an act of Congress, or by executive order." Regardless of whether the lands were agricultural; had been sold with or without irrigation; or had been released to the United States by an Indian tribe; it was the intent of Congress that the land removed from the reservations should be:

…[H]eld by the United States for the sole purpose of securing homes to actual setters…disposed of by the United States to “actual and bona fide setters only”…

             The Dawes Act made it clear that it was the intention of Congress to abrogate the government’s treaty responsibilities to the tribes—to remove as much land as possible from the Reservations.
             Several additional references to the Dawes Act that need to be compared with the terms of the Court of Private Land Claims Act, bear mentioning. Among the problems created by the language in the Dawes act was congress’s intention to distribute reservation land in a manner that was in conflict with the laws regarding descent and distribution which were in existence at the time.
              The method Congress chose to distribute the land to the Indians in severalty was to allot it as follows:

               Each head of a family would receive one-quarter of a section; [160 acres].
               Each single person over eighteen years of age would receive one-eighth of a section; [80 acres].
               Each orphan child under eighteen years of age would receive one-eighth of a section; [80 acres].
               Each other single person under eighteen years now living, or who may be born prior to the date of the order of the President directing an allotment of the lands embraced in any reservation would receive one sixteenth of a section: [40 acres].
             Even though the planned distribution was contrary in a number of respects to the laws of descent and distribution of the various states and territories, the act:

Provided that the law of descent and distribution in force in the State orTerritory where such lands are situate shall apply thereto after patents therefore have been executed and delivered.…

By drafting the act and allotting the land as it did, Congress was denying married women a share of land. Of course, had married women been allowed their rightful share of the land the result would have had the effect of reducing the amount of land the government was attempting to take from the reservations and give to the "actual and bona fide setters." An anomaly in the language was that once the Indians had received their allotments, Congress required that:

Sec. 5. … upon the approval of the allotments provided for in this act by the Secretary of the Interior, he shall cause patents to issue therefore in the name of the allottees … and declare that the United States … will hold the land thus allotted, for a period of twenty-five years, in trust for the sole use and benefit of the Indian to whom such allotment shall have been made …: Provided, that the President of the United States may in any case in his discretion extend the period.

Yet, in the case of the “actual and bona fide settlers”, the holding period was different. It stated that:
…[A]fter the expiration of five years occupancy thereof as a homestead; [patents could issue].

To establish further evidence of how hypocritical the Dawes Act was, we need only to quote from a sentence from Section 6:
…[N]o Territory shall pass or enforce any law denying any such Indian within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.

The language of the Dawes Act clearly established that Congress was perfectly comfortable enacting legislation which not only abrogated the government’s treaty responsibilities; it was perfectly comfortable in ignoring the Indians rights to equal protection of the law.

Just five years after the passage of the Dawes Act it became clear from a passage in Harrison's 1892 Farewell address how effective the Dawes Act had been in separating the Indians from their land. He stated:

[T]he enormous cessions of Indian lands which have been opened to settlement, aggregating during this Administration [from 1889 through 1892] nearly 26,000,000 acres, and the agreements renegotiated and now pending in Congress for ratification by which about 10,000,000 additional acres will be opened to settlement, it will be seen how much has been accomplished.
In the five years between passage of the Dawes Act and Harrison's reelection loss, thirty-six million acres of Indian lands, created for their use, had been taken from them by the artifice of transferring their common lands to them individually.

Emily Greenwald, in her book, Reconfiguring the Reservation: The Nez Perces, Jicarilla Apaches, and the Dawes Act, [UNM Press, 2002] at chapter six, note 3, page 173 provides the following information regarding the effect of the Dawes Act and its progeny, as follows:

3. Leonard A. Carlson compiled the following figures:

Indian acreage in 1881 155,632,312

Indian acreage in 1933 52,651,393

Acres lost 102,980,919

Acres opened as surplus 22,594,658

Acreage of allotments sold 3,752,923

Total lost through the Dawes act 26,447,581

It was her conclusion that the Nez Perces lost 600,000 acres of their land directly but that the Jicarilla lost none of its land.

In 1891 Congress expanded its focus. It struck once again by designing and passing laws which allowed the government to take land which had belonged for decades to grantees and heirs of Spanish and Mexican land grants: to once again take treaty protected land; land which had protected by the very language of the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Congress would this time establish a Court of Private Land Claims and a Forest Reserve Act to relieve the Spanish and Mexican settlers of millions of acres over the next fourteen years.

One of Harrison's appointed justices, Wilbur F. Stone was even willing in the closing paragraph of an article he had written and which was presented to the 1904 annual meeting of the New Mexico Territorial Bar Association, to state the real reason the Court had taken 30,000,000 acres from the Spanish and Mexican land grants. And I quote:

… [T]he reversion to the public domain of the general government of more than 30,000,000 acres of [Spanish and Mexican grant] land comes the [sic]like new cession of country to the United States—a region illimitable in the undeveloped wealth of its coal, metals, agriculture and health—giving climate.
To further aggravate the discriminatory turmoil caused by the Dawes, Court of Private Land Claims and Forest Reserve Acts, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) began an investigation in 2000 of the "fairness" of the resolution of the Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty protected land grant claims and , after a four year
inquiry concluded that:

Not withstanding the compliance of the two New Mexico confirmation procedures [the Surveyor General and Court of Private Land Claims procedures] … the processes were inefficient and created hardships for the grantees.

The GAO forewarned of its conclusion when, early in its report, it stated that whether racial prejudice had contributed to shortcomings in the land grant adjudication process would not be addressed as it was collateral to and beyond the scope of its report. As if that were not enough of an insult to the land grant community, it stated (and restated on three additional occasions) that:

… [A]s agreed, GAO does not express an opinion on whether the United States fulfilled its obligations under the Treaty as a matter of international law.

The GAO, having made it clear that it was not going to investigate whether racial prejudice existed in the adjudication process or whether the United States had fulfilled its obligations under the treaty, was left with nothing better to do than to detail a gopher to the local Home Depot to purchase a gallon or two of whitewash.
Having touched upon Congress' use of its limitless powers to ignore equal protection of the law, and it's circumvention of treaty stipulations, we need next to direct attention to evidence existing at the time of the government's attitude toward the Spanish and Mexican land grants and their grantees. In the interest of reaching legitimate conclusions about what the politicians were thinking at the time it is important to consider what they were saying.

The Message To Congress (State of the Union Addresses) of the period provides excellent clues into the thinking in Washington at the time. As an aside, addresses made before 1913 were referred to as “messages to congress” and were presented in writing and therefore left virtually no room for errors in interpretation or speculation.

