Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Conspiracy Theory? or Reality?

This article was first published on http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/13490-judge-blasts-federal-conspiracy-ranch-family-vindicated-%E2%80%94-again


Judge Blasts Federal Conspiracy; Ranch Family Vindicated — Again!

Written by  
l
Judge Blasts Federal Conspiracy; Ranch Family Vindicated — Again!
Between the beginning of June and the end of August, an amazing drama unfolded in the courtroom of Robert C. Jones, chief judge of the United States District Court of Nevada. It should have received front-page billing across the country, but has been completely ignored by the major media.
In a June 6 bench statement, Judge Jones charged federal officials of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) with violating previous court judgments and engaging in a decades-long conspiracy against Nevada rancher Wayne Hage and his family. Judge Jones described the agencies’ actions against the Hages as “abhorrent,” and also noted that he had asked the local U.S. attorney to attend the hearing for consideration of criminal prosecution of BLM field manager Tom Seley and USFS ranger Steve Williams for contempt of court. However, the judge suggested that it may be necessary for the Department of Justice to appoint an outside prosecutor, since the local U.S. attorney may already be compromised. He instructed the U.S. Attorney’s office: “I will require them to account back to me in six months — within six months, as to any action they’ve taken.”

On August 31, following a weeklong show-cause hearing for contempt charges, Judge Jones issued a blistering bench statement accusing USFS officials of lying to the court, attempting to mislead the court, abusing agency regulatory powers, and engaging in a pattern of threats and intimidation to coerce witnesses. The judge charged that Seley and Williams had used illegal means in an attempt “to kill the business of Mr. Hage.” Judge Jones, in effect, “fired” Seley and Williams. “Mr. Seley can no longer be an administrator in this BLM district. I don’t trust him to be unbiased. Nor can he supervise anybody in this district,” the judge stated in his order from the bench.

First, back to Judge Jones’ June 6 bench ruling. “So I’m finding and concluding as a matter of law,” said the judge, “that the government and the agents of the government in that locale, sometime in the ’70s and ’80s, entered into a conspiracy, a literal, intentional conspiracy, to deprive the Hages of not only their permit grazing rights, for whatever reason, but also to deprive them of their vested property rights under the takings clause, and I find that that’s a sufficient basis to hold that there is irreparable harm if I don’t — and it’s in the public interest, if I don’t restrain the government from continuing in that conduct.”

Seley and Williams attempted to extort money out of third-party ranchers who had leased cattle to Wayne N. Hage. They issued trespass notices for which they demanded payments, and in one instance coerced a $15,000 settlement.

“Especially the collection from innocent others of thousands of dollars for trespass notices is abhorrent to the Court,” the judge stated, “and I express on the record my offense of my own conscience in that conduct. That’s not just simply following the law and pursuing your management right, it evidences an actual intent to destroy their water rights.”

In fact, Judge Jones accused the federal bureaucrats of “racketeering” under the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations) statute, extortion, mail fraud, and fraud.

The August show-cause hearing gave further evidence the abuses that so offended the court were not limited to localized actions by Seley and Williams. The USFS and BLM sent a high-powered lineup of officials from Washington, D.C., and state and regional offices to defend their policies, practices, and employees. But Judge Jones was not buffaloed. He subjected them to intense questioning and made witness credibility findings in which USFS Region 4 Director Harv Forsgren was found to be lying to the court, and the Nevada head of the USFS, Jeanne Higgins, was found not entirely truthful. After those findings, several other named federal officials did not testify. Judge Jones also let it be known that some of the named officials — particularly Seley and Williams — may be personally liable for thousands of dollars in fines and damages.

Longtime readers of The New American will recognize this case; we have been reporting on the Hage v. U.S. property rights case for many years. We have featured interviews with, and articles by, Wayne Hage. For many years, Wayne Hage — cowboy, author, scholar, patriot, patriarch, Christian gentleman — fought an epic and lonely battle against a conspiracy of lawless bureaucrats who operated under the color of law. He repeatedly won judgments in court, only to see them ignored or appealed in an endless appeals process by the offending bureaucrats, who had access to unlimited taxpayer funds — including Hage’s own taxes. Wayne Hage died in 2006, but his family has carried on his fight.

The outrage expressed by Judge Jones should be echoed by all Americans — and should be directed at members of Congress to exercise their duties to restrain, penalize, and/or abolish the federal agencies that are involved in abusive, criminal, and unconstitutional actions against the American people.

