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 Liberty category.

Militias, Martyrs and McVeigh, Oh My!

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

Redoubt News.com

August 5, 2017

This has been a very eventful week in the Bunkerville Retrial of four defendants. The prosecution has demonized these good men at every turn. They have portrayed them as lawless militia, anti-government radicals, and immoral propagandists.

by Shari Dovale

I Guess I Was Wrong”

The week began with more government agents taking the witness stand to tell how afraid they were of these gun-totin’ cowboys. BLM Special Agent Robert Shilaikis took some video of the events on April 12, 2014, because he was expecting a gunfight and wanted documentation. He was afraid that memories would fade over time.

He did not video record any protesters firing weapons. He admitted that some of his commentary of the videos was based on reviewing the footage later, not on what he saw at the time. He had to clarify some of his commentary, and his identification, as he was shown to be mistaken during his testimony.

“I Guess I Was Wrong,” he would say at least twice when confronted with his own video proof contradicting his testimony.

Shilaikis showed his bias repeatedly during his testimony, and the defense called him out on it. Profiling everyone as militia based on their clothing was a point for the defense to grill him on. He testified as to the defendants “ideology” and was asked how he could “see” that on the videos?

Special Agent in Charge Dan Love, April 12, 2014

Judge Gloria Navarro jumped in on the bias when the defense attempted to compare and contrast the witnesses statements towards the defendants when they began to question the witness about Special Agent in Charge Dan Love, and his dress of camo, tactical gear, and a black hat turned backwards on his head. After all, they had demonized “Black Hat” Eric Parker over these very points. The theory put forth was that, by turning his ball cap around, Parker was ready to shoot his long gun.

Judge Navarro wasn’t having that in her courtroom and refused to allow the testimony.

Sling Your Long Guns”

The jury picked up on several points and asked Shilaikis if anyone pointed a weapon at him. Of course, he had to admit that they did not. The jury also wanted to know about the order to “Sling Your Long Guns” and whether that was meant for just the BLM or all Law Enforcement.

Shilaikis attempted to imply that the order to “Sling” their long guns was more of a suggestion, and that it was a discretionary order. “Each law enforcement officer can make the decision to put away their long gun based on what they perceive as a threat.”

The defense jumped all over that one and the jury did not seem to buy it either.

AUSA Myhre used Special Agent Willis to introduce multiple photos that depicted the same thing. How many times can you see the same picture and not call it “cumulative”? They introduced several photos as evidence that they did not take, but downloaded from various sites on the internet.

Evidence was introduced from the “Frontline” documentary aired on PBS in May 2017. This brings up questions of how PBS was able to obtain sealed discovery for this show. The court is not addressing this issue, but the people want to know.

The prosecutors do not plan to prosecute PBS for releasing sealed discovery evidence. How about they release the rest of the evidence for the public to review?

Another unusual event this week, when a juror was questioned this week about a text message she received from an outside source concerning this trial. The message said, “You have 2 hours more to finished. Pass death sentence on this prisoner.” The juror immediately brought it to the court’s attention and said it would not affect her ability to be impartial. The court accepted that.

What is an FBI Employee?

A very controversial witness took the stand by name of FBI Special Agent Sarah Gibson Draper, of Idaho. Draper was placed in charge of gathering Facebook evidence on Parker, Drexlar and Stewart.

The posts that she introduced discussed the events, but did not directly show any law breaking.

What was most interesting about her testimony was the dancing around concerning “FBI Employees”. Each time an attorney would ask about an “Agent” she would correct them to say “Employee”.

What is the difference between an FBI Agent and an FBI Employee? Draper is attempting to avoid calling them paid informants. They are employees because they are being given compensation by the government, yet they are selecting their words carefully because of the negative connotations of the word “informant”. Judge Navarro does not want that word brought up in front of the jury, and she is very heavy-handed on this issue.

I have noted there seem to have been at least 5-6 informants referenced in this case.

The jurors are not asleep on this issue. Some of their questions were specifically about whether or not the FBI “provoked” or coerced the defendants. They want to know more about this, yet seem to know that the information is being kept from them,

The McVeigh Connection

Draper introduced a Facebook post of Parker’s that was strategically redacted. They omitted references to the “Miller’s: in which Parker praised the patriots for vetting these unstable people and removing them from Bunkerville.

The post also had redactions that told of the reasons the men crouched down on the bridge as they were being “green-lighted”. This means they identified government snipers that had their weapons aimed directly at them.

What they did not omit was a reference to “McVeigh”. The purpose of the government introducing this vague reference was to get Draper to say her “belief” is that this was referring to Timothy McVeigh, and explain to the jury that he was the “Oklahoma City Bomber” that killed over a hundred people. They intention was to imply that the defendants were either connected to McVeigh himself or at least his ideology.

The Prosecutor argued, “There is really not that much difference between what they did and what McVeigh did.”

