{"id":16992,"date":"2025-08-09T00:11:32","date_gmt":"2025-08-09T06:11:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/judge-upholds-federal-ownership-of-disputed-land-in-free-land-holder-case\/"},"modified":"2026-03-30T22:03:33","modified_gmt":"2026-03-31T04:03:33","slug":"judge-upholds-federal-ownership-of-disputed-land-in-free-land-holder-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/judge-upholds-federal-ownership-of-disputed-land-in-free-land-holder-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Judge upholds federal ownership of disputed land in Free Land Holder case"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Community
Community members take down a barbwire fence on the disputed forest land northeast of Mancos that was put up by the Free Land Holder Committee blocking off 1,460 acres near Chicken Creek. (Jerry McBride\/Durango Herald)<\/span>Jerry McBride<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

U.S. District Judge Daniel D. Domenico\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

The dispute began in October when members of the group claimed ownership over the land and disputed the federal government\u2019s authority. In USA v. Patrick Pipkin and Bryan Hammon, Domenico described their arguments as \u201cunpersuasive and incorrect, and sided with the government\u2019s position that the land is public property.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Magistrate Judge Neureiter\u2019s recommendation<\/div>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Neureiter began by criticizing Pipkin and Hammon\u2019s motions.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is difficult to ascertain on what grounds Defendants challenge the Court\u2019s jurisdiction,\u201d he wrote. Pipkin, who filed documents on behalf of the Free Land Holder Committee and called himself its \u201cAmbassador,\u201d was admonished for attempting to represent the group.<\/p>\n

\u201cHe (Pipkin) can only represent himself,\u201d Neureiter said. \u201cMoreover, the FLHC is not a party to this litigation. These documents should therefore be stricken.\u201d<\/p>\n

Neureiter also supported the federal government\u2019s claim to the land.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe 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,\u201d or the Unlawful Inclosures Act,<\/a> he said. He also cited a 1927 deed submitted by Pipkin that ironically bolstered the federal case.<\/p>\n

\u201cNeither Mr. Pipkin nor Mr. Hammon offer credible argument,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

\"Patrick
Patrick Pipkin of the Free Land Holder Committee at his residence outside Mancos on Oct. 16, 2024. (Journal file photo)<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p>

Neureiter further supported the federal claim by citing the Unlawful Inclosures Act, which prohibits fencing and occupation of public land without a legitimate claim.<\/p>\n

Sections 1061 and 1063 of the Unlawful Inclosures Act of 1885 prohibit \u201cany inclosure of public land\u201d and any action to \u201cprevent or obstruct free passage or transit over or through the public lands.\u201d<\/p>\n

Pipkin and Hammon \u201cconstructed miles of fence posts and barbed wire across the Hallar Deed Area, which is public land,\u201d said Neureiter.<\/p>\n

Even though Pipkin and Hammon argued that all trails and roadways were open, the law says, \u201cA fence is the \u2018most common way of creating an inclosure.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

Neureiter also rejected to Pipkin\u2019s use of \u201c\u2019Scripture Verses, Exclusive Equity Maxims, and Exclusive Equity Principles\u2019 to claim inheritance to the land.<\/p>\n

He recommended documents stating that Pipkin represents the Free Land Holder Committee be stricken and that Pipkin and Hammon\u2019s motions to dismiss be denied.<\/p>\n