Dr.
Michael Coffman, a friend, colleague and long time defender of private
property rights died on June 21, 2017. Dr. Coffman was an author,
researcher, speaker, and founding contributor to the fight against
Agenda 21 Sustainable Development.
Dr. Coffman was President of Environmental Perspectives, Inc. (EPI), and Executive Director of Sovereignty International. Dr.
Coffman played a key role in stopping the ratification of the
Convention on Biological Diversity (Biodiversity Treaty) in the U.S.
Senate an hour before the Senate was scheduled to vote on its
ratification. His maps and information have been used by local citizens
across America to stop the global agenda at the local level. He has been
a featured TV guest and a guest on numerous national radio shows. Dr.
Coffman has.written several books, and has spoken to audiences in over 150 cities in America and Canada. He participated in several U.S. Senate committees and world conferences including United Nations meetings in Europe and Africa.
He wrote a farewell to us:
Michael Coffman June 19 at 2:10 pm
As
a scientist and writer, I have been fighting the global agenda that
would destroy America as we know it for decades. As a researcher in the
American paper industry, I ran a multi million dollar research project on
the effects of acid rain. When the results came in that it was
basically a non-issue, I was told to quash my results or find a new job.
That was when my eyes were opened to the fact that it was politics
driving the science and not the other way around.
In
1994, myself and a few other individuals stopped the cloture vote to
move forward to ratify the Convention on Biological Diversity Treaty
which would have destroyed property rights in our country, thereby
destroying free enterprise, the American way of life, and ultimately
Freedom itself.
That
is the goal of the Globalists. It is not “saving the planet,” it’s not
even redistribution of wealth ultimately. It is Control. Global control
of everyone and everything. Together with my wife and all who have
worked with us, both as colleagues and as fellow warriors in the fight
for freedom, we have labored to inform citizens and policy makers, and
to stop this agenda.
To
all of you who read this, I say this, Don’t give up. Keep fighting.
Keep working. Keep doing whatever it is that God has called you to do.
For
me the fight is over. After a 2 ½ year battle with cancer, I am going
Home. My time here is almost over. I thought I had more to do, but God
is saying otherwise.
Thank you to all who have fought and are continuing to fight for freedom.
Therefore,
my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always
give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that
your labor in the Lord is not in vain. 1 Cor. 15:58
Some of Dr. Michael Coffman's numerous contributions:
Ramona Hage Morrison tells the short version of the Government Conspiracy to confiscate her family's Rights and Property.
“I find specifically that beginning in the late
‘70s and ‘80s, first, the Forest Service entered
into a conspiracy to intentionally deprive the
defendants here of their grazing rights, permit
rights, preference rights.”
CHIEF
FEDERAL
DISTRICT
COURT
JUDGE
ROBERT
C. J
ONES
, JUNE
6, 2012, U.S.
V
. T
HE
E
STATE OF
E. WAYNE
H
AGE AND
WAYNE
N. H
AGE
The following multi-generational, 35-
year Hage family saga chronicles not
only unprecedented government
abuse of power but also triumph in the face
of extraordinary adversity. This is a very personal story of my family’s fight for liberty.
While American soldiers have paid the ultimate price for our liberty with their blood,
the courtroom is a different type of battle-
ground where freedom from a tyrannical
government must be vigilantly defended by
every generation. And by the grace of God,
against all odds, we are prevailing.
In order to fully appreciate the enormity
of recent rulings of the parallel Hage
cases—the 1991 Hage v. U.S. “takings” case
in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the
2007 U.S. v. Hage “forage right” case in the
Federal District Court of Nevada, and in
particular the June 6 preliminary decision
by Judge Robert C. Jones—I must first take
you back through time to put these decisions into context.
Moving Into the Eye of the Storm
In spring 1978, my parents Wayne and Jean
Hage, my sisters Ruth, Margaret and Laura,
brother Wayne and I moved from a ranch
in the lush Sierra Valley of Northern California to Pine Creek Ranch, headquartered
60 miles north of Tonopah, Nev. My father
had long dreamed of owning an “open
range” ranch similar to ones he had worked
on as a young man in northeastern Nevada
and on the southern Idaho Owyhee Desert.
Having harvested hay with mowing
machines pulled by draft horses, and then
pitching the same hay to cattle all winter, he
sought the kind of ranch wherein only the
milk cow and the saddle horses needed
feeding through the winter.
Such was Pine Creek Ranch. Cattle summered on meadows on the 12,00
0-foot
Mount Jefferson and 11,000-foot Table
Mountain. During the fall, they migrated
south down Monitor Valley to winter on the
rich browse and desert grasses in Ralston Valley. Best of all, cattle work was accomplished
almost entirely on horseback. The ranch was
stocked with beefmaster cattle bred to climb
mountains, travel longer distances from water
in the desert, and deliver their calves without
assistance. For a young girl who routinely
ditched 4-H sewing lessons in order to do
anything on horseback, Pine Creek was a dream
come true. That was before we became
acquainted with the U.S. Forest Service (FS)
and Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
The Conspiracy ~
While Dad had been told by the previous
owners of Pine Creek that the BLM and FS
were becoming increasingly difficult to work
with, he confidently believed, based upon
past experience, that he was more than capable of cooperating with the local bureaucrats.
