New Mexico Camp Mysteriously Destroyed (support, kids, schools, crime)

[AguaDulce]

Originally Posted by Kibby

Actually - in some parts of the world (looks like N.M. is in that basket) - Landowner's "rights" are only what a Judge/Supreme Authority says they are. That pesky Constitution and Law stuff doesn't matter.

Reminds me of Laws in Costa Rica -- a Squatter can break into a home, and live there when there is an absent Landowner (ie a Vacation home) and if not detected within a few months.....

The Squatter has ownership. That's Central America. Who knows what goes on in the USA any more.
There is an old saying - "You can't fight City Hall" - a lot of validity in that unless you have enough money to actually Fight the Bureaucracy and the "Not my Problem" "judges" with a teeny tiny "j" that appear to have the authority to just ignore both LAW and the Supreme Court.

It's a Problem - Much of our (so called) Justice System is totally Corrupt.

findlaw.com

Adverse Possession in New Mexico

New Mexico’s adverse possession statutes

Code Section: New Mexico Statutes 37-1-22: Title in Fee Simple by Adverse Possession

Time Period Required for Occupation: 10 yrs. and Color of Title/Payment of Taxes: 10 yrs.

Time for Landowner to Challenge/Effect of Landowner's Disability--after disability lifted: 1 yr.

Improvements: n/a

Payment of Taxes: required

Title from Tax Assessor: n/a

In addition to the minimum time of occupation, there are four elements necessary for a legitimate claim for adverse possession:

There must be a “hostile” claim: the trespasser must either:
1. make an honest mistake (like relying on an incorrect deed);
2. merely occupy the land (with or without knowledge that it is private property); or
3. be aware of his or her trespassing;
There must be actual possession: the trespasser must be physically present on the land, treating it as his or her own;
There must be open and notorious possession: the act of trespassing cannot be secret; and
There must be exclusive and continuous possession: the trespasser cannot share possession with others, and must be in possession of the land for an uninterrupted period of time.

[elan]

Originally Posted by AguaDulce

Source?

https://www.koat.com/article/what-we...ation/22677117

[katzpaw]

There are many wackos and survivalists living in makeshift buildings or trailers in the desert of New Mexico and west Texas. Most own the land and are not squatting. It appears this group were supposed to be on a neighboring property but built over the line on Badger's. From the Sheriff's point of view, nutters in the desert are not uncommon. Id like to know more about the judge's non-eviction decision

[AguaDulce]

Originally Posted by elan

https://www.koat.com/article/what-we...ation/22677117

Thank you.

[elan]

This property is about a hour south of where the illegal from Denmark started Colorado's third largest fire in it's history. Quite a few weirdo outlaws in the vicinity.

[mkpunk]

Originally Posted by katzpaw

There are many wackos and survivalists living in makeshift buildings or trailers in the desert of New Mexico and west Texas. Most own the land and are not squatting. It appears this group were supposed to be on a neighboring property but built over the line on Badger's. From the Sheriff's point of view, nutters in the desert are not uncommon. Id like to know more about the judge's non-eviction decision

Probably an error in the filling somewhere and the landowner didn't get to refile yet. It does happen from time to time. I just love this being turned into identity politics for both the bail and the homeowner's eviction process. Occam's Razor shows it should have been paperwork issues with the case. That said I know from time to time courts of being sexist, especially reverse sexist.

[Sophiasmommy]

Originally Posted by mkpunk

Probably an error in the filling somewhere and the landowner didn't get to refile yet. It does happen from time to time. I just love this being turned into identity politics for both the bail and the homeowner's eviction process. Occam's Razor shows it should have been paperwork issues with the case. That said I know from time to time courts of being sexist, especially reverse sexist.

But how does any of that explain away why the compound was already destroyed? Isn't all of that evidence in an ongoing investigation?

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

I'm not one to jump on conspiracy theories-but this does seem damn strange. Right up there with the bulldozing and destruction of evidence at the Waco compound. But that was after the federal government killed dozens of people. Who benefits from destroying evidence here, and who gave the order?

[Kibby]

Originally Posted by fumbling

i've never understood if you own property, how people can move there and live there and not get kicked off? How is this not an automatic eviction with the sheriffs tellin them to leave or be arrested?

Well ..... I've never understood how a Deputy Sheriff could decide Cause of Death for a US Supreme Court Justice in the middle of nowhere, without even seeing the body .... and no autopsy.

Those things just seem to happen sometimes.

And yes ..... I actually know of people who just move in and occupy land they don't own, and it's the "powers that be" who decide if it's Legal or Not.

The Law is sometimes what The Powers that Be decide it is.
This stuff does happen in the USA ..... and who is going to stop them? Nobody

[Rakin]

Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake

I'm not one to jump on conspiracy theories-but this does seem damn strange. Right up there with the bulldozing and destruction of evidence at the Waco compound. But that was after the federal government killed dozens of people. Who benefits from destroying evidence here, and who gave the order?

I'd bet the property owner figured it was the best way to evict them verses possibly a fight in the courts.

Just bulldoze the compound and they won't come back. It's his land and his right to bury the crap they left behind.