Custom Search

ARTICLES BY DAVID HINKSON CONCERNING CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. RE: THE BUNDY RANCH CONTROVERSY

David Hinkson

Oct.. 15, 2014

ARTLCES: (Links to the articles by David Hinkson)

1. CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE TO US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

2. PUBLIC LANDS BELONG TO THE STATES, NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

3. COUNTY ROADS MUST BE KEPT OPEN -TELL CLARK COUNTY TO SHOVE IT

4. RIGHT ( REMOVE ILLEGAL GOVERNMENT HARASSMENT TODAY)

5. THE ILLEGAL TAKINGS OF VALLEY WELLS RANCH

**************************************

1. CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE TO US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

by David R. Hinkson

Field Supervisor, Nevada State Office

US Fish and Wildlife Service

4600 Kietzke Ln, Building C-125

Reno Nevada 89502

Supervisor;

The reason I am writing this letter is to give you official notification and Constructive Notice, concerning your activities involving the Endangered Species Act/Desert Tortoise, and the infringement on the Sovereignty of the State of Nevada, Utah, Arizona and California and to respectfully ask you to reconsider the issues which are at stake, in regards to the Desert Tortoise.

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service then listed the Desert Tortoise, as Endangered in 1989, shortly thereafter; the Secretary of Interior downgraded the Desert Tortoise to the status of threatened. Then the Clark County Commissioners, hired the Nature Conservancy, represented by a David Livermore, along with Illene Porter, of the Nevada Home Builders Association, and working with Nevada's Governor Bob Miller worked, to pass Senate Bill 376. This bill allowed Clark County to collect tortoise fees, to protect the threatened Desert Tortoise.

In the Legislative notes, and tortoise testimony for NRS 244.386/AB 376 DAVE LIVERMORE, (Nature Conservancy/Clark County Tortoise consultant) addressing the Nevada Legislature, stated that the Clark County desert tortoise is (a) currently listed as a threatened species, and (b) pursuant to its listing as threatened, and under the emergency authority of the Endangered Species Act urged the Nevada Legislature to pass NRS 244.386/AB 376, which would stop the political chaos such as was being experienced in the Northwest with the spotted owl. The Legislative Notes are as follows:

"On August 4, 1989, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the desert tortoise as an endangered species pursuant to its emergency authority under the endangered species act. The listing was precipitated by a lawsuit brought by a national environmental organization, which felt that the Fish and Wildlife Service had delayed the listing for years and that a respiratory disease was now decimating the tortoise. On April 2, 1990, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a final rule listing the tortoise as threatened. While the classification changed from endangered to threaten, the practical effect was the same.

The listing of the tortoise couldn't have come at a worse time from an economic perspective. Clark County and its cities were in the midst of the biggest boom in their history. The listing threatened to produce economic, legal and political chaos such as was being experienced in the Northwest with the spotted owl. This was the first time that the environment and economic development had clashed at such proportion in Southern Nevada."

It is apparent that the Nevada Legislature and the Clark County Commissioners were compelled to pass statutes and ordinances by being threatened with economic, legal and political chaos. It is also apparent that the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as passed by Congress was used as the vehicle to compel the Clark County Commissioners and the Nevada Legislature to pass these laws. On September 3rd 1991, the Clark County Commissioners passed Clark County Bill No. 5-7-91-3(A)/Ordinance #1299. This Ordinance addresses two points: (a) the Clark County desert tortoise is currently listed as a threatened species, and (b) pursuant to this listing as threatened, and under the emergency authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 the Clark County Commissioners determined that they were mandated to pass Ordinance #1299, (page 1) is as follows:

"28.46.101 FINDINGS. The Board of County Commissioners of Clark County finds and determines that:

(a) Pursuant to its emergency authority under the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. Section 1531 et. seq., the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has listed the Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) within Clark County as an endangered species, effective August 4, 1989. Thereafter on April 2, 1990 the desert tortoise was listed as a threatened species pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Endangered Species Act.

(b) Following the federal listing of the Desert Tortoise as an endangered or threatened species, the Secretary of Interior may permit the incidental taking of the species in accordance with a permit issued pursuant to Section 10 (a) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. Section 1539)."

Prior to the passing of the Nevada Statute and the Clark County Ordinance, on April 2, 1990, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife published its final rule for the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) in the 55 Fed. Reg. 12,178. This final rule, which listed the Desert Tortoise as "Threatened" is as follows:

"After a thorough review and consideration of all information available, the Service has determined that the Mojave population of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) should be classified as a threatened species. Procedures found in section 4 (a)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and regulations (50 CFR part 424)"

In the Clark County, Short Term Habitat Conservation Plan (page 2), for the Desert Tortoise, Clark County states that the definition section of the Endangered Species Act was broadened. As follows:

"Regulations have broadened this definition to include federally listed threatened species as well. In addition, harm has been further defined to include activities that would modify or degrade habitat in a way that significantly impairs essential behavioral patterns."

An examination of the Endangered Species Act reveals that it was not broadened. The definition of "Take" in the act is as follows:

"Take" means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or to attempt to engage in any such conduct."

An examination of the 55 Fed. Reg. 12191, reveals that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service changed the definition without the approval of Congress, as follows:

"The Act and implementing regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all threatened wildlife. These prohibitions, in part make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import or export, ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce."

Also at page 12191 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife published the following:

"Take" means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or to attempt to engage in any such conduct; or to attempt any of these, import or export, ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce"

The regulations, as quoted above are an attempt to broaden the Endangered Species Act by enlarging its powers. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service further impermissibly modified the Endangered Species act by making it applicable "to all threatened wildlife". Relying on changes made in the Federal Registry by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, both the Clark County Commission and the Nevada Legislature placed on record that the desert tortoise was listed as a threatened species, and pursuant to this listing as threatened, and passed these laws allegedly under the emergency authority of the Endangered Species Act.

In the Clark County, Short Term Habitat Conservation Plan as described above for the Desert Tortoise, the Clark County, and Habitat Conservation Plan stated that the definition section of the Endangered Species Act was broadened. This is an admission that the County Attorney and the Clark County Commissioners were aware and party to the above activity.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service set aside 3.8 million acres for the desert tortoise, this management decision violated the Federal Land Policy Management Act because it exceeded 100,000 acres, and required the approval of Congress within 90 days thereafter. The Federal Land Policy Management Act 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1712, is, as follows:

"Any management decision or action pursuant to a management decision that excludes (that is totally eliminates) one or more of the principal or major uses for two or more years with respect to a tract of land of one hundred thousand acres or more shall be reported by the Secretary to the House of Representatives and the Senate. If within ninety days from the giving of such notice, the Congress adopts a concurrent resolution of non-approval of the management decision or action, then the management decision or action shall be promptly terminated by the Secretary." (Emphasis supplied) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife failed to report this management decision designating 3.8 million acres as Critical Habitat to the Secretary of the House of Representatives and the Senate within ninety days from the giving of such notice.

Therefore this management decision is of no force or effect. And the Clark County Commissioners passed Ordinances based on activity, which could best be described as a violation of Congressional Law.

The Fish and Wildlife Service did not have the authority to designate a critical habitat without the approval of Congress pursuant to the Federal Land Policy Management Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife failed to comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The National Environmental Policy Act 42 USC 4332, (c) is, as follows:

" The Congress authorizes and directs that, to the fullest extent possible: (1) the policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with the policies set forth in this chapter, and (2) all agencies of the Federal Government shall

(C) include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on-

(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action,

(ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented,

(iii) alternatives to the proposed action,

(iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and

(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented."

On April 2, 1990 the US Fish and Wildlife Service published its decision, in the Federal Registry 55 Fed. Reg. 12,191, and stated it did not have to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. Page 12191 of the Federal Registry are as follows:

National Environmental Policy Act

"The fish and Wildlife Service has determined that an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection with regulation adopted pursuant to section 4 (a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. A notice outline the Service's reasons for this determination was published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244)." (Emphasis supplied) . The case of the spotted owl in Oregon is analogous to that of the desert tortoise. In the spotted owl case the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in it's published decision in the Federal Registry, also stated that the environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act need not be prepared. 56 Fed. Reg. 20816 (May 6, 1991).

In Douglas County v. Manuel Lujan, 810 F.Supp. 1470, (1992), the court, stated at page 1484, as follows:

"I find that all federal agencies are required to comply with NEPA when considering major federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment, unless there is a clear and unavoidable statutory conflict. There is no such statutory conflict here. The threshold question of whether there is an effect on the human environment is a question that is to be answered through the environmental assessment and impact analysis of NEPA, a process that was not followed in the designation of critical habitat in this case.

Although the Secretary is under a court-imposed mandate to designate critical habitat, this mandate stops short of authorizing the Secretary to ignore the relevant provisions of NEPA or ESA. The court ordered FWS"

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife did not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act when it listed 3.8 millions acres of land as critical habitat in Clark County for the Desert Tortoise, and if Clark County designates or participates by voting on an increase of Critical Habitat on the October 12, 1993, Clark County will be violating Congressional law and the sovereignty of the State of Nevada. Further the Endangered Species Act 16 USC 1533 (b)(2), requires that the economic and other relevant impacts of designating critical habitat be considered prior to designating a specific area as critical habitat. The Federal Land Policy Management Act 16 USC 1533 (b)(2) is, as follows:

"(2) The Secretary shall designate critical habitat, and make revisions thereto, under subsection (a)(3) of this section on the basis of the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. . ."

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service further published the following management decision concerning Critical Habitat in the 55 Fed Reg, 12178, as follows:

"The Mojave population covered by this rule includes all tortoises north and west of the Colorado River in California, southern Nevada, southwestern Utah, and northwestern Arizona. The Act requires that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time a species is determined to be endangered or threatened . . ."

Douglas County challenged the actions of the Secretary of Interior acting by and through the Fish and Wildlife Service in failing to prepare and submit for public review and comment an Environmental Impact Statement relative to designating critical habitat for the Desert Tortoise, a federally listed threatened species, as was required by the Federal Land Policy Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. In Douglas County v. Manuel Lujan, supra the Court further stated at page 1484.

"In balancing the equities, I find that the severe hardship to Douglas County and other areas affected by the Secretary's designation and the public interest in requiring compliance with environmental laws tips the scales decidedly in plaintiff's favor. The social and economic impacts as well as the biological uncertainty to other species justifies an injunction until the defendant complies with the provisions of NEPA."

Therefore when the Clark County Commissioners and the Nevada Legislature, passed Ordinances based on what they claimed Mandated Congressional Law, they violated the National Environmental Policy Act, by not addressing the custom and culture of this community. Any further activity, on the part of the Clark County Commissioners will further be a violation of Congressional law, and the United States Constitution.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has failed to complied with all the statutory requirements, because they were required to pay 90% of the cost of conserving the desert tortoise.

The Endangered Species Act, 16 USC ?1535 (d)(2), provides as follows:

"Such Cooperative agreements shall provide for (A) the actions to be taken by the Secretary and the States; (B) the benefits that are expected to be derived in connection with the conservation of endangered or threatened species; (C) the estimated cost of these actions; and (D) the share of such costs to be borne by the Federal Government and by the States; except that (i) the Federal share of such program costs shall not exceed 75% of the estimated program cost stated in the agreement; and (ii) the Federal share may be increased to 90% whenever two or more States having a common interest in one or more endangered or threatened species, the conservation of which may be enhanced by cooperation of such States, enter jointly into agreement with the Secretary."

