{"id":23229,"date":"2025-03-09T15:44:18","date_gmt":"2025-03-09T21:44:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/free-land-holders-challenge-federal-lawsuit-over-forest-land-near-mancos\/"},"modified":"2026-03-31T04:29:52","modified_gmt":"2026-03-31T04:29:52","slug":"free-land-holders-challenge-federal-lawsuit-over-forest-land-near-mancos","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/free-land-holders-challenge-federal-lawsuit-over-forest-land-near-mancos\/","title":{"rendered":"Free Land Holders challenge federal lawsuit over forest land near Mancos"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Patrick
Patrick Pipkin poses at his residence outside of Mancos on Oct. 16. (Cameryn Cass\/The Journal)<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p>\n

Patrick Pipkin and Bryan Hammon formally challenged a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Colorado brought forth against them and other Free Land Holders who fenced off Forest Service land north of Mancos in November.<\/p>\n

Pipkin and Hammon specifically challenged federal jurisdiction over the land, and sealed their documents with a Free Land Holder Committee stamp.<\/p>\n

They filed the challenge on Feb. 25, which was their deadline to file a formal answer to the complaint, according to the court docket.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe land in question does not belong to UNITED STATES, United States, United States of America, or UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The land was deeded to \u2018The United States of America\u2019,\u201d Hammon\u2019s challenge reads.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe United States of America,\u201d with a capital \u201cT,\u201d is the only entity with proof of ownership. The other versions \u201chave never provided proof of any kind of title,\u201d it reads.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the U.S. Forest Service \u201cis only a management agency of the public lands, they have never provided proof of any kind of title,\u201d and they never blocked off the land.<\/p>\n

\u201cAll trails and road-ways have always been open,\u201d it reads.<\/p>\n

The challenge concludes with quoting four past court cases.<\/p>\n

\u201cOnce jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action,\u201d according to Melo v. U.S., a case from 1974 it quoted.<\/p>\n

Pipkin\u2019s challenge was 11 pages, where Hammon\u2019s was two.<\/p>\n

His submission includes the same sentiments as Hammon\u2019s, and goes a step further.<\/p>\n

Pipkin quotes the Bible.<\/p>\n

Genesis 13:15, he said, \u201cestablishes the divine promise of land as an eternal inheritance.\u201d<\/p>\n

He pulls from Exodus, Joshua, the Chronicles, Isaiah and Jeremiah, too, citing principles like \u201cthe importance of obedience to the Laws of Nature,\u201d the \u201cdivine covenant of land\u201d and \u201cthe divine granting of land as an eternal inheritance promise.\u201d<\/p>\n

In explaining the relevance of the verses, Pipkin often circles back to the \u201cLaws of Nature\u201d and \u201cdivine principles of land inheritance,\u201d which means the land is promised to the righteous and its descendants forever.<\/p>\n

On Page 6, he delves into \u201cExclusive Equity Maxims,\u201d and concludes by saying, \u201cIn combining Scripture Verses, Exclusive Equity Maxims, and Exclusive Equity Principles, the divine covenant of land inheritance is firmly supported.\u201d<\/p>\n

Pipkin signed his formal challenge :patrick: and Hammon signed his Bryan-Hugh:Hammon.<\/p>\n

Pipkin and Hammon\u2019s formal challenges were referred to Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter by Judge Daniel D,. Domenico on March 3, and they were officially recorded into court proceedings on March 5.<\/p>\n