Therefore, standing on a bridge in Nevada, where no shots were fired nor any person was harmed, afraid of the government’s hundreds of agents with firearms pointed at them, is not much different from blowing up a building and killing over 100 people?

“We or no one that we know of feel he is a martyr for anything,” said John Trochmann, spokesman for the Militia of Montana. “What would we have had to gain from blowing up public property?” asked Trochmann. “Who would gain anything unless someone wanted to pass some new type of anti-militia legislation?” – ABC News

This was completely misleading to the jury. They have cherry-picked evidence and the judge is allowing this. She sees no relevance to anything positive on behalf of the defense and has ruled it is fine to introduce obscure references and personal negative interpretations of those references.

Thumbs Up

Judge Gloria Navarro has stretched the limit of her lack of knowledge on the law. She continuously relies on the prosecution to give her foundations to admit evidence. She references her books while sitting in court to find ways to admit biased evidence.

An example of this is when the prosecution presented a Facebook “Thumbs Up” as a co-conspirator’s statement. If someone else posts a controversial statement, and you “Like” the post, you can now be prosecuted as a “Co-Conspirator”.

According to the rulings in this case, if you “Like” a post, then you have adopted that statement and taken ownership of it as your own statement.

*On a side note, I personally do not like all of the new social engineering emoji reaction buttons that Facebook has introduced. I general show my protest by only using a “Like”, not for agreeing with the post, but for appreciating people getting involved. I “Like” discussion. I “Like” debate. I want people to be involved. It’s the only way to get the truth to some people.

Bad Acts After The Fact

The prosecution has extended the dates of the “Conspiracy” to March 2016. This was deliberate so they could include information on Operation Gold Rush (Sugar Pine Mine, Oregon) and Operation Big Sky (White Hope Mine, Montana). Both operations took place at least a year after Bunkerville.

The government is attempting to show an ongoing agreement to threaten the government. They are attempting to portray these defendants as being so thrilled with their success at Bunkerville, that they formed a group called “Idaho 3%” and went around they country to wave their guns at Federal Agents and keep them from doing their jobs, like take someone’s property unconstitutionally.

They wore camo at these operations, and carried rifles. They conducted security patrols. All are being presented as horrible behavior, and anti-government. The prosecution, and Judge Navarro, have claimed that the ongoing conspiracy included the defendants glorifying the movement and recruiting to their ranks. By sharing the truth of what the government’s alphabet agencies are doing, they are furthering the conspiracy against the government.

The jury is questioning the government’s narrative, shown by the questions of whether or not these defendants are being charged for Sugar Pine or White Hope? Judge Navarro said that they are, as these events are part of the ongoing conspiracy. So now, anyone that was NOT at Bunkerville, yet did participate in Sugar Pine, OR White Hope, are now considered co-conspirators and can be prosecuted.

Is this for real? Only in Gloria Navarro’s courtroom.

Is the Militia Illegal?

When the questioning is completed by the attorneys, the jurors are given the option of asking the witness questions. After the questions are written down and turned over to the judge, she calls a sidebar in which all of the attorneys go behind a wall and discuss these questions before asking them of the witness.

On this particular day, Navarro allowed the jury to go to lunch while the attorneys discussed the questions in the courtroom. This was notable because the gallery audience could now hear the questions and discussion.

One of the questions was “Are Militias Illegal?” The prosecution went so far as to argue, “Yes, they are illegal in many states, including Montana.”

Second Amendment to the US Constitution:

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.

Constitution of Montana — Article VI — THE EXECUTIVE

Section 13. Militia. (1) The governor is commander-in-chief of the militia forces of the state, except when they are in the actual service of the United States. He may call out any part or all of the forces to aid in the execution of the laws, suppress insurrection, repel invasion, or protect life and property in natural disasters.
(2) The militia forces shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of the state except those exempted by law.

This is the false narrative that the government is using against these defendants. Militias are NOT illegal. It is in the Constitution and they are important to our Nation.

Martyrs

These men were prepared to be martyrs on April 12, 2014. This was evidenced by a video from Steven Stewart taken that day. In it, he states that, “They were threatening us with chemicals earlier, to back down. So we pushed forward. They couldn’t gas us. We were going to be martyrs if they wanted to continue this.” Stewart said on the video.

Conclusion

This entire trial is based on false evidence. They have thrown out the rules of evidence and denied the basic rights guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Every American should be upset by what is happening in Judge Navarro’s courtroom. If the government is allowed to proceed, and get away with, this mockery of justice, what will stop them from treating every other American the same way.

The prosecution is expected to rest their case on Monday, August 7th. The defense is then expected to take about a week to present their evidence, with the jury receiving the case for deliberations after that.

The target date for the next trial to begin is September 18, 2017. The jury questionnaires were mailed to prospective jurors last week.

Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews

Militias, Martyrs and McVeigh, Oh My!