Clark County/US Fish and Wildlife/Bureau of Land Management is attempting to collect exorbitant Tortoise Mitigation fee's when the bulk of the cost under 16 USC 1535 (d), is to be borne by the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government's share may be increased to 90% when ever two or more States have a common interest in one or more endangered or threatened species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has set aside California, Utah, Nevada, and Arizona for the Desert Tortoise Habitat. 55 Fed. Reg. 12,178.

It is apparent again that the Clark County Commissioners have ignored and violated Congressional Law, and the Nevada State Constitution, by collecting these fee's from the Citizens of their County, when the Endangered Species Act Mandates the Federal Government to cover the majority of the expenses.

Jerry Wickstrom, Team Leader for the Bureau of Land Management, provided a copy of the Endangered Species Act, which allegedly authorized the creation of Critical Habitat, and other matters which concern endangered and/or threatened species.

The Congressional Record, of the Endangered Species Act, as passed by Congress, reveals that approximately 20, changes were made in the copy provided by the Bureau of Land Management, which are not a part of that in the Congressional record. It is apparent that the Bureau of Land Management/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rewrote the Endangered Species Act, making key changes, without the approval of Congress allowing, the creation of million acre habitats, and thus causing the charging David R. Hinkson 30,000 dollars in Tortoise fees. After noticing the changes in the Endangered Species Act, David R. Hinkson acquired a copy of the Bureau of Land Management's Endangered Species Act and had the same certified by the Bureau of Land Management, with it's official seal. Presented below is one sample of the alleged changes, which were found in U.S. Fish, and Wildlife's version of the Act.

Congressional Record;

"16 USC ?1535 (C)(1)(E)(i) the requirements set forth in Subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) of this paragraph are complied with, and (ii) . . . (i) and this clause shall not affect the applicability of prohibitions set forth in or authorized pursuant to section 4(d) or section 9(a)(1) with . ."

US Fish and Wildlife Version;

"16 USCS ?1535 (C)(1)(E)(i) the requirements set forth in Paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) of this subsection are complied with, and (ii) . . . (i) and this clause and this subparagraph shall not affect the applicability of prohibitions set forth in or authorized pursuant to section 4 (d) or section 9 (a)(1) with.."

The Nevada Legislature and the Clark County Commissioners, based the passage and collection of Tortoise fee's on fraud, which was promulgated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, this fraud deprived me of the Republican form of Government, as is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Further I received a copy of a letter from a Clark County Employee, which is prepared to testify that Clark County has misappropriated funds. This letter in part states as follows:

"These funds shall be directly deposited into Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Fund (HCP) Number 236-9290 (Bank of America) administered by Clark County for the purpose of securing tortoise management areas,...None of these funds shall be used to develop the Clark County Desert Tortoise HCP (Habitat Conservation Plan)...Should the funds not be expended on desert tortoise conservation measures approved by the Service within 2 years of their placement in the County fund, then these funds shall be transferred to the Nature Conservancy for such purposes".

Further Clark County Code, 28.46.110 FEE ADMINISTRATION, states as follows:

"Funds, including interest accrued in said account, shall be expended solely for the preparation and development of a Habitat Conservation Plan for the Desert Tortoise."

It is apparent that the Clark County Commissioners are aware that the funds are being secretly sent to the Nature Conservancy. This fund is to used to purchase tortoise management areas (TMA's). But why would funds be transferred to the Nature Conservancy? This was a direct violation of the above quoted statute. (compare "shall" and "None" which are highlighted above.) Nowhere in any of the Clark County literature did it mention land was being purchased; it stated grazing rights were "being purchased by Clark County/Nature Conservancy." The Clark County HCP for the tortoise states: "These monies will fund the acquisition of desert tortoise preserves known as Tortoise Management Areas (TMA's)." It is apparent that HCP's provide the money to purchase TMA's. It is interesting that $550 per permit or per acre in tortoise fee's are being collected on all private property (HCP's) before any building permits can be issued. Tortoise Management Areas (TMA's) which are being protected and purchased are Federal and are protected in the Federal Regional Management Plan (RMP). The following statement in the 1991 Federal Regional Management Plan (RMP) states the follows: "The Nevada State BLM Office has recently received a request from the State of Nevada for the purchase of the entire 107,391 acres of the Eldorado Valley lands."

At this point it was apparent that the land was being purchased for future construction and our elected officials are enriching themselves, through the Tortoise fee's/Nature Conservancy at our expense. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that Nevada's Governor Bob Miller had appointed a panel to be in charge of selling the Eldorado lands after the patent was issued. The committee members picked by the Governor are as follows: Clark County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury (Secretary Treasurer), Eric L. Lundgaard (Mayor Boulder City), Pat Shalmy (Clark County Manager), James Seastrand (Mayor North Las Vegas), Lorna Kesterson (Mayor Henderson), Robert Ferraro (Pepcon), Dina Titus (State Senator), Marvin Leavitt (City of Las Vegas).

These committee members are aware that, the Eldorado lands are Federal, TMA's and are being purchased. Thirty years ago the Federal Government agreed to sell Eldorado lands to interested governmental parties, Nevada and Clark County were interested but failed to raise funds. The transfer of funds to the Nature Conservancy would provide the money to purchase these lands, from the Eldorado Valley Commissioners. Then we learned that two new major freeway systems are going through this valley. The HCP also states that "Category 3 lands (Eldorado is Category 3) is not essential to maintenance of viable populations," and the HCP highlights the Eldorado Valley as a location for future construction!

It is apparent that the Tortoise funds as being collected by the County might be misappropriated, when we consider that the total budget in 1993 for the Clark County Desert Tortoise, was approximately $149,000. While the total of collected Tortoise fee's exceeds $49,000,000. Further the Nevada Revised Statutes 278B.260. states as follows:

"NRS 278B.260. Refund of impact fee.

1. The local government shall upon the request of an owner of real property for which an impact fee has been collected, refund the impact fee and any interest and income earned on the impact fee by the local government, if:

(b) The fee, or any portion thereof, was not spent for the purpose for which it was collected within 10 years after the date on which it was collected."

It is apparent that the US Fish and Wildlife Service is involved and that there is over $39,000,000 missing dollars, and according to NRS 278B.260, I am entitled to a full accounting, of the Desert Tortoise fee's, so as to verify, any discrepancies. Please consider this a formal request for all records, showing monies collected and all total expenditures.

It was illegal for the State of Nevada and Clark County to pass Statues and Ordinances, which would have given authority to Congress to Regulate or override State Sovereignty. When the Nevada Legislature/Clark County Commissioners passed Statutes/Ordinances based on a supposed threat of economic and political chaos, and under duress of the Emergency Authority as found in the legislative footnotes, and described in the actual Ordinances, it is apparent that the Nevada Law makers were stating, that they had no choice but to pass these laws. It was illegal for Congress to compel the Sates or Counties to do anything, let alone stop the use of private property.

In New York v. United States 120 L Ed 2d 120 (1992) on page 133, states as follows:

"....The constitution question is as old as the Constitution: It consists of discerning the proper division of authority between the Federal Government and the States. We conclude that while Congress has substantial power under the Constitution to encourage the States to provide for the disposal of the radioactive waste generated within their borders, the Constitution does not confer upon Congress the ability simply to compel the States to do so. We therefore find that only two of the Act's three provisions at issue are consistent with the Constitution's allocation of power to the Federal Government."

On page 137 the court further stated:

It is in this sense that the Tenth Amendment "states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered." United States v Darby, 312 US 100, 124, 85 L Ed 609, 61 S Ct 451, 132 ALR 1430 (1941). As justice Story put it, "[t]this amendment is a mere affirmation of what, upon any just reasoning, is a necessary rule of interpreting the constitution. Being an instrument of limited and enumerated powers, it follows irresistible, that what is not conferred, is withheld, and belongs to the state authorities.... Congress exercises its conferred powers subject to the limitations contained in the Constitution."

The United States Constitution did not allow for the Congress to regulate private property in the States, the regulation of private property in any state falls under the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the State's police power, and must be under health and safety.

In New York v. United States on page 141 the court further stated:

"As an initial matter, Congress may not simply "commandee[r] the legislative process of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program." Hodel V. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 US 264, 288, 69 L Ed 2d 1, 101 S Ct 2352 (1981). In Hodel, the Court upheld the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 precisely because it did not "commandeer" the States into regulation mining. The Court found that "the State are not compelled to enforce the steep-slope standard, to expend any state funds, or to participate in the federal regulatory program in any manner whatsoever."

Thus if the State or County ratifies or gives consent to any authority, which is not specifically granted by the United States Constitution it is null and void.

New York v. United States on page 154 the court further stated:

"Where Congress exceeds its authority relative to the States, therefor, the departure from the constitutional plan cannot be ratified by the "consent" of state officials. An analogy to the separation of powers among the Branches of the Federal Government clarifies this point. The Constitution's division of power among the three Branches is violated where one Branch invades the territory of another, whether or not the encroached-upon Branch approves the encroachment. In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 US 1, 118-137, 46 L Ed 2d 659, 96 S Ct 612 (1976), for instance, the Court held that the Congress had infringed the President's appointment power, despite the fact that the President himself had manifested his consent to the statute that caused the infringement by signing it into law. See National League of Cities v Usery, 426 US, at 842, n 12, 49 L Ed 2d 245, 96 S Ct 2465.... Congress cannot be expanded by the "consent" of the governmental unit whose domain is thereby narrowed, whether that unit is the Executive Branch or the States.

State officials thus cannot consent to the enlargement of the powers of Congress beyond those enumerated in the Constitution."

The United States Government/US Fish and Wildlife Service never had jurisdiction, to tax or regulate the private lands found within the boarder of the Sovereign State of Nevada. And when Congress or its unauthorized agents attempts to stop, or regulate the use of private lands in an attempt to re-sell State Citizens there own property, this is a violation of the United States Constitution because it violates the separation of powers, as defined under the United States Constitution.

When the United States Fish and Wildlife published, their new version of the definition section of the endangered species act as quoted earlier, they were attempting to modify statutory law, and federal bureaucrats cannot create statutory law or modify statutory law. The State of Nevada, and the Clark County lawmakers based their new Tortoise laws, on federal bureaucratic rules, which are not statutory. If these laws are not statutory, it would be unconstitutional for the United States, or its federal agents, or any elected state or county official, to enforce these unauthorized rules against Citizens the Sate of Nevada. The lawmakers, of Nevada have clearly stated that they were forced to pass these ordinances under the Emergency Authority of the Endangered Species Act, which is a violation of the United States Constitution; this is an illegal action.

The Endangered Species Act never gave statutory authority, or emergency authority and it did not Authorize, a scheme to resell Citizens there own private property. This whole scheme, including the State and County laws, based on the US Fish and Wildlife Service/Desert Tortoise is based on fraud and is therefore arbitrary and capricious and is unconstitutionally null and void.