               Harrison's 1891 address contained a statement regarding the passage of the Court of Private Land Claims Act and the appointment of the justices to the court:
               The judges of the Court of Private Land Claims, provided for by the Act of March 3, 1891, have been appointed and the court organized. It is now possible to give early relief to communities long repressed in their development by unsettled land titles and to establish the possession and right of settlers whose lands have been rendered valueless by adverse and unfounded claims …
              Harrison dared to say to all the world, Spain and Mexico included, that with the organization of the court and his appointment of the justices complete, it was finally going to be possibly to “grant relief to those settlers who had been repressed in the development of their communities by the unfounded claims and unsettled titles of the Spanish and Mexican land grants.”

Harrison's statement above was not an isolated comment as he mentioned land grants in all of his annual Messages to Congress as well. In an address prior to the passage of the Court of Private Land Claims and Forest Reserve Acts, he had previously stated:

…[T]he subject of the unadjusted Spanish and Mexican land grants and the urgent necessity for providing some commission or tribunal for the trial of questions of title growing out of them were twice brought by me to the attention of Congress at the last session. Bills have been reported from the proper committees in both houses upon the subject, and I very earnestly hope that this Congress will put an end to the delay which has attended the settlement of the disputes as to the title between the settlers and the claimants under the grants. These disputes retard the prosperity and disturb the peace of large and important communities.

On another occasion, he stated:
Your attention is called to the difficulty presented by the Secretary of the Interior as to the administration of the law of March 3, 1891, establishing a Court of Private Land Claims. The small holdings intended to be protected by the law are estimated to be more than 15,000 in number. The claimants are a most deserving class and their titles are supported by the strongest equities. The difficulty grows out of the fact that the lands have largely been surveyed according to our methods…while the holdings, many of which have been in the same family for generations, are laid out in narrow strips a few rods wide upon a stream and running back to the hills for pasturage and timber.…

In each of President Harrison’s messages upon the subject he went out of his way to draw a distinction between the grantees of the land grants on the one hand, "whose lands are laid out in narrow strips a few rods wide", and the claimants, "who are a most deserving class" … [and whose] "titles are supported by the strongest equities."

Interestingly, the Court of Private Land Claims Act was devoid of language that even suggested that it had been enacted to protect the claims of the grantees. His statements were clear and unambiguous—the acts had been enacted “to resolve claims of claimants who were a most deserving class” and whose “titles were supported by the strongest equities.” As if mention of Harrison's lack of concern for the grantees of the land grants and his concern for the “settlers” in the Southwest was not enough, he also addressed the subject in a communication directed specifically to members of Congress.
The entire community (sic) where these large claims exist, and indeed all of our people, are interested in an early and final settlement of them. No greater incubus can rest upon the energies of a people in the development of a new country than that resulting from unsettled land titles.

President Harrison was not alone in making such comments. His Secretary of Interior, John Noble, was also speaking up. On April 26, 1891 he was quoted in the New York Times as having said:

The last Congress passed several measures which will affect the work of the Interior Department considerably. The land laws were very materially altered.

And:

The act which creates the court to settle Mexican land claims will take a great burden off the Interior Department, which has done whatever has been done in the way of adjusting these claims. The act, or something like it has long been needed, and the work of settling these cases, which involve millions of acres may now be said to be fairly begun.
On the occasion of being asked who should replace him as Secretary of Interior upon Harrison’s having lost his bid for reelection, Noble was quoted as having said:

Someone should be appointed who has no connection whatever with land grants in the West, unless the Administration wants to see this department of the Government attacked very bitterly on all sides….

Moving on to President Theodore Roosevelt's administration, we find his attitude toward the Spanish and Mexican land grants and their grantees and heirs, was no different than those of President Harrison. The evidence irrefutably establishes that Roosevelt, (with help from Chief Forester, Gifford Pinchot), continued Harrison's scheme of removing as much land as possible from the Spanish and Mexican grants.

On the very day Congress approved the CPLC’s act it also enacted an omnibus bill which included a section (mentioned above) that became known as the Forest Reserve Act. The significance of Section 24 of the omnibus bill is that it was used by Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot, his national forest supervisor, to proclaim over 145 million acres of land as forest reserves. Unfortunately, a significant and large portion of the land taken for the forest reserves had previously belonged within Indian reservations and the Spanish and Mexican land grants in the Southwest.

Section 24 read as follows:
That the President of the United States may, from time to time, set apart and reserve, in any State or Territory having public land bearing forests, in any part of the public lands wholly or in part covered with timber or undergrowth, whether of commercial value or not, as public reservations; and the President shall, by public proclamation, declare the establishment of such reservations and the limits thereof.

During Roosevelt’s presidency, he and Pinchot were prolific, to say the least, in their establishment of forest reserves. That is, until they were caught red handed attempting to establish a reserve in Washington State. In that instance they found themselves in serious trouble with Congress and the local people who had realized that thousands of acres of their state had been proclaimed a forest reserve.

The following is an explanation of what occurred once Roosevelt's proclamation was discovered. It is found in an article titled: The Forest Service: Fighting for Public Lands, (Understanding our Government), authored by Gerald W. Williams. The article addresses the quandary in which Roosevelt and Pinchot found themselves:

In January1907, there was considerable opposition to a Presidential proclamation that reserved thousands of acres of prime Douglas-fir timberlands in northern Washington State. The local press, chambers of commerce, and the Washington State congres-sional delegation protested that the reserve would cause undue hardship on residents by taking away homestead and "prime" agricultural lands (the land, in fact, was not agricultural, abut[sic] heavily forested) as well as impeding the future development of the State.

The article goes on to describe Roosevelt and Pinchot's manner of attempting to resolve the matter:

After considerable pressure, Roosevelt and Pinchot relented by, by[sic] saying that the reserve had been a "clerical" error. Soon thereafter, Senator Charles W. Fulton of Oregon, who had been implicated in the land frauds in that State, introduced an amendment to the annual agricultural appropriations bill.
This amendment, the Fulton Amendment, prohibited the President from creating any additional forest reserves in the six western States of Washington Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Colorado; took away presidential power to proclaim reserves, established under the Forest Reserve (Creative) Act of 1891; and gave Congress alone the authority to establish reserves. However, before this bill was signed into law on March 4, 1907, Gifford Pinchot and the President came up with a plan.

On the eve of the bill's signing, Chief Forester Pinchot and his assistant Arthur C. Ringland used a heavy blue pencil to draw many new forest reserves on maps. As soon as a map was finished and a proclamation written, the President signed the paper to establish another forest reserve. On March 1st and 2nd, Roosevelt established 17 new or combined forest reserves containing over 16 million acres in these six western states….

These have since been referred to as the "Midnight Reserves."

Counting additional reserves that Roosevelt and Pinchot proclaimed in territories outside the six states, it is believed that they had actually converted more than 30 million acres to forest reserves in the two days the bill lay on Roosevelt's desk awaiting his signature.

