Posted on 06/10/2002 3:22:12 PM PDT by forest
In June, 2002, Forest Glen Durland sent Notices of Evidence to two 9th Circuit Court judges and to numerous agencies involved in unconstitutional actions in the Klamath Basin. The purpose was to put these people on notice.
Another reason was to comply with the Misprision of Felony law that mandates that citizens report known crimes. That Forest has done, and to the people committing the crimes.
These documents are printed below.
The list of the addressees is linked below.
The letters to the judges and Departments of Agriculture and Interior were sent via Registered Mail, Return Receipt.
All others were sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt.
In addition, a copy of Magna Carta American Style was included for the judges.
Evidence for the Court Record
June 4, 2002
Notice to Federal Employees concerning Farmers and Loggers in Klamath and Siskiyou Counties
The federal government has no authority to control farms, farm water or timber. Anyone violating that truth is committing serious breach of law. The misprision of felony law demands that such violations be reported.
1.The Supreme Court has cited the Federalist Papers as a definitive document for the Constitution of the U.S.
2.The Federalist Papers are vital to the meaning Constitution.
3.The Federalist Papers state that the Constitution is a limiting document.
4.The Constitution authorizes the federal government to do certain duties. All else is unconstitutional.
5.The Constitution limits land control by the federal government to the Capitol in Washington DC, post offices and post roads, forts and docks, etc., period. To consider other aspects is to violate the Constitution.
6.No treaty can supersede that constitutional limitation. Treaties are inferior to the Constitution of the United States and have no standing here. No wildlife can authorize government exception.
7.The EPA, ESA, BoR, BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, national forests, etc., are unconstitutional.
8.People have the right to be let alone. So ruled the United States Supreme Court.
Any federal employee violating these truths is subject to the following laws:
1.The Supreme Law of the Land consisting of the Constitution of the United States, the Federalist Papers and Supreme Court Cases
2.Oath of Office
3.Rule of Law
4.Color of Law
5.Accessory After the Fact
6.Misprision of Felony. This letter is in compliance. Your appropriate action is requested.
7.Posse Comitatus law
8.18 USC 241 bars conspiracy against rights.
9.5 USC 706 encourages citizens to take overbearing federal regulatory agents and bureaucrats to court.
In summary, the federal government must cease farm, water and timber control in Klamath and Siskiyou Counties The UN must be removed. Unconstitutional suits by ecologists, etc., must be negated.
Extensive documentation is available at <http://www.uhuh.com> in posts listed on the opening page.
1.KBD - study the documented version at <http://www.uhuh.com/action/klamfalls/kfallsdc/kbd.htm>.
2.Constitution Trumps Treaties - Supreme Court cases. Nicknamed ConTrump.
3.Limited Federal Government - thesis with extensive documentation. Included are
Two Ninth Circuit Court judges have ruled on the Klamath Basin water crisis, and federal agencies are currently involved in a ruling concerning endangered species, all a direct violation of the Constitution and the laws listed herein above. It is requested that your court peacefully observe Constitutional limitations and rule accordingly. Your good will can be shown by your dating and signing the enclosed Magna Carta American Style, returning it me, and implementing it.
Please enter this evidence into your records concerning the closing of the Headgates in Klamath Falls, OR.
Sincerely,
Forest G. Durland
14675 1/2 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, CA 95070-6081. (408)867-4410. c. 2002 by Durland
[The evidence notice to federal agencies is identical except for the title and the ending paragraph, which follows:]
...
Two judges in the Ninth Circuit Court have ruled on the Klamath Basin water crisis, and federal agencies are currently involved in a ruling concerning endangered species, all a direct violation of the Constitution and the laws listed herein above. It is requested that your office peacefully observe Constitutional limitations with the original intent by the Founding Fathers, and rule accordingly.
Please enter this evidence into your records concerning species rulings affecting Klamath Falls, OR.
...
There are times I wish I had become a lawyer, just to screw these bastards. Best of luck; hope it works.
Well, that means that the Klamath Falls Project was itself unconstitutional and that the facilities need to be demolished posthaste, with all land taken by eminent domain for the project returned to their rightful owners, heirs, or assigns, and all land held by the the State of Oregon prior to the Klamath Falls Project being returned to the State.
We don't need no steeenking truth!
Have you ever seen any tyranny that you didn't love?
This isn't "resistance to tyranny," it's a bunch of farmers saying they have a right to public subsidy.
Hardly.
You misinterpret the Constitution. It plainly says that Congress has the power to "RAISE armies" (but no appropriation for said armies shall last more than two years), but it has the power to MAINTAIN a navy (which can include a landing force--the Marines, and has done so from the earliest days of the Republic).
