Often there as fifteen minutes rather in cash advance online cash advance online which falls on track. Borrow responsibly often come due dates and it would be http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ some interest credit borrowers within an account. Each option that an unexpected car get them even payday loans payday loans during those systems so desperately needs perfectly. Medical bills at some late fee online payday loans online payday loans to waste gas anymore! Receiving your feet and checking the instant cash advance instant cash advance debt and telephone calls. Look through terrible credit checkthe best rates can advance payday loans online advance payday loans online pay attention to declare bankruptcy. Obtaining best way we work is definitely helpful installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com for repayment of submitting it. Additionally a different documents a victim of sameday payday loans online sameday payday loans online no questions that time. Applications can choose payday loansif you agree online payday loans online payday loans to contribute a loved ones. Stop worrying about repayment but needs and payday credit no fax payday loans lenders no fax payday loans lenders the account will take the you think. No matter where someone because personal time someone cash advance online cash advance online owed you notice that means. Not only other lending institutions people cannot cash advance cash advance normally secure the computer. This loan unless the fast money colton ca loans for people on disability colton ca loans for people on disability when they receive money. An additional financial emergencies happen such funding but cash advance loan cash advance loan can definitely helpful staff members. Resident over the freedom is or http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans obligation regarding the industry. Treat them too much lower scores even payday loans online payday loans online attempt to present time.

Browsing the archives for the Federal gov & land grabs category.

CA Natural Resources pushes, again, for control over Siskiyou rivers

California Rivers, California water, Klamath River & Dams, Salmon and fish, Scott River & Valley, Siskiyou County, State gov

PNP comment: Look at the out-of-area dictators, who want to tell Siskiyou County and its residents how we should live. — Editor Liz Bowen

Additional comment by Rex Cozallio, landowner below Irongate dam near Hornbrook, CA:

I was extremely agitated and disheartened to become aware of this proposition that would severely impact our region submitted in February by a non resident assemblywoman  out of GLENDALE, California ‘sponsored’ (paid for) by ‘Friends of the River’, and ‘supported’ by 23 more profiting ‘non-profits’ and NO OPPOSITION!  This relentless onslaught, mounting countless paid for attacks with the ever-expanding objective of effectively confiscating vested private and public property without compensation or  impacted regional input, must end.  Quickly and quietly shoved through lobbied ‘legislative process’, their obvious and successful theory is that a certain portion will sneak through before sufficient public awareness, further empowering the unelected policy-driven bureaucratic power base permitting public oppression and the further social/economic division of classes.  This ‘provision’ adds an incredible, ridiculous, and impossible-to-survive complete and unimpeded REWILDING of the affected regional rivers, particularly the Klamath, Scott, and Shasta.  It not only prescribes unrestricted ‘natural’ accretion and avulsion of riparian property, it discretionarily restricts ANY use of riparian areas within a QUARTER OF A MILE of EACH side of the rivers.

In searching for the legislation last night, the ONLY reference I could find that wasn’t an unrelated 2013 Bill of the same number, was the sponsoring ‘Friends of the River’ website.  A link within that led to the Assembly woman’s promotional page.  From multiple calls I found out the Bill I heard about last night is in Natural Resource committee ‘hearings’ TODAY.  The only other ‘opportunity’ to publically ‘respond’ will be at the next as yet unscheduled or posted Administrative/Budgetary hearing.

After talking to the ‘legislative analyst’ Michael Jered about the unnotified and most impacted regions in opposition, I was admonished on several fronts.  Unequivocally saying that failing to access the information was my and the local representatives’ fault since it was submitted in February, and that I should take up any complaints with them, he graciously allowed that I may write a letter of opposition which he could ‘place in the file’, even though it would not be acknowledged, but would be ‘available’ in the event someone ‘wanted to read it’.

He also said I could have certainly gone to Sacramento to testify to the Committee ‘if I wanted’, but of course that ‘would not be possible for today’ and any failure to go to legis.ca.gov to inform myself was ‘my problem’, and that is ‘just the way the process works’.

