A federal judge ruled Aug. 7 that forest land outside Mancos, which the Free Land Holder had claimed and fenced off as its own, remains under federal ownership.
U.S. District Judge Daniel D. Domenico’s ruling upholds a recommendation by U.S. Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter, who found July 10 that claims made by the Free Land Holder Committee lacked legal merit.
The dispute began in October when members of the group claimed ownership over the land and disputed the federal government’s authority. In USA v. Patrick Pipkin and Bryan Hammon, Domenico described their arguments as “unpersuasive and incorrect, and sided with the government’s position that the land is public property.
No punishment has been outlined for Pipkin or Hammon. They may still file a motion for reconsideration or take their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
On July 10, Neureiter filed a recommendation denying motions to dismiss submitted by Pipkin and Hammon, who represented themselves in the case about the disputed ownership of the land.
Neureiter began by criticizing Pipkin and Hammon’s motions.
“It is difficult to ascertain on what grounds Defendants challenge the Court’s jurisdiction,” he wrote. Pipkin, who filed documents on behalf of the Free Land Holder Committee and called himself its “Ambassador,” was admonished for attempting to represent the group.
“He (Pipkin) can only represent himself,” Neureiter said. “Moreover, the FLHC is not a party to this litigation. These documents should therefore be stricken.”
Neureiter also supported the federal government’s claim to the land.
“The Court finds that the United States has alleged facts sufficient to show it owns the land and that Mr. Pipkin and Mr. Hammon violated the UIA,” or the Unlawful Inclosures Act, he said. He also cited a 1927 deed submitted by Pipkin that ironically bolstered the federal case.
“Neither Mr. Pipkin nor Mr. Hammon offer credible argument,” he said.
Neureiter further supported the federal claim by citing the Unlawful Inclosures Act, which prohibits fencing and occupation of public land without a legitimate claim.
Sections 1061 and 1063 of the Unlawful Inclosures Act of 1885 prohibit “any inclosure of public land” and any action to “prevent or obstruct free passage or transit over or through the public lands.”
Pipkin and Hammon “constructed miles of fence posts and barbed wire across the Hallar Deed Area, which is public land,” said Neureiter.
Even though Pipkin and Hammon argued that all trails and roadways were open, the law says, “A fence is the ‘most common way of creating an inclosure.’”
Neureiter also rejected to Pipkin’s use of “’Scripture Verses, Exclusive Equity Maxims, and Exclusive Equity Principles’ to claim inheritance to the land.
He recommended documents stating that Pipkin represents the Free Land Holder Committee be stricken and that Pipkin and Hammon’s motions to dismiss be denied.
On July 24, Pipkin, Hammon, and the Free Land Holder Committee objected to Neureiter’s recommendation. Pipkin argued that because no competing claims to the disputed land were made by Dec. 15, the matter should be considered resolved.
He also argued that he, Hammon and the committee first challenged the court’s jurisdiction on Feb. 25, and the judge’s “silence for approximately 145 days” should be considered as agreement.
“Having no evidence of a superior, equal, or previous claim presented during the claim ... be it resolved forever,” Pipkin said, the word “forever” in bold print.
Hammon submitted a response aligned with Pipkin’s, signing it as Bryan-Hugh:Hammon.
In a third filing, Pipkin spoke as “Ambassador” of the Free Land Holder Committee. He signed the document using stylized names: :patrick:private and Patrick-Leroy:Pipkin.
U.S. Attorney Peter McNeilly recommended that objections raised by Pipkin, Hammon and the Free Land Holders Committee be rejected.
“All three Notices have essentially identical contents,” he said. “They do not make any motion or ask the Court to do anything. Instead, they summarize some of Mr. Pipkin’s and Mr. Hammon’s earlier filings with this Court.”
Because they don’t “contest any legal conclusion of the Magistrate Judge (Neureiter),” they “give the Court no reason to deviate from the Recommendation, which should be adopted,” said McNeilly.
He added that the notices and objections where Pipkin claimed to represent the Free Land Holder Committee should be stricken because Pipkin is not licensed “to file briefs on anyone’s behalf, nor is the FLHC a party in this case.”
“The Court should overrule Mr. Pipkin’s and Mr. Hammon’s objections,” he said.
Domenico adopted Neureiter’s recommendation, overruled Pipkin and Hammon’s objections and denied their challenges to the court’s jurisdiction.