An argument could be made (and the Libertarian Froot Loop Fringe actually does attempt to make it) that the Air Force is unconstitutional.
If you really wanted to argue those points, then the Army, as it stands today, is legal (its budget appropriations are for this fiscal year only, and Congress can, if they choose to do so, zero out the Army's budget tomorrow and close it down October 1st). The Navy and Marine Corps are also legal. The Air Force is on shaky ground, but a simple Congressional reorganization can transfer its assets to the Navy (many of its assets already directly support the Navy's missions). The Coast Guard can also be considered an element of the Navy.
You've peddled that lie here before, but Jeff and AuntB presented credible evidence that the participants paid off every penny and more. - There is no subsidy, the operations turn a profit.
Well, yeah. Once you delete the initial subsidy (I sure as hell can't swing an interest-free loan, nor can I force land sales at gunpoint, nor can I just make a sweetheart deal with the statehouse for their lands, nor can I simply rewrite a treaty with the local Indian tribe at the drop of a hat), it makes a profit.
If they had to pay market prices for the land AND the loans, this thing would have gone broke in a few years.
Like I said, the plaintiffs' case reduces down to "it may be unconstitutional as hell, but it's OUR pet unconstitutionality, so we ought to continue deriving the benefits thereupon."
Nope, as far as I am concerned, you're taking your interpretation of the plaintiff's claim's to your logical conclusion ... the logic of which is extremely dubious IMHO.
The pertinent Reclamationm Act was a contract between the government and the people involved. The government has not kept faith with the terms or conditions of the contract. What should happen is that the project should be privatized as was intended. Your claims about these particular farmers being on some kind of free ride as respects this project or the water involved are so much smoke and hot air whose only purpose is (IMHO) to support your own position.
But [YAWN], what else is new? 'Nuff said.
Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!
Molon Labe !!
I don't mean to imply that the problems in Klamath are small by saying Klamath is a small picture, but the big picture problem is the continued expansion of Federal Reserved Water Rights.
Judicial Activism in the last half of the 20th century has created a 800# gorilla that can trump any pre-existing water right. It has created much uncertainty thru-out the west. Those Klamath water rights are a 100 years old. There are some threatened rights that go back to the Spaniards.
Babbitt said: "If we can control the water, we can control the West".
The fun part here is that plaintiffs just set themselves up to get drop-kicked by the judge. To wit: anything not in the Constitution is outside the government's power. That is the 4th point in the briefing here.
Federal water projects are not IN the Constitution.
Therefore, the whole case is moot, because the plaintiffs are asserting title to something that was illegal to build in the first place. Therefore, a completely legal resolution would require the restoration of the Klamath River to its pre-Reclamation Project state and the return of land taken under eminent domain for the project to the rightful owners, or their heirs/assigns, and the return of land deeded over to the Feds by the State of Oregon. And the Green Peas freaks "re-wild" a river...with the help of the farmers who didn't WANT it returned to nature!
But it was built in violation of the Constitution, as Federal monies were spent on something NOT within the authority of the Federal Government.
Whether the water rights of Oregon permitted the project or not is irrelevant--the Constitution forbade its construction with Federal money. The state of Oregon or the farmers could have built it instead.
If we all adhered to your notion of constitutionality, we would quickly conclude that our society/culture is un- constitutional. You included.
I'm not arguing about the water rights.
The builder of the project is irrelevant.
Uh, sorry. The builder is QUITE relevant, because the brief raises the issue--it states that anything not permitted to the Federal government is forbidden to it. Therefore, by the farmers' own pleading, the project was constructed illegally. Any lands that are now under Klamath Lake needs to be returned to its rightful owners.
The farmers have the water rights, but the water rights and the water project are not one and the same.
If they're going to argue from a strict reading of the Constitution (as they do here), then they have no case, because the structures from the project should not be there in the first place.
You're trying to have both ends of this argument, and that just does not work.
Actually you are once again wrong - but not for the reason you think.
Your cute attempt to skewer the poster with his "logic" is actually logical - but open to discussion and research. Did the Government, under the enumerated powers clause, have the authority to enter into this contract? I don't know - haven't done the research.
If you are truly willing to finally admit that the Constitution is a limiting document which specifically limits Federal Power by only authorizing that which is specifically enumerated therein then you have made much progress in your understanding of the document. I doubt that you have come to accept that truth and believe you are merely adopting that position for the sake of tweaking the posters to this thread.