 

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

Point Reyes National Seashore suit ends with settlement

Federal gov & land grabs, Lawsuits, Liberty

Western Livestock Journal

wlj, 07-24-2017 » Page 1

PRNS suit ends with settlement

— Ranching can continue — for now

A settlement agreement was announced July 12 in a dispute about the future of ranching at the Point Reyes National Seashore (PRNS) near San Francisco, CA. The agreement gives beef and dairy producers at least a temporary reprieve and the ability to continue operating their mostly organic businesses.

The suit was filed in February 2016 by environmental special interest groups against the National Park Service (NPS) as it was moving forward with a Ranch Comprehensive Management Plan/Environmental Assessment (RCMP) for the six dairies and 18 beef ranches that ranch on the peninsula.

The plaintiffs, which include the Resource Institute, Center for Biological Diversity and Western Watersheds Project, challenged the RCMP alleging that NPS was moving forward without conducting adequate environmental studies. They also claimed lack of public input and that ranchers were being given special treatment.

Joining the NPS and PRNS Superintendent Cicely Muldoon as intervenors in the case were members of the Point Reyes Seashore Ranchers Association (PRSRA). In a statement, PRSRA said its members signed onto the case as individuals rather than an association.

Terms of the case require the NPS to proceed with a General Management Plan (GMP) amendment rather than one focused specifically on ranching. Terms of the settlement stipulate that an environmental impact study (EIS) be completed and a new plan issued within four years of the date the agreement is accepted by the U.S. District Court. The process requires public comment on the proposed policies and priorities of the park.

Melanie Gunn, PRNS outreach coordinator, told WLJ that the GMP amendment will be prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and a public planning process that will involve park ranchers.” She added that although the NPS will terminate the RCMP process, some of the information developed through that process can and will be adapted for use in the GMP amendment.

Details about the lawsuit and planning process are available online at http://tinyurl.com/PRNS-Plan.

The EIS must consider action alternatives including; a no ranching alternative; no dairy ranching; and a reduced ranching alternative. The NPS may also consider other action alternatives. Those actions could include agricultural diversification, increased operational flexibility, the promotion of sustainable operational practices and succession planning.

Acting PRNS Superintendent Steve Meitz said of the settlement, “We are pleased that park ranchers, local government, environmental groups, and the park were able to come together and agree to move forward on this important topic. This approach initiates a comprehensive, robust, and durable planning process to define future uses of these lands managed by the park while providing interim stability and authorizations for park ranchers during the new planning process.”

An area of particular concern for the livestock and dairy producers was the length of leases. Historically, producers held fiveyear leases, however during the RCMP process those leases were reduced to one-year renewals; the settlement will allow interim five-year lease renewals during the review period. Ranchers had sought 20-year lease renewals in an attempt to provide more certainty and long-term planning for their operations.

David Evans, a fourth generation organic and grass-fed beef rancher in the PRNS and CEO of Marin Sun Farms, said, “I am encouraged that the ranchers, the plaintiffs, and the National Park Service have come together on a settlement that sets the stage for much needed long-term planning in the Point Reyes National Seashore.”

He continued, “Today, my ranch provides habitat for several threatened California native species including the California red-legged frog, is home to several native grasses, and provides pastoral habitat for an extremely diverse ecosystem.

Issuing five-year leases, while still too short-term to truly secure the viability of small scale ranching, is a step in the right direction towards long-term security for the families who, for generations, have made their livelihood growing food for our community and maintaining habitat for wild species here in the Seashore.”

Evans said he is also pleased that the agreement requires a GMP. “We look forward to the support of the general public through the review period of the planning process, and to securing at least 20-year leases after this planning phase, thereby confirming the critical role that ranching plays in maintaining our thriving and beautiful working landscape.”

Tule elk

The settlement also addresses management of tule elk. The elk herd is often in conflict with ranchers by eating forage and destroying fences. The settlement says NPS will “preserve and manage tule elk at the Seashore under its lawful authority, and shall endeavor to use non-lethal management techniques to manage the population of the Drakes Beach herd.”

The Drakes Beach herd is a free-ranging group, considered a subherd of the Limantour Beach herd which was established after elk from the Tomales Elk Preserve were released in 1998.

The preserve is a 2,600-acre fenced enclosure where the species, which was thought to be extinct, was reestablished in the 1970s.

Historical overview

The PRNS was created in 1962 with the intent of preserving the livestock operations that had inhabited that area of the seashore for several generations, and to help prevent urban encroachment from nearby San Francisco.

The agreement at that time provided that the NPS would purchase the land from existing farmers and ranchers and lease it back to the original owner for 25 years or the lifetime of the owner. Since that time a few lifetime leases are still in place with the others replaced with short-term leases that are renewed every five to 10 years.