By regulating the property of residents of Clark County on laws and ordinances, which are not based on or have Statutory authority, and violate the United States Constitution, Citizens of Clark County's Civil Rights have been violated. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a republican form of government and due process, which was violated when the Nevada Law makers passed laws which honored illegal rules, promulgated by bureaucrats, in the US Fish and Wildlife Service, they further violated rights under due process, and the republican form of government because I have the right to elect, my representatives which pass the laws which govern.\

On 1/5/1993 David Hinkson stood up in front of the Clark County Commissioners and announced this fraud and, handed a copy of each of the Fraudulent and Correct law to the Commissioners. The ordinance passed, by majority vote. On 3/2/93 Mr. Hinkson again stood up in front of the Clark County Commissioners and asked them why they were purchasing the Eldorado Valley, there was no response, and again the vote was the same. Bruce Woodbury is the only Commissioner who voted no, even though he voted yes in the past. This tortoise scam will be over when you quit charging tortoise fees and return the money to those who were forced to pay, not before! During the hearing on the Federal RMP which were held for the Desert Tortoise, David Hinkson protested on record at every hearing to bring up the points which are found in this letter, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has currently been given Constructive Notice, and has proceeded with it's fraud.

When the Clark County Commissioners, started collecting tortoise fee's before the Nevada Legislature passed AB 376 they were violating the Nevada Constitution. Then the Clark County Commissioners hired a lobbyist called Dave Livermore, who spoke for Clark County and stated that the Definition of Endangered and Threatened were the same, Mr. Livermore and the County Commissioners mislead the Nevada Legislature, into passing a fraudulent Statute.

If the Clark County Commissioners knew this was based on fraud, they would be guilty of violating their oaths of office. In the Clark County Habitat Conservation Plan Page 2, it states that the definition Section was broadened, this is a complete confession that the Clark County officials knew there ordinances were based on bureaucratic hype not statutory authority. The Clark County officials swore to honor and uphold the Constitution so help me GOD, and pledged a bond, concerning this oath. I believe the Clark County Commissioners; have violated the Nevada Constitution, United States Constitution, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Land Policy Act and their oaths of public office.

Please consider this as constructive notice, that if you proceed you have violated my Federal and State constitutional rights.

David R. Hinkson

**************************************

2. PUBLIC LANDS BELONG TO THE STATES, NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

BY DAVID HINKSON

BRIEF #1

PUBLIC LANDS BELONG TO THE STATES, NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

These briefs were written by:

David R. Hinkson

Rt 1 Box 104B

Grangeville Idaho 83530

United States Department of Interior Board of Land Appeals

DOUGLAS E. NOLAND )

)

Appellant )

)

vs. ) CO 92-1B

) 3833

) CMC-202302

Bureau of Land Management )

)

Respondent )

)

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Please take notice that DOUGLAS E. NOLAND, hereby appeals to the Bureau of Land Management, United States Department of the Interior, from the whole decision of RICHARD TATE, District Manager dated November 22, 1993. Such decision was served on appellant on November 30, 1993. A copy of which is attached hereto as exhibit "A".

This appeal is taken on the grounds that:

ARGUMENT A

THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN OR

CONTROL PUBLIC LANDS WITHIN A SOVEREIGN STATE

The United States Government has no jurisdiction over the Mining Claims in question. Under the equal footing doctrine, Colorado entered into the Union on equal footing. When Colorado entered into the Union on equal footing, the U.S. Government had no legal right to required Colorado to sign said enabling act, in which Colorado agreed to disclaim the unappropriated lands. Texas which was part of the same original territory as Colorado, never surrender any of her lands, prior to Statehood. Nowhere in the United States Constitution was the United States Government given the authority or right to claim or maintain jurisdiction over any territory not specifically addressed in the United States Constitution.

In Utah Division of State Lands v. U.S., 482 US 193, (1987)on Page 169 the Supreme Court stated as follows:

"When the 13 Colonies became independent from Great Britain, they claimed title to the lands under navigable waters within their boundaries as the sovereign successors to the English Crown. Id., at 15, 38 L Ed 331, 14 S Ct 548. Because all subsequently admitted States enter the Union on an "equal footing" with the original 13 States, they too hold title to the land under navigable waters within their boundaries upon entry into the Union. Pollard's Lessee v Hagan, 3 How 212, 11 L Ed 565 (1845)."

The court further stated on Page 170:

"Thus, under the Constitution, the Federal Government could defeat a prospective State's title to land under navigable waters by a prestatehood conveyance of the land to a private party for a public purpose appropriate to the Territory."

The court further stated on Page 177:

"...we find it inconceivable that Congress intended to defeat the future States' title to all such land in the western United States. Such an action would be wholly at odds with Congress' policy of holding this land for the ultimate benefit of the future States. In sum, Congress did not definitely declare or otherwise make very plain either its intention to reserve the bed of Utah Lake or to defeat Utah's title to the bed under the equal footing doctrine. Accordingly, we hold that the bed of Utah Lake passed to Utah upon that State's entry into statehood on January 4, 1896. The judgement of the Court ofAppeals is reversed.

A State obtains title to the land underlying a navigable water upon its admission to the Union unless Congress' intention to convey the land to a third party during the territorial period "was definitely declared or otherwise made very plain, or was rendered in clear and especial words, or unless the claim confirmed in terms embraces the land under the waters of the stream."

The United States Government never declared or reserved any public lands in the Acts of Statehood for Colorado or other western states. The U.S. Government further failed to claim any of the unappropriated lands of Colorado, in any prestatehood Congressional Act. And the Property Clause of the United States Constitution Article 1 '8, clause 17, did not authorize reservation of large blocks of Land in created states. "The federal government, under U.S. Constitution article 1 '8, clause 17, can exercise exclusive jurisdiction over land in a state only where the land is acquired for one of the purposes mentioned, which included needful forts, dockyards and defense purposes. It is obvious that the reason the United States Government never addressed unappropriated lands in the acts of statehood is because, because it would have been unconstitutional and illegal. The U.S. Government attempted to illegally acquire lands by ratification of state Consent. If the power to keep or claim public lands was not specifically given by the United States Constitution, then this power can not be exercised or ratified by the Consent of the States.

In New York v. United States 120 L Ed 2d 120 (1992) on page 154the court address the ratification or Consent of authority which is not specifically granted in the United States Constitution, the court stated as follows:

In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 US 1, 118-137, 46 L Ed 2d 659, 96 S Ct 612 (1976), for instance, the Court held that the Congress had infringed the President's appointment power, despite the fact that the President himself had manifested his consent to the statute that caused the infringement by signing it into law. See National League of Cities v Usery, 426 US, at 842, n 12, 49 L Ed 2d 245, 96 S Ct 2465.... Congress cannot be expanded by the "consent" of the governmental unit whose domain is thereby narrowed, whether that unit is the Executive Branch or the States."

The United States has never lawfully claimed the unappropriated lands of Colorado, and for the State of Colorado to grant these lands in the "Enabling Act" would be "void and inoperative". Therefore the United States Government lacks Jurisdiction and ownership over the public lands in question, and must promptly surrender all public lands to the real and legal owners of the Sovereign States. In NewYork v. United States 120 L Ed 2d 120 (1992) on page 137the Supreme Court further stated:

"...If a power is delegated to Congress in the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment expressly disclaims any reservation of that power to the States; if a power is an attribute of state sovereignty reserved by the Tenth Amendment, it is necessarily a power the Constitution has not conferred on Congress. See United States v Oregon, 366 US 643, 649, 6 L Ed 552, 66 S Ct 438 (1946); Oklahoma ex rel. Phillips v Guy F. Atkinson Co., 313 US 508, 534, 85 L Ed 1487, 61 S Ct 1050 (1941). It is in this sense that the Tenth Amendment "states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered." United States v Darby, 312 US 100, 124, 85 L Ed 609, 61 S Ct 451, 132 ALR 1430(1941). As justice Story put it, " this amendment is a mere affirmation of what, upon any just reasoning, is a necessary rule of interpreting the constitution. Being an instrument of limited and enumerated powers, it follows irresistible, that what is not conferred, is withheld, and belongs to the state authorities.... Congress exercises its conferred powers subject to the limitations contained in the Constitution."

State officials thus cannot consent to the enlargement of the powers of Congress beyond those enumerated in the United States Constitution, as was found in the states enabling acts. Further the United States Government has never had jurisdiction, to tax or regulate the private lands found within the boarder of the Sovereign State of Colorado. Therefore, the United States Government cannot legally own or control the public lands in the western states or the State of Colorado. The Federal Government only has the right to Control land as described in Article 1 '8 Clause 17 of the United States Constitution, which allows for "needful forts magazines and dockyards". Therefor the remaining public lands not held in accordance with Article 1 '8 Clause 17 of the United States Constitution, hereinafter belong to the State of Colorado.

BRIEF #2

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO JURISDICTION INSIDE A SOVEREIGN STATE EXCEPTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

Plaintiff, )

vs. ) AWA Docket No. 93-20

OTTO BEROSINI, )

Defendant. )

)

Date of Hearing: 6/24/94

Time of Hearing: 9:30 A.M.

MOTION TO DISMISS

COMES NOW, the Defendant, OTTO BEROSINI, and moves this Court for an Order dismissing the Complaint, for violations of 7 U.S.C. ' 2131, 2140, 2134, et al. and Title 9, Code of Federal Regulation, et al. '1.1, '2.100 (a), '2.100 (a), '3.134 (a)(b), '2.40, '2.75 (b)(1), '2.40, '3.128, '2.1 (a), '3.125 (c)(d), '3.130, 3.131 (c), 3.127 (b), et al.This Motion is made and based upon the grounds that the citation does not state facts sufficient to constitute an offense against the United States of America; that the United States District Court is without jurisdiction because the offense, if any, is cognizable in the District Court for the State of Nevada and/or Arizona; and that the United States Department of Agriculture conducted a search without probable cause and seized property without due process in violation of the Fourth Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

And the United States Department of Agriculture, Secretary of Agriculture further failed to consult with the Secretary of Transportation before promulgating the standards governing animals in transportation as described in 7 USC 2145, therefore the regulations charged in the complaint are null and void.

This Motion is further made and based upon the records herein, the Points and Authorities hereto, the affidavits herewith, and such argument as may be entertained by the Court at the time of the hearing of the Motion.

OTTO BEROSINI

IN PROPER PERSON

5015 West Sahara, Suite 125

Las Vegas, Nevada 89102

(702) 389-6146

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

STATEMENT OF CASE

The Defendant is the owner of certain animals which are used to entertain the public. The Defendant is engaged in the business of entertaining the public at specific destinations, under long-term contracts. The Defendant has transported his animals and personal property intra-state and interstate on occasion when contracted. The Defendant does not continually travel, but in-fact seasonably relocates, for extended periods of time. And only travels with his personal property across the State Lines, incidental to travel, and is not involved in Interstate Commerce, as described by 7 USC '2131. The transportation of the Defendant, property further does not effect such commerce or the free flow thereof, or create any burdens upon such commerce. As an example, Defendant worked and lived in Arizona for approximately eight months and at no time during this period involved himself, in any activity, which could be described as interstate commerce. After traveling back to Nevada, the Defendant has at no time been involved in interstate commerce.