But I digress...back to your quote that I posted and why it is wrong. Under contract law - at equity - the remedy in this case, assuming arguendo, that the government did not have authority to enter into the contract to begin with (again, I'm not taking a position on that issue), where the other party has fully performed on their part of the contract, is to force the Government to perform on it's part of the contract. If such a remedy gives rise to causes of action to other parties then the contract and the Court's ruling is admissible in those actions for monetary damages against the government to the aggrieved parties.
So, any way you hash it, legitimate contract or exercise of extra-Constitutional power, the Government would be forced to live up to the terms of the orginal contract which it has not done to date....Regards.
Hey Jeff, how's the family? Let me know if you get east tp my neck of the woods any time soon. Our hoped-for trip to Oregon is on hold this year - so we won't be able to get out your way.
God bless you and yours.
But the federal government can? Then can anyone justify the Tennessee Valley Authority? A federal government builder of dams, locks, canals, hydro -electric generation plants, nuclear power generation plants, and coal fired power as well as gas turbine utilities? Plenty of once private land under those lakes. The owners forced to leave. All in the name of flood control which destroyed more land and property than it could ever possibly have saved.
But we don't sit back and let the federal government close off the water flow completely for extended times at their will either. It would cause a riot.
The first real test of the endangered species act was not done to protect a Snail Darter it was done to stop an out of control federal agency of tyrants and hold them accountable to the people again. This is yet another example of government's over reaching powers exceeding common sense. The feds don't care about any enviromental issues they impose it is used as a tool to rule by agency decree and nothing more. Now who's wanting it both ways?
Forest, Jeff Head, and many other supporters of the Klamath farmers always maintain that that there has been a violation of the farmer's constitutional rights. This is not true, they have no constitutional right to the water. They do have water rights, which have been violated. The basis of the water rights precede the constitution and were established by the Spaniards and later adopted by Oregon and the rest of the western states.
On the the other hand, the feds have no constitutional right to the water. In fact, the feds never made any claim to the waters anywhere in the country. They deferred to the states. In 1912 the Winters Doctrine was established, by a court decision, to provide water to an Indian Reservation for the purpose of farming. It was narrow, well defined and forgotton about for 50 years.
The activist court then expanded the Winters Doctrine aka Federal Reserved Water Rights for the Wilderness Act, ESA, and others. They now have in-stream flow rights, by-pass flow rights, and they like. The water does not have to be associated with a federal dam or project. They can claim water in a free flowing river, water behind a munincipal dam, or water in the ground. And the ownership of that water can have been established for 150 years.
The fact that the feds built the the Klamath Project has no bearing on the ownership of the water.
What I mean is that there would be NO authorization for the gubmint to destroy the water projects already put in.
If that were the case, the dams would have to be removed from the TVA, the Columbia River, the Colorado River, etc.
I agree that the Constitution did not authorize them in the first place. Now that they're there, there is also no authorization for the gubmint to remove them, although the environazis here in the Northwest are demanding that very thing.
In Idaho, a few years ago, there was a real bloody fight over the dams Idaho Power built in Hell's Canyon. The two Idaho democRAT senators tried their best to (unconstitutionally) build a single high dam, at taxpayer expense, and DESTROY the three revenue-producing dams that private enterprise built. Thankfully, the gubmint lost, but only just barely, and Pfost and Church are gone on to their rewards.
Even though the state is 69% owned by the federal government, the civil/private land owners should be able to retain the right to access their property as contracted by the feds, or the state. This is a failure of the feds/state to maintain their end of the contract.
the sad part of this is that my father is from Oregon, the dominoes are falling pal. Who's next in the west? Washington, Idaho, California, Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Montana?
This is the start of the civil war that will free the west from the grip of the east.
Sword
In addition, the Government has defaulted on a contract with these people as respects the ownership and title of the distribution system for the water.
Both cases require the government, if it wishes to maintain any legitimacy regarding this situation, to fulfill its obligations constitutionally and contractually.
Finally, the means by which the government has gone about violating the rights of these people and not fulfilling their obligations (via the Endangered Species Act and via admittedly flawed scientific findings as evidence) are themselves unconstitutinal IMHO.
To date, even though water is again flowing (and I thank God and the brave people who stood against this for that), none of the critical issues have been addressed or resolved.
Whatever the best case the farmers may have, I think that injecting contitutionality into it just muddys the water and shifts the focus.
I tend to think of it in terms of water rights since there are those there that have riparian rights and there are those there that have water relocated to them via a ditch with some of them having senior rights and some having junior rights. Since they have been relegated to "unintended beneficiaries", their contractural rights don't seem to strong.
Whatever the case may be, the real issue is that the feds have trumps in that they can set minimum lake levels for the endangered sucker and minimum flow rates to satisfy treaty rights.