CCA support

The California Cattlemen’s Association (CCA), although not directly involved in the lawsuit has been following the case and was pleased with the settlement agreement. Although most of the ranchers that would be impacted by the decision are members of the PRSRA, many are also members of CCA.

Kirk Wilbur, CCA director of government affairs, told WLJ that PRNS is expected to begin the GMP amendment process this fall. As that process moves forward CCA will be involved with the scoping process and in talks with the acting park superintendent, and subsequently, the superintendent, when named. Wilbur said, CCA wants to have input to “make sure that ranching remains an active part of the environment at Point Reyes National Seashore.” — Rae Price, WLJ editor

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

OREGON LIBERTY COALITION

Freedoms - Individual, Liberty

            
             4th RALLY AROUND THE FLAG


                         Save The Date   

Aug 5, 2017                                    

Free Admission!       

10 am to 4 pm
W. O. E. Fairgrounds – Cottage Grove
                                 

 Booths – Speakers – Networking!       

      Natural Resources / Jurisdiction is the Solution


            “Property must be secured or Liberty cannot exist” – John Adams
                    VFW Post 3473 Cottage Grove will present the colors
                       INVOCATION: Aaron Auer – R.O.A.R Ministries
MC: David Darnell, Past President Willamette Valley Mining Assoc.

10:30 AM                 Loma Wharton, Liberators 2004    

HOW A COUNTY CAN AND MUST ASSERT THEIR JURISDICTION  TO LEGALLY AND EFFECTIVELY MANAGE THEIR NATURAL RESOURCES

12:00 PM                 Steve McLaughlin

            Liberty Watch of Washington and American Lands Council

                                  Jack Adkins

                   FreedomWorks, Regulatory Action Center

2:00 PM      Oregon Land Issues panel

Moderator: Mark Anderson, I Spy Radio

TOPIC:  The solution to the “Overreach of Federal Regulations” on Ranchers, Mining, Timber, Sportsmen, and the mismanagement of the Forests in our State, being essential to preserving our Constitutional Rights.

  • Rob Taylor, Coos County Watchdog

  • David Hunnicutt, Oregonians in Action

  • Loma Wharton, Liberators 2004

  • Steve McLaughlin, Liberty Watch 

  • Ron Smith, Josephine County Pomona Granges

  • Gary Williams, Lane County Commissioner 

  • Karen Darnell, Federal Mineral Claim owner

Food vendors and on-site parking.

W.O.E. Cottage Grove Heritage Fairground, 2000 N Douglas St, Cottage Grove, OR.
Oregon Liberty Coalition (OLC) is a statewide Coalition of local, autonomous, non-partisan patriot groups established to advance and strengthen the Founding principles and God-given rights predicated in the U.S. and Oregon Constitutions. Our mission is to encourage and facilitate citizen participation in the political process and empower all citizens with a voice and influence in demanding Constitutional governance. OLC will help local, independent groups grow in numbers and influence and nurture communication and collaboration among patriot and freedom supporting groups. Social Media 
Twitter @OLCoalition

FaceBook https://www.facebook.com/OregonLibertyCoalitionOLC


No charge for booth Table and Chairs,  provided free, contact to reserve orlibertycoalition@gmail

No Comments

New articles on the Nevada Bundy trials

Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, Constitution, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs, Hypocrisy, LAWS or law, Liberty

Redoubt.com news has a flurry of new articles regarding sentencing of defendants how Nevada’s Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro is handling the court room. 

Go to:  https://redoubtnews.com/

No Comments

LaVoy Finicum shooting: FBI agent indicted for alleged false statements

Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, Constitution, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL, LaVoy Finicum, LAWS or law, Lawsuits, Liberty
No Comments

Citizens File Lawsuit Against State of California

JEFFERSON DECLARATION, Lawsuits, Liberty

May 3, 2017

Citizens for Fair Representation (CFR) will file a lawsuit against the State of California for lack of representation and dilution of vote. CFR represents citizens from 21 rural counties in the northern area of the State. A long list of plaintiffs have joined CFR in the lawsuit, representing a diversity of cultures, ages, races and political philosophy.

Over the last 3 years, most of these plaintiffs have petitioned the California State Legislature and Secretary of State seeking equal/fair representation, Tens of thousands of letters, phone calls and emails have gone out to their elected representatives, requesting they introduce a Bill or Resolution, creating a more representative balance in both legislative chambers. The plaintiffs have personally visited individual legislative offices, but plaintiffs claim that all requests have gone ignored, leaving them no choice but to now enter the legal process.

Currently, California’s population is just under 40 million, represented by 40 State Senators and 80 Assembly members. The same number of elected representatives that in 1862 represented 416,640 people.

Prior to 1964, just about every County was represented by one State Senator. Today a California State Senator represents an average of 1 million people, with each assembly member, representing 500,000. Currently, 11 northern rural counties have one Senator whose vote is diluted by 15 senators representing the single County of Los Angeles.