On March 19, 1993, the United States Department of Agriculture, caused a Complaint to be filed against Defendant, alleging, a violation of 7 USC et al and Title 9, C.F.R., Sections et al. No inspections of Defendants, animals were ever conducted during a period of time in which the Defendant was involved in interstate commerce.

II

ARGUMENT

THE UNITED STATES HAS NO LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY OVER PRIVATE PROPERTY IN ANY STATE, NOT INVOLVED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.

In 7 USC 2131,the Congress addresses its statement of policy, concerning the power it was the bestowing upon the United States Department of Agriculture under 7 USC 2131. Congress states as follows:

"The Congress finds that animals and activities which are regulated under this Act [7 USCS ''2131.] are either in interstate or foreign commerce or substantially affect such commerce or the free flow thereof, and that regulation of animals and activities as provided in this Act is necessary to prevent and eliminate burdens upon such commerce and to effective regulate such commerce, in order

(2) to insure the humane treatment of animals during transportation in commerce."

It is apparent that the Congressional intention was to regulate only animals in transportation which were also involved in interstate commerce. The Defendant, transported his personal property, and was not engaged in interstate commerce, because the act of commerce or employment started when the Defendant, arrived at his destination. Therefore the Defendant only transported his private property without engaging in commerce, with the intent of engaging in commerce upon arriving in Arizona. Therefore the US Department of Agriculture did not have authority under interstate commerce to proceed in issuing a complaint, and the complaint should be dismissed. Further if U.S. Department of Agriculture could prove that the Defendant, was involved in interstate commerce, while transporting his personal property, the act of interstate commerce must have started and stopped at some definable point in location and/or time. The key point in this case, is that the Defendant, arrived in Arizona and never proceeded to travel or relocate for a period of over eight months, therefore commerce would have terminated upon the arrival or destination. Further when the Defendant traveled back to Nevada, eight months later, the interstate commerce would have ended upon arrival at the destination. It is apparent that the United States Department of Agriculture would have us believe that their interstate commerce power extends forever, crossing all time and space, which it does not.

In the A.L.A. Schecter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495, 55 S.Ct. 837 (1935)the US Supreme Court ruled as follows:

"NIRA permitted "codes" to be promulgated by industry groups, which "codes" had effect of law. Schecter officials indicted for violating "code" for acts occurring inside NYC. Court held NIRA unconstitutional on delegation of powers on grounds that the acts in question did not involve interstate commerce. Congress has no power over local activities once the act of commerce is terminated. If the commerce clause were construed to reach all enterprises and transactions which could be said to have an indirect effect upon interstate commerce, the federal authority would embrace practically all the activities of the people, and the authority of the state over its domestic concerns would exist only by sufferance of the federal government. Indeed, on such a theory, even the development of the state's commercial facilities would be subject to federal control," Id., at 546."

If the Defendant, were to ship a commodity, in interstate commerce, and then proceeded to engage in a new activity or new employment not involving interstate commerce, the original shipment and consequent employment activity weather originally intended or not, becomes two distinct and separate activities. So far as the transported commodity is concerned, if the Defendant, then operates his business in a purely local manner, without engaging in further interstate commerce in another state, or across state lines, he is subject only to regulation of the state, and would not have to maintain a license issued the Department of Agriculture. In the United States, there are two separate and distinct jurisdictions, such being the jurisdiction of the States within their own territorial boundaries and the other being federal jurisdiction. Broadly speaking, state jurisdiction encompasses the legislative power to regulate, control and govern real and personal property, individuals and enterprises within the territorial boundaries of any given State. In contrast, federal jurisdiction is extremely limited, with the same being exercised only in areas external to state legislative power and territory.

The legal effect of the United States Constitution was to declare each new State a separate and independent sovereign over which there was no other government of superior power or jurisdiction. This was clearly shown in M'Ilvaine v. Coxe's Lessee, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 209, page 212, (1808), where the Court held:

"This opinion is predicted upon a principle which is believed to be undeniable, that the several states which composed this Union, so far at least as regarded their municipal regulations, became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign states, and that they did not derive them from concessions made by the British king. The treaty of peace contains recognition of their independence, not a grant of it. From hence it results, that the law of the sovereign states, and as such were obligatory upon the people of such state, from the time they were enacted"

It is a well established principle of law that all federal "legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears"; see Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211, 215, 14 S.Ct. 513 (1894); American Banana Company v. United Fruit Company, 213 U.S. 347, 357, 29 S.Ct. 511 (1909); United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94, 97, 98, 43 S.Ct. 39 (1922); Blackmer v. United States, 284 U.S. 421, 437, 52 S.Ct. 252 (1932); Foley Bros. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281, 285, 69 S.Ct. 575 (1949); United States v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217, 222, 70 S.Ct. 10 (1949)

The U.S. Department of Agriculture does not have the authority to regulate activities, which extend into the territorial limits of the states. This was perhaps stated best in Caha v. UnitedStates,supra, where the Supreme Court stated as follows:

"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government," 152 U.S., at 215.

The Defendant is not conducting interstate commerce and is only subject to the regulation by the state. The Supreme Court in Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 56 S.Ct. 855 (1936)states as follows:

"One who produces or manufactures a commodity, subsequently sold and shipped by him in interstate commerce, whether such sale and shipment were originally intended or not, has engaged in two distinct and separate activities. So far as he produces or manufactures a commodity, his business is purely local. So far as he sells and ships, or contracts to sell and ship, the commodity to customers in another state, he engages in interstate commerce. In respect to the former, he is subject only to regulation by the state; in respect to the latter, to regulation only by the federal government," Id., at 303.

Therefore when the Defendant arrives in Arizona and proceeds to stay there permanently he is subject only to regulations by the State of Arizona. The U.S. Department of Agriculture does not have validity to act within the jurisdiction of the state, and create a criminal indictment, by invading the jurisdiction of the state. Congress simply lacks the constitutional power to penalize; United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U.S. 394, 36 S.Ct. 658 (1916).

The attempted prosecution of Defendant, further is null and void because the power to enforce activities concerning the licensing of animals and the attempted forced hiring of animal vets goes, beyond power of Congress under the commerce clause and is therefore null and void.

THIS COURT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION BECAUSE, IF ANOFFENSE OCCURRED, IT IS ONLY COGNIZABLE

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Within the States of the American Union, the United States has power to acquire jurisdiction over such crimes as may be committed thereon via the operation of Article 1 ' 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution. This clause requires that, for the United States to acquire jurisdiction within any State, the Government must first purchase the property and possess title to the same. Once this condition precedent is fulfilled, the State may, by a legislative act, cede to the United States jurisdiction over such property, and such cession may be made either before or after the United States acquires title to the property. However, failing the State's legislative cession of jurisdiction, the property in the States remains within the jurisdiction of the State. Therefore, any crimes committed on such property under which the jurisdiction has not been ceded to the United States must be prosecuted by the State and not the United States.

In People v. Gerald, 40 Misc.2d 819, 243 N.Y.S.2d 1001 (1963), the "State was held to have jurisdiction of an assault at a U.S. post-office since the defendant did not meet his burden of showing presence of federal jurisdiction; and because a defendant failed to prove title and jurisdiction in the United States for an offense committed at a customs station, State jurisdiction was upheld in Peoplev. Fisher, 97 A.D.2d 651, 469 N.Y.S.2d 187 (A.D. 3 Dept., 1983)." Therefore the U.S. District Court, has no jurisdiction over the case against Defendant, and, this case must be prosecuted in the State Court of Nevada, if a crime has been committed in State jurisdiction. See: Puerto Rico v. Shell Company, 302 U.S. 253, 82 L.Ed. 235, 58 S.Ct. 167.

THE REGULATION OF THE DEFENDANTS ANIMALS HAS NO NEXUS WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE.

When the U.S. Department of Agriculture attempts to enforce, Statutes and/or Regulations, which provide animal protection via the registration of animals, and mandated criminal penalties for failure to conform, inside the boundaries of a sovereign state, this statutory scheme is unconstitutional and violates the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Congress has no such express powers over animals and the act is unconstitutional, because this law, does not statutorily connect happy or unhappy animals with interstate commerce. Furthermore the rights of animals are not protected under the United States Constitution, and there is no nexus between commerce and travel or transportation of private property, which is not being sold or transported in commerce and interstate commerce.

This whole statutory scheme, based on regulating animals in travel, lacks nexus to the interstate commerce, especially when the interstate commerce ceases, and could therefore be described as null and void. Further the attempt by the US Department of Agriculture to permanently regulate via, licenses and fees, in a sovereign state, between parties involved in intrastate commerce, does not constitute interstate commerce, therefore the federal government has no authority.

Any federal statutory scheme is null and void in connection with permanent ongoing control within a state or involving intrastate commerce, and must be surrendered or stopped immediately. In United States v.Steffens(The Trade-Mark Cases), 100 U.S. 82 (1879)the Supreme Court states as follows:

"If it is not so limited, it is in excess of the power of Congress. If its main purpose be to establish a regulation applicable to all trade; to commerce at all points, especially if it is apparent that it is designed to govern the commerce wholly between citizens of the same State, it is obviously the exercise of a power not confided to Congress," 100 U.S., at 96, 97.

Therefore the attempted regulation of animals, which are not involved in interstate commerce, in a sovereign state, is not a power confided to Congress. And the Defendant should not be required to maintain obtain permits while not involved in interstate commerce. If Defendant does transport animals and/or property across the state line in interstate commerce the need for a permit would cease to exist, after the commerce ends, or when the activity changes. The licensing and other regulations must bear some nexus with the interstate commerce, and in this case they do not. In United States vs. Alfonso Lopez, Jr., 2 F.3d 1342 (1993). the Court ruled that even if a governmental conviction might be sustained if the government alleged offense had no nexus to commerce, the defendant would still be entitled to a reversal of conviction, since indictment did not allege any connection to interstate commerce. Therefore any conviction would be null and void.

D

THE PROPERTY OF THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN TAKEN WITHOUT DUE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF THE 5TH AND 14TH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

When the US Department of Agriculture trespassed on the Defendants, property, without a search warrant, without statutory authority, and took Defendants property without due precess, and further attempted to prosecute Defendant, under Complaint #AWA Docket No. 93-20, in violation of the separation of powers, under the guise of interstate commerce, they violated the Defendants Due Process rights. In Lynch et al. v. Household Finance Corp. 405 US 552 (1972)the Supreme Court stated as follows:

"Such difficulties indicate that the dichotomy between personal liberties and property rights is a false one. Property does not have rights. People have rights. The right to enjoy property without unlawful deprivation, no less than the right to speak or the right to travel, is in truth a "personal" right. Whether the "property" in question be a welfare check, a home, or a saving account. In fact, a fundamental interdependence exists between the personal right to liberty and the personal right in property...That rights in property are basic civil rights has long been recognized. J. Locke. Of Civil Government 82-85 (1924); J. Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, in F. Coker. Democracy, Liberty, and Property 121-132 (1942); 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *138-140. Congress recognized these rights in 1871 when it enacted the predecessor of ''1983 and 1343 (3). We do no more than reaffirm the judgement of Congress today."