Thursday, March 28, 2013

Infuriating

Yesterday, on our Facebook page, we posted this important story about the Federal Government withholding $53M of WY's money from them.  I am posting it again here, in hopes that people will wake up to the fact that the Federal Government does not play by "the rules".  It is time to stand up as states and claim the jurisdictional rights that are already ours!

The original story can be read at http://www.wyomingnews.com/articles/2013/03/27/news/01top_03-27-13.txt


Feds hold on to $53M owed to Wyoming

Mead blasts Department of the Interior's newly announced decision to keep mineral royalties

By Trevor Brown
tbrown@wyomingnews.com

CHEYENNE -- Gov. Matt Mead denounced a recent decision by the federal government to withhold $53 million in mineral royalties payments owed to the state.

The U.S. Department of the Interior notified state officials Monday that it is withholding the funds as a result of the federal sequestration.

The move would cost the state about $10.6 million each month for the period of March through July. And more cuts could be required in August or September.

Mead criticized the decision, saying the department is unfairly passing the federal cuts on to the state.

"When (Wyoming) reduced its budget by over 6 percent, it did not achieve its reductions by withholding mineral revenue due under state leases," he said in a statement. "That would be taking someone else's property.

“Similarly, the Department of the Interior should not be able to meet its budget reduction by taking mineral revenues, which belong to the states under the law.”

Renny MacKay, a spokesman for Mead, said the funds were profiled, meaning it was money that was expected to come in when lawmakers put together the 2013-14 biennium budget.

“We don’t know how this will impact the budget until we get all the revenue (numbers) in,” he said. “But what we do know is that this is $53 million that was owed to us that we won’t get now.”

To put the potential $53 million reduction in context, the 6 percent budget cuts lawmakers approved earlier in the year will result in $61 million in reductions for the coming fiscal year.

Mead said he is working with state Attorney General Greg Phillips and Wyoming’s congressional delegation to see what resources are available to them.

Federal law requires Wyoming to receive 50 percent of the revenue from mineral leasing on federal lands.

But Gregory J. Gould, director of the Department of the Interior’s Office of Natural Resources Revenue, wrote to the state that the cuts are needed as a result of the automatic budget cuts that began to go into effect March 1.

Department of the Interior officials did not respond to calls seeking comment Tuesday afternoon.

State Treasurer Mark Gordon said he too will fight to prevent the reduction from going through.

“The opportunity to take a lot more of what the states are properly owed proved to be too tempting to the federal government,” he said in statement. “We are using every means necessary to make sure our state is made whole.”

Mead also lashed out at the Department of the Interior for giving the state little notice in making the announcement.

“This is no way to achieve adequate notice or give our state an opportunity to respond before the action is under way,” he said. “As far as communications go, this method of passing along significant information that greatly impacts Wyoming gets a grade of F-minus or worse. It is not acceptable.”

If the state is unable to stop the federal government from withholding the funds, it will be the second major budget hit from the federal government in the past year.

Congress passed a bill last July that stripped Wyoming of more than $700 million in Abandoned Mine Land funds that the state had expected to receive over the next decade.

State and congressional leaders similarly vowed at that time to fight the federal cuts. However, they have been unsuccessful thus far in doing so.

Monday, March 25, 2013

Commissioner Doug Heaton Explains...


Well over ten years ago, an astute Mark Habbeshaw foresaw the efforts of an ever expanding federal government to claim jurisdiction and then close access to public lands through road closures.  Mark almost single handedly waged a war to stop the intrusion.  He organized a working group to study solutions and finally ran for and won a commission seat from which he eventually filed suit claiming jurisdiction over roads by quiet title under Revised Statute 2477 authority (RS2477).  Subsequent County Commissions have persisted in and expanded the effort to include virtually all of the roads in Kane County.  Those arguments have been before the court for years and finally we got our first decision granting quiet title to a majority of the roads claimed in the original suit.

Two years ago the State of Utah decided to join the effort and filed suits on behalf of the remaining counties that have similar roads.   The pending litigation includes many thousands of roads and promises to go on for years unless this precedent setting decision paves a way for a satisfactory negotiated settlement. 

The impact of this decision is ground breaking.  It validates the assertion that local jurisdictions that RS2477 claims are valid and affirms both jurisdiction and ownership of the roads claimed, setting precedent for the rest of the state and the nation to follow. 