California’s imbalance of representation ranks the worst on the list of 50 States. The small state of New Hampshire has 400 in their State House of Representatives, with one representative for less than 4,000 people. There are 24 State Senators, or 1 for every 55,000 citizens. New Hampshire’s ratio of balance closely models the representation that CFR is seeking to accomplish. If CFR is successful, this would be history in the making, not only for their 21 counties, but all of California’s 58 counties and those in other states.

Claimants state, “California’s refusal to increase its levels of representation to reflect its exponential population growth is both arbitrary and unconstitutional. “

The case, Citizens for Fair Representation vs Secretary of State Alex Padilla, will be filed on May 8th, in the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. Citizens for Fair Representation is a 501(C)(4), a non profit corporation.

# # # Attention News Editors: For interviews or more information, please call Mark Baird, 530-227-6729, Terry Rapoza, 530-246-9706.

Terry Gherardi, CfFR Public Information Officer – 530-677-4294

No Comments

Alaska sues federal government, contending state controls riverbed, not BLM

Bureau of Land Management, CORRUPTION, Federal gov & land grabs, Lawsuits, Liberty, State gov

Free Range Report.com

April 23, 2017

In its complaint, Alaska said it gained title to submerged lands and navigable waters when it acquired statehood, unless the federal government made any claims prior. The state said the federal government based its claim to ownership on a 1984 administrative decision of the Alaska office of federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

Chris Ford

Frontiersman.com

Alaska files lawsuit over Knik River ownership

WASILLA — The state of Alaska filed suit against the federal government this week over a land ownership dispute regarding submerged Knik River lands.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court on Wednesday.

According to a spokesperson from state attorney general Jahna Lindemuth’s office, Alaska wants to assert ownership after failed past attempts to have the United States recognize Alaska ownership of the riverbed.

According to documents filed in federal district court for the District of Alaska, the United States in 2015 conveyed ownership of portions of the Knik River to Eklutna Inc. On its website, Eklutna, Inc. states it owns significant holdings in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, with approximately 67,000 additional acres due to be conveyed from the Bureau of Land Management. It also owns 90,000 acres within the Municipality of Anchorage, including areas of Eagle River, Birchwood, Chugiak, Peters Creek and Eklutna.

“Such action casts a cloud a cloud over the state’s title,” legal document filings by the state said. “In bringing this lawsuit, the State of Alaska seeks to confirm and retain its right to manage its own lands and waters…the United States claims ownership of other lands in dispute vial this complaint because of its ownership of lands abutting the Knik River.”

In its complaint, Alaska said it gained title to submerged lands and navigable waters when it acquired statehood, unless the federal government made any claims prior. The state said the federal government based its claim to ownership on a 1984 administrative decision of the Alaska office of federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM). That office concluded the stretch of river is not navigable.

The BLM amended the decision in 2002. In September of 2015, relying on its 2002 decision, the BLM issued a decision approving certain lands — chosen by Eklutna Inc. for conveyance to the corporation which represents approximately 175 shareholders, according to its website. It is an Alaskan corporation created under the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act for the Native village with the same name.

This month, the state, BLM and Eklutna officials entered into a settlement agreement to resolve state public easement concerns. BLM has indicated it would review its decision in portions within and adjacent to the disputed bottomland areas.

“This case is an important step towards clarifying ownership and access rights for the Knik River,” Lindemuth said. “I would have preferred to avoid litigation, but the federal government refused to recognize the state’s rights to these lands and waters. We are hoping that filing litigation will spur the federal government to quickly overturn its prior decision.”

The state is also seeking to recover costs and attorney fees in the case. Federal officials have yet to respond to the court.

Alaska sues federal government, contending state controls riverbed, not BLM

 

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

WLJ Guest Opinion: Is your local government prepared?

Agriculture, Liberty, President Trump and officials, Property rights

Western Livestock Journal

March 27, 2017

By Karen Budd-Falen

Is your local government prepared?

President Donald Trump and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke have made promises about moving federal agency decision making back to the local level, putting Americans back to work and ensuring that the public lands are managed for “multiple use.”

While that sounds wonderful, making those promises means more than a directive from Washington D.C. It means that your local governments have to take the lead in dealing with the federal agencies. Local decision making is not just for counties with federal lands, but federal decisions can impact the use of private property as well.

There are three major ways that a local government can influence federal agency decisions; the type of process used by a local government will depend on the type of decision to be made and the time constraints of the local government. One type of local participation is not “better” or “worse” than another type. Again, it depends on the type of decision to be influenced and the preference of the local government.

So, again, I would pose the question: Is your local government prepared for local decision making? The following should help:

Consistency review

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) mandate that federal agency actions be as consistent as possible with local land-use policies or plans (LUP) and that the federal government must attempt to reconcile its federal decisions with the local LUP.