But this notion quickly changed that first
year when the forest ranger issued a mandatory five-day notice to move cattle while we
attended my grandmother’s funeral in Elko.
He refused our request for an extension.
Mom and Dad worked endlessly to comply with the ever-changing terms and conditions of permits, to keep cattle numbers
within permitted limits, and to move on and off allotments at designated times.
EYE OF THE STORM ~ They didn’t play fast and loose with the grazing regulations. In fact, in order to document that
they weren’t overgrazing, for years they hired
Al Steninger, a range consultant and former
BLM employee who flew his twin-engine
plane to Pine Creek to conduct range studies.
His voluminous reports became evidence in
three administrative appeals, all of which we
won, but which ultimately provided no real
remedy for the conflict. Mom and Dad spent
hundreds of thousands of dollars documenting our proper range management and
defending administrative appeals of onerous
agency decisions. Ranch profits hemorrhaged accordingly.
Government harassment became
intense. In one 105-day grazing season my
parents were visited 70 times, usually by
an
armed employee, and received an additional
40 certified letters containing various citations and notices. One such five-day notice
demanded we replace one missing fence staple on Table Mountain which could only be
reached by a 20-mile horseback ride.
Finally, in 1991, the Forest Service, in
what might be characterized as a set-up, cut
the Meadow Canyon Allotment first by 35
percent, and then 100 percent for five years,
allegedly to allow the range to “recover.” In
fact, it was a clear attempt to force us to
abandon
our water rights. The statutory
requirement for abandonment of a water
right is five years of no-nuse. That allotment
shared 25 miles of unfenced boundary with
our Monitor Valley Allotment, managed by
the BLM. Native cattle that, like salmon, were
used to returning to the same mountain pastures every summer were repeatedly moved
off the allotment by us. Even though my
brother Wayne Jr. and our employees rode
every other day to keep cattle from trespassing, FS ranger Dave Greider orchestrated two
armed raids and confiscated over 100 head of
cattle. Those cattle were subsequently sold at
private auction and the proceeds kept to pay
for their extravagant paramilitary actions.
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says, “No person shall be...deprived
of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.” Mom and Dad were never afforded the
constitutional protection of due process of
law
before
their livelihood was hauled away in
cattle trucks. Rapists and murderers, as a
matter of law, receive more due process than
my parents did as law-abiding, taxpaying citizens of the United States. The ranch’s 2,000
remaining cows were quickly gathered and
sold at fire-sale prices to prevent further theft
by the Forest Service. The ranch was for all
practical purposes shut down. The most
heartbreaking image I have from that period
is of the two-foot-tall weeds growing in the
corrals across from the ranch house.
The question then became, do we own
property in the nature of vested and certificated water rights, easements, right-of-ways,
forage and improvements
on our range allotments,
or are we merely serfs,
grazing by permission of
the U.S. government?
These are rights which
Dad documented in hisbook, “Storm OverRangelands” (1989), but
which, until recently,
ranchers and attorneys
viewed with great skepticism as being something
that could be defended in
court. Nonetheless, the
U.S. Supreme Court
ordered eight copies of the
book for its law library.
Mom and Dad decided to
put that question before
the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (USCFC) in Washington, D.C., in a Fifth Amendment taking of property case in 1991, Hage v. U.S.
Court, Court, and More Court
The Hage rulings are the result of an incredible amount of litigation on the part of one
family—not a corporation, not a state or federal agency—attempting to defend their constitutionally guaranteed property rights.
Four months after filing the landmark
Hage v. U.S. “takings” case in 1991, my father
Wayne Sr. was indicted for maintaining his 1866 Mining Act ditch right-of-ways. A week-long criminal trial ensued with Nevada
Federal District Court Judge Howard McKibbon presiding. Dad was convicted of
destruction of government property totaling
less than
$100. He was then subjected to
drug testing, house arrest, and searches by a
federal probation officer. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that appalling conviction. In 1997, a two-week water adjudication
for the Southern Monitor Valley was conducted at Dad’s request. He successfully
defended Pine Creek’s vested and certificated
water rights against the FS attempt to claim-
jump the same waters. The state engineer’s
ruling was upheld by the 5th Judicial District
Court of Nevada.
The USCFC takings case finally went to
trial in 1998. Chief Judge Loren E. Smith first
presided over a two-week trial to determine
the property interests belonging to Pine
Creek Ranch. In 2004, a second three-week
trial was commenced to
determine which
property had been taken and its value. The
family was ultimately awarded a $14 million judgment. In total, Judge Smith
issued an unprecedented
eight published decisions.
Those trials occurred during my father’s lifetime.
My mother Jean suffered
a fatal stroke during surgery
in 1996 at age 54, attributable to the enormous stress
under which she had lived
since we bought the ranch.
Based on
her title research of
Pine Creek, she believed that
we owned property interests
in our grazing allotments,
and was determined to protect those rights for the next
generation for her five children. So far, the courts have agreed with her.
In 1999, Dad married Idaho Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth, who fully backed my
father in his epic battle with the U.S. government. Dad passed away from cancer at 69 in
2006
, and Helen died tragically in a car crash
four months later on their seventh wedding
anniversary.