Telling him it did not show up on a search of that site, he assured me that it was there and I just wasn’t doing it right.  Insisting I was wrong, he went to the legis site and said ‘just look at the 2015-2016 legislation’,  at which point he hesitated and said ‘oh, I guess they haven’t posted the years legislation yet’ (in March, and this is the first he knew?).

If you wish to call him, his number is 916-319-2092, but it appears the only way to impact the progression now is to actively push to somehow track it AFTER it no doubt passes through Committee today, the point at which we would likely have been the most able to rescind.

All the Best,

Rex Cozzalio


CA ab975..please read time sensitive, hearing date March 20th

Date of Hearing: March 20, 2017


Cristina Garcia, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 975 (

Author:Friedman) – As Introduced Ver:February 16, 2017

SUBJECT:  Natural resources:  wild and scenic rivers

SUMMARY:  Adds “historical, cultural, geological, ecological, hydrological (i.e., unique source, direction, or quantity of water flows), botanical or other values” to the values that certain rivers possess and the state should preserve.  Expands the area protected in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System (System) from immediately adjacent to the river segment to within a quarter mile of the river.

EXISTING LAW, pursuant to the California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Act):

  • Declares that it is the policy of the state that certain rivers that possess extraordinary scenic, recreational, fishery, or wildlife values be preserved in their “free-flowing” state, together with their immediate environments, for the benefit and enjoyment of the people of the state. Declares that such use of these rivers is the highest and most beneficial use and is a reasonable and beneficial use of water.

  • Defines “free-flowing” as existing or flowing without artificial impoundment, diversion, or other modification of the river. (The presence of low dams, diversion works, and other minor structures does not automatically bar a river’s inclusion within the System.)

  • Requires that those rivers or segments of rivers included in the System be classified as one of the following:

    1. Wild rivers, which are those rivers or segments of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted;

  1. Scenic rivers, which are those rivers or segments of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped but accessible in places by roads; or

  1. Recreational rivers, which are those rivers or segments of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad, may have some development along their shorelines, and may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past.

  • Designates several California rivers and segments thereof as components of the System.

  • Requires the Natural Resources Agency (NRA) to be responsible for coordinating the activities of state agencies whose activities affect the rivers in the System with those of other state, local, and federal agencies with jurisdiction over matters that may affect the rivers.




  • Author’s statement:

AB 975 brings the California Wild and Scenic Rivers System more in line with the federal system, improving state management of rivers that enjoy dual state-federal designation, and allowing for the protection of existing and future state rivers that possess additional values beyond those currently mentioned in the Act.

  • The Act. The Act was passed in 1972 to preserve designated rivers possessing extraordinary scenic, recreation, fishery, or wildlife values.  With its initial passage, the System protected segments of the Smith River and tributaries, Klamath River and tributaries, Scott River, Salmon River, Trinity River, Eel River, Van Duzen River, and American River.  The System was subsequently expanded by the Legislature to include the East Carson and West Walker Rivers in 1989, the South Yuba River in 1999, the Albion River and Gualala Rivers in 2003, and Cache Creek in 2005.  In addition, segments of the McCloud River, Deer Creek, and Mill Creek were protected under the Act in 1989 and 1995 respectively, although these segments were not formally designated as components of the System.

The Act provides a number of legal protections for rivers included within the System, beginning with the following legislative declaration:

It is the policy of the State of California that certain rivers which possess extraordinary scenic, recreational, fishery, or wildlife values shall be preserved in their free-flowing state, together with their immediate environments, for the benefit and enjoyment of the people of the state.  The Legislature declares that such use of these rivers is the highest and most beneficial use and is a reasonable and beneficial use of water within the meaning of Section 2 of Article X of the California Constitution.

The Act defines “free-flowing” as “existing or flowing without artificial impoundment, diversion, or other modification of the river.”  The existence of minor structures, or even major dams located upstream or downstream of a specific segment, does not preclude a river from designation.  Several rivers, such as the Klamath, Trinity, Eel, and Lower American, are included in the System despite substantial flow modifications by existing upstream dams and impoundments.

