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.

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

PLF, farmers, and ranchers challenge state’s ‘endangered’ listing of gray wolf

Agriculture - California, Lawsuits, Liberty, Wolves

Press Release from Pacific Legal Foundation

Jan. 31, 2017

SACRAMENTO, CA;  January 31, 2017:  The California Fish and Game Commission has neglected sound scientific analysis, undermined sensible wildlife protections — and violated state law — by unjustifiably adding the gray wolf to the state’s list of “endangered” species.


Damien M. Schiff
Principal Attorney

So argues a lawsuit filed today by Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of the California Cattlemen’s Association (CCA) and the California Farm Bureau Federation.  Filed in California Superior Court, the lawsuit challenges the commission’s listing of the gray wolf under the California Endangered Species Act.  The listing took effect on January 1, 2017, a little over a year after a divided commission approved it on a controversial 3-1 vote.

WATCH A TWO-MINUTE VIDEO

A listing based on flimsy evidence and deliberate undercounting

The lawsuit challenges the gray wolf listing as illegal on three grounds:

1) The listing is based on flimsy evidence.  The listing process was triggered by a single wolf crossing the Oregon border in 2011 — and that wolf has since wandered out of California.  Never before has a listing been initiated by a single animal’s occasional wanderings into the state.  This is why the state Department of Fish and Wildlife recommended against listing.

2)  Regulators undercounted the gray wolf’s numbers.  In violation of the California ESA, the commission looked only at the wolf’s numbers in California, ignoring healthy wolf populations elsewhere.  Indeed, the wolf’s overall status has improved to the point that the federal government is moving toward removing the species from its own “endangered” list.

3)  The gray wolf is not covered by the law.  The California ESA is limited to native species and subspecies.  Yet the gray wolves addressed by this listing are originally from Canada; they represent a subspecies that was never historically present in California.

PLF statement:  The listing is bad science, bad policy, and bad law

“The Fish and Game Commission took a big bite out of its own credibility with this unjustified listing,” said PLF Principal Attorney Damien Schiff.  “The agency managed to label the gray wolf as ‘endangered’ only by myopically and illegally ignoring its populations outside California.

“Moreover, the listing is destructive as a matter of public policy,” Schiff continued.  “To begin with, it creates dangers for Northern California ranchers, farmers, and their local economies.  If gray wolves begin to establish themselves after a long absence from California, regulators should be working with landowners on balanced policies that can protect sheep, cattle, and people with minimal harm to wolves.  Instead, the rigid regulations under an ‘endangered’ listing hamstring property owners and make cooperative solutions impossible.

“Gray wolves were already protected as a ‘non-game mammal,’ an arrangement that allowed flexible control,” he added.  “In contrast, the ‘endangered’ listing makes it next to impossible for landowners to get permits even to physically remove a wolf that is threatening their animals. Even state officials would run into red tape if they were to try to capture or kill a wolf.

“Finally, this listing means California wildlife could end up as wolf prey,” Schiff said.  “It is ironic, and outrageous, that by wrongly moving to safeguard a non-native wolf species, the state is endangering animals that are native to the state and that regulators should be protecting.”

The listing harms members of both Farm Bureau and CCA

The California Cattlemen’s Association is a nonprofit trade organization representing California’s ranchers and beef producers in policy matters.  CCA has 34 county affiliates and over 2,400 members, including more than 1,700 cattle producers.  California Farm Bureau Federation is the state’s largest farm organization, composed of 53 county farm bureaus representing more than 48,000 agricultural, associate, and collegiate members in 56 counties.

MORE

https://www.pacificlegal.org/release-1-31-17-gray-wolf-cca-1-1482

No Comments

Klamath BOR farmers: ‘Takings’ case moves to Washington, D.C. venue

Agriculture, Biologists for hire, CA & OR, Constitution, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs, Klamath Project - BOR, Lawsuits, Liberty

PNP comment: The two below articles are of great importance. The right outcome will be a major pushback on the ESA and the corrupt practices government agencies and bureaucrats use to become tyrants over private property. — Editor Liz Bowen

Holly Dillemuth

  • Jan 20, 2017

  • Herald and News.com

Klamath Basin irrigators are taking their case to a higher court.