My generation’s battle began a year later
when the USFS and BLM filed a Federal District Court lawsuit in 2007, U.S. v. Estate of
E. Wayne Hage and Wayne N. Hage,
attempting to gain an adverse ruling to
undermine the USCFC takings case. They
alleged we were trespassing on government-
managed lands. A 22-day trial spanned from
March 27 to June 6 of 2013 with Chief
Judge Robert C. Jones presiding. Wayne Jr., a
rancher representing himself prose, attorney Mark Pollot, and myself as paralegal
were up against a team of
three Department
of Justice attorneys, agency attorneys, paralegals and their staffs. Instead of its intended
result, the forage right trial resulted in,
among other things, Judge Jones finding
criminal and civil contempt of court and
obstruction of justice against BLM and FS
Wayne Jr. He ordered a civil show-cause
hearing for the last week of August.
During the trial in Reno, we recessed to
travel to Washington, D.C., to attend a 30-
minute appeal hearing April 2 before the
Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in the now
22-year-old takings case of Hage v. U.S. Its
decision was issued July 26, and will be discussed below.
The 13 trial weeks
and multiple court
rulings in which we prevailed do not count
previous administrative appeals, all of
which we won, but received no relief from
bureaucratic harassment. It doesn’t count
the 100-plus depositions of bureaucrats and
experts, motion and status hearings, writing
or reviewing briefs, document production,
and trial preparation. In preparation for our
forage right trial this spring, unable to
afford a legal staff, we copied 30 of the 50
case file boxes from the USCFC takings
case. We also sent 47,000 pages of production documents to the government and
prepared 1,230 trial exhibits, including 501
ranch title exhibits.
Wayne Jr. has carried on where Dad left
off. While he manages Dad’s estate as executor, he is also in charge of the estate’s litigation, pursuant to Dad’s instructions before
his
death. Running the ranch since graduating from Hillsdale College, Wayne worked
closely with my father developing long-term
plans for the ranch and litigation.
Judge Jones Makes Historical Ruling
Protecting Rangeland Grazing ~
For more than a century the courts have
wrestled with the issue of livestock grazing
on federally managed lands, mostly to the
detriment of the western rancher. Most of
the adverse case law, however, is the result
of rulings from cases which were lost procedurally. They never went to trial where
actual evidence was heard. The Hage cases
are unique and the only ones in 100 years
where 501 title exhibits were brought
before the court proving our preexisting
rights to use the range and waters. The evidence establishing our rights was created
under local laws and customs and court
rulings beginning in the 1860s, long before
the creation of either the BLM or USFS. Those
rights were preserved
in every land law
passed by Congress, including the 1934
Taylor Grazing Act and the omnibus 1976
Federal Land Policy & Management Act.
In his June 6 preliminary ruling in the
forage right case, U.S. v. Hage, Judge Jones set
the stage for his historic decision for western
ranchers. In an unprecedented use of court time, he spent three hours reading into the record the published decisions from the USCFC takings case and adopting Judge Smith’s findings as his own. He explained to
the packed courtroom: “You’ll have to have
patience and listen for quite a while for the
following reason. Most of this case has
already been resolved by prior litigation, so I
am doing that both for the purpose of
adopting Judge
Smith’s findings and conclusions, which I am bound to, as well as making it clear what things Judge Smith ruled
upon and what few remaining items I have
to rule upon. So you will bear with me while
we undertake that. I understand from a lay-
man’s perspective a lot of this will be sleeping
material. Not so to the attorneys. They will
understand and the appellate court will
understand clearly what Judge Smith
resolved and, therefore, what’s left for me to
resolve, and the basis of the legal rulings on
which I predicate findings and further legal
conclusions.”
For the first time in history a court has
protected the historical property interests
ranchers own on western rangelands. It did
so in two ways. First, the court found that
both constitutional Fifth Amendment substantive due process and procedural
due
process rights attach to grazing preferences.
The judge explained during trial that Congress intended to protect ranchers’ preexisting
rights by issuing grazing preferences only
to the established ranchers who could prove
historical use of the range and ownership of
water rights under local law and custom. The
finding of a substantive due process right to
grazing preferences in practical terms greatly
limits the government’s ability to simply take
grazing permits as it did in our case, or even
The northern winter range in the Ralston Valley from the Silver Creek drainage. And perhaps most importantly, it prevents the government from using the
administrative appeals process as a weapon
to tie ranchers up in endless futile appeals.
Second, Judge Jones found that based on
evidence presented at trial, we had a half-
mile forage right around and adjacent to all
of our waters, attendant to our stock watering rights. Livestock could not be found in
trespass in those areas.
Addressing the government’s case alleging trespass of livestock on federally managed lands, Judge Jones found the cattle
belonging to Wayne, or leased by him, not
to be in trespass. Most of the trespass allegations were determined to be near or at the
waters belonging to the Hage estate, and the
government’s
method of documenting the
allegations were deemed unreliable. At one
point forest ranger Steve Williams suggested
the only way we could access our stock-waters without being deemed to be in trespass
by him was to lower cows to our water by
helicopter.
Going forward, the court placed my
family under the permanent injunctive relief
of
this court, similar to the civil rights busing cases. Wayne was ordered
to immediately apply for grazing permits and the
government was ordered to issue permits at
the highest historical numbers of
our predecessors.
Judge Jones said he did not trust the
BLM and FS to act within their discretion.
Therefore, grazing permit levels can only be
cut up to 25 percent for legitimate management purposes such as drought, and never
permanently. But court approval must be
sought for
cuts over 25 percent, or to issue
trespass or impoundment notices. We can
now ranch unmolested for the first time in
35 years.