In Lynch et al. v. Household Finance Corp.,Supra, the District Court found that access to funds held in a savings account was not different from simple ownership of money. Thus garnishment of that account did not infringe personal rights.

Mrs. Lynch, however, alleged that because of the garnishment she was unable to pay her rent on time and encountered difficulty maintaining her family on a minimally adequate diet. These allegations were found to be true, and the court found Mrs. Lynch's personal property had been profoundly effected by garnishment of her savings.

In the Defendants case, Complaint #AWA Docket No. 93-20, clearly is a detailed assault of the Defendants rights over a three or four year period. It is plain that the Defendant, has had difficulty in making a living and/or maintaining the support needed to provide for his family, thus his very livelihood has been taken. The Plaintiffs agents have repeatedly attacked the Defendant, and re-issued the permits overlooking the very accusations in an ongoing game. 18 USC '241 Conspiracy against right of citizens states as follows:

"If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured - They shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or life."

It is apparent that the Plaintiffs have taken property without due process in violation of the federal law, and have destroyed the ability of the Defendant, to support his family and have further violated the Defendants' Civil Rights.

When the Plaintiff created total federal jurisdiction in a sovereign state, under the guise of interstate commerce they violated the separation of powers as outlined in the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution, and exceeded their authority, which violated the Defendants Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth and Tenth Amendment Constitutional guaranties of a Republican form of Government.

The first ten amendments were adopted to secure common-law rights of the people against invasion by federal government. U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 1-10, while the Fourth and Fifth Amendments limit only federal action, not state or individual action. U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 4,5. Whenever a federal officer or agent exceeds his authority, he no longer represents the government and loses protection of sovereign immunity from suit. "Action against federal officers and local police officer for invasion of plaintiffs' constitutional rights by imprisonment, search of premises, and seizure of property did not "arise under constitution or law of the United States" and federal court had no jurisdiction. Federal court of equity will intervene to keep agents of federal government within bounds of their lawful powers, but this does not lend validity to remedy at law against officers exceeding their powers. Bell vs. Hood71 F. Supp. 813

All the Plaintiffs agents in this case have violated the Defendants, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, and the Federal Court has no jurisdiction to hear these arguments. Therefore this case must be prosecuted in State District Court, and this case in not cognizable in Federal Court.

III

SUMMARY

1. The legal effect of the Declaration of Independence was to make each new State a separate and independent sovereign over which there was no other government of superior power or jurisdiction. This was clearly shown in M'Ilvaine v. Coxe's Lessee,supra.

2. There is no United States legislative, municipal or eminent domain jurisdiction unless exclusive legislative jurisdiction is ceded specifically and separately. Orme v Atlas Gas & Oil Co.,supra.

3. "(The Police power) belonged to the States when the Federal Constitution was adopted extends to the entire property and business within their jurisdiction." N.W. Fertilizing Co. vs. Hyde Park Co, supra.

CONCLUSION

Therefore Interstate Commerce does not encompass all aspects of transportation and must be defined, and addressed as to when it starts and when it stops. And because the Defendant is not involved in interstate commerce, and the charges are null and void, are Arbitrary and Capricious and should be dismissed.

Respectfully Submitted:

BY:

OTTO BEROSINI

IN PROPER PERSON

BRIEF #3

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CANNOT SEIZE OR LIEN PROPERTY INSIDE A SOVEREIGN STATEUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF NEVADA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. CR-S-94-101-PMP(RLH)

)

Michael Louis Hutton )

Defendant. )

MOTION TO DISMISS

COMES NOW, the Defendant, Michael Louis Hutton, and moves this Court for an Order dismissing the Complaint, for violations 18 U.S.C. ' 111 - Assault Upon a Federal Officer; 18 U.S.C. ' 924 (c) - Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a Crime of Violence.

This Motion is made and based upon the grounds that the Criminal Indictment, does not state facts sufficient to constitute an offense against the United States of America; that the United States District Court is without jurisdiction because the offense, if any, is cognizable only in the District Court for the State of Nevada; because the Internal Revenue Service, and/or its agents, were not operating within the scope of their legal authority and had no valid legal court order, or judgement; and the Plaintiffs agents further trespassed in violation of state and federal law; and attempted to take private property without due process, in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Seventh Amendment and Article Four of the United States Constitution; therefore the Plaintiffs agents were in fact exceeding their official capacity and lost their standing as federal officers; therefore the Defendant did not assault federal officers acting within their lawful authority; and the Plaintiffs agents wrongfully trespassed, arrested, imprisoned, and incarcerated the Defendant, in a scheme which violated the 10th Amendment of the United States constitution, because the federal government has exceeded their authority relative to the states.

This motion is further based on the fact that the officers FRANK NOLDEN and LUDDIE TALLEY were not acting within their lawful authority as agents of the United States Government. They did not have proper-delegated authority through the Executive branch of the United States Government, therefore they were acting outside their authority, and the Defendant did not assault federal officers acting in their official capacity. The Defendant is not guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. ' 111.

This motion is further based on the fact that the Defendant was not involved in interstate commerce as described in 18 USC 924 (b), and had in fact not conducted any felony activities while being involved with interstate commerce, therefore the Defendant cannot be charged with 18 U.S.C. 924 (c).

Further this motion is based on the fact that Plaintiffs, agents, failed to properly identify themselves, when they flashed a badge without allowing the Defendant time to read the print. Thus Defendant was not given the opportunity to verify that Plaintiffs, agents were in fact federal officers, and the Defendant was exercising his Constitutional right to protect private property, a right which is protected and authorized by the United State Constitution and the Constitution for the Sovereign State of Nevada. In summary the Defendant files this motion for dismissal, based on the fact that the Defendant is not guilty of assaulting federal officers, the Defendant was protecting private property.

Michael Louis Hutton,

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I

STATEMENT OF CASE

The Defendant is the owner of certain truck, which was used for personal transportation. The Defendant is not involved in Interstate Commerce. The Defendants, property further does not effect such commerce or the free flow thereof, or create any burdens upon such commerce. On March 31, 1994, Frank NOLDEN (also known as Frank Stine), and LUDDIE TALLEY arrived at 1694 Sherwin Lane, Las Vegas, Nevada, at about 11:20 a.m., the Defendant, answered a knock on the door.

Two men in white shirts and ties and a third man who appeared to be the driver of a tow-truck, which was parked on the said driveway behind the truck belonging to Defendant.

One of the men asked Defendant, to pay money that was supposedly owed to the United States Government.

The Defendant told the men he did not owe said money, at this point the men produced their identification for just an instant, but not long enough to allow the Defendant to read any of the information.

The Defendant then informed said agents that they were trespassing and pointed to the trespass signs which were plainly posted, and then asked them to leave. They would not leave, and he then read the agents, the following from Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 207.200 concerning trespass.

The agents, nodded their heads in affirmation and motioned the tow truck driver, with his finger, to proceed with the towing of said truck.

The Defendant then asked the agents to leave again and leave the truck alone, and they continued to remove Defendants truck.

Defendant, moved away from the door to the left and returned with a rifle in hand, and escorted agents off the property, and proceeded to call the non-emergency number at Metropolitan Police to notify the Clark county Sheriff and to report the trespass incident and that so called "IRS" agents tried to steal Defendants property.

ARGUMENT

THE PLAINTIFF'S AGENTS EXCEEDED THEIR AUTHORITY BY TRESPASSING UPON THE DEFENDANTS PROPERTY, AND ATTEMPTING TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE FOUR, AMENDMENT FIVE, AND SEVEN, OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

The Plaintiffs and/or its agents, were not operating under statutory authority when they trespassed, and attempted to take private property. At all times the Plaintiffs, and their agents, have failed to prove or show that they had a court order allowing private property to be seized, and Defendant had no prior notice of the intent to seize property, and no opportunity to be heard. The right to be free from unreasonable searches, and seizures is a common law right. Entich v. Carrington, 1765, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029; Boyd v. United States, 1886, 116 U.S. 616, 624-632, 6 S.Ct 524, 29 L.Ed. 746.The common law right of due process is found in the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution, which provides as follows:

"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trail by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

When the Plaintiff's agents, take property without due process, they have canceled the right of trial by jury, as was guaranteed in the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Plaintiffs agents therefore were acting in violation of the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution, when they attempted to seize Defendant property without due process. The right to jury trial and/or due process exists in actions by United States. Damsky v. Zavatt, C.A.N.Y. 1961,289 F.2d 46. shall be preserved.

The Plaintiffs agents, violated the Defendants common law right to a jury trail as guaranteed in the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. The phrase "common law" includes all suits in which legal rights are determined. Burns Bros. v Cook Coal Co., C.C.A.N. J. 1930, 42 F.2d 109.

In cases of seizures under revenue laws, Federal District Court sits as court of common law, and trial must be by jury. The Sarah (1823) 21 US 391, 5 L Ed 644; Confiscation Cases (1869) 75 US 507, 19 L Ed 481; Morris's Cotton (1869) 75 US 507, 19 L Ed 481; Cans v United States (1912) 226 US 172, 57 L Ed 174, 33 S Ct 50; Pengra v Munz (1887, CC Or) 29 F 830; United States v Yamoto (1931, CA9 Hawaii) 50 F2d 599; Carithers v District of Columbia (1974, DIST Col App) 326 A2d 798; Damsky v Zavatt (1961, CA2) 289 F2d 46. Therefore the Defendant is entitled to protection under Amendment Seven of the United States Constitution.

When the Plaintiffs, agents, invaded and/or trespassed on the Defendants private property without jurisdiction and/or due process, they denied the Defendant a republican form of Government as is guaranteed in Article Four, Section Four of the United States Constitution, which states as follows:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;.."

The actions of the Plaintiffs agents were an invasion, which deprived the Defendant of liberty and property without due process of law.

The invasion of Defendants rights also violated of Fifth Amendment due process guarantee, by depriving the Defendant of liberty and property. The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, provides as follows:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor bedeprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." Emphases provided.

The Plaintiffs agents violated the Defendant rights to be secure in their persons against seizures. The Plaintiffs agents, seized private property without due process and further violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states as follows:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing" Emphases provided.

It is well established that personal property can not be seized without due process, and the warrantless entry and/or invasion onto the defendant's property clearly violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, because the Plaintiff agents, did not have a lawful right to enter upon defendant's property to initiate a seizure or trespass (posted with no trespass signs) or to slip notices under the door. The Plaintiffs agents, further did not have a lawful right to trespass on the defendant's property to arrest the defendant, and the Plaintiffs agents, were acting beyond their scope without proper authority. This activity was described as tyranny in United States v. Lee, 106U.S. 196, 1 S.Ct. 240 (1882),where the United States claimed ownership via a tax sale some years earlier, the court stated as follows:

"No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitationswhich it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives," 106 U.S., at 220. Shall it be said... that the courts cannot give remedy when the citizen has been deprived of his property by force, his estate seized and converted to the use of the government without any lawful authority, without any process of law, and without any compensation, because the president has ordered it and is officers are in possession?