There could be no better support for the information provided in the article just quoted than Roosevelt's own words from his 1913 autobiography as subsequently compiled and edited in 2005 from research done by the National Geographic Society and Theodore Roosevelt Association staff:

               But for four years the Forest Service had been gathering field notes as to what forests ought to be set aside in these States, and so was prepared to act. It was equally undesirable to veto the whole agricultural bill, and to sign it with this amendment effective. Accordingly, a plan to create the necessary National Forest in these States before the Agricultural Bill could be passed and signed was laid before me by Mr. Pinchot. I approved it. The necessary papers were immediately prepared. I signed the last proclamation a couple of days before by my signature, the bill became law; and when the friends of the special interests in the Senate got their amendment through and woke up, they discovered that sixteen million acres of timberland had been saved for the people by putting them in the National Forests before the land grabbers could get at them.
               The opponents of the Forest Service turned handsprings in their wrath; and dire were their threats against the Executive; but the threats could not be carried out, and were really only a tribute to the efficiency of our action.
               According to a 2001 article by Dennis Cowals, entitled: Theodore Roosevelt and the Siuslaw National Forest:

               The forest reserves of the United States quadrupled to about 194,000,000 acres … [and was equal in area to] all the states on the Atlantic coast from Maine to Virginia and the states of Vermont, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. [Greater in] area than France, Belgium, and The Netherlands combined.
                Furthermore:
               Over Roosevelt's articulate objections, "An Act making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and eight," H.R. 24815, Public Act No. 242, U.S. Congress, 59th. 2^nd Session, was passed on Feb. 25, 1907. Unwilling to pocket-veto the entire appropriations act, Roosevelt permitted Gifford Pinchot and his staff to identify some 16,000,000 acres of forest in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Colorado and Wyoming which the President then designated as new national forest lands by executive order, between Congress's passage of the bill and its signing on Marth [sic] 4th by the reluctant President, who was now forbidden to create or enlarge the newly designated National Forests.
            It is important at this juncture to draw a comparison of two land grants in Northern New Mexico—to compare Harrison's 1892 Proclamation setting aside the Pecos River Forest Reserve with Roosevelt's 1905 Proclamation establishing the Jémez Forest Reserve.
             One significant difference was that Harrison's proclamation had been described by township and range while Roosevelt's, Jemez Forest Reserve Proclamation had no description—simply a grid map. Additionally, Harrison's proclamation had an important paragraph which was missing from Roosevelt's. It read:
              Excepting from the force and effect of this proclamation all land which may have been prior to the date hereof embraced in any valid Spanish or Mexican grant or in any legal entry or covered by any lawful filing duly made in the proper United States land office....

Roosevelt's proclamation for the Jémez Forest Reserve totally ignored the importance of protecting the interests of "all land[s] which may have been prior to the date hereof embraced in any valid Spanish or Mexican grants." He obviously did not wish to be bothered by the fact that he was absconding with 800,000 acres of grant land—thus leaving the San Joaquín del Río de Chama, Juan Bautista Valdez and La Petaca grants with less than 5,000 total combined acres.

On the other hand there was a striking similarity in both proclamations. Both mentioned an identical reason for being established. Harrison's proclamation for the Pecos River Forest Reserve read:
And whereas the public lands in the Territory of New Mexico within the limits hereinafter described are in part covered with timber, and it appears that the public good would be promoted by setting apart and reserving said lands as a public reservation.

While Roosevelt's Jémez Proclamation stated:

              And whereas, the public lands, in the Territory of New Mexico, which are hereinafter indicated, are in part covered with timber, and it appears that the public good would be promoted by setting apart said lands as a public reservation;…
              Unfortunately, the negative political climate against the Spanish and Mexican land grantees and their heirs was not limited to presidents and secretaries of the Department of Interior. Senator Albert J. Beveridge, chairman of the Senate Committee on Territories and a close friend and confidant of President Roosevelt, was extremely outspoken when describing the Spanish and Mexican settlers in New Mexico and Arizona whose families had refused to leave after the U.S./Mexican War. His statements on the floor of the Senate and elsewhere were highly inappropriate, and included his apparent belief that the Spanish and Mexican citizen residents of New Mexico and Arizona:
                … [W]eren't equal in intellect, resources, or population to the other states in the Union. Nor, said he, were they sufficiently American in their habits and customs.

A trip Beveridge took to the southwest was described by Howard Roberts Lamar in his 2000 book: The Far Southwest, 1846-1912: a territorial history, as follows:

               When in the early fall of 1902, his [Senator Beverage's] committee took up the question of admission, he and a subcommittee made a whirlwind tour of the three Western territories. From the questions he asked it was clear that he liked "American" Oklahoma, but that he was acutely hostile to the idea of statehood for "frontier" Arizona and "Mexican" New Mexico.
               [I]t appears that Beveridge's real reasons were not economic or reformist but cultural. He returned to Washington believing that the Spanish-speaking residents of the Southwest were at best second-class citizens, passive, pliant, and uneducated. Beveridge and his supporters were to argue for the next eight years that the Spanish-Americans were not at home with United States law, its court and school systems, or even with the English language.
              In an article in the New York Times of December 6, 1902, it was stated that:
             WASHINGTON, Dec. 5. Senator Beveridge is preparing an exhaustive report on the Statehood bill to present to the Senate before next Wednesday, when it will be taken up as unfinished business and considered until voted on unless Senator Quay is sidetracked by Senator Hale and the other parliamentarians of the Senate who are opposed to admitting the three Territories of New Mexico, Arizona and Oklahoma.

As to Arizona and New Mexico, it will be urged by the committee who visited the Territories that in parts of both the native American citizen sometimes feels that he is in a foreign country. Spanish is spoken and in some places public business is conducted in Spanish. The sub-committee that went out there recently found Justices of the Peace that tried cases in court in Spanish and spoke no English.
Senator Beveridge's dislike for the Spanish and Mexican settlers was so pronounced that he succeeded in convincing Roosevelt to hold back New Mexico and Arizona's statehood for nearly ten years. Likewise, the use of the term "native American" as used above, is quite telling. The land grant settlers and their heirs had been United States citizens since 1849—for over fifty years by the time the settlers arriving from the east were being referred to by Beveridge and his cohorts as "native" Americans. One wonders how many generations an ethnic group of citizens would have had to live in the United States before Senator Beveridge and his colleagues in the Senate would have been willing to recognize them as "native" Americans.

To show how close New Mexico and Arizona became to being granted statehood and the extreme to which Senator Beveridge was willing to go to deny them statehood once he realized that there was enough support in his committee to send the bill to the full senate; and realized further that there was a sufficient number of votes in the full senate to grant them statehood, we need return to Lamar's, The Far Southwest:

[Senator] Beveridge was not to be defeated. After mobilizing many other senators and using filibustering techniques, he resorted to an unexpected device. For reasons of courtesy no vote could take place without his presence as chairman of the Territorial Committee. At the crucial moment he hid on the third floor of Gifford Pinchot's home for a week and the time passed when a territorial bill could be considered in 1903.
Having discussed the 1887 Dawes Act and the 1891 Court of Private Land Claims and Forest Reserve Acts, it is time to turn our attention to the GAO's 2004 Report (GAO-04-59) which was titled: Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: Findings and Possible Options Regarding Longstanding Community Land Grant Claims in New Mexico, in order to draw a comparison of the government's treatment of the Indians and their reservations vis-à-vis the land grant settlers who had been living on their land for generations. In doing so, I am in no way suggesting that either group received preferential treatment over the other—only raising the issue to show that in each case Congress was intentionally discriminating against the group being addressed.