A historic case on the ramifications of a major water shutoff to Klamath Reclamation Project irrigators in 2001 will be heard at trial from local farmers or their attorneys starting Monday, Jan. 30 in Washington, D.C.

Local water attorney Bill Ganong, who is among the first of the local group to board a flight out of Klamath Falls on Jan. 26 for the trip, has been anticipating it for more than a decade. Ganong serves as special counsel for the more than 20 who will testify during the hearing, which could last up to three weeks.

“It’s been a long journey,” Ganong said at his law office downtown last week.“We were planning on it at about 2005.”

The ‘Takings’ case

The journey will take the local group to Washington, D.C. to share testimony in what is being called the “takings” case at the U.S. Federal Court of Claims. The trial begins with testimony from area irrigators about the impact of the 2001 water shutoff to their operations.

In April 2001, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services and National Marine Fisheries Service issued biological opinions declaring that water diverted from Upper Klamath Lake by Klamath Project irrigators would endanger suckers and coho salmon, citing the Endangered Species Act.

“The agencies cannot say, ‘Don’t do it,’” Ganong said. “They can just say, ‘If you do it, here’s what’s going to happen. And then the law says, no U.S. person can allow that to happen.”

The 2001 water shutoff decision prompted the historic Klamath Bucket Brigade, a protest that drew widespread attention to the Klamath Basin. On May 7, 2001, thousands of people gathered in downtown Klamath Falls, forming a line from Lake Ewauna in Veterans Memorial Park, up Main Street, to the A Canal bridge at Crater Lake Parkway and Esplanade Avenue, to drop 50 buckets of water — one for each state in the U.S. — into the canal.

“It was a statement and it worked,” Ganong said. “It was national, live television.”

No water

Irrigation water remained shut off to Basin farmers between April and July 2001, available only at minimum levels for stock water.

“It bankrupted a lot of people or financially put them in a position where they had to sell or go find a different trade or a different occupation,” Ganong said.

Now, Klamath Basin irrigators will get their day in court.

“All of them have a story,” Ganong said.

Those attending from Klamath Falls and the surrounding areas hope to utilize their time in the nation’s capital to also meet with the Oregon congressional delegation, Sens. Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden, and congressman Greg Walden.

“The people who are going back, some of them are just giddy almost,” Ganong said. “They’ve been waiting so long and to finally have it come to trial … it’s a big deal. It’s just a big deal.”

A long time coming, ‘too late’ for some

But not everyone can make the trip.

“We had to go through a process to add some witnesses who we hadn’t identified before, because some of our original people we identified have passed away or have medical or age-related issues that prevent them from traveling,” Ganong said.

“We’ve just lost a lot of people in the ag community,” Ganong added.

“It’s taken so long for these people to get to this point and hopefully compensated for what they lost. For many of them, it’s almost symbolic now.”

Ganong said farmers could expect to see a total $28 million to $30 million if a decision is handed down in their favor.

But he alluded to a favorable outcome for farmers being more than financial.

“Almost all of the farmers going back — maybe all of them — they’re third- or fourth-generation on the same farm,” Ganong said. “It is in their DNA.”

A long and difficult road

Ganong detailed a lengthy history of the case, which passed through the hands of two previous judges, and now is now in the hands of a third.

“The first judge for approximately four or five years, apparently had some medical conditions that interfered with her ability to perform her job as a judge,” Ganong said. “So the case got filed and it literally, it just sat. Nothing really happened for … it seems like it was four years.”

Stopping to recall the name of the judge, he couldn’t.

“It’s been too long,” Ganong said.

The judge retired and the case was assigned to the late Francis Allegra.

“In the course of the next few years, there was a lot that took place, most of it in writing motions,” Ganong said.

Claims dismissed

Ganong said Allegra dismissed the claims that said, one, the U.S. government took property from farmers, and two, that farmers were protected under the Klamath Compact.