Government’s Attempt to End-Run
Hage v. U.S. Turns Into
Justice Department Train Wreck
The advantage of 22 years of successful litigation is that it functions as a judicial hedge of
protection from bureaucrats seeking revenge
through the courts. The mistake made by
both the USFS and BLM and their legal counsel
is that they repeatedly ignored eight
published decisions from USCFC, the water
decree, and criminal case—a fact not lost on
Judge Jones. While bureaucrats and their
attorneys live off the taxpayer and China,
using government money to plot the eradication of western ranchers, in this case they
seem to have been caught in a web of their
own making.
During the five-year U.S.
v. Hage forage
right case, a counterclaim was filed by Mark
Pollot for the estate which alleged the United
States, through its agencies, agents, departments and employees, infringed upon and
deprived the estate of its constitutionally protected property and other rights. Based on
evidence at trial, the court found: “[S]ome-
time in the ‘70s and ‘80s, the Forest Service
first and then BLM entered into
a conspiracy,
a literal, intentional conspiracy, to deprive the
Hage's of not only their permit grazing rights,
for whatever reason, but also to deprive them
of their vested property rights under the
takings clause, and I
find that that’s a sufficient basis to hold
that there is
irreparable harm.”
Judge Jones added:
“For hundreds of
thousands of dollars
they purchased the
ranch with recognized value in the
forage rights, let
alone the water
rights, and at some
point in time during
that period the Forest Service. I don’t
know, maybe it was
for their private use
so that they would
have a private
domain of the forester.... But the intent to
deprive them of their preference is abhorrent
and shocks the conscience of the court and
constitutes a basis for an irreparable harm
finding.”
He then referred BLM manager Tom
Seley
and forest ranger Steve Williams to the
U.S. Attorney, “for potential consideration
for prosecution for the conspiracy,” requiring
the U.S. Attorney’s office to report back in six
months as to any action it’s taken. He also
gave Seley and Williams notice to appear for
a show-cause hearing for civil contempt of
court.
The first act the court recognized as constituting irreparable harm consisted of the
“arrest and attempted conviction of Mr.
Hage for
practicing his property interest
right recognized by the Court of Claims.”
Judge Jones added, “These folks have heard
from three federal courts, and in spite of that
they have continued an attempt to deprive
the Hage's of their permit rights and their
water rights.”
The four grounds for irreparable harm
were: (1) that the BLM and FS sought stock-
water rights with the specific intent to “give
the water rights belonging to the Hages to
others”; (2) they solicited and granted permits to others, namely Gary Snow of Fallon,
Nev., and testified they knew Snow’s cattle
would use Hage waters; (3) the issuance of
trespass notices to third parties whose cattle
were under legal possession of Wayne Jr.; and
(4) the recent solicitation sent to 75 ranchers
for term grazing permit applications for the
Hages’ Ralston Allotment.
The court specifically mentioned, “
Snow
is probably part of the conspiracy, but certainly the agency principals...and probably
the U.S. Attorney out of Washington advising them was probably part of the conspiracy.” The judge emphasized: “Especially the
collection from innocent others of thousands of dollars for trespass notices is abhorrent to the court, and I express on the record
my offense of my own conscience in that
conduct. That’s not just simply following the
law and pursuing your management right, it
evidences an actual intent to destroy their
water rights, to get them off the public
lands.”
The judge made a finding of RICO
[Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations], or “racketeering,” noting that RICO doesn’t have to benefit the participant but
that it can be for the benefit of the enterprise.
He said: “But you still have entered into a
conspiracy for RICO purposes. And it certainly was in violation of mail fraud and
fraud provisions to the contrary.”
Finally, as if the Justice Department wasn’t having enough troubles of its own making, on June 6 the judge revoked automatic
admission status to all Washington, D.C.-
based Justice Department attorneys. He told
the packed courtroom he had been “turned
around” in four cases including ours and
they would not be readmitted into his court-
room unless they could prove in a hearing
that they could follow the rules of ethics and
local rules of the court.
Hage “Takings” Case Suffers Narrow
Setback at Fed Circuit ~
On July 26
, the three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals handed down
its decision in the 22-year-old Hage v. U.S.
takings case. Most of the findings by Judge
Smith regarding the Hage property interests
were not overturned, including a finding of a
physical taking of waters in the ditches. As
Judge Jones observed, the three-judge panel
expressly said the Hage's have “an access
right” to their waters
. Finally, the portion of
the takings judgment that was overturned
was on the basis that the claims were not
ripe, not because the government was acting
correctly. We have filed a petition for rehearing enbanc before the full Federal Circuit
panel and have already determined to pursue
a petition for certiorari with the Supreme
Court should we not receive satisfaction at
the Federal Circuit.
Agency Brass
Defend Agency Actions
Leading to Contempt of Court ~
On Friday, August 31, a separate week-long
show-cause hearing ended with Judge Jones
finding Tonopah BLM manager Tom Seley
and Humboldt-Toiyabe forest ranger Steve
Williams in contempt of court. The con-
tempt, including witness intimidation,
occurred during the pendency of the five-
year-old forage right case mentioned above.