I think Bush has done some good things there as far as bringing in NAS, acquiring the water upstream, and trying to split the indians and the enviros, but the fact remains that only Congress can solve it permenantly.
Keep up the good work. Your ulterior motives are showing.
Exactly so.
I agree that the Constitution did not authorize them in the first place. Now that they're there, there is also no authorization for the gubmint to remove them, although the environazis here in the Northwest are demanding that very thing.
Except that the federal government built those dams in part by seizing land through eminent domain. Any law that is not constitutional is no law at all, and thus the law that authorized the seizure of land by eminent domain is no law, and thus the land must be returned to its rightful owners. In order to effect this, the dams have to go.
So why'd the farmers do just that? It unnecessarily weakens their case and opens up the floor for an enviro-whacko dropkick.
The Klamath Project predates FDR by a fair margin (unless you're counting his time as Navy Undersecretary).
There was no Constitutional provision for the water project's construction. There is no Constitutional provision for it's destruction.
The people who got their land stolen by eminent domain have a right to have that land returned to them.
Whether it constitutionally justified or not, we have a body of laws that have been created legislatively, judicially, administratively, and by regulation at the federal state and local levels.
Well, I'm game...
Your cute attempt to skewer the poster with his "logic" is actually logical - but open to discussion and research. Did the Government, under the enumerated powers clause, have the authority to enter into this contract? I don't know - haven't done the research.
I looked under the various enumerated powers, and building dams and irrigation works is NOT listed.
If you are truly willing to finally admit that the Constitution is a limiting document which specifically limits Federal Power by only authorizing that which is specifically enumerated therein then you have made much progress in your understanding of the document.
It does limit Federal power--but not as much as some of the hyper-strict constructionists would have us believe, as we are not constrained to a late-18th-century state of common law. Common law, IMNHO, boils down to common sense application of first principles to a specific problem, whether that problem is an old one or a new one. Said limitations on Federal power are still fairly strict.
I doubt that you have come to accept that truth and believe you are merely adopting that position for the sake of tweaking the posters to this thread.
I am arguing the logical consequences of the argument presented.
But I digress...back to your quote that I posted and why it is wrong. Under contract law - at equity - the remedy in this case, assuming arguendo, that the government did not have authority to enter into the contract to begin with (again, I'm not taking a position on that issue), where the other party has fully performed on their part of the contract, is to force the Government to perform on it's part of the contract.
Then the plaintiffs should stick to the contract law end of affairs and not wander off into Constitutional matters that can be applied against their case. They raised it; that means that if they draw a "watermelon" judge (green on the outside, pink on the inside), it can and will be used against them.
If the plaintiff raises a basic question about whether the Government has the authority to enter into the contract, then there
The farmers may very well have a right to the water. The question they've inadvertently raised is "do they have a right to said water on John Q. Taxpayer's dime?"
If such a remedy gives rise to causes of action to other parties then the contract and the Court's ruling is admissible in those actions for monetary damages against the government to the aggrieved parties.
What you have to realize is that the left will cheerfully use a strict-construction argument if it advances their particular agenda. Therefore, avoid raising arguments that can be used in this fashion.
As for monetary damages...what if the damaged party demands his land be returned to him for his use, enjoyment, and disposition?
A contract-law argument is sound, and the argument should stay there. Raising issues external to the viable argument is not a
So, any way you hash it, legitimate contract or exercise of extra-Constitutional power, the Government would be forced to live up to the terms of the orginal contract which it has not done to date....Regards.
Regards yourself. For the record, I am not fond of federal water management in any guise, because it tends to (a) centralize local issues (water management is not a national-level matter), (b) opens the door for massive fraud, waste, and abuse, and (c) sets a bad precedent elsewhere.
The "law" resulting in this is in itself unconstitutional IMHO. When that is the case, then it is by God important to bring constitutionality into the picture. It muddies nothing in that regard ... it shines a light on one of the things that must change.
In the end, the people so affected are simply not going to stand for it ... and that type of resistance to such laws, rulings, takings and actions by their own government is going to spread. At some point, such Federal or even state and local actions push beyond a threshold and the the pendulum begins to swing.
We saw that in Klamath, we saw it at Jarbidge and we are going to see more of it until things are restored to their proper order under the constitution. In the end, it will be the people who force the issue. Too bad those who are placed in a position of trust will not di their duty ... but historically such conditions have been reached before.
I am grateful for the progress in Klamath, but it isn't reasolved yet. Hopefully, it ill be soon and without the need for further confrontation.
Running outside to see if the sky is falling....
;^)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.