“He ultimately decided that we didn’t have a case so he dismissed it,” Ganong said.

“In his opinion, the United States owned the water and could do whatever it wanted with it. He found it in their favor.”

An appeal to Allegra’s decision was made, and over the course of time, the case was handled by the U.S. Court of Appeals with assistance from the Oregon Supreme Court.

“That court started looking at our appeal and decided they had some questions of how Oregon law applied to this case so they then referred it to the Oregon Supreme Court and that was about a two-year detour,” Ganong said. “The Oregon Supreme Court ruling was very favorable to us.”

Oregon court ruling

The Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the water from the Klamath Basin was property, and that it was taken from farmers.

The court landed back in the hands of Allegra, who died in 2015.

The “takings” case has been with Judge Marian Horn since, who set a firm court date in the face of requests to continue the case further.

“She took the bull by the horns,” Ganong said.

Ganong is hopeful of a favorable outcome for farmers.

“If we prevail, then going forward, the federal government will have to weigh the cost of the decisions it makes on endangered species and other federal laws,” Ganong said.

“They haven’t had to at least consider financially the impact on the community when they withhold water or delay the delivery of water and this will turn that around.

“This will not change the law,” he emphasized. “The United States has a duty to do whatever is necessary to prevent the extinction or loss of threatening endangered species, including taking water, including taking land, including taking logging.

“What this will do is cause the United States to pay private property owners for the loss of their water or their land or their ability to harvest timber. And it could be an enormous amount of money.”

http://www.heraldandnews.com/klamath/takings-case-moves-to-washington-d-c-venue/article_b3b6e1d4-4e0d-56fa-9bc9-e34b7f9f33aa.html

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

Klamath BOR farmers: Testimony opens in ‘takings’ trial in D.C. Irrigators lay out their case

Agriculture, CA & OR, Constitution, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs, Klamath Project - BOR, Lawsuits, Liberty

Herald and News.com

Gerry Obrien

January 31, 2017

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The federal courtroom chambers were full on Monday for opening arguments kicking off the “takings” case hearing in Washington, D.C.

More than 25 Basin irrigators — or those who represent them — are scheduled to testify in the consolidated case at the U.S. Federal Court of Claims over the course of the next three weeks. Testimony may also be heard from Bureau of Reclamation officials from Klamath Falls and Sacramento.

“It’s been a long time coming,” remarked Judge Marian Blank Horn. “I can assure you, it doesn’t always take this long.”

The case is formally known as Klamath Irrigation District et al v. the United States and Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Association and John Anderson Farms, Inc. et al v. United States.

Horn, seated beneath the federal court’s seal, expressed a desire to hear the interests on both sides of the case.

“It’s my responsibility to get through this expeditiously,” Horn added. “We do intend to be careful with it.”

The case stems from the federal water shutoff to irrigated land in the Basin in 2001 to protect fish downstream, thanks to two biological opinions that protect endangered species. Irrigators claim the action damaged their livelihoods and are seeking damages that may total $25 million.

Mark Stuntebeck, former manager of the Klamath Irrigation District, was one of the first three to testify for the plaintiffs Monday.

The defendant’s attorney Edward Thomas questioned Stuntebeck about the impact of the water shutoff.

“The farmers were shocked,” Stuntebeck said. “They’d lost their livelihoods, that’s how they made their living.”

Stuntebeck went further to explain the social and economic impacts to the community.

“There were suicides,” he said. “There were foreclosures on farms. I would describe it as pictures I remember seeing of the Dust Bowl in the 1930s.”