Seley was specifically found
having intent
to destroy the Hages’ property and business
interests. “Mr. Seley can no longer be an
administrator in this BLM district. I don’t
trust him to be unbiased. Nor can he supervise anybody in this district,” the judge stated
in his order from the bench.
The contempt finding was the result of
the FS and BLM having filed the 2007 suit
against Wayne Jr. and the estate of E. Wayne
Hage, but also see
king alternative remedies
while the case was pending in derogation of
the court’s jurisdiction.
The court noted
: “You got a random
draw of a judge. You submitted to this civil
process.” Then Seley and Williams pursued
their own remedies by trying to extort
money out of third-party ranchers who had
leased cattle to Wayne Jr. They issued trespass
notices, demands for payments, their own
judgments, and in one
instance coerced a
$15,000 settlement. All of this was done during the time the court had jurisdiction over
these issues.
The hearing began Monday, August 27,
with a cadre of agency heads from Washington, D.C., regional and state offices turning
up at the Reno courthouse to defend their
policies and employees. After intense questioning by the court, Judge Jones made witness credibility findings in
which FS Region
4 Director Harv Forsgren was found lying to the court.
In his bench ruling, Judge Jones stated:
“The most persuasive testimony of anybody
was Mr. Forsgren. I asked him, has there been
a decline in AUMs [animal unit months/live-
stock numbers] in the West. Then I asked
him, has there been a decline in the region, or
this district. He said he doesn’t know. He was
prevaricating. His answer speaks volumes
about his intent and his directives to Mr.
Williams.” The court noted that anybody who
is school age or older knows “the history of
the Forest Service in seeking reductions in
AUMs and even an elimination of cattle grazing during the last four decades. Not so much
with the BLM—they have learned that in the
last two decades.”
In his findings of witness intimidation,
Judge Jones noted: “Their threats were not
idle. They threatened one witness’ father’s
[grazing] allotment.” The judge referenced
testimony wherein Steve Williams delivered
trespass notices accompanied by an armed
employee. In one instance the armed man
snuck up behind one of the witnesses with
his hands ready to draw his guns. “Packing a
gun shows intent,” the court noted.
Seley and Williams were held personally
liable for damages totaling over $33,000
should the BLM and FS fail to fund the losses
to Hage and third parties. In addition, Judge
Jones imposed an injunction wherein the
BLM and FS are prevented from interfering
with third-party leasing relationships when
the livestock are in the clear operational control of Wayne Jr.
The Next Steps ~
The government is expected to appeal the
Jones decision to the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals,
where it assumes it will face a more
favorable court. In the meantime, the criminal investigation is ongoing. The Hage family
will be considering further legal actions as a
result of the conspiracy findings of the court.
It is likely these two conflicting cases, Hage v.
U.S. and U.S. v. Hage, are headed for the U.S.
Supreme Court.
My mother and father’s dream of seeing
the property rights protected for the next
generation paved the way for the landmark
court decisions we have today. However,
never during all those weeks in court did we
anticipate the tables would be so dramatically turned as they were in the forage right trial
this spring.
In 1991, Dad was charged criminally by
the
FS for lawfully maintaining his ditch
right-of-way. In 2012, on day 19 of the trial,
the government began its cross-
examination
of Danny Berg,
a rancher who had leased
cattle to Wayne Jr. Evidence was presented in
a letter from Tom Seley where Mr. Berg’s
father had been threatened that his allotment
would be affected if Danny didn’t immediately remove his cattle from Pine Creek. The judge’s reaction says it all: “So the
threat in the prior letter is an abomination,
and the threat here is an abomination, and
especially
tying it to a threat against the
father’s allotment is a total twice abomination.... And Mr. Seley will stand before this
court
for contempt with his checkbook in
hand and potentially, as I give judgment, and
potentially risk imprisonment as well. That’s
the clear notice. He’ll need to hire a criminal
attorney.”
Update January 15, 2016 ~ Court Ruling Overturned In Hage Grazing Case.
A federal appeals court on Jan. 15, sided with the government in a
decades-long Nevada grazing rights case. The Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals overturned a lower court ruling from 2013 that found in favor of
Tonopah, NV, ranchers E. Wayne Hage and his son, Wayne N. Hage, who are
accused of grazing cattle on federal land without a permit. The senior
Hage died in 2006 and his son is now defending the case.
The
federal appeals court vacated and reversed portions of the lower court
ruling, and, in referring the case back for consideration, in a rare
move called for a different district judge, saying Judge Robert Clive
Jones had displayed bias against the federal government and grossly
abused his contempt power. Jones found Bureau of Land Management and
Forest Service employees in contempt of court for the way they handled
the case against the Hage's.
While the Hage's did not
hold grazing permits, they did have water rights, which they argued
provided an easement to access the water. The lower court concluded
because it is not feasible to prevent cattle from eating or wandering,
the government cannot succeed on a trespass claim if the cattle remain
within a reasonable distance of the water source to which the defendants
possess water rights. Jones ruled a “reasonable” distance to be one
half-mile.
Jones found that although the cattle had
grazed on federal land, the government had proved only two of its many
claims because the unauthorized grazing occurred within a half-mile of
the water source. The judges in the Ninth Circuit Court, based in San
Francisco, disagreed and said cattle can’t incidentally graze on public
land when accessing a rancher’s private water right on federal
property.
The defendants argued that, because they had
water rights, a necessary easement over federal lands to get their
cattle to the water was implied. However, that argument conflicts with a
longstanding precedent, the opinion says. The appeals court ruled that
ownership of water rights does not give a rancher the right to graze
livestock on federal property, though he can divert water from a stream
on such land.
In writing the recent opinion, Circuit
Court Judge Susan Graber wrote, “Defendants openly trespassed on
federal lands. Rather than simply resolving the fact specific inquiries
as to when and where the cattle grazed illegally, the district court
applied an ‘easement by necessity’ theory that plainly contravenes the
law.” The opinion continued, “The district court also encouraged
defendants to file a counterclaim that was clearly time-barred. …
Moreover, as discussed more fully in a separate disposition filed
today, the court grossly abused the power of contempt by holding two
federal agency officials in contempt of court for taking ordinary,
lawful actions that had no effect whatsoever on this case.”
The Hage's have been embroiled in arguments with the government over grazing issues for decades. Following the decision, The Las Vegas Review-Journal quoted Hage saying the ruling is, “a big disappointment, not just for my family but for the entire industry.”
Mark Pollot, attorney for the Hage’s estate, told WLJ, in
looking at the next step, they have three options: Accept the
decision; petition for rehearing enbanc from the Ninth Circuit; or
immediately file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. He
indicated their choice would be one of the last two options.
“We
believe that the decision in both the contempt matter and the main
case are legally and factually in error and, if allowed to stand, will
drive a stake through western water law and other infrastructure that
grew out of well more than a century of congressional and judicial
actions.”
Pollot said, “Any control over water that remains in the states west of the Mississippi River will be illusory.”
Watch this Documentary of Wayne Hage American Rancher
Wayne Hage Jr. was in attendance at the Range Rights & Resource Symposium and spoke at the podium April 20, 2018. I reported on the ongoing battle their family has been fighting against the Federal Government and its agencies since 1992. He told the attendees, "the note has come due, and we are losing our ranch". It is a very sad day in America when the government can use our tax dollars to deploy their lawless tactics known as regulation and "the rule of law" to attack the American People. These men and women employed by the DOJ, USFW, BLM, NPS etc. become the victors of the spoils when THEY are allowed to Appeal cases won by The People. The "Right" to Appeal should only be available to The People NOT the government! The government has an endless supply of our tax dollars at their disposal and scores of Attorneys and countless hours to make their case against Americans. If they can't get it done the first time they should not be allowed a second chance! The Hage Family saw victory in their case and was awarded a settlement that helped recoup some of their losses, but the government Appealed and got the settlement overturned in 2016 and sought an Appeal and continue to drag them into court trying to steel their land and resources the Hage's purchased with their hard earned dollars! It seems that the Federal Government and it's Agencies are victorious in "getting the job done" since the ranch is no longer in the Hage's possession.
I hope you'll listen to Wayne Hage Jr.'s remarks and take a listen to the court proceedings of April 13, 2018 he recommends in the Q & A portion of the video. I have links to both below. We must stand and fight for the American way of life as it's being lost forever!
It's a SHOCK to most Salt Lake County residents to find out that the Governor,Gary Herbert, Salt Lake County Mayor Ben McAdams and Representative Steve Eliason quietly drafted legislation to expand the Homeless Shelter Program into neighboring cities surrounding Salt Lake. Mayor Ben McAdams put together a Steering Committee back in 2015 assembling "stakeholders" to get the wheels moving on this locomotive. Several things I find interesting are the Salt Lake County Office of Regional Development, you just need to read some of my previous posts to understand what "Regional Development" is. Another interesting fact is that the Mayor of Midvale City was asked to sit on the committee, no better way to keep the homeless shelter out of your town than to be on the steering committee, and it doesn't hurt that your city is a total buy-in to Agenda 21 Sustainable Development! And if you're a bank, like GE Capital, you can bet you'll be benefiting through the financial workings of their plan. The Pioneer Park Coalition? I get that one, because they have been trying to get that mess cleaned up for decades!
