US Forest Service Seizes Property Rights of Ariz. Cabin Owners

(Quin Hillyer, Liberty Headlines) Republican U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona may be retiring, but he’s not going without putting up a fight on behalf of homeowners he says are being unfairly treated by the federal government.


PHOTO: US Dept. of Agriculture

The dispute involves cabins built just within the Coronado National Forest, which straddles a border between Arizona and New Mexico. About a decade ago, the U.S. Forest Service reclassified the cabins without notifying the owners. As Flake’s press release explains it, “The reclassification prohibits the owners, who now desire to relocate for health or age concerns, from selling their property.”

To counteract this reclassification, Flake has introduced the Oracle Cabins Conveyance Act. It would allow the cabin owners, at low cost, to buy the land underneath the cabins they own, so they in turn can sell their property rather than being forced to demolish it if they need to move.

“These families would not have built their homes on public land if they knew their ownership status would change. If the Forest Service won’t take the necessary steps to help these Arizonans, especially as some face serious health concerns, then Congress will,” said Flake. “This bill will ensure that the federal government cannot succeed in its attempt to pull the property rights out from under retirees.”

PREVIOUSLY: Govt Goes Wild Stealing Citizens’ Property

The Forest Service often uses cabins for rentals, as a fund-raising mechanism – including in Coronado, such as the one they advertise as being “set in a dramatically beautiful canyon surrounded by granite spires, massive boulders, and golden cliffs.”

Land disputes involving the Forest Service across the country are not infrequent, with one columnist highlighting a Montana example of what he called “the arrogance of the U.S. Forest Service.” (In that case, the writer asserted that “the government’s claim that it, and hence the public, had a right to use the property without purchasing or negotiating with the family for an easement, meant that Wonder Ranch had to file a lawsuit against the government to quiet title to the property—meaning eliminate the government’s claim to a prescriptive easement.”)

The issues in such cases often are complicated, and this is not to say that the Forest Service is necessarily at fault. It does, after all, claim to represent the rights of all citizens to public access to public lands.

Still, in this Arizona case, Flake contends that the cabin owners were caught off guard. Hence his attempt to right the apparent wrong.

Flake will remain in office for 14 more months, and hopes to pass his legislation in that interim.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2017 Liberty Headlines

  • Red blooded American

    The government has been doing this for decades. Private property was seized in the Smokies and families were given limited time to finish getting off property that the government was declaring would subsequently belonged to the national park.

  • macushlah

    Same deal with the Hammonds in Oregon and the Bundys in Nevada. The government wants their property

    • blogengeezer

      Oregon was also Bundy’s, and notably La Voy Finicum’s ‘Waterloo’… definition of ‘Loo’ in England is toilet.

  • Maxine Albritton

    In the past people in our county in Fl. have purchased property in the everglades, now the park is trying harder every year to keep people out. I await the day they confiscate their cabins and whatever they have.

  • miles

    Another good example why they put the Second Amendment in the Constitution and why it must stay unmolested.

  • patrick sain

    illegal seizure our property

    • Thepolymathis

      Nothing the federal government does is illegal until the SCOTUS says it’s illegal. The problem is how to get it to SCOTUS in the first place.

    • Wondering Woman

      Yep, more of Bundy and Hammonds????

  • ImOffendedTreatMeSpecial

    It would be nice if the rino did one good thing before he gets out.

    • Eleanor Cummings

      Hmmm I wonder if he is one of those cabin owners.

    • Wondering Woman

      He is trying, but being fought by those who fear exposure and being held accountable, if he succeeds!

  • Danny

    The US Constitution identifies when the feds can own property. Under the Constitution the Forest Service cannot legally exist and to take private property from citizens or states is illegal. Where are our elected representatives other than Flakey Flake?

  • CCblogging

    The Deep State controlled American government is a bully, here and over there.

    • ipsd48

      Exactly what ‘people’ is the forest service claiming to represent? Communistic claims of ‘common ownership’ don’t trump property rights………….even in long term lease contracts.

  • Who in their right mind would build anything on property they don’t own? Especially if gov. owns it, there is no way I would build on any gov. property for they are the worse landlords ever, just look at the constant waste of our tax dollars with a $20T deficit, so how about selling off much of properties like this which gov. has no business owning to begin with. Selling off the millions of acres of property would balance the budget, but hey, that is too simple for these corrupt politicians to understand. Flake is more than likely a cabin owner for he does nothing that doesn’t benefit himself since in office. Good riddance to this POS politician.

    • ipsd48

      A lot of people signed 99 yr contracts with the govt for leased vacation property. Govt can’t change or nullify those contracts on a whim

      • therealworld

        Yet they do alter the conditions on a Whim.

        • ipsd48

          Which is why they end up in court so often

      • Michael Kovacs

        Ever hear of the Treaties signed with the indigenous peoples. The government has been nullifying contracts on a whim since its founding.