Marc Van Camp, a licensed engineer and certified water rights examiner, testified on the irrigator’s behalf, too, sharing that based on methods he used in 1992 and 1994 — relatively similar drought years — he identified that full deliveries of irrigation water could have been made to water users in the Klamath Reclamation Project in 2001, were it not for two biological opinions submitted by U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

During opening arguments, Kristine S. Tardiff, of the U.S. Department of Justice Environmental & Natural Resources Division, said that neither side can contest that 2001 was a difficult water year.

 http://www.heraldandnews.com/news/local_news/testimony-opens-in-takings-trial-in-d-c/article_92b3ac88-7c69-525c-8df9-40669dae71df.html

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

LaVoy Finicum – One Quiet Man’s Fight for Freedom

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

Redoubt News.com

They were ambushed along the way by the Oregon State Patrol and the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team

January 30, 2017

 

by JUSTIN O. SMITH

“Destroyers are they who lay snares for many, and call it the state … ” — Nietzsche

Americans should pause and take some time to recall and celebrate the life of Robert LaVoy Finicum, an American patriot, who loved his family, God and country. He placed his life on the line in defense of all Americans’ right to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’, joining the ranks of thousands of other ranchers who have been fighting the overreaches of the federal government and the tyranny of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the past forty years. Robert LaVoy Finicum died on January 26th, 2016, one day before his 55th birthday, defending the U.S. Constitution and this America he loved so well.

By all accounts, LaVoy Finicum was “a quiet man who worked his to-do list from sun-up to sundown” (The Oregonian) and had a “light reading” list that included many history books, the U.S. Constitution and Alexis de Tocqueville’s ‘Democracy in America’. He also thoroughly enjoyed his big family -his wife and eleven children- and their evening discussions on the Scriptures, the Constitution and the Founding Fathers’ ideas on freedom.

Although Finicum had generally viewed his interaction with the BLM to be “very good” over the years, he became active in opposing them in 2014, after the BLM fined him $12,000 and claimed his cattle had grazed on federal lands past his allotted permit time. He was also heavily influenced by his own research into the BLM and the high-handed tactics he witnessed the BLM employ against the Bundy family in 2014.

Finicum rode with Cliven and Ammon Bundy on their Nevada Ranch in April of 2014, along with hundreds of other supporters, in order to reinforce the fact that Bundy’s grazing and water rights, documented in an 1878 title, predated any BLM claims and had to be honored by the BLM. And when the BLM moved along Interstate 15 to confiscate Bundy’s cattle on April 5th, Finicum, the Bundy family members and well-armed supporters stopped them cold where they stood; this would become a sore-point for the FBI that carried over to the Malheur Wildlife Reserve occupation in 2016 and the stand-off near Burns, Oregon.

After the Bundy Ranch Stand-Off, LaVoy Finicum said: “I had to do a lot of soul searching. I realized that Cliven Bundy was standing on a very strong constitutional principle, and yet, here I was continuing to pay a grazing fee to the BLM.”

Finicum and the Bundy clan understood that the Enclave Clause [Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution] did not allow government bureaucrats to act like kings and ignore the 9th and 10th Amendments, and it did not authorize the BLM to arbitrarily seize the water rights, cattle and property of ranchers and arrogantly nullify 200 years of constitutional history. They understood, much like the U.S. Supreme Court (New York v. U.S.), that the Constitution is not a tool to protect the sovereignty of the State or for the benefit of government officials, but rather, the Constitution secures all Americans’ liberties through the diffusion of sovereign power.

However, the BLM sees things differently. Many cases spanning the years can be found, that are similar to Raymond Yowell’s experience. The BLM garnished the $200 Social Security check of this former chief of the

Shoshone Indian Tribe and seized 132 head of his cattle in 2002, for grazing “unlawfully” on government lands. The BLM sold Yowell’s cattle at auction and pocketed the money.

Between 2006 and 2012, the BLM had intimidated and finally charged Steven and Dwight Hammond with nine federal counts of arson for setting backfires on their own lands that supposedly spread to federal land. The Hammonds were subsequently imprisoned, released and then sent back to prison, even though the facts illuminated that some of those out-of-control backfires actually originated with BLM employees, in an attempt to stop several lightning strike fires such as the Granddad fire that burned 46,000 acres.

Politics played heavily in the cases regarding Steven and Dwight Hammond, because the BLM wanted the Hammond ranch. Gold mining companies like Calico Resource USA out of Vancouver, Canada and uranium mining concerns like Australian owned Oregon Energy LLC had their eyes on the area, and the BLM was hoping to profit and grow more powerful through the General Mining Law of 1872.