Those provisions are key in implementing the president’s promises, but there is a catch. In order to require this “consistency review,” a local government has to have a written local LUP, otherwise there is nothing for the federal agencies to be consistent with.

In my view, first, a local government should start with a review of the federal actions that the local government thinks will happen within the area. For example, are there threatened or endangered species or species of concern that will impact your constituents’ private property? Is the BLM or Forest Service revising its land-use plans or implementing their land-use plans? Was a local area included within a national monument, meaning that a management plan will have to be prepared? Are there any special designation lands that have been proposed like wild and scenic rivers, wilderness or conservation areas? Or are there other federal decisions that may impact the private property of your constituents and/or the public lands?

Second, the local government should determine its processes for dealing with the federal agencies. When do you want to update the federal agencies regarding the local government’s activities and when does the local government want updates from the federal agencies? How do you propose transmitting the local LUP to the federal agencies and offices? What is the local government’s view of “early consultation?” How does the local government want “coordination” to occur? These processes should be carefully articulated in the local LUP.

Third, the local LUP should discuss the “custom and culture” of the citizens, the history of the area, and the environmental features important to the local government. This information can come from historical accounts, personal stories, and environmental descriptions such as state wildlife habitat maps, National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil descriptions, forage surveys, and other data. I do not believe that a local government has to gather new data or participate in new studies, but it is important to compile existing data from as many sources as possible to support your policies.

Fourth, your local LUP should include economic data and analysis. This should be more than just gathering employment statistics. Rather, the economic data included in the local LUP should support the local government’s policies. For example, if agriculture is important to the local economy, the local LUP should describe the economic detriment of a federal decision that would reduce animal unit months (AUMs) on public land or restrict grazing on private land. Most land-grant universities have good statistical data that can assist you with this analysis. You should also include information like circulating dollars, job numbers for the various economic segments, etc.

Finally, once the data is gathered, the local LUP should include the policies that the federal agencies should use for consistency review purposes. I believe that these policies are always stronger and provide a good basis from which the local government can work, if they are based on the data described above regarding custom and culture, economic stability and environmental protection.

I do not believe a simple “wish list” from the local government is a strong basis for protecting your constituents.

Additionally, in making decisions in compliance with NEPA, the federal government must use the “best data and information available.” The best available information about the local effects of a federal decision on the local custom, culture, economy and environment should come from the local government itself.

Note that your local LUP has to be in compliance with federal statutes and regulations with the “full force and effect of law.” However most federal statutes are very broadly written and allow for the survival of the local citizens, businesses and economies; the local government just has to assert those requirements.

Coordination

FLPMA and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) also require “coordination.” Coordination is a process; not a result. Additionally, while your local government should “coordinate” with the federal agencies to protect their constituents and influence federal decisions, there is no statute dictating the specifics of the coordination process. Because the elements or steps of coordination are not statutorily defined, local governments should use their local LUP to define what coordination means and how it should work.

Cooperating agency status

NEPA also allows local governments to participate in an agency decision making process as “cooperating agencies.” An applicant for cooperating agency status must both (1) be a locally elected body such as a conservation district board of supervisors or a county commission; and (2) possess “special expertise.”

A local government’s special expertise is defined as the authority granted to a local governing body by state statute. Being a cooperating agency allows the local government to participate in the “identification team” with a federal agency. It is just another tool that a local government should consider when dealing with federal agencies.

Local governments can have a major impact on federal agency decisions if they are prepared and willing to take on the challenge. There are over 1,000 counties in the U.S. with a population of less than 10,000 citizens. Each one of these rural counties should have a voice in federal decisions that impact it. Is your county prepared? — Karen Budd- Falen, Senior Partner at Budd-Falen Law Offices LLC

http://npaper-wehaa.com/wlj#2017/03/27/?article=2894910

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

Judge dismisses lawsuit against grazing on eight Oregon allotments

Agriculture, cattle, Courts, Endangered Species Act, Lawsuits, Liberty

PNP comment: Finally, a judge that makes some sense from outrageous claims — the claims are just plain wrong! — Editor Liz Bowen

A federal judge has rejected arguments that cattle grazing hurts endangered sucker fish in violation of forest management law.

Capital Press

Mateusz Perkowski

Published on March 11, 2017 2:39PM

A federal judge has rejected environmentalist arguments that cattle grazing has unlawfully harmed endangered sucker fish in Oregon’s Fremont-Winema National Forest.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke has thrown out a lawsuit by three environmental groups — Oregon Wild, Friends of Living Oregon Waters and the Western Watersheds Project — which claimed that grazing was unlawfully authorized on eight allotments in the Lost River watershed.

The plaintiffs accused the U.S. Forest Service of “ignoring widespread evidence of riparian problems” that adversely affected the Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker, which are federally protected under the Endangered Species Act.

However, the judge has ruled that plaintiffs failed to prove that grazing degraded streams in violation of the National Forest Management Act.