    • Eleanor Cummings

      My thoughts exactly. It has to benefit him in some way or he’d go against any bill that would benefit his constituents.

  • Christian_Prophet

    Take a stand for public land. Get the free loaders off of my public land.

    • ipsd48

      People who signed those long lease contracts are not freeloaders. They have annual payments they make to the govt…………….as well as any improvements they make to the land

  • Francisco Machado

    If the Bolsheviks regain the power that Obama lost them, they can go back to promoting that “Freedom of the People” wherein the People own Everything(!) and private property is a crime (the Populists tried this… without any success). Of course, then the People own Everything – But the Government (composed of the Elite who know how things are Supposed to work) is Of the People and Represents the people – so will manage it for them. Equally. Like in the Stalinist USSR where a lot of them starved equally.

    • ipsd48

      Yup. Like party members in the USSR ‘managed’ all those beautifly dachas for the overworked people of Russia :/

      • BIGOTIST

        don’t concern yourself with russia, we have
        enough issues with our own scumbags~

  • Donovan Blaylock

    Who pays the taxes and Insurance?

  • Born Again Southern Pride

    Where does it say in the constitution the government can own any land, set aside land for pay to play useage or sell land they can’t own?

    • GomeznSA

      Article 1 Section 8 Paragraph 17 United States Constitution specifies exactly what land(s) the feds can own and what they can use it for. And what they are trying to do with this ain’t it.

      • nocbsfan

        If the Federal Government would sell the land they illegally own The National debt would be downsized greatly

        • Kenny Albert

          They didn’t buy the land in the first place. It is state land.

    • nocbsfan

      Washington can Own one mile square. (Washington DC) Billions of acres they own now ? Is it even legal?

      • Ken Wade

        Then how did we buy Alaska and the Louisiana purrchase and what about military installations?

        • nocbsfan

          We are talking about what they have done just what are they allowed to do by law and the constitution and what Flake is trying to do. Your concern is well taken Remember the government does not own Alaska, and the land that went with the Louisiana purchase or not all of it just parks and swamps Thanks for the reply Ken

  • Louie Rey

    There’s a case here for both sides. As far as the residents (cabin owners) are concerned they shouldn’t have their homes taken out from under them. As far as the federal government’s concerned why should they cede land to anyone who just decided to pull up roots on public property. If the land was bought that’s another thing but it wasn’t. There has to be a way to be fair to both sides and resolve this.

    • nocbsfan

      Obtaining land in Az is tough enough, where you get it for nothing then want to sell it smells like land developers who has been stealing Az for years. Flake is wrong in what he is doing (As Usual) His legislation should be ignored for the sake of Az land owners who did it the legal way

      • Louie Rey

        I know for a fact that if you have some of your property that extends into say your neighbor’s property, such as a fence, and it stays that way for ten years then that property becomes yours. It’s called an easement. But in this case it’s public property that’s there for the benefit of the general public, NOT to be usurped. Like I said, if it was purchased, that’s one thing. But, if it were just occupied, then you have no right to it. I do feel for the cabin owners though because they’ll have to give up their homes. But I guess they should have taken that into consideration in the first place

        • nocbsfan

          Trusting bureaucracy of USA secretaries positions is risky business. Each one has their greedy paws out for themselves and their friends. If you don’t have it on paper it will never be yours bureaucracy will let you use it but they are fixing it up for themselves at a later day. First they want you to improve it Take Arizona for an example. Only 20 5 is for sale, but you are allowed to lease parcels here and there Then one day after a new president is in with new secretaries it wont belong to you any more Especially if it is with an opposing party Sometimes I don’t think they are honest

      • Teresa Barrett

        I think you’re right. When I read the owners were leaving due to “health reasons”, I had to ask my self, “don’t people usually move TO Arizona for health reasons?! Also this sound like more than one individual, more like several cabin owners. Did they all need to move simultaneously for health reasons? I think it sounds like a setup! Flake is probably one of the developers who wants the land! Wouldn’t surprise me one bit!

        • nocbsfan

          There is little doubt that Flake is in on dishonest dealings He gave up to easy, which means he is laying low and under the radar I lived in Az for a while and when it comes to land there , plenty of shinannigans goes on. We should keep an eye on Flake,, Gee greed is a terrible thing! Oh BTW Teresa are you a Poet?

          • Teresa Barrett

            I’m not a poet, why do you ask? (I do enjoy writing though!).

          • nocbsfan

            Well your name is Barret thought you might be related at least I thought I might ask?

  • SA Ander

    An example of why it is us aganist the over reaching agency.

  • mari

    Who writes a contract that both parties sign and then later changes the parameters of the agreement. That can’t be legal, or right.

  • Thepolymathis

    It will never happen. Just like all of the other Washington politicians Senator Flake is only giving lip service to the cabin owners.

  • Quisno Rodonovich

    answer to delema get passage of state ownership of their lands then people can work with counties to stop land theft.