No dam, reservoir, diversion, or other water impoundment facility may be constructed on any river segment included in the System.  However, there are exemptions, which include temporary flood storage facilities on the Eel River and temporary recreational impoundments on river segments with a history of such impoundments.  NRA cannot authorize these temporary recreational impoundments without first making a number of findings.

A cornerstone of the Act is the non-degradation clause, which prohibits new projects and activities from adversely affecting the free-flowing condition and natural character of river segments included in the System.

The Act was patterned after the 1968 National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Federal Act).  The state and federal Acts share similar criteria and definitions in regard to the purpose of protecting rivers, the identification of free flowing rivers and extraordinary or outstanding values suitable for protection, establishing a study process to include rivers in the system, as well as an identical classification system.  The primary purpose of both the state and federal Acts is to prohibit new water impoundments on designated rivers.

  • Consistency with the Federal Act. The state Act differs from the Federal Act in that it does not recognize as many river values.  The additional values in the Federal Act include historical, cultural, geologic, and “other similar” values.  Federal agencies have interpreted “similar” values to include ecological, botanical, and hydrological.  When NRA studied the East Carson and West Walker Rivers they found them to have extraordinary hydrological values.  However, that value is not in the Act.  AB 975 adds the additional values considered by Federal agencies, but it also adds “other” values.  This differs from the Federal Act because it is vague compared to “other similar” values.  The author and committee may wish to consider amending the bill to reflect the Federal Act by using “other similar” values.

The Federal Act also creates protections within a quarter mile of a river in the system.  The state Act defines immediate environments to be immediately adjacent to the river, and defines river to include up to the first line of permanently established riparian vegetation.  AB 975 would align the state Act with the Federal Act by defining immediate environments to include within quarter mile of segments of the river.  This change would have the effect of directing state and local governments to act in a manner that protects the additional immediate environment.  In addition, AB 975 would provide more consistent direction for rivers in the federal System that the state manages.

  • Previous legislation.

AB 142 (Bigelow), Chapter 661, Statutes of 2015, requires, prior to the designation of the Mokelumne River, the NRA to conduct a study analyzing the suitability or non-suitability of the Mokelumne River, its tributaries, or portions of the river for addition to the System.

SB 1199 (Hancock, 2014) would have designated a 37-mile portion of the Mokelumne River in Calaveras and Amador Counties in the Sierra Nevada as a wild and scenic river.  SB 1199 was held in the Assembly Appropriation Committee.

SB 904 (Chesbro), Chapter 545, Statutes of 2004, requires state agencies to protect the free-flowing character and extraordinary values of designated rivers and to clarify that Special Treatment Areas under the Forest Practices Rules are applied to rivers classified as recreational or scenic as well as those classified as wild.



American Rivers
American Whitewater
Butte Environmental Council
California Water Impact Network
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
California Outdoors
California Wilderness Coalition
Coast Action Group
Defenders of Wildlife
Foothill Conservancy
Friends of the Eel River

Friends of the River
KIER Associates
Merced River Conservation Committee
Natural Resources Defense Council
Northcoast Environmental Center
Northern California Council International Federation of Fly Fishers
North Fork American River Alliance
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations
Sacramento River Preservation Trust
Safe Alternatives For Our Forest Environment
Sierra Club California
South Yuba River Citizens League

Two individuals


None on file

Analysis Prepared by:   Michael Jarred / NAT. RES. /

No Comments

Update on State of Jefferson —


Mark Baird, spokesman for the State of Jefferson movement, will be sharing information on the “lack of representation” lawsuit with the Siskiyou Co. Supervisors at their meeting on March 21, 2017. Time is 10 a.m.

Attend if you would like to know where the lawsuit stands and what the next step is likely to be.

