Friday, April 25, 2014

Federal abuse of property rights

Fight federal abuse of property rights by making the government obey its own rules

By |
Cliven Bundy marched into my life one Friday morning in January 1992 in a protest bound for a federal courthouse in Las Vegas. He held up one side of a street-width banner that asked, “Has the West been won or has the fight just begun?”
To my great relief, just as Bundy promised, nearly 200 ranchers from all over the state marched behind him, yelling “Property rights!” Nearly a mile later, the marchers fell silent and filed into the courtroom where Wayne Hage of Pine Creek Ranch faced arraignment for the felony of cleaning brush out of his ditches without a U.S. Forest Service permit.
The Forest Service had already confiscated Hage's cattle and left him bankrupt, just as the Bureau of Land Management would try with Bundy 22 years later.
Wayne Hage did not stand in that courtroom alone because I was honor bound to prevent it – I had published his 1989 book, Storm Over Rangelands: Private Rights in Federal Lands, which unleashed the federal fury.
The message terrified abusive bureaucrats: There are private rights in federal lands – vested rights, not privileges.
His book, the product of three intensive, grueling years consulting with dozens of experts and sifting through many archives, found the dirty little secret that could destroy the abusive power of all federal Western land agencies – by making them obey their own laws.
It was so stunning that a sitting Supreme Court justice secretly sent Wayne a message marveling at his shining intellect - burnished with a masters degree in animal science and honed by academic colloquies as a trustee of the University of Nevada Foundation - and warning of the titanic battle to come.
How true: Hage was convicted of brush cutting but acquitted on appeal. His own lawsuit against the United States took almost 20 years, but proved there are private rights in federal land. He died of cancer in 2006 before he could see how great a victory he had won – and how the battle is still just beginning, as Bundy foresaw.
Wayne’s son, Wayne N. Hage, now manages Pine Creek, and his daughter Ramona Hage Morrison is his intellectual heir. She helped research his book, lived the courthouse agonies with her father and assisted with his seminars on protecting ranchers’ rights. Morrison said:
Private rights in federal lands were recognized in an 1866 water law. It says, "… whenever, by priority of possession, rights to the use of water have vested and accrued, and the same are recognized and acknowledged by the local customs, laws, and the decisions of courts, the possessors and owners of such vested rights shall be maintained and protected in the same."
That Act was passed a long time ago, but every federal land law since then contains a clause with language similar to, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impair any vested right in existence on the effective date of this Act."
Most ranchers don’t know that and federal agencies exploit their ignorance with harassment that runs them off the land. Actually, understanding vested rights is not too hard – they’re absolute rights not subject to cancellation – but proving up those rights by assembling your chain of title and other technicalities and then making the government protect them is very hard.
The agencies know they don’t own the water rights, so their lawyers fight viciously with misdirection to save their empire from the owners. Ranchers lose in court because they don’t know how to prove up their vested rights and they don’t get lawyers who know the precision required to plead a vested rights case. Very few lawyers know.
Ranchers, get smart. Don’t assume anything. You probably believe a lot of things that aren’t true. Get busy and prove up your vested rights as we did. Get a court to adjudicate them as we did. Yes, your whole life will be one battle after another, like ours. Seek help to develop an army of supporters, as we did. You can shout freedom slogans all you want, but only the courts can destroy the root power of federal abuse.
The BLM has now withdrawn. Bundy has his moment of triumph. The cries of victory are thrilling.
But we know it’s not over yet. The BLM did not leave because angry citizens outnumbered their assault force by 100 to 1. Nothing has touched the BLM’s ability to return.
Get real: the BLM invaders left when it got ugly because it’s an election year and they’re all Democrats. They’ll be back.
Property rights defenders can stop them. We can go on the attack in the courts with organized funding to adjudicate protection for every last vested right in the American West. We have the laws to do it. We now need organization, money, brains, and the will to make it happen. Every vested right that we protect will destroy that much federal power to abuse.
Let no ranching family go unprotected.
That's the hard way, but it's the only way that works. Stay on target: the federal power to abuse must be destroyed.
RON ARNOLD, a Washington Examiner columnist, is executive vice president of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise.

14 comments:

  1. "Private rights in federal lands were recognized in an 1866 water law. It says, "… whenever, by priority of possession, rights to the use of water have vested and accrued, and the same are recognized and acknowledged by the local customs, laws, and the decisions of courts, the possessors and owners of such vested rights shall be maintained and protected in the same."

    That Act was passed a long time ago, but every federal land law since then contains a clause with language similar to, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impair any vested right in existence on the effective date of this Act."

    Most ranchers don’t know that and federal agencies exploit their ignorance with harassment that runs them off the land. Actually, understanding vested rights is not too hard – they’re absolute rights not subject to cancellation – but proving up those rights by assembling your chain of title and other technicalities and then making the government protect them is very hard.

    The agencies know they don’t own the water rights, so their lawyers fight viciously with misdirection to save their empire from the owners. Ranchers lose in court because they don’t know how to prove up their vested rights and they don’t get lawyers who know the precision required to plead a vested rights case. Very few lawyers know."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "That Act was passed a long time ago, but every federal land law since then contains a clause with language similar to, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impair any vested right in existence on the effective date of this Act.""