In the case of the Court of Private Land Claims Act, the settlers were not allotted land their ancestors had settled upon decades earlier. In fact, before Roosevelt proclaimed the Jémez Forest Reserve, the government had physically removed all evidence of the existence of the San Joaquín del Río de Chama, Juan Bautista Valdez and La Petaca Grants from a number of its official maps.

One of the more interesting, yet alarming, facts about the GAO Report was the extent to which the GAO was willing to go to conceal Congress' specific demand that the Court of Private Land Claims protect the property rights of three specific groups of individuals.

Section 12 of the GAO's Appendix VII, which was titled: Excerpts from the 1891 Act Establishing the Court of Private Land Claims, and which appears at page 186 of its report, read as follows:

Sec. 12. That all claims mentioned in section six of this act which are by the provisions of this act authorized to be prosecuted shall, at the end of two years from the taking effect of this act, if no petition in respect to the same shall have then been filed as herein before provided, be deemed and taken, in all courts and elsewhere, to be abandoned and shall be forever barred…. [Note the GAO’s use of a four dot ellipse]

Section 12 of the original act did not end with the words "and shall be forever barred," as implied by the GAO's use of a four dot ellipse. The paragraph, as enacted, read in pertinent part as follows:

Sec. 12. That all claims mentioned in section six of this act which are by the provisions of this act authorized to be prosecuted shall, at the end of two years from the taking effect of this act, if no petition in respect to the same shall have then been filed as herein before provided, be deemed and taken, in all courts and elsewhere, to be abandoned and shall be forever barred and shall be forever barred: Provided, that in any case where it shall come to the knowledge of the court that minors, married women, or persons non compos mentis are interested in any land claim or matter brought before the court it shall be its duty to appoint a guardian ad litem for such persons under disability and require a petition to be filed in their behalf, as in other cases, and if necessary to appoint counsel for the protection of their rights….

The portion of the sentence which the GAO very conveniently left out, turned out to be one of the most important, most significant, provisions of the law as it clearly directed the Court, at least so far as children, married women and persons non compos mentis were concerned, to protect their property rights, even to the extent of directing the appointment of guardians for them.

The question that begs consideration is: why would—why did—the GAO ignore the statutory demand, skirt the failure of the CPLC to comply with the significant statutory requirement that it protect the property interests of minor children, married women and persons non compos mentis . Was it because, as I believe, the GAO upon arriving at the realization that the Court had intentionally ignored the statutory requirement that it protect the rights of the minors, married women and persons non compos mentis intentionally attempted to cover-up the court’s refusal to comply with the language of the statute by replacing the colon in the act with a four dot ellipse to provide cover for the Court’s having ignored its mandate.

What the GAO did was not an accident or oversight—it was an intentional alteration of the language of an Act of Congress.

Unfortunately, Sec. 12 was not the only section of the Court of Private Land Claims Act that the GAO ignored. The following is another example of the CPLC’s having failed to abide by the clear language of the statute:

Section 8….It shall be lawful for and the duty of the head of the Department of Justice, whenever in his opinion the public interest or the rights of any claimant shall require it, to cause the attorney of the United States in said court to file in said court a petition against the holder or possessor of any claim or land in any of the States or Territories mentioned in this act who shall not have voluntarily come in under the provisions of this act, stating in substance that the title of such holder or possessor is open to question, or stating in substance that the boundaries of any such land, the claimant or possessor to or of which has not brought the matter into court, are open to question, and praying that the title to any such land, or the boundaries thereof, if the title be admitted be settled and adjudicated; and thereupon the court shall, on such notice to such claimant or possessor as it shall deem reasonable, proceed to hear, try, and determine the questions stated in such petition or arising in the matter, and determine the matter according to law, justice, and the provisions of this act, but subject to all lawful rights adverse to such claimant or possessor, as between such claimant and possessor and any other claimant or possessor, and subject in this respect to all the provisions of this section applicable thereto.

Congress was demanding that the United States Department of Justice, the United States Attorney, and the justices of the Court of Private Land Claims protect the rights of those Spanish, Mexican and Pueblo Indian grantees and heirs who had failed to claim their interest under the provisions of the act, yet the CPLC took it upon itself to ignore that mandate.

Congress, in the language of the Dawes Act, had addressed the property interests of Indians who failed to come forward with their claims at the time the government was withdrawing communal land and establishing individual allotments, differently. Section 1 of the Dawes Act had stated:

That if any one entitled to an allotment shall fail to make a selection within four years after the President shall direct that allotments may be made on a particular reservation, the Secretary of the Interior may direct the agent of such tribe or band, if such there be, and if there be no agent, then a special agent appointed for that purpose, to make a selection for such Indian, which selection shall be allotted as in cases where selections are made by the Indians …

A comparison of these two sections clearly establishes that Congress, in dealing with the Indians on their Reservations and the Spanish and Mexican Grantees and their heirs on their Land Grants, intentionally treated them unequally—not to mention that both groups were being treated different than the "native" Americans arriving from the east.

The information provided here is but an embryonic snapshot of our government's maltreatment of its Indian, Spanish and Mexican citizens property rights over the past thirteen decades. Since the passage of the Dawes, Court of Private Land Claims and Forest Reserve Acts, other than the establishment of an Indian Claims Commission to allow Indian Tribes to file claims against the United States, not a whimper has been heard from the federal and state governments regarding the continuing adverse effects of the maltreatment discussed above.

In considering whether it is too early or too late to attempt to correct this century of maltreatment and disregard for a significant portion of our population Congress can no longer afford to ignore recent census data. Man's inhumanity to man will not survive as the order of the day in the future.

PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ORDER RESERVATIONS

Presidential executive order reservations have existed since the 1850’s. The only important requirement for the establishment of an executive order reservation has been that it must be approved congress. Hundreds have been granted over the decades, including a number right here in New Mexico.

One of the earliest executive order reservation histories serves well to establish the politics of the establishment of executive order reservations. In the late 1800’s President U.S. Grant established two reservations in the San Diego of Southern California. He granted the two tribes approximately 90,000 acres. The “native” settlers arriving from the east began to complain immediately that it was not fair to give the tribes the 90,000 acres as it denied the “natives” the opportunity to have the land.