If such be the law of this country, it sanctions a tyrannywhich has no existence in the monarchies of Europe, nor in any other government which has a just claim to well-regulated liberty and the protection of personal rights," 106 U.S., at 220, 221." Emphases provided.

In Lynch v. Household Finance Corp. 405 U.S. 538 (1972)on page 544 the Supreme Court provides as follows:

"Equality in the enjoyment of property rights was regarded by the framers of that Amendment as an essential pre-condition to the realization of other basic civil rights and liberties which the Amendment was intended to guarantee.; Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 10. See also. Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60. 74-79; H. Flack. The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment 75-78. 81 90-97 (1908)" Emphases provided.

Supreme Court further stated on page 545 as follows:

"And the rights that Congress sought to protect in the Act of 1871 were described by the chairman of the House Select Committee that drafted the legislation as "the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety." Cong. Globe. 42d Cong., 1st Sess., App69 (1871)(Rep. Shellabarger, quoting from Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546, 551-552(No. 3230 (CCED Pa.))." Emphases provided.

The right to liberty and the personal right in property are both basic civil rights, which are protected by the due process clauses of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court further stated in Lynch v. Household Finance Corpsupra, on page 552 as follows:

"Such difficulties indicate that the dichotomy between personal liberties and property rights is a false one. The right to enjoy property without unlawful deprivation, no less than the right to speak or the right to travel,is in truth a "personal" right, whether the "property" in question be a welfare check, a home, or a savings account. In fact, a fundamental interdependence exists between the personal right to liberty and the personal right in property. Neither could have meaning without the other. That rights in property are basic civil rights has long been recognized. J. Locke, Of Civil Government 82-85 (1924);J. Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, in F. Coker, Democracy, Liberty, and Property 121-132 (1942); 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *138-140. Congress recognized these rights in 1871 when it enacted the predecessor of '' 1983 and 1343 (3). We do no more than reaffirm the judgment of Congress today." Emphases provided.

Amendment Five of the United States Constitution specifically protected Defendant due process rights. The Supreme Court address the fact that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, was to Guarantee the right of due process, and this right is a civil right which was to be guaranteed. If the right to own personal property is a basic civil right than the taking of private property without due process is further a civil right violations. One of the settled principles of our Constitution has been that these Amendments protect only against invasion of civil liberties by the Government whose conduct they alone limit." Cf. Burdeau v. McDowell, 1921, 256 U.S. 465, 41 S.Ct. 574, 65 L.Ed. 1048, 13 A.L.R. 1159; Weeks v. United States, 1914, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652, L.R.A.1915B, 834, Ann.Cas. 1915C, 1177; Hall v. United States, 9 Cir., 1930, 41, F.2d 54; Brown v. United States, 9 Cir., 1926, 12 F.2d 926.

Therefore the Plaintiffs agents, in exceeding their authority, violated the protected and guaranteed civil rights of Defendants, the Republican form of government, the right to due process, the right to liberty and property without unlawful deprivation, and failed to preserve the right to trial by jury as is guaranteed in the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The Federal Government and/or its agents must vacate its wrongful activity as perpetrated against the rights and liberties of the Defendant.

THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT INVOLVED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND IS THEREFORE

NOT GUILTY OF 18 U.S.C. ' 924 (c)

The Plaintiffs agents were not acting with authority and had no jurisdiction, therefore there was no federal crime. When Congress passed 18 USCS ' 924 (b), which address 18 USCS ' 924 (c) it provided for firearms violations, which involved interstate commerce. Since there was no federal jurisdiction and no interstate commerce, Defendant is not guilty of violating, 18 USCS ' 924 (b) which provides as follows:

"...Whoever, with intent to commit therewith an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, or with knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year is to be committed therewith, ships, transports, or receives a firearm or any ammunition in interstate or foreign commerceshall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." Emphases provided

The Plaintiffs agents, were not operating under the authority of the federal government and Defendant was not involved in Interstate Commerce, and therefore this statute does not apply to Defendant.

Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs agents, have attempted to use 18 USCS ' 924 (b) and 18 USCS ' 924 (c), beyond the power as authorized under the commerce clause of the United States Constitution. Plaintiff and/or its agents have not established or provided any connection or nexus, between interstate commerce, and the actions of Defendant. Therefore the charge against the Defendant, alleging violations of 18 USCS ' 924 (c) has no nexus with commerce, as is null and void. In US v. Lopez, 2 F3rd 1342 (5TH Cir., 1993), Mr. Lopez was convicted of violating section 922(q), a gun violation on school property. The court reversed Mr. Lopez's conviction, on the grounds that the federal governments regulation of firearms under section 922(q) was unconstitutional, because it went beyond the power of Congress to legislate or control. The court stated as follows:

"After pleading not guilty, Lopez moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that section 922(q) "is unconstitutional, as it is beyond the power of Congress to legislate control over our public schools." His brief in support of the motion further alleged that section 922(q) "does not appear to have been enacted in furtherance of any of those enumerated powers" of the federal government. The district court denied the motion, concluding that section 922(q) "is a constitutional exercise of Congress' well‑defined power to regulate activities in an[d] affecting commerce, and the 'business' of elementary, middle and high schools ... affects interstate commerce." Lopez thereafter waived his right to a jury trial and was tried to the bench upon stipulated evidence. The court found Lopez guilty and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment to be followed by two years' supervised release. Lopez now appeals his conviction and sentence.

Lopez's sole objection to his conviction is his constitutional challenge to section 922(q);he does not otherwise contest his guilt. We now reverse." Emphasis provided.

In the instant case, the federal government must prove a connection and/or nexus to commerce, by proving that the Defendant, used a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a Crime of Violence, as charged in 18 USCS ' 924 (c) while involved in interstate commerce. If the commerce cannot be proved the Plaintiff and/or its agents have no constitutional authority to charge plaintiff with violations of 18 USCS ' 924 (c).

Congress cannot regulate or control firearms after commerce ends. In US v. F.J. Vollmer & Co.,Inc.,1 F3rd 1151 (7th Cir., 1993)the court addresses the jurisdiction of the federal government, concerning guns in commerce. The court states on page 1516 as follows:

"...Although the defendants' argument seems persuasive on its face, we agree with other courts that have considered the issue that BATF's authority extends to the first domestic saleof a firearm imported for government use." Emphases provided.

The Defendant was simply protecting private property against unauthorized agents who were attempting to steal his truck, and was not involved in interstate commerce. The power of the federal government is found in the commerce clause, and the activities of the Defendant did not involve interstate commerce, therefore the actions of the Plaintiffs agents were an intrusion upon an area of state authority, and the activity of the Plaintiffs violated the Tenth Amendment, which guarantees the separation of powers.

The U.S. Government, does not have validity to act within the jurisdiction of the state, and create a criminal indictment, while invading the jurisdiction of a sovereign state. Congress simply lacks the constitutional power to penalize. United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U.S. 394, 36 S.Ct. 658 (1916).

It is plain that Congress was not allowed jurisdiction in the State of Nevada except were the United States Constitution allowed. The Plaintiffs agents, were not acting in an official capacity or commerce. Plaintiffs agents were violating, the United States Constitution, by attempting to legislate outside of their ten square miles area. Article One Section 8 of the United States Constitution provides as follows:

"The Congress shall have the power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;...To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square)..." Emphases provided.

The Supreme Court has ruled that commerce cannot extent beyond certain limitations because if the commerce clause were construed to reach all enterprises and transactions, the federal authority would embrace practically all the activities of the people, and the authority of the states. Once the act of commerce is terminated the federal government loses jurisdiction. In the A.L.A. Schecter PoultryCorp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495, 55 S.Ct. 837 (1935)the US Supreme Court addressed the starting and stopping point of commerce. The Supreme Court stated as follows:

"NIRA permitted "codes" to be promulgated by industry groups, which "codes" had effect of law. Schecter officials indicted for violating "code" for acts occurring inside NYC. Court held NIRA unconstitutional on delegation of powers on grounds that the acts in question did not involveinterstate commerce. Congress has no power over local activities once the act of commerce is terminated. If the commerce clause were construed to reach all enterprises and transactions which could be said to have an indirect effect upon interstate commerce, the federal authority would embrace practically all the activities of the people, and the authority of the state over its domestic concerns would exist only by sufferance of the federal government.Indeed, on such a theory, even the development of the state's commercial facilities would be subject to federal control," Id., at 546." Emphases provided.

If the Defendant, was not involved in interstate commerce, and the federal officers acted without statutory authority, in representing the Federal Government, the Defendant would only be subject to the jurisdiction of the state District Court of Nevada.

In People v. Gerald, 40 Misc.2d 819, 243 N.Y.S.2d 1001 (1963),the "State was held to have jurisdiction of an assault at a U.S. post-office since the defendant did not meet his burden of showing presence of federal jurisdiction; and because a defendant failed to prove title and jurisdiction in the United States for an offense committed at a customs station, State jurisdiction was upheld in People v. Fisher, 97 A.D.2d 651, 469 N.Y.S.2d 187 (A.D. 3 Dept., 1983)."

Therefore the U.S. District Court, has no jurisdiction over the case against Defendant, and, this case must be prosecuted in the State Court of Nevada, if a crime has been committed in State jurisdiction. See: Puerto Rico v. Shell Company, 302 U.S. 253, 82 L.Ed. 235, 58 S.Ct. 167.

C

WHEN A FEDERAL OFFICER EXCEEDS HIS AUTHORITYHE NO LONGER REPRESENTS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ANDHAS NO AUTHORITY.

The Fourth Amendment did not create a new right, but merely gave a pre-existing common-law right constitutional protection from invasion by the Federal Government. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments limit federal action. Twining v. New Jersey, 1908, 211 U.S. 78, 29 S.Ct. 14, 53 L.Ed. 97; Spies v. Illinois, 1887, 123 U.S. 131, 8 S.Ct. 22, 31 L.Ed. 80; Barron v. Baltimore, 1833, 7 Pet. 243, 32 U.S. 243, 8 L.Ed. 672.

The Fourth and Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution limit Federal Action, and when a Federal Officer goes beyond or exceeds his Constitutional authority, he does not represent the Federal Government, and further loses the protection of sovereign immunity from suit. Bell vs. Hood71 F. Supp. 813; Land v. Dollar, 1947, 330 U.S. , 67 S.Ct 1009; Ickes v. Fox, 1937, 300 U.S. 82, 97, 57 S.Ct. 412, 81 L.Ed. 525; Phila, Co. v. Stimson, 1912, 223 U.S. 605, 619-620, 32 S.Ct. 340, 56 L.Ed. 570; Tracy v. Swartwout, 1936, 19 Pet. 80, 35 U.S. 80, 95, 9 L.Ed. 354.

Therefore the Plaintiffs agents, were in fact not representing the United States Government and had no sovereign immunity, therefore the Defendant is not guilty of assaulting a federal officer, because plaintiffs agents were not federal officers acting within the their scope of authority, and the Defendant is not guilty of violating, 18 U.S.C. ' 111 - Assault Upon a Federal Officer and/or 18 U.S.C. ' 924 (c).