Environmental groups have opposed this action, knowing that an absence of roads is a prerequisite for wilderness designation which appears to be their predominant goal.  They are offended that commercial concerns including mining, timber harvest, grazing and mineral and oil extraction are allowed to take place on the "public lands".  The primary tools to stop those activities have been wilderness designation, environmental regulation and endangered species critical habitat.  Road closure is a major objective in their agenda to preclude the public from access to the lands. 

The trap for the public is that preservationist propaganda fails to mention the fact that should they accomplished their objective, those who wish to enjoy what they they have contributed to preserve will find it inaccessible by vehicle. Unless they are young and vigorous enough to hike 50 miles they will have to "view" the scenic wild-lands from the perimeter.  Comparing the vast areas proposed for preservation versus our ability to see only limited distances that experience will prove disappointing.  We even lose the ability to enjoy pictures of it as commercial photography is also prohibited.  It kind of violates the principles of the American Disabilities Act doesn't it.

We are excited to announce that the Court has now ruled that we can keep and maintain these roads for public use.  It is a great victory for those who desire to enjoy these lands and for those who depend on the resources that must be accessed by road.  The decision not only grants title and jurisdiction, but also provides access widths for maintenance where required.

Monday, January 7, 2013

You Have Questions? We Have Answers?


The Most Frequently Asked Questions

As we continue forward to educate people throughout America about the History of our Public Lands and the sovereignty of our states, established in the U.S. Constitution, we often hear the same questions over and over again. Today, let me address the most commonly asked questions we receive concerning the Transfer of Public Lands Act.
 1.    What is going to be done about existing rights?
  • All valid existing rights including grazing, mining, timber, water, recreational access, and others will continue to be recognized.
2.    Don’t these lands belong to all of us?
  • No, these lands rightfully belong to the citizens of each respective Western State, just as lands in eastern states belong to the citizens of those states.  Ownership by a state will not reduce enjoyment of the lands by anyone.  Just as Americans all feel welcome to enjoy the beauty of the color in the Northeast in the fall, and the beaches of Florida in the winter, Americans will feel as welcome as ever, if not more so, to enjoy the experience of the Western States' snow, color country, and plentiful wildlife through protection and use of the resources.
 3.     How will this legislation benefit the state, education, economy?
  • The west has hundreds of billions of dollars in abundant mineral resources.  Yet, Utah, for example, is perpetually last in the nation in per-pupil funding for education (by more than $2 billion annually).  This is because under federal control, access has been greatly denied for the multiple use of their public lands.  Responsibly utilizing these resources will grow the economy and the tax base providing the revenues needed to close the education funding gap and to fund essentials government services.
 4.    What about protections for wildlife and habitat?
  • The management of wildlife and habitat will change - for the better.Through improvements to the range, wetlands and other wildlife habitat made possible by more cost effective operations, use of local knowledge of the land, and reliance on centuries-old sound stewardship principles, state and local agencies can provide more effective and responsive protection and management of game species and native species to the enjoyment of all Americans, invasive species can be better controlled, and wetlands vital to migratory birds better protected.
 5.     Will the lands be sold to the highest bidder?
  • No. The lands will continue to be managed for multiple use, i.e., sustainable yield and protection of resources, hunting and fishing, and recreational access.  This bill also paves the way for the creation of a Public Lands Commission to responsibly manage the lands and will preserve the expectation of multiple use of the lands that have developed over the last 116 years since statehood.  After the Public Lands Commission has organized the management of the existing multiple use of the lands, any lands that may be sold, if any, must be approved and authorized through an open, public process in the best interests of the citizens of that state.
 6.     Doesn’t the state already get money from public land?
  • The state currently receives a share of federal mineral receipts, and local governments receive a small amount from the federal Payment in Lieu of Taxes and Secure Rural Schools Program.  These programs are federal revenue sharing programs designed to partially compensate for the lack of opportunity to develop a sustainable full-spectrum economy from the federal lands.  It is expected that state ownership of the lands will provide sufficient compensation to the public for the use of the renewable and non-renewable resources of the state.  Comparable operations on state and federal lands show the states can not only provide for healthy landscapes and produce renewable and non-renewable resources compatibly, but do it for a small fraction of the cost.
 7.     Will I be able to hunt, fish, 4-wheel, hike, bike, etc.?
  • Yes. As a responsible steward, the state will manage the public lands to enhance and improve recreational opportunities.
 8.     What will happen with tribal lands?
  • Tribal lands are not affected by this bill.
 9.     What about grazing rights?
  • Once fully in control of our range-lands, Western States, like Utah, will guarantee grazing rights, and will engage in proactive sustainable efforts to increase the yield of forage, increase the yield of clean water, and reduce the effects of wildlife and invasive species on the range through locally-driven, on-the-ground response.
 10.   Won’t this harm tourism and outdoor recreation?
  • No, if anything it will enhance them because there will be better access and better protection of the truly sensitive areas that demand proactive protection practices.
  • This bill will allow the West to maintain vibrant healthy landscapes and to find the best management practices to enhance or restore areas which have suffered greatly under the process-heavy federal bureaucracy.  States in the west have demonstrated that best management practices, coupled with sound fiscal policy, lead to healthy, vibrant landscapes at a fraction of the cost, by allowing the money to be spent on-the-ground, rather than in endless studies and useless litigation as required by federal regulation.
  • Outdoor tourism thrives because healthy landscapes, abundant terrestrial, bird and aquatic wildlife and the opportunity to engage the outdoors, through one's own labors provide the experience people seek. Proper management of the land, water, forestry and wildlife resources by the state, coupled with guaranteed access to the recreational areas, and encouragement to private enterprise to provide recreational opportunities for those who desire it,will foster a healthy tourism industry.
 11.  What will happen to our forests?
  • Local management and decision-making will result in healthier, more accessible, and more productive forests.
 12.  Haven’t we been down this road before?
  • No, not this road.  This bill makes a distinct demand for the United States to honor its promise; the same promise it made to all the other newly created states - to dispose of all public lands in timely fashion upon achieving statehood.  It kept this promise with all states east of Colorado (and with Hawaii).  Are we not a state entitled to have the federal government honor this same promise to us, to our school children, and to future generations?
These FAQs can be found at www.arewenotastate.com and have been altered to represent all Western States.  Utah's HB148, The Transfer of Public Lands Act is the model being used for other states' similar bills, and therefore, is being used as the reference for the answers to these Frequently Asked Questions.