All the great ideas and principles that shaped America went with LaVoy Finicum, as he and many other American Patriots occupied Oregon’s Malheur [French for “misfortune” or “tragedy”] National Wildlife Refuge, about 30 miles from Burns, Oregon, in order to force the return of 188,000 acres to local control and the release of the Hammond brothers from prison. They acted through peaceful, political protest, even though they were armed to ensure the security of their protest, and they advocated for property and states’ rights, as they took a hard stand against federal ownership of 250 million acres in America and years of oppression by the BLM and several other government agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency.

Twenty-five days into the protest, Robert LaVoy Finicum, Ammon and Ryan Bundy, Shawna Cox, Ryan Payne and Virginia Sharp headed to John Day, Oregon for a “singing” and a meeting with Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer to discuss their demands, explain their views to local people and seek a peaceful end to the stand-off. But they were ambushed along the way by the Oregon State Patrol and the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team, which used combat-grade operation protocols rather than “civilian” deadly force standards, firing once without warning at the initial stop, according to many witnesses, and numerous times at the second roadblock using concussion and live rounds.

Does this remind anyone else of Ruby Ridge and the murders of Randy Weaver’s wife and son by the FBI?

If the federal authorities had been serious about desiring a peaceful resolution to this conflict, they could have coordinated with Sheriff Palmer to arrest Finicum, if just cause existed for an arrest [they knew Finicum’s destination]. Instead they chose to shoot him numerous times and refuse him medical attention from Virginia Sharp, a trained EMT and his friend, as he lay on the snowy ground dying. They murdered LaVoy on a lonely, desolate stretch of Highway 395.

If the FBI had negotiated LaVoy Finicum’s peaceful surrender, as they certainly could have, he would simply have been taken into custody and released after his acquittal by a jury, just in the same manner that a jury acquitted his so-called “co-conspirators” in October 2016, including Ammon Bundy and a friend and activist, Shawna Cox. And, it should alarm everyone that the HRT agents initially concealed the fact they had fired their weapons during the stop.

Upon her release, Shawna Cox made a plea before a mass of TV cameras and supporters, imploring: “We have to be vigilant people. Wake up America, and help us restore the Constitution. Don’t sleep with your head in the sand.

Isn’t it odd that FBI agents , who are sworn to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution — lawyers all — regularly side with government imposed tyranny against U.S. citizens?

Arianna Finicum Brown, LaVoy’s 27 year old daughter, stated shortly after his death: “My Dad was such a good man, through and through. He would never want to hurt somebody, but he does believe in defending freedom and he knew the risks involved.

During LaVoy’s funeral, his brother, Guy Finicum remarked on LaVoy’s deep faith in God, adding: “He has absolute confidence that he will be with his family again. He believes that as much as he believes the sun will rise. And that’s what gave him the ability to do what he did. He always looked at a higher goal.”

When any government, including ours, puts forth its strength on the side of injustice and murders fine men like LaVoy Finicum, it reveals itself as a mere brute force, and it becomes apparent more than ever that tyranny rules. And other patriots are served warning to desist their opposition or meet the same fate.

And what are Americans to think of a government to which all the truly brave and just men in the land are enemies, standing between it and those whom it oppresses?

Robert LaVoy Finicum did not recognize unjust human laws, and he persistently stood for the dignity of human nature, knowing himself for a man, the equal of any government. He regularly fought against established injustices and the hypocrites of bureaucracies who seemed to ask, “Why do you assault us”. And LaVoy’s death — the death of an American hero — was like the planting of a good seed, and it is giving rise to a new crop of American heroes.

LaVoy Finicum – One Quiet Man’s Fight for Freedom

 

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

Locked out: Jeanette Finicum struggles with BLM after shooting death of her husband, LaVoy, by Oregon State Troopers

Agriculture, Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, cattle, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs, LaVoy Finicum, Lawsuits, Liberty, OCCUPY whatever

Tri-State Livestock News

Back to: News

Her husband will never return to trail the cows to winter range again, but Jeanette Finicum is determined that she will get the job done, eventually.