Congress and the United States Constitution never granted the Plaintiffs agents the right to seize property without due process. In Federal Trade Commission v. Raladam Co., 283 U.S. 643, 51S.Ct. 587 (1931),the Supreme Court addressed the fact that official powers cannot be extended beyond the official grant of power, the court stated as follows:

"Official powers cannot be extended beyond the terms and necessary implications of the grant. If broader powers be desirable, they must be conferred by Congress. They cannot be merely assumed by administrative officers; nor can they be createdby the courts in the proper exercise of their judicial functions," 283 U.S., at 649.

If the Federal Officers were not in fact acting within their scope of lawful authority as federal officers and did in fact violate the civil rights of the Defendant they are guilty of violating 18 USCS ' 241 which provides as follows:

"Conspiracy against rights of citizens.

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the constitution or laws of theUnited States,or because of his having so exercised the same; or they shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisonednot more than ten years, or both; and if death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life."

The Plaintiffs actions further violated 42 U.S.C '1983 and its jurisdictional counterpart, 28 U.S.C. '1343 (3). Therefore when Plaintiffs agents, exceeded the authority as authorized by the United States Constitution, in violation of the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, they were operating without statutory authority, and were not federal officers. Therefore the Defendant is not guilty of assaulting federal officers, acting within their official capacities. The Defendant was only exercising a protected constitutional right, to protect private property. Therefore the Defendant did not violate 18 U.S.C. ' 111 or 18 U.S.C. ' 924 (c), as charged.

D

THE TAKINGS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS DOES NOT HAVE NEXUS, WITH ANY ACTIVITY AUTHORIZED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

When the U.S. Government attempts to seize, private property, without due process, and mandate criminal penalties for protecting those rights, the U.S. Government has created a scheme to seize private property, inside the boundaries of a sovereign state, this scheme is unconstitutional and violates the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution because Congress has no such express powers, and cannot seize private property without due process. This scheme, based on the collection of taxes by forced entry, threats of violence and intimidation, lacks nexus to the powers authorized by the United States Constitution, and the jurisdiction of the Federal Government in these collection activities is illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary and capricious. A federal scheme that attempts to create permanent ongoing jurisdiction in a state, beyond that authorized by the U.S. Constitution, must be surrendered or stopped immediately.

The forced collection and or taking of property without due process has no nexus with constitutionally approved activities, and violates the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and is null and void. In New York v. United States 120 L Ed 2d 120 (1992)on page 154 the court address Congress exceeding its authority relative to the States the court stated as follows:

"Where Congress exceeds its authority relative to the States, therefore, the departure from the constitutional plan cannot be ratified by the "consent" of state officials. An analogy to the separation of powers among the Branches of the Federal Government clarifies this point. The Constitution's division of power among the three Branches is violated where one Branch invades the territory of another, whether or not the encroached-upon Branch approves the encroachment. In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 US 1, 118-137, 46 L Ed 2d 659, 96 S Ct 612 (1976), for instance, the Court held that the Congress had infringed the President's appointment power, despite the fact that the President himself had manifested his consent to the statute that caused the infringement by signing it into law. See National League of Cities v Usery, 426 US, at 842, n 12, 49 L Ed 2d 245, 96 S Ct 2465.... Congress cannot be expanded by the "consent" of the governmental unit whose domain is thereby narrowed, whether that unit is the Executive Branch or the States." Emphases Provided.

The United States Government has invaded the territory of the Sovereign State of Nevada, and this activity is illegal whether or not the State of Nevada approved the encroachment. In New York v. United States 120 L Ed 2d 120 (1992) on page 137the Supreme Court further stated:

It is in this sense that the Tenth Amendment "states but a truism that all is retained which has notbeen surrendered." United States v Darby, 312 US 100, 124, 85 L Ed 609, 61 S Ct 451, 132 ALR1430 (1941). As justice Story put it, " this amendment is a mere affirmation of what, upon any just reasoning, is a necessary rule of interpreting the constitution. Being an instrument of limited and enumerated powers, it follows irresistible, that what is not conferred, is withheld, and belongs to the state authorities.... Congress exercises its conferred powers subject to the limitationscontained in the Constitution." Emphases Provided.

When the government goes beyond the powers enumerated in the United States Constitution and takes property without due process, they have gone beyond the limitations contained in the United States Constitution in violation of the Tenth Amendment. Therefore the Plaintiffs were acting outside of their statutory authority, without proper nexus with an approved constitutional activity, and these activities are arbitrary, capricious, null, void and inoperable.

E

THIS COURT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION BECAUSE, IF ANOFFENSE OCCURRED, IT IS ONLY COGNIZABLE

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

In the United States, there are two separate and distinct jurisdictions, such being the jurisdiction of the States within their own territorial boundaries and the other being federal jurisdiction. Broadly speaking, state jurisdiction encompasses the legislative power to regulate, control and govern real and personal property, individuals and enterprises within the territorial boundaries of any given State. In contrast, federal jurisdiction is extremely limited, with the same being exercised only in areas external to state legislative power and territory. The legal effect of the Declaration of Independence was to make each new State a separate and independent sovereign over which there was no other government of superior power or jurisdiction. This was clearly shown in M'Ilvaine v. Coxe's Lessee, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 209 (1808),where it was held:

"This opinion is predicated upon a principle which is believed to be undeniable, that the several states which composed this Union, so far at least as regarded their municipal regulations, became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign states, and that they did not derive them from concessions made by the British king. The treaty of peace contains a recognition of their independence, not a grant of it. From hence it results, that the laws of the several state governments were the laws of sovereign states, and as such were obligatory upon the people of such state, from the time they were enacted," 4 Cranch, at 212."

The U.S. Government does not have the authority to regulate activities which extend into the territorial limits of the states. This was perhaps stated best in Caha v. United States, supra, where the Supreme Court stated as follows:

"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extendinto the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government," 152 U.S., at 215." Emphases provided.

Therefore the legal right to take private property under court order could have only been accomplished by State District Court.

THE FEDERAL OFFICERS DO NOT HAVE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO ACT AS COLLECTORS FOR THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT, US TREASURY AND/OR CONGRESS

The Plaintiff agents did not have statutory authority from Congress to be appointed by the director of IRS, and the director of the IRS did not have Statutory Authority from the Congress to be appointed by the U.S. Treasury. Therefore the Plaintiffs agents were acting without Statutory Authority, and are exceeding their authority. In United States v. Smith, 124 U.S. 525, 533, 8 S.Ct. 595 (1888)the Supreme Court address the issue, concerning the definition of federal officer:

"The constitution ... declares that 'the congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the president alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.' There must be, therefore, a law authorizing the head of a department to appointclerksof the collector before his approbation of their appointment can be required. No such law is in existence. Our conclusion, therefore, is that ... clerks of the collector .... are not appointed by the head of any department within the meaning of the constitutional provision." Emphases provided.

The U.S. Congress failed to grant Plaintiffs, proper statuary delegated authority authorizing the collection and remittance of taxes, and the Plaintiffs agents did not have statutory authority or jurisdiction to seize property or collect moneys inside a sovereign state. Therefore the Plaintiffs agents did not have proper-delegated authority from Congress to act for the United States Government, and again were not federal officers.

III

SUMMARY

1. The United States Government took property without due process, and failed to preserve the right of "Common Law Jury Trial" as is guaranteed in the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution.

2. When federal officers, exceed their statutory authority and act beyond, the powers granted by the Congress or the United States Constitution, the federal officers, are no longer federal officers.

3. When a Federal Officer loses his federal authority the activity loses federal standing and/or jurisdiction and becomes a matter cognizable only in State District Court.

4. The Plaintiffs agents, wrongfully imprisoned Defendant, without proper jurisdiction, in violation of the Defendants, rights as protected by Article Four and Five and the Fourth, Fifth and Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution, causing the Defendant to suffer of violation of his civil rights.

CONCLUSION

The Defendant is not guilty of the violating any activity which falls under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, and was only protecting his personal property as authorized by the United States Constitution. The right to protect personal property is a protected right as found in the United States Constitution, and charges against the Defendant are null and void, are Arbitrary and Capricious and should be dismissed.

Respectfully Submitted:

BY: Michael Louis Hutton,

Brief 4

JUDGES, DISTRICT ATTORNEYS AND SHERIFFS WHO FAIL TO ACQUIRE A BOND AS REQUIRED BY NEVADA STATE LAW HAVE NO LEGAL STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE OR ARREST)

ARGUMENT A

THE ACTIONS OF COUNTY OFFICIALS WHICH HAVE RESULTED IN THIS CASE AGAINST THE PLAINTIFFS ARE NULL AND VOID BECAUSE THE OFFICIALS ARE WITHOUT AUTHORITY, HAVING FAILED TO COMPLY WITH EXPLICIT, MANDATORY STATUTORY PREREQUISITES TO OFFICE.

JAMES BIXLER of the Justice Court did not file a bond as required by NRS 4.030 which provides as follows:

"4.030 Oath and bond of justice of the peace. Each justice of the peace elected or appointed in this state shall, before entering upon the duties of his office:-

2. Execute a bond to the State of Nevada, to be approved by the board of county commissioners, in the penal sum of not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000, as may be designated by the board of county commissioners. The bond shall be conditioned for the faithful performance of the duties of his office, and shall be filed in the office of the county clerk..."

"258.020 Oath and Bond. Each constable elected or appointed in this state shall, before entering upon the duties of his office:

1. Take the oath prescribed by law.

2. Execute a bond to the State of Nevada, to be approved by the board of county commissioners, in the penal sum of not less than $1,000 nor more than $3,000, as may be designated by the board of county commissioners, which bond shall be conditioned for the faithful performance of the duties of his office, and shall be filed in the county clerk's office."

"248.020 Election; term of office. Before entering upon the discharge of his duties, each Sheriffs shall:

1. Take the oath of office.

2. Give a bond to his county in the penal sum of not less than $10,000 nor more than $50,000, with two or more sureties, residing in his county, or by any qualified surety company, to be approved by the board of county commissioners, conditioned for the faithful performance of the duties of his office, unless a blanket fidelity bond is furnished by the county. The bond must be filed and recorded in the office of the county clerk of his county."

"250.030 bond.

1. Each county assessor, before entering upon the duties of his office, shall execute to the people of the State of Nevada, a bond in the penal sum of $10,000, with two or more sureties, to be approved by the board of county commissioners, and filed in the office of the county clerk, conditioned for the faithful performance of all the duties of his office required by law, unless a blanket fidelity bond is furnished by the county."

Attorney General's opinion 195 (12-2-1960) provided as follows:

"Under NRS 245.170 and 252.060, relating to the filling of vacancies in county offices and the office of district attorney, where the district attorney is elected at a general election other than the general election at which district attorneys are regularly elected, his term of office begins immediately upon the qualification as provided in this section, relating to the commencement of terms of elected officials.

CAROLYN C. CAMPBELL, of the District Attorneys office works under the authority of the Clark County, District Attorney, REX BELL, who was required by NRS 252.030 to file a bond. NRS 252.030 provides as follows:

"NRS 252.030 Bond. Unless a blanket fidelity bond is furnished by the county, before entering upon the duties of his office, the district attorney shall execute and file with the county clerk a bond to the county, conditioned for the faithful performance of his duties, the penalty of the bond to be fixed by the board of county commissioners."