As one might expect, President Grant abruptly cancelled the two executive orders in order to satisfy the “natives.” Is this possibly the genesis of the term “Indian giver?”

However, it appears from a continued review of the facts, President Grant had another change of heart and again issued executive orders, this time to the two tribes he had originally granted the reservations and a number of other tribes in the area, increasing the grant to over 100,000 acres. The only difference was that he changed the location of the Reservations to areas which he believed the “natives” would not find desirable. As history would have it, the “natives” continued to crowd into California and the “worthless” land previously given to the tribes was becoming more and more valuable to the “native” Americans.

By this time, U. S. Grant was no longer president so the onus of correcting the problem fell upon Rutherford B. Hayes to once again cancel the Reservations, which he did, by withdrawing the 90,000 acres which had initially been established by President Grant.

For those of you who find this discussion of “giving” and “ungiving” of land by Executive Order Reservations to be more than just an unnecessary digression from the focus of this paper let me place it in context as it relates to the State of New Mexico.

In order to do so, we must review the history of the Mescalero and Jicarilla Apache Reservations and the Navajo Nation and how they were established. Of the three reservations, Jicarilla Apache Reservation was the only one to have been granted land by either Spain or Mexico.

Mexico granted the Jicarilla’s approximately 1,000,000 acres “east of Taos” which later became known as the Maxwell Land Grant.

In the early 1870’s the U.S. Government tried to force the Jicarilla’s to settle at Fort Stanton, but failed to move them. In 1874 the government then granted them approximately 576,000 acres near Tierra Amarilla. This reservation lasted for four years until Congress passed an act forcing them off the land. Once they refused to leave their reservation their annuities were canceled.

Then in 1880 the act of 1878 was repealed the Jicarilla’s were granted a new reservation east of the one granted in 1874. Three years later they were again forced to move to Fort Stanton. In February 1887 an Executive Order Reservation was once again established for them near Tierra Amarilla granting them in excess of 400,000 acres and in 1908 they were granted an additional 500,000 acres south of their then existing grant. All of this was taking place while the Court of Private Land Claims was taking approximately 99% of the land from the Spanish San Joaquin del Rio de Chama and Juan Bautista Valdez Grents and the Mexican La Petaca Grant .

Not to belabor the issue more than necessary I will only set out the Executive Orders involved with the Mescalero Apache Reservation, omitting the actual descriptions.

On May 23, 1873 President Grant issued an Executive Order which stated:

Executive Mansion, May 29, 1873.

It is hereby ordered that the tract of country above described be withheld from entry and settlement as public lands, and that the same be set apart as a reservation for the Mescalero Apache Indians, as recommended by the Secretary of the Interior and Commissioner of Indian Affairs.

U. S. GRANT.

(The description contained in this proclamation is worth reading):

Commencing at the southwest corner of the Fort Stanton reduced military reservation, and running thence due south to a point on the hills near the north bank of the Rio Rindoso; (sic) thence along said hills to a point above the settlements; thence across said river to a point on the opposite hills, and thence to the same line upon which we start from Fort Stanton; and thence due south to the thirty-third degree north latitude; thence to the top of the Sacramento Mountains, and along the top of said mountains to the top of the White Mountains; thence along the top of said mountains to the headwaters of the Rio Nogal, (sic)to a point opposite the starting point, and thence to the starting point.

So much for the Spanish and Mexican Grantees lack of ability to use clearly defined boundary markers.

The next Executive Order, dated February 2, 1874 read as follows:

Executive .mansion, February 2, 1874.

In lieu of an Executive order dated the 29th of May last, setting apart certain lands in New Mexico as a reservation for the Mescalero Apaches, which Older is hereby canceled, it is hereby ordered that there be withdrawn from sale or other disposition, and set apart for the use of said Mescalero Apaches and such other Indians as tho (sic) Department may see fit to locate thereon, the tract of country in New Mexico (except so much thereof as is embraced in the Fort Stanton reduced military reservation) bounded as follows,…

U. S. Grant

The next Order read:

Executive Mansion, October 20, 1875.

In lien of executive order dated February 2, 1874, setting apart certain lands in New Mexico as a reservation for the Mescalero Apaches, which order is hereby canceled, it is hereby ordered that there be withdrawn from sale or other disposition, and set apart for the use of said Mescalero Apaches, and such other Indians as the Department may see fit to locate thereon, the tract of country in New Mexico (except so much thereof as is embraced in the Fort Stanton reduced military reservation) bounded as follows:…

U.S. Grant
Then:

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 19, 1882.

In Lieu of executive order dated October 20, 1875, setting apart certain lands in New Mexico as a reservation for the Mescalero Apaches, which order is hereby canceled, it is hereby ordered that there be withdrawn from sale or other disposition, and set apart for the use of the said Mescalero Apaches and such other Indians as the Department may see fit to locate thereon, the tract of country in New Mexico bounded as follows:…

Chester A. Arthur

And finally,

Executive Mansion, March 24, 1883.

In lieu of executive order dated May 19, 1832, setting apart certain lands in New Mexico as a reservation for the Mescalero Apaches, which order is hereby canceled, it is hereby ordered that there be withdrawn from sale or other disposition and setapart for the use of the said Mescalero Apaches and such other Indians as the Secretary of the Interior may see fit to locate thereon, the tract of country in New Mexico bounded as follows:…

Chester A. Arthur

The Navajo Nation is an example of the flexibility in adding to and taking land from executive Order Reservations. It was made up of numerous executive order increases to the original Reservation and today the total of the various increases its total exceeds 15,000,000 acres. It received executive order increases in acreage in the years: 1868, 1878, 1880, 1882, 1884, 1886, 1900, 1901, 1905, 1907, 1913, 1918, 1930 and 1934.

CONCLUSION

Once further research on the issues raised herein has been completed, a course of action to correct the discriminatory taking of land from the Indian Tribes and Spanish and Mexican Land Grants must be considered. My research had led me to the conclusion that there are really only two viable courses of action which offer any hope for a fair and just resolution.

The first, is to use the mechanism used since 1850, to seek presidential Executive Order Reservations and Grants to begin the process of returning the settlements where the Grantees lived as a show of good faith. These reservations and Grants would require congressional approval and unfortunately be subject to cancellation. For that reason it would be essential that patents issue immediately upon congressional approval.

An additional step would be to also return to the Grants a significant portion of those lands which had been granted by Spain and Mexico for their perpetual use of the heirs of the grantees.

The other approach would be to request Congress to extend the life and the authority of the Indian Claims Commission. This should not even be considered however unless and until Congress establishes its willingness to expand the jurisdiction of the Commission to the heirs of the Spanish and Mexican Land Grants so that they might finally be allowed the opportunity to challenge the government's taking of millions of acres of their Treaty protected rights.

Mike Scarborough

Return The Millions of Acres of Public Domain Lands to the Western States

2012-09-28T14:41:00.001-06:00

Between 1887 and 1907 the federal government took millions of acres from the Western States, Indian Tribes and Spanish and Mexican Land Grants.