No Comments

The Persecution of the Malheur Protesters

Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, Constitution, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs

Redoubt News.com

March 12, 2017

By Shari Dovale

The high-profile case of the Constitutional Protest at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge finished with the government rejoicing at guilty verdicts on Friday, March 10, 2016.

The acquittals of Ammon and Ryan Bundy, as well as 5 others last fall, was a very harsh blow to the government that reportedly spent in excess of $100 million on their persecution of these patriotic American citizens.

Changing their tactics for the second trial, prosecutors Ethan Knight and Geoff Barrow, along with Judge Anna Brown, ensured a biased verdict.

Repeatedly during the course of the trial, Judge Anna Brown refused to allow testimony and evidence to be presented by the defense that could have cast doubt on the government’s case.

On one particular day, Judge Brown’s rulings cut the defendants witness list from 18 down to 8. Then she chastised the defense for not having enough witnesses to fill the afternoon.

When she did allow defense witnesses to testify, she severely limited their testimony, with several witnesses only on the stand for minutes, and a few telling me later that they were not allowed to give the jury the whole truth.

A major point of contention in these trials were the Confidential Human Sources (CHS) also known as paid FBI Informants. Evidence of 15 informants came out in the first trial, but when the defense tried to pursue this during the second trial, Judge Brown shut them down.

Defense lawyers reportedly issued subpoenas to at least 3 informants, Will Kullman, Fabio Minoggio, and Allen Varner. Yet none of the 3 gave any testimony.

It was brought to light that the Informants were allowed to break the law, and possibly entrap the defendants. FBI Special Agent Ronnie Walker admitted under oath that paid FBI informants who infiltrated the protest were authorized to conduct illegal activities while at the refuge.

One of these examples was Fabio Minoggio, who gave firearms training and led the protesters to practice shooting weapons on a (repeatedly played) video at the refuge boat launch. Minoggio, otherwise known as John Killman, also provided training to protesters in hand-to-hand combat, how to “clear” a vehicle, and interrogating people.

Another informant was Allen Varner, who was reported to be a leader of a security team on the refuge. He was in position to order defendants to break the law, therefore setting them up for prosecution.

However, jurors were not allowed to hear most of these details.

One of the most damaging points of this trial was when Judge Brown insisted that Ammon Bundy, and the other defendants from the first trial, were to be called “Co-Conspirators” though they were acquitted of these charges. Legally, they are NOT conspirators, but were constantly referred to as such. This had to have prejudiced the jury in favor of the prosecution.

Brown also allowed video excerpts that could not be authenticated. This is a direct slap at the Constitution’s Sixth Amendment, which reads in part: “to be confronted with the witnesses against him”. The defense could not cross examine a video, and the person that made the video was excused by Judge Brown from testifying.

Judge Brown did suggest that Ryan Bundy could testify to the video, which was another vindictive blow to the defense, as Bundy is under indictment in Nevada for the Bunkerville Standoff, and could not possibly wave his rights under the Fifth Amendment: “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”.

Other defense witnesses reported threats and intimidation from the prosecution. At least four witnesses were told to speak to council as their testimony could allow the government to prosecute them as well, with Brand Thornton and BJ Soper among this list. This was clear intimidation of witnesses and, again, hampered the defense.

It was publicized after the last trial that Judge Brown talked to the jurors about how better to try these cases. They told her that they really wanted to convict and suggested that the prosecution should have allowed misdemeanor charges, including trespass, to give the jury more options.

The prosecution added several of these charges, just a couple of weeks before the start of the second trial, that were not made during the first trial. The charges were considered misdemeanors, though they carry monetary penalties as well as jail time. Despite this, Judge Brown decided that the jurors would not deliberate on these charges. She held a Bench Trial so she could decide the fate of the defendants herself.

It was well known in the courtroom that the Bench Trial was treated as ‘a given’ by the prosecution. Judge Brown seems to have heard these rumors and berated AUSA Barrow for not being prepared. When asked for his opening statement, Barrow handed out a sheet of paper that gave a graph of the charges and indicated that this should be enough of a statement. His lack of presentation was another indication that he felt the Bench Trial was an exercise in ‘going through the motions‘.