Although she’s provided a check to fully cover fines assessed over the last year, the Arizona rancher continues to be locked out of both her winter and summer grazing ranges.

Jeanette, whose husband Robert “LaVoy” Fincium was shot and killed by Oregon State Troopers last January, has managed grazing decisions on their northern Arizona ranch alone since his Jan. 26, 2016 death.

Pounding staples, doctoring sick calves and putting out mineral are on Jeanette’s list of tasks to complete throughout the year. Those are the easy jobs. She can soon add a much more painful item to the list: filing suit against the Bureau of Land Management. She plans to file suit within the next two weeks.

“My husband is dead because he went out to help the Hammonds. He stood for them and now they (the federal government) are trying real hard to make an example out of my husband. This is what will happen if you dare stand up. It’s like they are saying ‘you get in your place and don’t get out of it again or we’ll put you in solitary confinement or we’ll kill you.’ That’s what I see happening — innocent people are in jail right now.” Jeanette Finicum

The Finicums manage two separate grazing permits – summer and winter. Their 16,000 acres of winter range is to be grazed between Oct. 15 and May 15.

During the fall of 2015, LaVoy decided to utilize one pasture of his of winter range that hadn’t been grazed in six years. “The grass was really tall and he said, ‘I’m going to let the cows use the grass.’” Although his range allotment agreement allows him 169 AUMs, LaVoy had never turned out more than 70 head of cows on his winter range – in fact, many years it was less than that. He put his cattle on this pasture about 40 days before Oct. 15.

In order to best utilize the grass, some of the 70 cows remained on that pasture throughout the winter, and others were moved “on top” to the “mountain” where the rest of the winter range is located.

“As ranchers we take into consideration all of these things – we want to use the grass in a way that is best for the grass,” Jeanette said.

Jeanette explains that the land that she and LaVoy always considered their “summer” range is actually a small allotment that allows for maintenance of 35 AUMS year round, but they only used the land in the summer.

“It wouldn’t serve that property well (to graze it year round). We want to be good stewards of the range,” she said. “I know there are bad apples out there but most ranchers want the land to be well taken care of to be able to produce and stay healthy.”

The Finicums’ grazing fees have always been paid in full, she explains. Before traveling to Oregon to join protesters in opposition to the arrest of federal land ranchers Steven and Dwight Hammond, LaVoy had announced his plan to begin to pay his grazing fees to the county rather then the feds. He believed that constitutionally the state and county should be managing the land. “He made the announcement that he was no longer going to sign the contract, but the contracts were still in effect.” Because of of LaVoy’s untimely death, the contract remained intact and grazing fees were paid, Jeanette said.

Jeanette said that the BLM fined her trespass fees for the days the cattle were on the winter allotment prior to Oct. 15, and fees continued to accrue, even after the Oct . 15 turn-out date came and went.

In an effort to reduce the trespass fees to a more reasonable figure, Jeanette negotiated with the BLM throughout the spring. It came to her attention that she would not be allowed to use her “summer” range and she began to look for alternative pasture. Finding none, she felt like she had “nowhere to go,” and finally decided to dry-lot her cows and calves, taking them off winter range the first weekend in July.

Although Tri-State Livestock News asked Arizona state BLM representatives a number of questions relating to this subject, their response was brief:

“The Bureau of Land Management has been in contact with attorneys representing Jeanette Finicum and LaVoy Finicum’s estate since May 2016, in an attempt to resolve fines associated with a nearly year-long grazing trespass on the Tuckup Allotment,” said Amber Cargile, director of communications for Arizona’s BLM department.

Jeanette continued negotiations with the BLM to not only lessen the trespass fines, but also to complete other paperwork the BLM was calling for because they were not recognizing her as the allotment owner.