Conditions have improved in many riparians areas despite continued grazing while recovery trends are “not significantly different” among sites that are grazed and those that are not, Clarke said.

“This would tend to indicate grazing is not the reason for any failure to attain (riparian management objectives) in streams found on the challenged allotments,” he said.

While the environmental groups have pointed to evidence of deterioration along portions of some creeks, they haven’t shown “watershed level” and “landscape-scale” failures to live up to fish-recovery objectives, Clarke said.

The “creek-specific observations” by environmental groups aren’t enough to “successfully rebut” the Forest Service’s interpretation of the data, he said.

“Finally, many of the creek assessments plaintiffs point to as evidence of a failure to attain (riparian management objectives) actually show improving or stable trends,” the judge said.

The Forest Service’s decision to authorize grazing on the eight allotments was based on “reasonably gathered and evaluated data” related to fish recovery strategies mandated under the National Forest Management Act, he said.

Clarke also dismissed the plaintiffs’ Endangered Species Act arguments, ruling they were moot because future grazing approvals will rely on a new consultation among federal agencies on the two fish species.

The environmental groups’ claims of National Environmental Policy Act violations were likewise dismissed because the plaintiffs hadn’t fully “exhausted” administrative challenges against grazing plans, the ruling said.

New information that’s emerged about threats to the fish and their critical habitat doesn’t rise to the level of requiring additional environmental analysis of grazing, Clarke said.

For example, although the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reached the “alarming” conclusion that shortnose suckers face a “high degree of threat of extinction,” this finding doesn’t influence the Forest Service’s assessment of grazing, he said.

“While FWS concluded that significant threats to shortnose suckers’ viability remain and thus that their chance of extinction is high, it did not identify grazing as one of those threats; in fact, it made no mention of grazing at all,” the judge said.

http://www.capitalpress.com/Oregon/20170311/judge-dismisses-lawsuit-against-grazing-on-eight-oregon-allotments

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 Case Attorney Takes Aim After IG Probe Finds BLM Agent Guilty of Misconduct

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

Freedom Outpost.com

By Tim Brown

I’ve been covering the Bundy Ranch now going on three years.  As trials of political prisoners on trumped up charges by the central government loom, charges that have either been dismissed or they have been acquitted of in Oregon, the Bureau of Land Management agent in charge has now allegedly been found guilty of misconduct by the Inspector General; and a Bundy case attorney is going after him.

Guerilla Media Network reports:

On Wednesday Attorney Chris Rasmussen  filed a Motion For Review of BLM Personnel Records after a scathing report released by the Office Of The Inspector General, said  a Special Agent In Charge of the BLM was found to have committed Ethical Violations and Misconduct during an event in 2015 called “Burning Man” held in Black Rock Desert, Nevada.

The report contained points of interest for attorneys fighting an uphill battle in the Bundy Ranch case, especially the part about the Special Agent trying to intimidate and influence witnesses in his ethics investigation.

Daniel P. Love, who is believed to be the Special Agent in Charge the report is referring to, was also the Special Agent In Charge of the Bundy Ranch Cattle Impoundment of 2014.  Complaint after complaint was filed against Dan Love before, during, and after the protest, but failed to catch the eye of the Inspector Generals Office. This time the complaints came from within the BLM staff itself and it looks as though the “Super-Agent” will finally be held accountable.

This revelation came as no surprise to the people who live in States in which the BLM has taken on the role of Law Enforcement under the direction of Special Agent Daniel P. Love. Locals say they can attest that misconduct is an almost daily routine for the agency.

Chris Rasmussen, the Attorney of record for Pete Santilli, the journalist being held without bond after being swept up in a series of arrest stemming from the 2014 protest, wasted no time in demanding the court release the unredacted document filed by the Inspector Generals Office on January 30th, because he believes Dan Love may be the agent that was investigated and the Governments star witness in their case against Cliven Bundy and co-defendants.

Mr. Rasmussen says that if  Daniel P. Love is the agent being charged in the Inspector General’s report,  his client and other co-defendants have a right to know and be allowed to impeach his testimony, if he takes the stand.

Just two weeks ago, I met with Santilli at the Souther Nevada Detention Center and we discussed some of Love’s misconduct, as well as the evidence that would exonerate every single person the central government is holding without bail.  Santilli called out the misconduct after prosecutors in the case filed a motion to protect the BLM from any scrutiny during the trial.  In essence, they were seeking to cover up the criminal actions and lawless conduct of armed BLM agents that surrounded Bundy Ranch.

According to Santilli’s co-host, Deb Jordan, though Love was abandoned by the FBI, the Clarke County Sheriff’s Department and the Las Vegas Metro Police, Daniel P. Love threatened reporter Pete Santilli, who sought to reason with Love, just as he did with the FBI in Oregon for a peaceful resolution to the matter.  His attempts were in vain.