For example, the Dawes Act of 1887 and the laws that followed it removed over 100,000,000 acres from established treaty protected Indian Reservations and President Theodore Roosevelt transferred over 140,000,000 acres from Indian Tribal Lands, Spanish and Mexican Land Grants, and from the Western States and Territories, all without authority or compensation.

Presently the federal government controls 31,000,000 acres in Arizona and 26,000,000 acres in New Mexico.

Compare those totals to the acreage it controls in Connecticut (161 acres), Delaware (5 acres), Georgia (10.1 acres), Illinois (349 acres), Indiana (714 acres), Iowa (2 acres), Kentucky (4 acres), Louisiana (259 acres), Maine (196 acres), Maryland (152 acres), Massachusetts (573 acres), New Hamphire (15 acres), New Jersey (426 acres), New York 390 acres), Ohio (25 acres), Pennsylvania (638 acres), Rhode Island 44 acres), South Carolina (11 acres), Tennessee (2 acres), Vermont (28 acres) and Virginia (572 acres).

If the Western States would join with the Indian Tribes and the Land Grant heirs in requesting return of the land taken from them over a century ago all three would stand a better chance of having some of their land returned.

Please feel free to pass this information along to Western state and local governments, Indian Tribes and Land Grants throughout the West and web sites and blogs that consider the return of the land is long overdue.

Thank you!

Mike Scarborough
justice1O1@aol.com (The "O" in 1O1 is a capital "O".

Trespassers on Our Own Land Cover Picture

2012-08-01T19:09:00.001-06:00

This picture is the cover picture for Trespassers on Our Own Land. It was part of the San Joaquin del Rio de Chama Grant which was granted by Spain to thirty-nine grantees in 1807. In the late 1800s the plane in the view (which continued some miles to the right of the picture) which was referred to as Canon de Chama during its existance, contained over a hundred homes with outbuildings, a school, a store and several small cemetaries. The acequias (irrigation ditches) used by the setters are still visible as one tours the area. Over three hundred heirs of the original grantees lived on this site at the time the Court of Private Land Claims took over ninety-nine percent of the 472,000 acres leaving only 1,400 acres for the settlers to survive upon. This view is a mile north of, and approximately ten miles west of the Ghost Ranch, within Rio Arriba County, New Mexico. It can be reached by taking U.S. 84 north from Espanola or south from Chama. Once one reaches the Chama river the road turns to the right and six or seven miles further you will come to the famous Christ in the Desert Monastary. Interesting websites in the area are: The Ghost Ranch Education and Retreat Center: www.ghostranch.org San Joaquin del Rio de Chama Land Grant. riodechamalandgrant.com Christ in the Desert Monastary: christdesert.org And for great lodging and food close to the area, I recommend the Abiquiu Inn: www.abiquiuinn.com

E-Book Price Reduced Significantly

2012-07-27T08:36:00.002-06:00

Several weeks ago I significantly reduced the price of the e-book from $9.99 to $5.99 in hope that it would be considered as a supplemental New Mexico history textbook. Your purchases since the price reduction are appreciated. Trespassers can be purchased from the publisher at Trespassersonourownland.com and from Amazon Books.

I Read Trespassers on Our Own Land--Hadn't Known there was a June 5, 1967 Connection With Israel

2012-07-20T21:11:00.000-06:00

Alia D. Garcia-Ureste has left a new comment on your post "tresspassersonourownland.com":

I received your book entitled, "Trespassers On Our Own Land" today via UPS! I read chapters 15 & 22 which correspond to pg. 138 & 218, as you suggested. The links on your website are so informative and really prepared me with the background history to understand the chapters mentioned above. Chapter 17 brought me to tears. I had no idea that such a monumental moment in land grant history was occurring the very same day war broke out in 1967 when Israel fought to liberate Jerusalem from the hands of the Jordanians. This is a very good story for a conference, teaching opportunities, but most especially for our children. I shared this story in your book with my rabbi and he was really astounded! The story does interconnect with patterns and seasons that our Sephardic (Spanish-Jewish) ancestors experienced, as you have noted. I am grateful to the Valdez family and you for such a good book! Thanks be to The Almighty that you all documented all of the history because people like my family and I really need the information!

Alia D. Garcia-Ureste,
Ft. Stockton, TX

Posted by Alia D. Garcia-Ureste to Trespassers on Our Own Land at July 20, 2012 6:17 AM

It Is Time For All Western States To Get Their Land Back

2012-07-19T11:08:00.003-06:00

Utah vs. the United States of America

High Country News, Op-Ed - June 22, 2010by Ed Quillen

This spring, Utah governor Gary Herbert signed a law that authorizes the state's attorney general to file suits to condemn federal land.

The process is called “eminent domain,” and generally it involves acquiring private property for a public purpose, such as a new city reservoir. If the city can't come to terms with the property owners, it can use its power of eminent domain to force the owner to sell. In theory, the city pays fair market value, since the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

But federal land (nearly 65 percent of Utah's 84,916 square miles) is public property, not private, and the Constitution also states that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

With the "supremacy clause" making it pretty clear about who's in charge, why is Utah challenging the feds on land ownership and usage?

There are two answers. One is that this is just a continuation of Utah's long struggle against the federal government. The other is that the state government wants to improve school funding without raising taxes.

Public Domain Land Available for Return to the Western States

2012-05-19T10:55:00.003-06:00

The Twelve Western States with the Greatest Public Domain Acreage Which Could Be Transferred [Returned] To the Western States, Indian Tribes and Land Grant Heirs.

States Public Domain Land

Alaska 171,762,783 Acres

Nevada 55,830,944 Acres

California 41,541,475 Acres

Idaho 32,198,608 Acres

Utah 32,172,372 Acres

Wyoming 30,216,444 Acres

Arizona 30,093,695 Acres

Oregon 28,496,022 Acres

New Mexico 24,093,960 Acres

Montana 23,376,626 Acres

Colorado 22,755,713 Acres

Washington 10,659,295 Acres

The Ten States with the least Public Domain Acreage

States Public Domain Acreage

Iowa 2.0 Acres

Tennessee 2.0 Acres

West Virginia 3.8 Acres

Kentucky 4.5 Acres

Delaware 5.0 Acres

Georgia 10.1 Acres

South Carolina 11.7 Acres

New Hampshire 14.8 Acres

Ohio 25.0 Acres

Vermont 28.5 Acres

How The West Was Lost!

2012-05-19T07:35:00.001-06:00

My previous post reflected the adverse result Manifest Destiny has had upon the western states by comparing the land (in acres and percentages) taken from the states in the West compared to that taken from the States in the East.

This map reflects the same inequity pictorially as the effect of the taking appears today. It is time the western states, Indian Tribes and heirs to Spanish and Mexican land grants came together and said: GIVE US BACK OUR LAND!