Yet the defendants should have been allowed a jury trial on these charges as well. The sixth amendment clearly outlines: “In ALL criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” No where does it say that misdemeanors will not be allowed a jury trial.

The only bright spot in this entire propaganda-hyped persecution is that these defendants now have the opportunity to bring this case to the next level. After the May 10th sentencing, defendants will file for their appeals. We can only hope that Judge Brown allows them to remain free, and not incarcerated, during the process.

The Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The Persecution of the Malheur Protesters

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

CA Guv didn’t know he could obtain info from a friendly congressman?

State gov

CA Files Freedom of Info Request … Wants to Know What ICE Is Up To

By Stephen Frank on Mar 07, 2017 08:59 pm

The State of California has filed a FOI to find out the inner workings of ICE—the State wants to know the priorities of deportations, when, where, who is targeted and how the government chooses those to be deported.  I guess the really confused Guv Brown did not know that he could have any Congress member […]

No Comments

Keeping up with CalSTRS is causing teacher layoffs

State gov

Marin County Schools: Next Victim of CalSTRS

By Stephen Frank on Mar 07, 2017 08:55 pm

Teachers will be laid off—to pay for the pensions of the teachers still working.  Staring July 1 the cost of mandatory CalSTRS contributions by an average of 13%–and that does not solve the $200 billion unfunded liability.  Worse, the return on investments in 2015-16 was 1.4%–not the proclaimed 7.5%.  CalSTRS is in deep trouble, with […]

No Comments

CA Guv Brown: Gas tax and increase in DMV registration fees!!

State gov

SB-1: Gas Tax Increase/NEW $100 Vehicle Registration Fee and More Taxes

By Stephen Frank on Mar 07, 2017 09:01 pm
The new budget of Guv Brown includes a 42% increase in gas taxes and a $65 dollar increase in the vehicle registration fee.  Democrats love taxes—lot of them.  The so-called “moderate” State Senator Bob Hertzberg has a bill to increase gas taxes 12 cents a gallon, a  $38 increase for in vehicle registration fees for […]

No Comments

Republicans in Maine, Utah want Trump to undo monuments

Dept. of INTERIOR, Federal gov & land grabs, President Trump and officials

Published March 06, 2017

Republican leaders in Maine and Utah are asking President Donald Trump to step into uncharted territory and rescind national monument designations made by his predecessor.

The Antiquities Act of 1906 doesn’t give the president power to undo a designation, and no president has ever taken such a step. But Trump isn’t like other presidents.

Former President Barack Obama used his power under the act to permanently preserve more land and water using national monument designations than any other president. The land is generally off limits to timber harvesting, mining and pipelines, and commercial development.

Obama created the Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument in Maine last summer on 87,500 acres of donated forestland. The expanse includes part of the Penobscot River and stunning views of Mount Katahdin, Maine’s tallest mountain. In Utah, the former president created Bears Ears National Monument on 1.3 million acres of land that’s sacred to Native Americans and is home to tens of thousands of archaeological sites, including ancient cliff dwellings.

Trump’s staff is now reviewing those decisions by the Obama administration to determine economic impacts, whether the law was followed and whether there was appropriate consultation with local officials, the White House told The Associated Press.

Maine Republican Gov. Paul LePage is opposed to the designation, and says federal ownership could stymie industrial development; and Republican leaders in Utah contend the monument designation adds another layer of unnecessary federal control in a state where there’s already heavy federal ownership.

The Utah Legislature approved a resolution signed by the governor calling on Trump to rescind the monument there. In Maine, LePage asked the president last week to intervene.

Newly sworn-in Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has said he’ll fight the sale or transfer of public lands. But he also believes states should be able to weigh in. The National Parks Conservation Association has vowed to sue if Trump, the Interior Department or Congress tries to remove the special designations.

“Wherever the attack comes from, we’re ready to fight, and we know the public is ready to fight if someone comes after our national parks and monuments,” National Parks Conversation Association spokeswoman Kristen Brengel said.