  • old_salty_dawg99

    Must have been an Obozo deal that allows this land grab.

  • therealworld

    This is the same thing that happens to American Retirees in Mexico. They get a 99yr lease and are allowed to build but if they ever move they cannot sell the lease or property and the Mexican Government can at a whim change the conditions to the agreement. These 99yr leases should never have been done by an Unconstitutional U.S. Forest Service and Deeded Ownership should be given to these Citizens.

  • This would be impossible under the biblical government. This is, instead, the consequence of the 18th-century founding fathers replacing the Bible’s property laws with the Fifth Amendment:

    “…’Moreover the prince shall not take of the people’s inheritance by oppression, to thrust them out of their possession … that my people be not scattered every man from his possession.’ (Ezekiel 46:18)

    “Governments tend to be more ingenious than the average citizen in the diverse ways they steal….

    “The Fifth Amendment’s provision for property confiscation is applied in eminent domain, which is nothing more than a form of organized theft:

    ‘Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance….’ (Deuteronomy 19:14)

    “Eminent domain – the Constitutional Republic’s alleged right to seize property for the “betterment” of the people – is one way the government moves boundary markers and steals from its citizens….

    “The creation of public lands is another method employed by the Constitutional Republic to move boundary markers. Identifying these lands as “public” is part of the ruse to conceal the theft. Except that the public is permitted limited access, they are not public at all. These lands, which are often stolen by legislation (such as the Wilderness Act of 1964, the Clean Air Act of 1970, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and the Clean Water Act of 1977) from private property owners, are owned by the government, not the public….

    “Public lands are just the tip of the iceberg. All of America is owned by federal and state governments via their claim to property taxes and eminent domain….

    “That government can and does exercise eminent domain anytime and anywhere it chooses proves it has stolen title to all the land in America. The only difference between King Ahab’s theft of Naboth’s vineyard in 1 Kings 21:1-16 and the Constitutional Republic’s theft under the guise of taxation and eminent domain is that today’s government is more sophisticated and all-inclusive in its methods….”

    For more, see Chapter 14 “Amendment 5: Constitutional vs. Biblical Judicial Protection” of free online book “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at

    Then find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey at and receive a complimentary copy of a book that examines the Constitution by the Bible.

    • MidnightDStroyer

      In the context of your reference to the 4th Amendment, you missed one important part of that clause…There is a due process of law that requires Lawful Warrant & Due Process of Law as it concerns allegations of criminal action. In this case, those property owners have not committed a crime & there have been no specific Warrants issued; Seizure of the property is illegal. There are also the 5th Amendment which establishes many of the specific limitations on what constitutes “Legal Seizure” & “lawful process.”

      The Federal Government has already illegally seized far more land away from the people & the States than Constitutionally allowed: “not exceeding ten Miles square” within each State, only as each State willingly cedes to them & for the specifically-included purposes of ” the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.” This can be found in Article 1, Section 8. As for “needful Buildings,” the Constitution defines specific needs of the Federal government as provided for the specific jurisdiction between State Powers & US Powers; the specific listings of ENUMERATED Powers that are included for each Branch of the government: IE-Judicial Jurisdiction, Administrative Jurisdiction, Military Establishment. All of these “needful Buildings” are to provide for the specific difference between Powers of the States Powers & US Powers; The Constitution is clearly specified on how those Powers are delegated.

      The Federal Government has a long, sad history of usurping State Powers & say that it’s “legal” to do so. In essence there is a defining line between what is Legal & what is Lawful…The government has repeatedly & insistently crossed that line, and instead enforce “color of law” as if it were above Actual Law.

  • Back before 1900, the USFS permitted a homestead entry that gave people the right to own land for agricultural use. Those were permanent ownership. Otherwise, the occupant on any given parcel of USFS land is a squatter. Land now can be leased but not purchased.

  • Betty

    Hope this does get passed do not like Flake but do agree with him in this case

  • Ken Wade

    They could put the property in a Irrevocable Trust, the sell the Trust. That way the property doesn’t change ownership, it’s still owned by the Trust but with different trustees.

  • marcus J

    I live in Arizona , As much as many in my State hate and despise our two Senators John ( The Traitor ) McShame and Jeff ( The Flake ) Flake in this case I must go with The Flake on this dispute with the Big Green Machine

  • Bill Harrison

    Why would anyone build a house on public land. They were insane to believe the government would not change it’s mind one day. Fools. Did they pay rent on land or just use it for nothing?

  • I almost would guarantee there are extensive underground assets that some politician has already sold to some NWO insider who knows about these classified resources from satellite data. If data from film from the late 80’s found these resources, just imagine he data they now have.
    You may want to Google or search if the CFR (not part of the American government but NWO controlled) established the NSA and CIA.

  • Alan

    SOP for rogue Govt..

  • Wondering Woman

    Have they now found vast deposits of natural resources in Arizona also that the land grabbing has now spread into that area????

  • william g munson