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".
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.