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.