One protester believed lives to be in danger and commented, “There was never ever any talk of invading the 1 million dollar compound Daniel P. Love erected on the Gold Butte or forcefully taking back any cattle; it was always the plan to protest until the release occurred naturally, said one witness who has asked to remain anonymous.  We went down into the wash under the assumption the BLM had left the area and that is where we were met by 200 armed agents who said they were ready to use lethal force. It was very frightening and confusing, we said a prayer and moved forward to face a BLM, we thought had left hours before. “

Former Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore also stood at Bundy Ranch alongside fellow citizens of Nevada and Americans.

“You know what?” Fiore said.  “I am just pissed off that this dirty SOB has been protected from being prosecuted for his outrageous behavior at Bundy Ranch – Scoring a few tickets and having sex with his girlfriend in a BLM trailer at “Burning Man” is the least of his offensives.”

“This man is the same guy who threatened to use lethal force against American Citizens and Elected Officials – myself included – during the protest at Bundy Ranch,” she added.  “How the hell did he ever get by with that?  And now it’s just disgusting that the Nevada BLM has the audacity to speak poorly of  our elected, President Donald Trump while never saying one thing about this mad-man being permitted to threaten protestors without any repercussion?”

“This guy actually disobeyed the direct order of our State Attorney General and beat people up and arrested them when he had no authority to do so,” she continued.  “In the wash that day the BLM made fun of our Metro Las Vegas Police and County Sheriff Tom Roberts instead of obeying a direct order to put away their Long Guns.  I’m telling you all right now, Daniel P. Love disrespected the authority of our Nevada State Attorney General and  Local Law Enforcement, and almost caused a terrible tragedy.  There was no damn conspiracy – We all went down into that wash to set cattle free because the Sheriff said the “operation” had ceased and the BLM was leaving – We were almost killed by that raging lunatic;  It’s just that simple.”

Fiore then offered a solution to the problem at hand.  “At this point I think the right thing to do in this situation is, to let our men who have been wrongfully accused of threatening the BLM, out of jail and put Daniel P. Love, the real criminal, in jail for a very, very long time.”

She also mentioned the fact of Love’s misconduct in another area.  “While they’re at it I think they should also look into the allegations of misconduct during the 2012 Winter Olympics when an on duty Dan Love was presumably observed by his men in a dark corner of a bar getting up close and personal with a woman he had had drinks with instead of providing security for the diplomats he was charged to protect.”

And she threw in his previous involvement in a story that I reported on in 2016.  “Maybe they should take another look at the operation Dan Love conducted in Utah that lead to the suicide of three people including Dr. James Redd in Blanding, Utah.”

“I think it’s high-time somebody say enough is enough and tell us the truth; That Daniel P. Love was demoted – not promoted this year – because he can’t handle the overwhelming responsibility of picking up the trash on our Public Lands without threatening to kill someone, and has finally been relegated to a desk job where he can’t hurt people,” Fiore said.

If this was not enough, a retired BLM agent also spoke out against the BLM in January 2016.

In 2012, Steve Martin sat in a briefing room at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Artesia, New Mexico, listening to the details of a clandestine operation his agency was planning in the Nevada desert. The goal seemed commendable — to round up rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle, which had been grazing illegally on public land for decades — but the means seemed off to the Arizona-based special agent for the federal Bureau of Land Management. It was full of optimistic bravado, he recalls, and it was missing a key ingredient: cooperation with the county sheriff. Says Martin: “I remember thinking, ‘Is this still the BLM?’ 

GMN also added regarding the comments of Ryan Bundy at his pre-trial hearing this past Tuesday,

During his pre-trial release hearing on Tuesday (Jan. 31, 2017), Ryan Bundy revealed that at least 200 gunmen (BLM Agents and or Parks and Services) were involved in the April 12th protest, and that many of them could be heard  laughing while choosing the protestors they wanted to kill, including horses and dogs.

Ryan Bundy also stated for the record, an agreement had been made between the Sheriff’s Department and the Bureau Of Land Management on April 11th, 2014 – that said the impoundment operation would cease immediately   – a full day before the final protest on April 12th.  Mr. Bundy quickly pointed out the flaw in the indictment by asking the question, “If there were no operation on the 12th, and if the cattle were already being released — how is that impeding?”

The BLM is out of control.  They believe their authority supercedes the Constitution.  However, they are an illegal agency, as the Constitution does not provide for them to uphold the laws of the Constitution.  Rather, it is the citizen militia that is to do so.

I would encourage you to read what Lynette Warren says are the “OIG’s worst findings” concerning Love on the last two pages of the 15-page report.  You can read that report by clicking here.  Don’t forget to support Santilli in his defense, helping wives and children of political prisoners and getting the story out on what is really taking place in Nevada by clicking here.

Bundy Case Attorney Takes Aim After IG Probe Finds BLM Agent Guilty of Misconduct

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
« Older Posts