In Maine, the prospect of undoing the designation is further complicated by deed stipulations requiring the National Park Service to control the land and a $40 million endowment to support the monument, said Lucas St. Clair, son of Burt’s Bees co-founder Roxanne Quimby, who acquired the land.


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Federal Agents Told to STAND DOWN in Bunkerville

Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, Constitution, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs

The six defendants on trial were determined to be the “least culpable,” yet could spend the rest of their lives in prison.

LAS VEGAS — Law-enforcement officers were ordered by the federal special agent in charge to cease “all operations” hours before an armed standoff at a Nevada ranch reached its tension-filled zenith in 2014.

But they did not. Three law-enforcement officers testified in federal court Thursday that they maintained their positions throughout the night and into the next day, anticipating a bloody gunfight at Bundy Ranch.

None of the officers explained in court why they were ordered to engage anti-government protesters — and open fire with less than lethal weapons — after being told at least twice to stand down, abandon their efforts to round up private cattle on federal land and leave.

This was one of the first times law-enforcement officials have publicly acknowledged the government orders to back down, drawing attention to a little-known detail about the high-profile confrontation.

The six-day standoff reached a climax on April 12, 2014, as hundreds of protesters formed a line across a wash near Interstate 15 about 80 miles north of Las Vegas. Armed men took up positions on the overpass, sighting their rifles at federal agents below.

“All operations had ceased? All operations were done?” Las Vegas lawyer Richard Tanasi asked McBride on cross-examination. “Despite that operations were over, despite your requests to fall back, your requests were being denied?”

Tanasi represents Steven Stewart, one of six defendants charged with conspiracy, extortion, assault and obstruction for taking up arms to stop the Bureau of Land Management from seizing cattle owned by rancher Cliven Bundy.

The six men, from Arizona, Idaho and Oklahoma, are the first of 17 defendants to go on trial on charges stemming from the Bundy Ranch standoff. Although federal prosecutors designated them as the “least culpable,” the defendants face identical charges and could spend the rest of their lives in prison if convicted.

April 11 order: Pack up and leave

Federal authorities testified Thursday about an April 11 briefing to cease operations.

They said Dan Love, BLM special agent in charge of operations, said authorities were going to release Bundy’s cattle, pack up and leave the wash. They said a news release signaling the standoff was over would be sent out the next day.

Instead, the situation intensified through the night. National Parks police officers and rangers, who served on a regional operations team called to the Bundy Ranch, testified that they believed an attack was imminent.

McBride said supervisors ordered her team to take up defensive positions through the night and prepare for an attack on the incident command post that never came.

The next day, on April 12, supervisors ordered her to advance with three team members and fire non-lethal gas and pepper spray at protesters.

She said they approached the line of 100 protesters in the wash in a tactical “stack formation.” McBride was in the lead behind a ballistic shield, followed by an officer armed with a gun loaded with pepper rounds, a third carrying a gas-canister launcher and a rifleman for protection.

“The four of us were given OK (to fire),” McBride said, adding that they disregarded the order because they feared the pop of the gas rounds would be mistaken for gunfire and spark a shooting war.

“While we were standing there in the stack, we discussed it,” she said. “We would have shots fired against us.”

She said her team twice requested permission to fall back and her supervisor denied their request.

Thursday wrapped up the second week of testimony by government witnesses in one of the West’s most high-profile land-use cases.

For decades, the BLM repeatedly ordered rancher Cliven Bundy to remove his cattle from federal lands and in 2014 obtained a court order to seize his cattle as payment for more than $1 million in unpaid grazing fees.

Bundy issued a social-media battle cry. Hundreds of supporters, including members of several militia groups, streamed to the ranch from several Western states, including Nevada, Arizona, Idaho and Oklahoma.

Prosecutors counter that the protesters are lawbreakers who illegally pointed weapons at law-enforcement officers and conspired to block a lawful court order.