This plan is being fast-tracked by the Utah Legislature with Steve Eliason acting as railroad engineer, Eliason also sits on the Board Of Trustees for the Road Home . If you follow what goes on on Capital Hill you'll understand WHY these sketchy bills are fast-tracked at the end of the Legislative Session, because they think people are too tired to care, and no one's listening. Mayor McAdams, Steve Eliason, and Wayne Niederhauser know there is great opposition to the expansion of the Homeless Shelter, that's why no one has been successful in their promise to move or expand the shelter since 2009. And, what better way to ram your bill through the Utah Legislature, by having two legislators who don't live in Salt Lake County sponsor your bill. Francis Gibson lives in Utah County and Ann Millner represents Davis, Morgan and Weber Counties. That way these two representatives don't hear opposition to it, because, anyone who has tried to contact a legislator to let them know of opposing views or support knows that they ignore you unless you live in their district, even though the legislation they pass effects ALL OF US! Mayor McAdams played this "last minute trick" on Salt Lake County residence with his "Community Preservation Act" holding last minute community meetings only giving his point of view and not letting the community, the residents, speak their minds about it. Eliason and McAdams are up to these same tricks as West Valley City and South Salt Lake are the ONLY cities on their short list to accommodate their expansion plan. Governor Herbert secured the funding/tax breaks, as usual. There's something fishy about this funding deal. Wonder what McAdams, a Democrat, did to get Herbert re-elected? Maybe this $20 million deal is compensation in a close election? And media outlets can't even agree on the price tag! One report says $10 million and another reports $20 million, give or take a million, or 10 for that matter, who cares? Steve Eliason, and McAdams with his "talk to the hand" backroom deals. Now Mayors of West Valley City and South Salt Lake and their residents and business communities are reeling from the locomotive racing toward them. Members of these communities say they have been "put under the gun", yet McAdams says, "they've been transparent and are listening to people's input", yet their only invitation was to Salt Lake County's Site Evaluation Committee — comprised of county leaders, homeless services providers and other stakeholders, who will stack the room and pitch their plan claiming that Communities who house these facilities, "are welcoming, safe for all who live, work, and recreate, receive services or do business there". And, "neighborhoods with a high concentration of homeless services offer access to employment, job training and positive activities during the day". May I just say a word? BULL-CRAP! This committee language should be no surprise since a handful of the entities on the steering committee have first hand experience with the Road Home Homeless Shelter downtown. Anyone who knows anything about Pioneer Park knows what a problem the residents of the homeless shelter are! I know! I had a business downtown 50 yards from the Homeless Shelter and a block from Pioneer Park! It was bad for business! Our only saving grace at the time was Gateway Shopping center, and when that went belly-up because everyone jumped ship for City Creek, that was the end of my business. I want people in West Valley and South Salt Lake to know this will be very detrimental to business owners despite the tripe Utah Government leaders tell them. It's was a constant battle trying to make sure my surroundings were clean and appealing so customers felt safe. Scouring the property for needles, liquor bottles and beer cans, condoms, and the trash they left behind, including cardboard beggar signs, (one sign blamed Obama for putting him out of work). I got a kick out of that one as they weren't afraid to tell the truth. Make no mistake, it will not produce the results in the flowery language above, that's only meant to make you feel better about it, or brow-beat you into it! The truth is there are real numbers associated with the financial burdens to cities and the cost to the community. It isn't an "unknown"! Salt Lake City should have been asked for documentation to furnish to West Valley City and South Salt Lake so they could determine if it would be beneficial to their community or to determine if this is a risk they are willing to take. There is no excuse for not furnishing them with this report, but maybe there is, because not one of these city governments were given the slightest clue this was coming! And I suggest the residents of these "blue collar communities" vote ALL of these people out of office. Ben McAdams is famous for saying, "I was elected to make hard choices", NO Mr. McAdams! You were elected to represent the people, and your not communicating with them on the up and up and pushing your predetermined plans has got to stop! This is just more of the same from Ben McAdams, he's set a track record for these types of shenanigans. It's always the "cart before the horse" with him, and the taxpayer's in these communities are going to have to eat what he's feeding them. Check the codes for a recall election!
My sources tell me there were a thousand, or so, people at the meeting at the Cultural Center in West Valley last night, and this was a last minute meeting hoping the community wouldn't get wind of it and not show up. Tonight's meeting is scheduled for the State Capital from 6-8 p.m. Why not have another meeting at the Cultural Center in West Valley? It boarders South Salt Lake and maybe even the folks that camp down in the river bottoms will come. The business community has been lobbied by County leaders trying to sell this proposal to them, but as reported by the media it's a tough sell. From experience, I can assure you, all their fears will be confirmed, and all the problems they currently have will be magnified. And again, talking from experience, the government doesn't care about your small business! They are only concerned about picking winners and losers, and putting money in their cronies pockets, and that doesn't include small businesses. You will have to suffer the loses or foot the bill to risk a move. Another thing you should know, especially if you are a West Valley City resident or business owner is that, West Valley City already has the highest volume of Emergency Medical Calls in the Salt Lake Valley, with the exception of Salt Lake City. The increase in these types of calls will put a further burden on this public service paid for by the property owners within the city limits, and I guarantee you the call volume will increase! Like I said, I was a business owner in downtown Salt Lake City and was a witness to the activity. It goes without saying that the cities police force will also experience a higher volume of calls, South Salt Lake ditto.
I hope you'll all try to attend the meeting at the Capital tonight, if you can't attend contact your Utah Legislator and tell them you oppose the expansion of the Homeless Shelter they've renamed Homeless Resource Center. Use the links for contact information and resources. Help put a stop to this freight train that wants to unload it's cargo in your community.
The Office of Governor Gary R. Herbert
350 North State Street, Suite 200
PO Box 142220
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-2220
Phone: 801-538-1000
Toll Free: 800-705-2464
Today Draper Mayor Troy Walker, along with Salt Lake County Mayor Ben McAdams, held a news conference to announce that Draper City would like to volunteer to house one of the new Homeless Shelters slated by the Utah State Legislature and Salt Lake County Mayor Ben McAdams, renamed "Community Resource Center". The proposal was welcomed by Utah House of Representatives Greg Hughes who also helped drive the legislation. The press conference took place March 28, 2017 around 2:00 p.m. at the Salt Lake County Complex. The video below contains the proceedings of the press conference. Listen carefully and pass it along to your friends and neighbors.
Just a few thoughts regarding statements that were made during the press conference.
Draper City does not currently fund the Utah State Prison. They will end up funding the Homeless Shelter expansion, as Governor Herbert has only allocated a $20 Million Dollar one time incentive, there is NO continued funding.