A return of land taken by the federal government between 1845 and 1910 would be an economic boon as it would give back to the states, tribes and heirs the opportunity to increase money for education, return natural resources to the states and assist the Tribes and heirs of the land grants in expanding their economic bases. At the same time it would shrink the federal government's managerial responsibilities to protect land that lawfully belongs to the states and their residents. It is time to TAKE BACK THE LAND!

I have published Trespassers on Our Own Land, which is a comprehensive history of the manner in which the federal government took millions of acres from decades old Spanish and Mexican Land Grants, but that is only a small part of the land which the federal government took from the eleven western states and Alaska as well as the millions of acres it took from Indian Tribes under the Dawes Act and subsequent legislation.

Please feel free to join this blog and post the histories of the millions of acres the government improperly took from the states of Alaska, California, Arizona, Colorado,Idaho, New Mexico, Oregon, Montana, Nevada, Washington, Wyoming and Utah and from the hundreds of Indian Tribes during the same time period.

There is no time like the present to force a national dialog on what the federal government is willing to do to RETURN THE LAND!

Manifest Destiny 165 Years Later

2012-05-18T19:36:00.000-06:00

The following figures reflect the amount (in acres and percentage of land) in the ten states with the greatest federal government ownership:

State Government Owned Percentage

Alaska 171.8 million acres 47.0%

Nevada 56.1 million acres 79.3%

California 44.8 million acres 44.7%

Utah 33.9 million acres 64.3%

Idaho 33.0 million acres 62.3%

Oregon 31.8 million acres 51.64%

Arizona 31.3 million acres 43.1%

Wyoming 31.0 million acres 50.0%

New Mexico 26.2 million acres 33.7%

Montana 25.5 million acres 27.3%

Washington 12.0 million acres 28.0%

The following figures reflect the acreage and percentage of land controlled in the eleven states with the least government ownership:

State Government Owned Percentage

Iowa 29.6 thousand acres .08%

Delaware 1.9 Thousand acres .15%

Connecticut 6.9 thousand acres .22%

Rhode Island 3.1 thousand acres .49%

New York 196.6 thousand acres .64%

Kansas 349.7 thousand acres .67%

Maine 193.2 thousand acres .97%

Nebraska 514.9 thousand acres 1.05%

Ohio 279.6 thousand acres 1.07%

Massachusetts 52.1 thousand acres 1.04%

Texas 2.0 million acres 1.19%

What others have to say about "Trespassers on Our Own Land"

2012-03-08T16:24:00.001-07:00

     “Al fin, finally! Trespassers on Our Own Land is a comprehensive history of the 1967 Tierra Amarilla Courthouse raid as well as a history of land grant issues that have plagued northern New Mexico for generations. Never-before have the events leading up to the raid, the raid itself, the escape of some of the participants later that evening and the turbulent political history of the era been presented in one narrative. Trespasser’s has finally identified why and how the United States intentionally relieved a number of Spanish and Mexican land grants of millions of acres of treaty protected lands and the fact that the federal government continues to this day to refuse to admit it unlawfully took the land or to compensate the heirs for the taking.”

                                                              Lawrence E. Sanchez,
                                                              President, Town of Tomé Land Grant
                                                              Adelino, New Mexico

     “Trespassers on Our Own Land is an oral history of the Juan P. Valdez family and a snapshot of the maltreatment forced upon our Pueblo Indian, Spanish and Mexican people by the United States government. In Trespassers, Mike Scarborough has presented a comprehensive history of the adversarial relationship our ancestors had with the United States government between the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 and 1912. Trespasser’s brought back memories of my childhood in Coyote and Capulín and a renewed understanding of the difficulties my ancestors endured while struggling to survive on the San Joaquín del Río de Chama land grant. I recommend this book as a must read for anyone interested in an in-depth and comprehensive oral history and study of New Mexico’s land grants.”

                                                                           Leonard Martínez, President,
                                                                            San Joaquín del Río de Chama
                                                                            Land Grant Association
                                                                            Cañon de Chama, New Mexico

     “Trespassers . . . is compelling and authentic; occasionally, it is hilarious; sometimes it is poignant. . . . It is fitting that a book that brings this man’s experiences to life is set in the broader context of the history of land grantsmercedes. These mercedes mattered so much to Juan Valdez that he risked his life to bring attention to the enormous injustice [the grantees and their heirs] had suffered at the hands of the U.S. government. In these pages we begin to understand why.”

                               From the Foreword by Prof. LM García y Griego
                                              History and Chicano Studies,
                                                University of New Mexico
                                                      Albuquerque

A people’s history of loss cries out for redemption

by Armando Rendón

Book Review of Trespassers on Our Own Land, by Juan P. Valdez and Mike Scarborough.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo—signed this day 164 years ago—first came to my attention in connection with the news in June 1967 that a group of armed men had stormed the Rio Arriba County courthouse in Tierra Amarilla, New Mexico: a police officer had been shot, hostages taken, a general furor had been sparked. Reies Lopez Tijerina had been named as the leader and instigator of the takeover of the building: it was from him that I first heard reference to the Treaty and its singular position as the most important document in the history of Americans of Mexican origin.

In my book, Chicano Manifesto, which was published in 1971, I blithely repeated the assertions that Tijerina had made in speeches, some writings, and in one-on-one charlas we had when we met in New Mexico in the late 1960s. Not having a legal background, and largely reporting on the various key protagonists of the Chicano Movement, I simply reaffirmed the notion that the Treaty was primarily an agreement that had been forced upon Mexico as the result of an unjust war instigated by the U.S. government but which mostly contained protections of Mexicans holding property, read “land grants”, in the conquered provinces.

It took me another 10 years or so to come to a different, although I believe complementary, conclusion. During that period, I had to earn a law degree to enable me to understand the Treaty and finally, spend considerable time doing my own research.

Trespassers on Our Own Land, couched as an oral history, with Juan P. Valdez, the descendent of the land grant of that name—land on which he was born and has lived his entire life—as the subject of what apparently is a class assignment assigned to one of his grandchildren by a well-informed college professor.

What Tijerina could not impart—he was neither a New Mexican nor a land grantee—and I could only recommend in legalistic terms, Scarborough encompasses in a work which provokes anger and dismay at one moment only to resolve into poignancy and humorous goodwill in the next.

By alternating the recounting of Valdez’ family history and personal anecdotes about growing up in Canjilón, New Mexico, with the more ponderous chapters that deal with legal matters and documentation, Scarborough attempts to “sugar”, one might say, the large amount of legal material that one has to absorb as the discussion between forebearer and grandson unfolds. One can sense the terrific challenges that grantees and their descendants faced over the past two centuries: constant struggles with nature, unrelenting oppression by Anglo speculators, and grim outcomes as nature and ruthless greed took their toll.