Rather than allow Jeanette to take over the grazing allotments after LaVoy’s death, state BLM representatives said she was not considered the heir to the allotments, even though she was the widow of one. They told her the grazing permits terminated upon his death and that she would have to start at square one with the application process to graze her (their) cattle on the allotment. Jeanette said the BLM also told her that her grazing rights are not “inheritable,” but she and her attorney disagree. “It is property and an asset to our estate,” she said.

The BLM said an environmental impact study would have to be conducted to determine whether or not she was eligible to graze the allotments.

Jeanette’s attorney advised her that under BLM rule 43 CFR 4110.2-3, the BLM is required to provide her two years to meet any paperwork requirements, and must allow her to continue to graze her cattle during those two years. Jeanette said she and her attorneys brought this law to the attention of BLM representatives and were told, “we don’t do it that way.”

“The BLM recognizes that Mrs. Finicum is a personal representative of her late husband’s estate. The BLM has been working with Mrs. Finicum and her legal counsel on issues related to both the fees associated with her husband’s estate as well as the future of the permit. Due to the ongoing nature of these discussions, we’re not at liberty to provide additional details at this time,” said BLM’s Cargile.

Jeannette drylotted the cows and calves throughout the summer to avoid selling the entire herd. She worked to meet BLM requirements, planning to turn her cattle out on winter range at the proper time without incident. Fines of over $12,000 had mounted over the trespass and when negotiations continued to dead-end, Jeanette decided to pay those fines in full.

With a 50-mile trail to her winter range, Mrs. Finicum had begun moving cattle on Oct. 13, planning to make about 15 miles per day until she arrived. Her mother in law had agreed to deliver a check for $12,355.47, the amount of the trespass fines, and her application required for the BLM’s environmental impact study. “I was told we had a deal with the BLM,” she remembers.

About one full day into the trail, a messenger arrived telling her that the BLM would not take her check and that she would not be allowed to turn her cattle onto her BLM winter range allotment.

“They said they weren’t accepting my check I’m 14 miles into the middle of the desert with cows and calves and nowhere to go,” she recalls.

“I had to find another range. My attorney and I, at that point, were still trying to negotiate. We thought it would be less than 30 days and I’d be back on my range. Finally my attorney said, ‘Jeanette, this is ridiculous.’ They won’t even follow their own laws, you need to do something, you need to move forward.”

So she decided to file suit.

Jeanette said her sister in law stepped in and offered pasture for her cattle for now.

While she and her late husband always maintained a cordial working relationship with their local BLM office, the state office has now been in communication with her regarding all of these issues, Jeanette said. “My husband and I liked the local range conservationists. We always got along with them. But their hands are tied.” She said that the state BLM office only communicates vaguely, such as offering to negotiate but not following through. “They say they want to work with you but then they do nothing.

“They don’t want my cows back out there.”

She’s “a little angry,” at the whole situation. “My husband is dead because he went out to help the Hammonds. He stood for them and now they (the federal government) are trying real hard to make an example out of my husband. This is what will happen if you dare stand up. It’s like they are saying ‘you get in your place and don’t get out of it again or we’ll put you in solitary confinement or we’ll kill you.’ That’s what I see happening – innocent people are in jail right now,” she said, referencing Steven and Dwight Hammond and five members of the Bundy family.

LaVoy was shot to death during last January’s protest headquartered on the Malheur Wildlife Refuge near Burns, Oregon. While traveling with a caravan of peaceful protesters to a community meeting about federal land issues in nearby John Day,

Oregon, state and federal officers arrested all members of the party except LaVoy, who they killed after he exited his vehicle at a police stop point. The Oregon State Police later claimed that LaVoy was reaching for a weapon.

The Oregon State Police were cleared of any wrongdoing in March when the local investigators determined that the state troopers’ fatal shots were justified. But two shots from FBI agents remain under investigation. Initially FBI agents denied taking the shots toward LaVoy as he exited the vehicle with his hands in the air, but it was later proven that the shells were deployed from FBI weapons.

Jeanette said she has filed an intent to sue for wrongful death over LaVoy’s murder.

Locked out: Jeanette Finicum struggles with BLM after shooting death of her husband, LaVoy, by Oregon State Troopers

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