The only way we are going to end the continuous attempt to remove man from the lands in the West.  Is to permanently end the agencies themselves. The Department of Ag, Department of Interior and the so-called U.S Forest service.  Once you’ve studied the historical agenda , that put the forest service in existence in the first place you then realize , it was two-fold. One it was a government welfare employment agency, and two a unit to save the natural resources for the east coast bankers, once those same resources dried up in the east.  Suggest you order and read” Storm over Range Lands” by Wayne Hage.

One year ago next month I and two of my compadre’s made an attempt to bring the Goldwater institute on board with these  issues facing the Western states. They blew us off.  We were stunned. But at the end of the day , it was obvious that since our mission was not going to immediately bring cash to their coffers, they weren’t interested. Now the issue has reared its head in Tombstone Arizona and suddenly the GI has seen , in our view , cash.

Well here’s the deal. Tombstone does not need Goldwater Institute or anyone else. They have the Constitution, Supreme Court decisions, and the laws of the land.  I and several others are providing the information necessary to give the Cochise County Board of Supervisors, the City of Tombstone’s elected officials and the County Sheriff , Sheriff Larry Dever, what they need to know to sluff off the little men in green trucks.

Here’s the bottom line.  What I and others have learned over the last 10 years since the Rodeo Chediski fire is this.  These federal agencies work to intimidate the public. In fact they either don’t know the law or if they do they ignore it hoping that you and I can’t read. A prime example of this was the oral arguments recently in the Supreme Court over obamacare. The litigator for the government was so inept that even the liberal justices suggested that he try something else. Since what he was spewing wasn’t selling. Paul Clement the attorney for Florida, was brilliant knew the law, knew historical precedent and literally ran away with the show.  And the truth is , how do you defend obama care, its unconstitutional on its face. And  again during former Senator Russell Pearce interview with Shumer and Durbin, he made them look like fools time after time.  There is no doubt that both of them went out the back door to avoid answering questions from the devastated liberal press.   Well here’s the good news. Americans are waking up, they recognize the threats coming from groups like the Sierra Club, Earth First and others, thru their puppets , these agencies living inside the beltway.  More good news , the district of columbia is broke , the Corporation known as the United States is bankrupt. Guess what, America , we that is the Citizens of our sovereign states have no contract with that Corporation or any other Corporation acting as a government of the people for the people, simply stated it’s a scam. It’s a Ponzi Scheme, and what is exciting is that the Citizens of sovereign states are recognizing that fact.

Several years ago we started sending out a document, that gives folks the instructions to acquire an Allodial Title /Land Patent on their private property. In the last two years the interest in protecting private property has grown exponentially.  In fact thanks to the New London Conn, decision and this fella in the White House.  Folks are recognizing that they must get their property out of the hands of these County and State Corporations “ that they have no contract with”.

One more important development that happened on Thursday:  Murdock the fella that mopped the floor with the Indiana Rino , was on Washington Journal . He was asked about transparency in government. And out of the blue,  he stated that the Indiana CAFR, or Confidential Annual Financial Report was available on line.  So for all those doubters that these moneys are out there in state and county secret investment accounts, as Mr. Walter Burien has been trying to expose for years.  Now its out there in the public domain and we should all thank Mr. Burien for his efforts.  We are going to try to get a clip of that interview on C-Span.  I almost fell out of my chair.

The two Constitutional Conservative Candidates currently in the running for the white house have both committed to eliminating 5 plus agencies. The Department of Ag is in the top five. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson,Newt was there but he’s gone.

The following is an Analysis of the Hage V United States Case that was decided in 1998.  If your interested in property rights, you’re gonna want to read this.

