Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Questions Respective of the Hammonds

Questions respective of the Hammonds...
The Malheur National Refuge consists of 187,000 acres. 
How many "unclaimed" acres are in the 187,000? Those "unclaimed" acres would be the only acres Federal would have the authority to "manage."
Regarding "Allotment" acres, Agents under (for examples) DOI and USDA do not have authority over anything beyond the "naked land;" exceptions include gas, oil, mineral rights - i.e. split estate. They are to "administer" only: as in "keep accurate records" of AUM Numbers/location/owner etc. They do not have authority to "manage" (order AUM cuts/pasture rotations etc.) the Allotment Owner's business.
Allotment Owners (like the Hammonds) own: 1) The forage 2) Trailways (easements) 3) Improvements 4) Beneficial use of water - on said Allotment.
A critical question law enforcement (Harney County Sheriff) failed to ask federal was, "Who owned the forage (grass) the Hammonds burned?"
The foremost duty of the Sheriff(s) was to "protect" the Hammonds property rights. They failed.  
Respective of the Bundy "settle in" at the Malheur Nat'l headquarters, they need to clarify/simplify their message. They're not. That's why they're being "dismissed." 
Their communication glitch lays in the fact that the majority of Americans don't know statutes/case law/constitutions as pertains to private property rights on Federal land.
Most lawyers don't know either! This is "why" the Hammonds attorney argued their case incorrectly.
Either the judge knows the statutes, and could possibly be claimed as complicit with Federal, or he doesn't know the statutes and could possibly be claimed as stupid. As I've witnessed many judges do in highly charged cases like this, he quickly "retired."
By evidence of reading some Allotment Owners comments about the whole of the matter, I sadly submit even they, don't know the statutes.
The Bundy's know the whole of the picture so well, they too fail to grasp the fact that they leave out the necessary portions that would help all to understand. Their message is muddled and therefore the public is running against them.

We humans laugh at jokes we've heard before, because we "know when to laugh." To tell an obtuse or "insider" joke is an insult to the audience, and thus the reason they don't laugh.
The remaining challenge? Use this unfortunate situation to educate Allotment Owners, Law Enforcement and reporters. We have a duty to  help reporters ask the right questions so they can report accurately.
The first question I always ask in all Water and Federal land challenges is: Please provide the law and date you claim my rights to this property (water/Allotment) were extinguished. They can't. Because those rights have never been extinguished.
Please note: Dr. Angus McIntosh is one of few individuals in the U.S. who understands the whole of this intimately/articulately!
What I tried to do here, is melt down a humongous, complex pile of information into simple talking points the average Joe (or Roni) can understand. When we can do that, we'll get public sympathy on our side; and that's what we need.
Thank you,
Whoever, willfully and without authority, sets on fire any timber, underbrush, or grass or other inflammable material upon the public domain or upon any lands owned or leased by or under the partial, concurrent, or exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or under contract for purchase or for the acquisition of which condemnation proceedings have been instituted, or upon any Indian reservation or lands belonging to or occupied by any tribe or group of Indians under authority of the United States, or upon any Indian allotment while the title to the same shall be held in trust by the Government, or while the same shall remain inalienable by the allottee without the consent of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

This section shall not apply in the case of a fire set by an allottee in the reasonable exercise of his proprietary rights in the allotment.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 788; Pub. L. 100–690, title VI, § 6254(j), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4368.)
 We are presenting the Equal Standing bill to Colorado's General Assembly session 2016.
Equal Standing bill

Equal Standing Bill 

Equal Protection from Personal Attack (Malicious Deprivation of Constitutional Rights) Act by Federal Employee 
Please Note: This can be modified to incorporate any existing constitutional rights protection law, and re-adapted to any domestic resource industry. 
Whereas the Legislature finds that the Livestock Sector of the Agriculture Industry of the State is a critical and significant portion of the Agriculture Industry of the State and necessary for the continued health, prosperity and well-being of the people of the State, and,
Whereas a significant number of Livestock within the State spend a significant part of their lives on Federal Range lands, and,
Whereas the US Supreme Court has held that Stockwater Rights, Range Rights, Right-of-Ways, and Improvements, appurtenant to or associated with Range Allotments are Property Rights worthy of protection under the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, and,
Whereas Federal Employees are required by the Fifth Amendment and Executive Order 12630 to consider the Takings Implications of their decisions and actions on the Property Rights of Deeded Private Property Owner, or Range Allotment Owners before taking those actions, 
Therefore, be it resolved that whenever any Federal Employee acting under Color of Law, takes any action harmful to any Deeded Private Property Owner,  or Range Allotment Owner on Federal Land in the State,  that deprives that Owner of any property rights without first giving due consideration to those rights by: 
1) accessing property with permission,
2) conducting a thorough Takings Implication Assessment, 
3) giving the Owner due process, and 
4) paying just compensation as required by law, 
that Federal Employee shall be deemed to be in violation of the Constitutional Rights of the Deeded Private Property Owner, or Allotment Owner on Federal Land and acting outside the scope of any federally delegated authority, and therefore, outside the protection of any federal immunity from prosecution and therefore guilty of the crime of Malicious Deprivation of Constitutional Rights and shall be subject to both civil and criminal punishment under the Laws of the State.  The violation of this Law shall be punishable as a Felony carrying a fine of up to $500,000 dollars and 5 years in prison for each separate offense.

No comments: