We think the property is owned by the city plus about 257 other parties.

December 20, 2017 12:24 PM

United States of America v. 15.919 Acres of Land (More or Less). Susie Cagle, writing and drawing for Pro Publica and The Texas Tribune, documents just one story about one parcel that the Bush (II) Administration seized to build a section of border wall in Brownsville, TX in 2006. 11 years later, the eminent domain case is still not settled, in part because the government never did the proper title research before taking the land and building that section of fence. We can expect a lot more stories like this in the near future.
posted by suelac (18 comments total)

Cases like this was why CAH bought a parcel of land and distributed it among 150,000 participants.
posted by msbutah at 12:52 PM on December 20, 2017 [14 favorites]

The case name reminds me of another classic, United States v. Forty Barrels & Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola.
posted by Chrysostom at 1:07 PM on December 20, 2017 [2 favorites]

Chrysostom, you'll love United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls.
posted by hanov3r at 1:36 PM on December 20, 2017 [12 favorites]

CAH didn't actually distribute it. Read the paperwork carefully - Our lawyers want you to know that your payment does not create any principal-agent relationship with Cards Against Humanity, LLC or entitle you to any ownership interest in the land.
posted by wotsac at 1:38 PM on December 20, 2017 [3 favorites]

So the Bush administration built their wall with all the competence and efficiency that they conducted their war in Iraq. It was just a practice run for the current occupant, I fear.

Oh, I remember clackers. They lasted about 2 months before my elementary school banned them in the early 70s.
posted by Bee'sWing at 2:07 PM on December 20, 2017 [3 favorites]

Susie Cagle is an amazing storyteller. Clackers! I remember them, until they were banned. Stories about how kids were putting eyes out or something abounded. Mostly, they would leave a wicked bruise when you inevitably hit yourself.

Eminent domain and takings have become a big problem. I don't see how we can fix it, given that we don't have a functional government, but if we ever happen to elect folks that actually care about running the country, I would like eminent domain to be considerably restricted.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 2:17 PM on December 20, 2017 [1 favorite]

Cases like this was why CAH bought a parcel of land and distributed it among 150,000 participants.

They're not going to slow down the wall. The property will be taken immediately and subsequent litigation will be over the amount due (as was the case in the linked article).

I don't know why they'd be excited to engage in protracted litigation over the value of their parcel, but diff'rent strokes.....
posted by jpe at 3:44 PM on December 20, 2017

I don't know why they'd be excited to engage in protracted litigation over the value of their parcel

Pretty sure it's for the principle of the thing.
posted by Lexica at 4:10 PM on December 20, 2017 [3 favorites]

I’m not sure whether a long legal battle would slow down the construction of the wall or not- but it would get some legal precedent(sp?) set and could ensure after 5-7 years of litigation (and a new administration) that future seizing and building could not occur. CAH are playing a long game.
posted by Homo neanderthalensis at 4:31 PM on December 20, 2017

My favourite US civil forfeiture case name was something like USA vs. 100 Pit Bulls.
posted by acb at 5:07 PM on December 20, 2017 [1 favorite]

My money is on the dogs.
posted by Homo neanderthalensis at 5:09 PM on December 20, 2017 [1 favorite]

acb: "USA vs. 100 Pit Bulls"

Are you thinking of United States Of America V. 19 Pit Bull-type Dogs?
posted by Chrysostom at 5:56 PM on December 20, 2017 [1 favorite]

That's probably the one.
posted by acb at 6:49 PM on December 20, 2017

The US routinely sues cash (American Currency); which concept I find hilarious.
posted by Mitheral at 6:53 PM on December 20, 2017 [1 favorite]

United States v. Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict
posted by scruss at 7:34 PM on December 20, 2017 [11 favorites]

They're not going to slow down the wall. The property will be taken immediately and subsequent litigation will be over the amount due (as was the case in the linked article).

Do you have evidence of that? According to an article in Bloomberg, Property owners, whose land would be caught between the wall and the Mexico border, are likely to file claims of lost property value, which could slow down any construction on a wall. A Mashable article on the Cards Against Humanity holding in particular quotes a Texas law professor as saying "They can't stop the border wall for sure," Blais said. Legally speaking, "it's clearly for public use [but] they can challenge the process at every step if they want. That could take a long long time."

Both articles agree that the government would eventually prevail, but also say that resistance by property owners could slow the process.
posted by layceepee at 7:44 PM on December 20, 2017

I’m not sure whether a long legal battle would slow down the construction of the wall or not-

It wouldn't. As the comic notes, the US uses a fast track eminent domain procedure: as soon as they make a deposit of the estimated value, title transfers to the US and construction can begin.

They can argue over nickels, and can probably take up several years on how many more nickels they're entitled to, but all the while construction will be moving ahead.
posted by jpe at 5:42 AM on December 21, 2017

On the other hand "US Govt seizes the land of 150,000 people to build wall" is kind of an embarrassing headline that would sort of resonate with the people who tend to want the wall in the first place.
posted by Mitheral at 6:09 AM on December 21, 2017