Operation Diversion, which violated the Fourth Amendment, has only been successful at obtaining TWO individuals in drug rehab therapy! (I have personal knowledge of this). They rounded up many, the media reported 90 individuals, but the results are shabby, and it just pushed the problem South to Utah County. Just beware Mayor McAdams is touting, he and Sheriff Winder's entrapment "dragnet" as a success, it was not!
If you've read my other posts you will see that my prediction of bringing TRAX to the new Draper Redevelopment Project is true! Transit Oriented Development is coming your way.
Some other good suggestions as to how to combat this problem are coming from the people themselves. May of us believe that service to our fellow human beings should be facilitated by the compassionate service of religious organizations or the private sector not the government, as this new agency known as "Community Resource Center" will be. A great suggestion was made on the County's website suggesting a smaller, more close to the community approach be implemented. One person wrote:
"Mayor McAdams,
I am Robert Kaiser. I have a unique perspective of what to do about homelessness in Utah. The plan to build shelters is terrible, and will not work, and will be expensive and controversial. I have experience in this matter and have a solution. Instead of thinking shelter that cost money, think small and medium sized co-ops that cater to specific areas of need that provide short, mid, and even long term living space for those that need it. Instead of just housing people, those in the co-op can help each other overcome what ever is causing the homelessness in the first place. Although it should probably not be a money maker, it certainly would be self supporting with people paying small amounts and working in the co-op if not able to pay for themselves. Various organizations could sponsor the type of co-op that suits their needs. mostly for space for single men and women, would be the greatest need, but also struggling families would greatly benefit from the synergy of a secure co-op. Ones that cater to those with addiction and alcoholism, as well as gender issues, and juveniles. This would mean that the only shelter that helped the homeless would remain where it is, downtown, acting as an intake and emergency shelter, in bad weather, assigning most of those needing assistance to co-ops within a day or two. This plan actually solves your problems, instead of creating super expensive government warehouses that nobody wants. You will have these beautiful self-supporting communities that are an asset to the area around them. Creating affordable solutions is the best route out of homelessness, and I believe, that co-ops are the best solution."
I am sure there are other solutions better suited for our communities. Get the real "stakeholders" involved and you might just come up with a solution. Remember, Draper is just added to the list of options. If you listen to McAdams in the Press Conference Video he says this. No one is off the hook.
Although Draper and Bluffdale residents turned out en-mass, media reports 1000+, Salt Lake County Mayor Ben McAdams is taking the whole bag of marbles to his meeting with Utah Legislator for Homeless Shelter expansion despite Draper Mayor Troy Walker rescinding his offer to house the shelter. Draper offered two sites and Mayor McAdams is going to run with it! Like I said earlier, Draper's two sites are just being added to the list. The decision is supposed to be made today, the committee has been given the dirty work to save McAdams' A$$! This trouble with this whole debacle is that it's all codified into law, thanks to the Utah Legislature and Governor Herbert who signed the legislation. Our only recourse now is to get this legislation rescinded. Can we do it? That is the question.
February 12, 2019
There have been reports circulating on YouTube that Homeless across the country are disappearing. In some cases this is true. My research has found that most of these reports are associated with U.S. "Natural" Disasters such as Hurricane Katrina (Louisiana) Hurricane Harvey (Texas), and the California Fires, The Camp Fire in Paradise California and can be substantiated by eyewitnesses on the ground. What spurred me to update my story on the Homeless in Utah was continued accusations from a Utah based radio host in southern Utah saying he is getting lots of email from people across the country saying, "the homeless are disappearing, but I don't have any proof that it is happening". My guess is that it's getting him hits and playtime, but he hasn't provided any proof yet. This host has a popular YouTube Channel and website where he would be able to start some sort of database or poster wall, like the one started organically by those who lost loved ones on 9/11, but has not done so. He keeps saying, "I can't substantiate these reports yet". This is where his website might come in handy by giving people an outlet to report what they are seeing. I decided to make a report on what's happening here in Utah, because people in Utah may be apt to say the same thing, "the homeless in Utah are disappearing", when the truth is they scattered like rats with the deployment of Governor Herbert's brainchild Operation Diversion/Rio Grande (launched August 2017) meetings hidden from the public. We are, to this date, into it over 1 year, where a reported 1700+ arrests were made (according to KSL5, but Salt Lake County Mayor Ben McAdams told the Salt Lake Tribune it led to over 5000), and it's hard to see positive results in "the homeless problem" in Utah. With a price tag of $67 Million many wonder if it has been a good use of taxpayer dollars (Utah acquired Millions from the Federal Government to add to its bottom line). The Road Home in Salt Lake City is set to close by July 2019. The plan to open three other sites to house the homeless resulted in two shelters in Salt Lake City, one to house women only the other a combination of women and men, and another in South Salt Lake will house only men. As we all know most of the families are housed in Midvale. The fact is, the controversy continues, and the initial article I wrote confirms most of what I reported came to pass as evidenced in my video Operation Diversion/Rio Grande One Year Later. I hope you'll visit the links for more insight into what is being reported, and I hope it will put Utahan's at ease concerning claims about the homeless here disappearing. This is our situation although there are legitimate reports across the nation their claims can be substantiated, problem is, we need facts, names and numbers would go a long way in solving this mystery.