      Delete
    2. "every federal land law since then contains a clause,,,"

      Delete
    3. "There are private rights in federal lands – vested rights, not privileges."

      Preemptive rights.

      Delete
  2. From what I have been able to find, it seems like the state used to own this land and under that arrangement, Bundy paid his fees. Once the Feds took over the land, it seems like he believed he no longer had to pay the fees because he didn't recognize the Federal government. Again, near as I can tell, the land was federalized because of some desert turtle, but the Feds still allowed grazing, provided the ranchers like Bundy paid a fee.

    Personally, I'm not a fan of Federal land grabs of land that is not true wilderness. Land grabs to protect a certain species has always been something I questioned the prudence of, but I've never taken the view that government doesn't have the right to do it regardless of how heavy handed it is. This article here, William, appears to be filled with advice that Bundy doesn't want to take. He's already lost in court and has taken the attitude that if he simply says he doesn't recognize the federal government, he doesn't have to follow any laws created by them. This is sorta like a child believing that their mommy disappears during a game of peek-a-boo.

    I've seen some horrific decisions to seize land in the name of eminent domain, such as the Kelo V City of New London. From what little I know in this case, this seems like kind of a skeeze to the state of Nevada, but it's not like they took away land that Bundy owned. Trying to conflate this into a modern day Boston Harbor is ultimately going to fail and it should fail. He's had his day in court and lost.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many of his rancher neighbors have been put out of business. The woman referenced above had her Dad fight the fight in court for twenty years. I'm sure he had to pay his lawyers while those lawyers on the government side were on the taxpayers tab.

      Bundy made a good choice by refusing to give in to the Fed land grab. He is within his rights and his family should stand firm against the DC usurpers.

      Where in the enumerated rights of our country does it say that the government can change laws to obtain property? The fees generated only compound the governments size and power.

      It's getting close to the point where lots of folks are going to follow Bundy's lead and stop sending it in.

      Delete
  3. William I think your clause only has to do with water rights. That is what is possessed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ask yourself why you want to join the Federal megalith in destroying these ranchers lives.

      Delete
    2. By what right does the federal government own that land in Nevada? Other than the fact that the federal government bought it and paid for it in 1848. (See the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.)

      Delete
    3. William no body wants to destroy these ranchers lives. But they are allowed to let their cattle graze on federal property for a fee. Bundy doesn't want to pay it he hasn't paid it he owes you, me, Mick, Pfunky, Max our money. It's cut and dry. Maybe you can personally give your permission for him to graze on your 1 square foot for free. As for mine, he has to pay.

      Delete
    4. An obvious case of selective law enforcement?

      The BLM lets the drug cartels use BLM land fro drug trafficing. Not one sharp shooter out there protecting the peoples land, not one person out there with an automatic weapon to enforce the law.

      Yet the BLM sees an American citizen as a threat to law enforcement. Yet another joke on the American people. Enforcement of laws that we like, ignore the others.

      Delete
    5. ONDCP coordinates closely with Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies to disrupt this illegal market, while increasing efforts to reduce the demand for marijuana in the United States through prevention and treatment. ONDCP and the Department of Interior, through the Public Land Drug Control Committee (PLDCC), are working closely with the DEA, other Federal public lands agencies, the National Drug Intelligence Center, and the National Guard Bureau to combat this threat.

      The DEA, National Guard, as well as state and local agencies also provide critical assistance in funding, helicopter support, and intelligence analysis. The DEA, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian tribes, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Homeland Security agencies have increased their joint enforcement and investigative efforts with state and local enforcement agencies.

      By investigating, removing, and reclaiming these illegal grow sites, and by apprehending and prosecuting the drug offenders and traffickers who operate them, Federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies are protecting public safety and the environment, while depriving marijuana traffickers of their illicit revenue.

      Delete
    6. ROTFLMAO, Mick

      Great commercial for the Federal government. To bad enforcement isn't as good as your story.

      Delete
  4. Sagebrush Rebel: Reagan’s Battle with Environmental Extremists and Why It Matters Today
    by William Perry Pendley

    The fascinating story of how Ronald Reagan, self-proclaimed "sagebrush rebel," took his revolutionary energy policies to Washington and revitalized the American economy.

    Governor Reagan, with his unbridled faith in American ingenuity, creativity, and know-how and his confidence in the free-enterprise system, believed the United States would “transcend” the Soviet Union. To do so, however, President Reagan had to revive and revitalize an American economy reeling from a double-digit trifecta (unemployment, inflation, and interest rates), and he knew the economy could not grow without reliable sources of energy that America had in abundance.

    The environmental movement was in its ascendancy and had persuaded Congress to enact a series of well-intentioned laws that posed threats of great mischief in the hands of covetous bureaucrats, radical groups, and activist judges. A conservationist and an environmentalist, Ronald Reagan believed in being a good steward. More than anything else, however, he believed in people; specifically, for him, people were part of the ecology as well. That was where the split developed.


    William Perry Pendley, a former member of the Reagan administration and author of some of Reagan's most sensible energy and environmental policies, tells the gripping story of how Reagan fought the new wave of anti-human environmentalists and managed to enact laws that protected nature while promoting the prosperity and freedom of man—saving the American economy in the process.

    ReplyDelete