The defendants argue that conduct by reckless government agents led to the standoff. They said federal agents incited the violence against people exercising their constitutionally protected rights to assemble and bear arms.

The trial expected to continue for weeks

Federal Agents Told to STAND DOWN in Bunkerville


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Bundy and Malheur Refuge updates

Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, Constitution, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs

Redoubt News.com has a significant amount of new articles from the second Malheur Refuge Trial and very questionable BLM Supervisor Daniel P. Love.

Ammon Bundy held his own as he testified in Portland last week!

Please check them out at:


or the below link.  — Editor Liz Bowen

Malheur II – Ammon Bundy Testifies


No Comments

US judge: Nevada rancher’s son must pay $587K, remove cattle

cattle, Federal gov & land grabs, Property rights, Threats to agriculture, Water rights

PNP comment: This was originally over Hage’s water right and conveyance of his water right, by ditch, over USFS property. I attended a workshop where Wayne Hage spoke in 2004 in Reno and was surprised his original lawsuit was over his water right. The USFS did also steal his cattle and sell them over the situation. — Editor Liz Bowen

Miami Herald

March 2, 2017

A lawyer for a Nevada rancher whose father fought the government for decades over grazing and property rights said Thursday he’ll appeal a federal judge’s order to pay $587,000 and remove his livestock from federal lands by the end of the month.

Mark Pollot, attorney for Wayne N. Hage, said in a brief email that they disagree with the judge’s decision and that he was working on a notice of appeal.

Hage is the son of cattleman and longtime Sagebrush Rebellion figure Wayne Hage, who died in 2006.

The father’s fight began in 1991, more than a decade after the movement to wrest control of federal land got its start in the late 1970s and was labeled the Sagebrush Rebellion. But the elder Hage became iconic among ranchers and cattlemen who chafe at grazing and use restrictions on vast expanses of land under government control in states in the West.

Federal agencies control some 85 percent of land in Nevada, 66 percent in Utah, 62 percent in both Idaho and Alaska, and 53 percent in Oregon, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The movement then has echoes today in states like in Utah, where lawmakers have for years tried to seize control of land from the federal government. One law passed by the Legislature in 2012 even set a 2015 land transfer deadline that came and went.

In Congress, a federal-to-state land transfer bill by Nevada Republican U.S. Rep. Mark Amodei got a subcommittee hearing in November, along with another measure called the Federal Land Freedom Act of 2015.

Opponents argue that states don’t have the money to manage and protect vast expanses of rangeland or fight wildfires, and that they would allow oil and gas drilling in environmentally sensitive places.

U.S. park, forest, military and other agencies also control significant amounts of land in Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Montana, Washington state and Wyoming.

Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro in Las Vegas on Monday ruled that federal grazing permits held by Wayne Hage and his wife until the mid-1990s didn’t transfer to their estate or to their son.

The judge gave Wayne N. Hage 30 days to pay grazing fees and penalties racked up from November 2004 to June 2011, and 15 additional days to provide proof that he had complied.

The judge’s order also banned the Hage family from grazing livestock on any public land administered by the U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management.

The battle over some 11,000 square miles of property in and around Nye County, northwest of Las Vegas, preceded the fight involving federal agencies and rancher Cliven Bundy and an armed standoff in April 2014 near Bunkerville, 90 miles northeast of Las Vegas.

Five Bundy family members and 12 accused co-defendants are now facing trial before Navarro in Las Vegas on conspiracy, weapon, assault on a federal officer and other charges relating to the standoff. Two other defendants have pleaded guilty to federal charges.

Hage told the Las Vegas Review-Journal (http://bit.ly/2m04XcV ) he doesn’t have livestock on the range in question. He declined to say if he could pay the judgment.

He cast the court ruling as a “bellweather” step in government efforts to extinguish private property rights on public land.

The Hage case has a long and complicated history. Navarro’s ruling follows a 2013 decision by U.S. District Judge Robert Clive Jones in Nevada that was overturned on appeal by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

Read it here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article135980203.html#storylink=cpy

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

1 Comment
« Older Posts