Analysis of Hage v. United States
The Sierra Times ^ | 3 February, 2002 | Lyman D. Bedford, Esq

Posted on Sunday, February 03, 2002 7:16:54 AM by brityank

Analysis of Hage v. United States

Lyman D. Bedford, Esq: 02.03.02

On January 29, 2002, Senior Judge Loren A. Smith issued his final opinion and findings of fact with respect to the property rights phase of Hage v. United States, which phase was tried in Reno, Nevada in October 1998, with post-trial oral arguments occurring in San Francisco in June 1999.

At issue was the nature and scope of the Hages’ property rights on the federally managed grazing allotments appurtenant to the Hages’ Pine Creek Ranch. In his decision, Judge Smith found that the Hages owned extensive water rights on the Table Mountain, Meadow Canyon, Monitor, Ralston and McKinney Allotments, which had been grazed by the Hages’ cattle prior to 1991, when the Government put them out of business. The water rights found to be owned by the Hages amount to more than 20,000 acre feet, and are located in virtually all parts of these grazing allotments.

In addition to water rights, Judge Smith found that the Hages were the owners of ten 1866 Act ditch rights of way. Judge Smith found that the scope of these 1866 Act ditches was 50 feet on either side of the ditch, and that the Hages’ livestock had the right to use the forage adjacent to these ditch rights of way. Judge Smith also found that the Forest Service could not require the Hages to obtain a special permit in order to maintain their 1866 Act ditches. In his decision, Judge Smith noted that Congress intended to give those with 1866 Act ditches access to those ditches for construction and maintenance. Anything less might make those same ditches worthless. In holding that there is no requirement under the law to seek permission to maintain an 1866 Act ditch, Judge Smith specifically found that the Forest Service manual requiring a special permit in order to maintain such a ditch does not have the force of law and cannot alter a statutory right. This decision also rejected the contention of the Forest Service that it had authority to adjudicate title to rights of way under the 1866 Act.

In addressing the issue of the Hages’ access to their water rights, Judge Smith’s opinion stated the following:

The Government cannot deny citizens access to their vested water rights without providing a way for them to divert that water to another beneficial purpose if one exists. The Government cannot cancel a grazing permit and then prohibit the plaintiffs from accessing the water to redirect it to another place of valid beneficial use. The plaintiffs have a right to go onto the land and divert the water.

Judge Smith set a another status conference for March 13, 2002, and ordered the Hages to file a brief that addresses whether the Hages had a beneficial use for the water prior to the Government revoking their grazing permits, and that there was a taking of the Hages’ right to use their vested water rights. In this regard, Judge Smith noted that the Hages must demonstrate that they could have used the water if the Government had not deprived them of access to prevent them from using the water. He stated that the Hages have a right to the water, so long as they can put it to beneficial use.

The importance of this decision is its specific rejection of the position of the BLM and Forest Service that ranchers have no property rights on their grazing allotments. Although Judge Smith rejected the Hages’ claim that they owned the surface estate of their grazing allotments, they do have private property rights, i.e., water rights, 1866 Act ditch rights of way, the right to have their livestock consume the forage adjacent to their waters and ditches, and the right of access thereto. If the Government’s interference with these rights makes it impossible for the rancher to use them, the Government will be required to pay compensation for their loss.

In his decision, Judge Smith made it clear that the mere fact that a rancher holds a grazing permit confers no valid property interest. However, if by revoking the Hages’ grazing permits, the Forest Service and BLM prevented the Hages from accessing and using their vested water rights, then those agencies may have taken the Hages’ water rights. Those water rights are a property right, and not a license like the grazing permits. This decision will be of great help to ranchers who have vested property rights on their allotments, such as water rights and 1866 Act ditches. However, this decision will be of little or no aid to those ranchers who have no such vested property rights on the allotments their livestock graze.

Lyman D. Bedford, Esq.
McQuaid, Metzler, Bedford
& Van Zandt, LLP
221 Main Street, 16th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105

Permission to reprint/republish granted, as long as you include the name of our site, the author, and our URL. www.SierraTimes.com All Sierra Times news reports, and all editorials are © 2002 SierraTimes.com (unless otherwise noted)