Thursday, November 29, 2012

Road Closures in Colorado


Thanks to Better-Community-News for sharing this important story:

 Powderhouse Becomes Powder Keg
WESTERN COLORADO - About 45 angry residents gathered to protest the closure of Powderhouse Road in Pitkin Colorado. The sleepy town is a launching place for all kinds of outdoor tourist activities as well as a home to residents who grew up roaming the mountains on their ATVs and snowmobiles.

David Justice, who was at the event, said, "This road has been here longer than the forest service has even existed...They tore it up with rippers and heavy equipment. It's an outrage!"

District Ranger, John Murphy said, "The road had been scheduled for closure since 2010 due to the (5-year) travel management survey that was done for the Gunnison National Forest. The plan wanted (sic.) to create a very large, uninterrupted area for the wildlife."

When asked why the wildlife needed a "large, uninterrupted area," and what a "large, uninterrupted area" would accomplish for the wildlife, Ranger Murphy stated that he didn't know the benefits of such a closure (since he is not a wildlife specialist).

Murphy arrived in Pitkin after the travel management plan had been made. He said many groups participated in the travel plan survey. He listed the environmentalist and other special interest groups that have worked to take away motorized access to the public lands for decades, all of them are from out of the local area. Their input was the basis of the travel management plan that closed the roads.
                                                                                                                 Murphy said, "Very little input was received from the locals who use the trails. Most of them didn't even know the process was going on at the time. Now they're furious that they can't use the trails they've always been used."

Murphy said his neighbor, who had participated in the travel management process years prior, was irate at the process because they didn't listen to what the local citizens wanted, only to the special interest groups.

Murphy mentioned that he has received complaints that the use of the road has been used in the past to fight fires that could threaten the town. He also said that a citizen told him that the road had always been a part of their evacuation plans in the event of fire and that citizen was concerned that his escape route would be cut off.

Click here to read the entire story.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Well said, Kathleen. Well said.

This morning, after our weekly e-mail went out, I got an interesting response from someone.  It basically said, "American lands belong to all Americans, not just to those of a particular state."  It's not the first time we've heard that argument, but I find it interesting.
If the lands of my state belong to all of America, when is New York going to start sending us taxes for the right to come here and enjoy our mountains?  If the American lands belong to everyone in America, shouldn't we be pooling all America's property taxes together?  Or how about sharing all the taxes that come from every state's trust funds and distribute it evenly among all  the schools in America?  Utah, ranking last in the nation in per-pupil funding may only be all-too-anxious to adopt that strategy.  But you see, we can't.  Because public lands do not belong to every American.  They were given to each state at statehood, deeded to the Federal Government only for a temporary time, to allow them to dispose of (or sell) them in a timely manner to help fund our national debt  (see the History of our public lands).
Just as I was wondering how to respond to this obviously well-intentioned person, I received a copy of an article that appeared in today's Deseret News, written by Kathleen Clarke, our Director of Public Lands.
Kathleen's article very articulately spells out the situation that we find ourselves in here in Utah...a situation which many of our neighboring states find themselves in as we struggle to meet our state's financial responsibilities while being able to tax such a minuscule percentage of our land.
I am sharing her article here and hope you will share it with everyone on your contact list.  For we can only claim our rights when we know what they are.


My View: The need for a balanced public lands policy
By Kathleen Clarke
Published: Wednesday, Nov. 14 2012 12:00 a.m. MST
                                    
                                                                            
                        
                        A hiker takes in the view in Bell Canyon in the San Rafael Swell.  (Ravell Call, Ravell Call, Deseret News)
                    
                                        
In its 2012 general session, the Utah Legislature passed HB148: The Transfer of Public Lands Act. This bill charged the Constitutional Defense Council with the duty to study the many complex issues pertaining to the public lands and to report its findings to the Legislature. As director of the Governor's Public Lands Policy Coordination Office, I have overseen this ongoing study. 
                                    
My experience as the previous executive director of the Utah Department of Natural Resources and the national director of the United States Bureau of Land Management has given me a unique insight into public lands policy: Utah's public lands would be better managed, more productive and more accessible under state stewardship.
                                    
Current federal land policy and management is inefficient, ineffective and threatens the long-term use and enjoyment of the public lands. Washington gridlock has resulted in a system where rigid and often conflicting management policies shackle federal land managers and prevent them from actively managing the lands. 
                                    
Outmoded federal policies have resulted in forests that are vulnerable to catastrophic wildfire, insect infestation and disease. Our rangelands are deteriorating and restoration efforts are underfunded. While land is rich in timber and mineral resources, production efforts are either precluded entirely or greatly limited by regulations, endless administrative red tape and lawsuits brought by interest groups that oppose any use of the land. 
                                    
As long as the public lands remain under federal control, they will continue to deteriorate, and Utah and its citizens will be deprived of the many economic benefits to which we are entitled and so desperately need. I am confident that, in state hands, the public lands will be restored, protected and more productive. 
                                    
Utahns have always been good stewards of the land. We have a long track record of both environmental protection and fiscal responsibility. Utah has the expertise in existing agencies —including those within the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Environmental Quality and the Department of Agriculture and Food — to address the many complex and interrelated issues of public land management. Utahns know that people from around the world flock to our state for its unmatched beauty and incredible scenery, and to experience meaningful outdoor experiences. 
                                    
No one in state government would permit the degradation of Utah's wondrous beauty. Under HB148, all national parks, all but one national monument, and all wilderness areas will remain under federal ownership and control. Other lands with similar qualities will also be protected. Lands with less aesthetic or recreational qualities that contain resources will become more accessible for development and revenue production. With ever improving technology, this can be done with minimal environmental impact. 
                                    
Multiple use will be the objective, and multiple users will all be given voice, including tourists; conservationists; hunters; fisherman and other outdoor recreationists; energy industries; farm and ranch interests; local governments; water districts; and other engaged stakeholders. 
                                    
HB148 is neither a "land grab" nor a "political stunt," as some have maliciously alleged. It is an earnest effort to draw attention to a federal lands policy that does not protect the land, does not pay for itself and does not meet the economic or energy challenges of today. There is no intent to sell transferred lands. Rather, these lands will be retained in state ownership and control so that they forever benefit not only the people who live, work and recreate on them, but all Utahns who look to government services to educate their children and enhance their lives. 
                                    
Utah has amazing public lands, and always will. Like my fellow Utahns, I care deeply about Utah's majestic mountains, still forests and quiet desert landscapes. This land is my home. The lands we all love and treasure won't be any less public when they are managed by the state. 
                                    
With proper examination and analysis, and a good faith dialogue, a more balanced lands policy can be achieved which will restore the public lands for the use and benefit of all.
                                    
Kathleen Clarke is the director of Public Lands Policy Coordination Office in the state of Utah.
    
Copyright 2012, Deseret News Publishing Company