This book is a must-read for a full understanding not only of what the land grant movement is about and why the struggle continues, but also how disdain and hatred for Americans of Hispanic origin, not just of Mexican ethnicity was inculcated in the Anglo American mentality going back to the early 1800s.

Scarborough, who obtained a law degree after a stint in the U.S. Air Force, grew up in Española, about 60 miles south of Valdez’ place of birth. He had practiced law for some 25 years until retiring about five years ago. Valdez approached him to help write the family history, starting with the Spanish king’s merced, a grant of land around the present village of Canoñes to Juan Bautista Valdez, Juan’s great, great, great-grandfather, who founded the grant in 1807.

This book is the product of five years of research and Q&A sessions between “ghost” writer Scarborough and his subject. Scarborough breathes life into what might otherwise have been a dry recounting of how bad things were in the “old days”, not that they’re much better today, and what terrible crimes have been perpetrated by a long string of politicians, including Presidents, U.S. Senators, and land grabbers ranging from judges to lawyers, unscrupulous exploiters to outright thugs.

If Valdez is bitter about the past, some inkling of his optimism—sorely challenged every day that he forces himself to face the present situation in Canjilón—filters out through the dark shadows and lets a natural good humor show forth instead. Valdez is anything but defeated; he is determined to continue the fight that began in the late 1800s.

From a legal standpoint, Scarborough has compiled, with the help of Valdez, a book load of evidence that reveals the connivance among legislators, speculators and Presidents that led to the loss of thousands of square miles of grant lands. The communal nature of land “ownership” among New Mexican grantees and their descendants was virtually irreconcilable with, let alone comprehensible to, those asserting an Anglo-centric system of individual private ownership.

From the early 1800s, the territories beyond the Mississippi became fair game, one, because to Anglo onlookers the land was uninhabited and undeveloped, and two, for many they were perceived as a means to expand the system of slavery and enhance the wealth and influence of Southern states. Of course, the lands were inhabited, by native peoples and in the Mexican provinces by mexicanos and españoles, criollos and mestizos, all carving out a meager and perilous living from the land.

Anglo interest revved up, of course, with the end of the U.S. invasion of Mexico, which resulted in the U.S. capturing a third of Mexico’s territory, what we now call the Southwest; Texas had already been incorporated in the Union; California became a state almost overnight after the discovery of gold; and the other expanses of land were up for grabs, as far as unscrupulous speculators and proponents of “Manifest Destiny” were concerned.

I believe that anyone with an open mind who has studied the way that the U.S. dealt with the lands and peoples obtained as spoils in the war would assert that the U.S. had no intention to honor the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Valdez and Scarborough describe the many ways that the letter and intent of the Treaty were ignored and violated by the U.S. Congress and the Presidents beginning with James K. Polk (who provoked the war) into the 20th century.

For example, in early 1907, after Theodore Roosevelt had been caught trying to set up a forest reserve in Washington without Congressional or public input, an amendment to the annual agricultural appropriations bill included an amendment prohibiting the President from creating more forest reserves in six Western states. Before the act took effect on March 4, 1907, he and Gifford Pinchot, the Chief of the Forest Service, blue penciledabout 16 million acres into forest reserves.

Scarborough points out that in actuality Roosevelt’s blue pencil went beyond the six states for a total of 30 million acres, including the expansion of the Jémez Forest Reserve in New Mexico: unfortunately, the Valdez grant was smack in the middle of the expanded reserve. Eventually this was to lead to oppressive tactics by the Forest Reserve, loss of the means of their livelihood, conflicts with Forest Service and other federal agencies, and a growing bitterness and frustration among the grantee heirs.

In the most publicized outburst of that frustration, the “raid” on the Tierra Amarilla courthouse on June 5, 1967, Valdez figured significantly—he was the first of a group of men, including Reies Tijerina, to enter the building and ended up shooting a state policeman, then leading a fugitive few across miles of rugged terrain to evade a massive manhunt. The details of this and other related events are intriguing and may sound like scenes from a movie thriller.

The case for seeking retribution is quite clear. Scarborough does not spell out a specific plan of action although he has said this: “My purpose in researching and writing the book was in part to establish the intentional maltreatment so that possibly, scholars, historians and lawyers would realize that the legal battle is far from over: That there are still ways to seek justice other than the worn out go-nowhere bills introduced in congress and the multitude of unfavorable court decisions of the past.”

Scarborough echoes a lament of mine of the past 30 years, since I came to realize that the Treaty was not merely a guarantee, mostly honored in the breach, of land rights, but as a living treaty document, a guarantor of human rights as well. Human rights adhere to the person by virtue of his or her being a human being, simply being born. But human rights can only be asserted when their violation extends beyond the civil rights protected by a State, that is, a sovereign nation.

As long as violations of civil rights can be addressed and adjudicated to some resolution within the country, the tenets of international law need not apply. That is why I have been asserting for decades now that in order to trigger the protections of international human rights law, we have to identify a confluence of facts—a case—which cannot or will not be resolved under national statutes.

Perhaps the current level of disregard for culture, history, and personal dignity demonstrated by the state of Arizona under the color of law constitute violations of human rights: as far as I know, there is no statutorily protected right to one’s culture, or to speak a certain language, or to one’s personal integrity. But we can construe from the words of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that it is in fact a human rights document, and therefore, a recourse to seek redress under international law.

That route, to seek redress of human rights violations in Arizona through international treaty law, is a challenging one, requiring knowledge in a highly complex field of law, understanding and addressing the Inter-American system of human rights, and substantial economic resources.

Although Scarborough does not commit to a definite plan of action, it is certainly the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which holds the key to open our eyes at least to the potential for redress of long-standing grievances against the U.S. government with regard to the theft of thousands of acres of communal lands in New Mexico and Colorado and to the virulent attacks against the basic human desire to keep one’s culture and history alive, to seek a better life for oneself and one’s family, and to achieve fulfillment as a person.

The heirs of the land grantees in New Mexico such as Juan Valdez and the children who are deprived of being able to know their own history in Arizona are one. On this, the Chicano birthday, I can only pray that by this time next year, we will have filed that case for Valdez and begun the counter-offensive for the children of Arizona.

Published originally in February 2012 by Armando Rendón, Editor, in Somos en escrito Magazine, http://www.somosenescrito.blogspot.com/, cell phone 510-219-9139.

tresspassersonourownland.com

2012-03-08T08:35:00.001-07:00

To Visit the Trespasser's web site and its two galleries, go to: trespassersonourownland.com.
The galleries can be accessed through the footers at the bottom of each page.
Gallery One contains plates reflecting information contained in the book.
Gallery Two contains maps and other exhibits set out as "Figures" in the book.

If you have any comments relating to land grant history in New Mexico please feel free to either comment or start a new post.
It will be appreciated if posts and comments are limited to historically significant issues relating to Spanish and Mexican land grants in the Southwest. Thank you!