Clark County, alleges that the "County has for years, provided a single blanket bond for all, "County Officers", as authorized by NRS 282.163. NRS 282.163 provides as follows:

"A blanket fidelity bond or blanket position bond may be furnished at county expense for all elected county officers except the county treasurer. This blanket bond must be in an amount not less than $10,000, and conditioned on the faithful performance of the respective duties of the several officers covered."

Clark County has further claimed that they are covered under a Commercial Crime Policy No. CBB-691603-93, Account No. 6916, as described in Exhibit "B", of the Defendants, State of Nevada, Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The NRS 282.163, 282.080, and 282.010, requires a bond. A bond is described in "Blacks Law Dictionary", as follows:

"Official bond. A bond given by a public officer, conditioned that he shall well and faithfully perform all the duties of the office..."

Clark County, Commercial Crime Policy is not a bond, it is an insurance policy, which, only covers criminal acts, of the persons on the policies attached list (see attached list in policy). Insurance Policies, are contracts which cover specific items, which are found in the body of the policy or contract. The definition of insurance in the Blacks Law Dictionary is as follows:

"INSURANCE. A contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another against loss, damage, or liability arising from an unknown or contingent event and is applicable only to some contingency or act to occur in future. Com. v. Provident Bicycle Ass'n, 178 Pa. 636, 36 A 197, 36 L.R.A. 589; Commonwealth v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 254 Pa. 510, 98 A. 1072, 1073."

Not only does the Clark County, Commercial Crime Policy, not constitute a bond, but nowhere in the, Commercial Crime Policy does it cover the faithful performance of all the duties of the officers as is required by the NRS 282.163. The Commercial Crime insurance policy, offered as evidence by Clark County, is not a bond as required.

In addition, assuming that the Clark County, commercial crime policy did qualify as a bond, under Nevada Statutes the policy, (1) it is not made payable, and pledged, to the State of Nevada, as was required by NRS 282.290, (2) and 4.030, it further did not list the JAMES BIXLER or REX BELL, as covered in on the Policy, (3) and it was not approved by the Board of Commissioners as was required in NRS 282.080.

It addition, a bond was never recorded in the office of the County Clerk, as required NRS 282.080. Both Honorable JAMES BIXLER Justice Court Judge, and the office of District Attorney, CAROLYN C. CAMPBELL, have failed to provide a bond as required above. Attorney General's opinion 186 (1-30-1945) states as follows:

"Although law provides that term of justice of the peace shall begin on 1st Monday in January, term will not begin until justice of the peace actually qualifies for office. Thus where new justice of the peace does not qualify until January 12, old justice is entitled to compensation to that date."

Attorney General's opinion (5-6-1905) states as follows: "One who has been elected or appointed to the office of justice of the peace, or to any other office requiring a bond, must file an acceptable bond before he is qualified to act."

Attorney General's opinion 790 (7-29-1949) states as follows:

"This section requires public officers to take an official oath, and is applicable to game wardens, and a warden who has not taken the oath has no more authority to make arrests than a private person, even though he may be wearing a badge"

Honorable JUDGE BIXLER and the District Attorneys office, must comply with NRS 282.080, as follows:

"282.080. Approval, filing and recording of official bonds.

The official bonds of officers shall be approved and filed as follows:

2. The official bonds of all county and township officers shall be approved by the board of county commissioners, and filed and recorded in the office of the county clerk of their respective counties,...."

NRS 282.080 specifically requires all Clark County Defendants, to acquire a bond, which is to be voted on and recorded in the appropriate location, and in the above officers case it was not. As is the settled law in this State, when the plain language of a statute makes the legislative intent clear, it is the duty of the Court to give effect to its express terms--the Court may not nullify the manifest intent by going beyond terms that are clear on their face. Kern vs. Nevada Insurance Guaranty, 856 p.2d 1890,1394 (Nev. 1993; Union Plaza Hotel vs. Jackson, 101 Nev. 733, 709 P.2d 1020, 1022 (1985;White vs. Warden, Nevada State Prison, 96 Nev. 634, 614 P.2d 536, 537 (1980); Woofter vs.O'Donnell, 91 Nev. 756, 542 P.2d 1396, 1400 (1975), overruled on other grounds,Nevada Department of Prisons vs. Bowen, ___ Nev. ___ 745 P.2d 698 (1987).The express terms of this State's laws require that certain government officials provide an official bond. The Nevada Statutes 282.010 clearly and unambiguously provide:

"1. Members of the legislature and all officers, executive, judicial and ministerial, shall beforeentering upon the duties of their respective officers,provide the official bond required by law, when such bond shall be required, and take and subscribe to the official oath.

2. All officers elected except Senators and Members of the Assembly, shall quality, and execute and deliver their official bonds when required, as provided in this section, prior to the Tuesday after the 1^st Monday in January ensuring their election." (emphasis added).

In the event that these requirement could possible be misconstrued, the Nevada Revised Statutes 283.040 States provides as follows:

"1. Every officer becomes vacant upon the occurring of any of the following events before the expiration of the term:

(a) The death or expiration of the term;

(b) The removal of the incumbent from office;

(d) A conviction of the incumbent of any felony or offense involving a violation of his official oath of bond or a violation of NRS 241.040 or 293.1755;

(e) A refusal or neglect of the person elected or appointed to take the oath of office, as prescribed in NRS 282.010; or when a bond isrequired by law, his refusal or neglect to give such bond within the time prescribed by law." (emphasis added).

In Nevada, the Courts have consistently held that the use of the word "shall" presumptively indicates mandatory, rather than directory statutory terms and, therefore, creates a duty. State vs. AmericanBankers Insurance Co., 106 Nev. 880, 802 P.2d 1276, 1278 (1990); Givens vs. State, 99 Nev. 50,657 P.2d 97,100 (1983; overruled on other grounds. Telancon vs. State --Nev. --, 721 P.2d 764 (1986);Woofter vs. O'Donnell, supra.

The intent of the legislature in this state, therefore, could not be more clearly stated: any official required to file a bond is simply unqualified and unauthorized to act unless and until he files an acceptable bond. The Attorney General of this State has, in fact, so determined. 5 Op. Att'y Gen. 6 (1907) (where required, filing of an acceptable bond is a condition precedent to qualification to act.)

The Plaintiffs acknowledge that most jurisdictions still approve of the de facto doctrine, under which the acts of a person actually performing the duties of an office under color of title are valid as to the public and as to interested third parties. See-- e.g., State vs. Whelan, 103 Idaho 651, 651 P2.d916 (1982); Appleby vs. Belden Corp., 22 Ark. App. 243, 738 S.W. 2d 807 (1987). Under the settled principles of statutory construction discussed supra, thede factor doctrine cannot apply in this State, because officials are required by statute to provide official bond, as required, before entering upon the duties of their office.

Even if the de facto doctrine were found to be generally applicable in Nevada, however, it would not reasonably apply in this case, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia explained in Andrade vs. Lauer, 729 P.2d 1475, 1497099 (D.C. Cir. 1984)as follows:

"Applying the de facto officer doctrine would likely leave Plaintiffs seeking to challenge the regularity (and, even more important, the constitutionality) of the appointment of government officers without any remedy at all and would thus render the legal norms under which appellants are proceeding unenforceable.

. . . In feudal times, when the writ of quo warranto originated, public officers were similar to a form of property right, and a quo warranto action was like an action of ejectment, in which the only party who could bring a lawsuit was a claimant who sued to regain possession from one who was unlawfully in possession..... This Court has held that equity will not be barred from issuing an injunction to restrain invalidity appointed officers if the alternative remedy of quo warranto is inadequate.....The Court should avoid an interpretation of the de facto officer doctrine that would likely make it impossible for these Plaintiffs to bring their assumedly substantial constitutional claim and would render legal norms concerning appointment and eligibility to hold office unenforceable.

....The core purposes of the doctrine are served if a Plaintiff challenging government action on the ground that the officials taking that action improperly hold office meets two requirements. First, the Plaintiff must bring his action at or around the time that the challenged government action is taken. Second, the Plaintiff must show that the agency or department involved has had reasonable notice under all the circumstances of the claimed defect in the official's title to office. This does not require that the Plaintiff perform any particular rituals before bringing suit, nor does it mandate that the agency's knowledge of the alleged defect must come from the Plaintiff. It does, however, require that the agency or department involved actually knows of the claimed defect. These two requirements adequately protect citizens' reliance on past government actions and the government's ability to take effective and final action--the two interests served by the de facto officer doctrine. Prohibiting attacks on government actions taken long before suit was filed protects those who have relied on those actions and avoids the chaos that might ensue if all of the actions taken by an official improperly in office for years were subject to invalidation. Requiring that the government have actual knowledge of the defect claimed protects the government's ability to take effective and final action by enabling it to remedy any defects (especially narrowly technical defects) either before it permits invalidly appointed officials to act or shortly thereafter. Yet, while the two requirements protect the interests underlying the de facto officer doctrine, they do so without unduly interfering with other important interests that are equally worthy of protection: individuals' interests in having legal process available to redress specific legitimate claims and the public interest in enforcing legal norms governing appointment and eligibility to hold public office and exercise the powers of the state." (Footnote omitted).

See also Olympic Federal Savings & Loan Association vs. Office of Thrift Supervision, 732 F.Supp. 1883, 1195 96 (D.D.C. 1990)(de factor doctrine did not transform unconstitutionally appointed director into officer). The impermissible effect of allowing de facto status in this case would be to frustrate the Defendants' constitutional claims and to render the legal norms established for office holding unenforceable and meaningless. The acts of the above officials are without legal effect since the officials are without legal authority to act, having failed to fulfill the statutory prerequisites to their offices.

**********************************************

3. COUNTY ROADS MUST BE KEPT OPEN - TELL CLARK COUNTY TO SHOVE IT

BY DAVID HINKSON

LEGAL DEFINITION OF ENDANGERED SPECIES: "means any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."

1). FLPMA:

Section 601 Act 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1712, states the following.

"Any management decision or action pursuant to a management decision that excludes (that is totally eliminates) one or more of the principal or major uses for two or more years with respect to a tract of land of one hundred thousand acres or more shall be reported by the Secretary to theHouse of Representatives and the Senate.If within ninety days from the giving of suchnotice, the Congress adapts a concurrent resolution of non-approval of the management decision or action, than the management decision or action shall be promptly terminated by the Secretary."

The B.L.M. must pick A,B,C,D before it can be submitted to congress! And the currant area plan does not qualify as a submission! All Demands for Approved Biologist are null after 90 days, this is a management decision. The Closing of County Roads effecting more than 100,000 acres, we will reopen all the roads at the end of 90 days! Tell Clark County to shove it!

2). SEC. 5. (D) Not less than 90 days before the effective date of the regulation

(i) Publish a general notice and the complete text of the proposed regulation in the Federal Register, and (ii) give actual notice of the proposed regulation (including the complete text of the regulation) to the State agency in each State in which the species is believed to occur, and to each county or equivalent jurisdiction in which the species is believed to occur, and invite the comment of such agency, and each such jurisdiction, thereon.

(D) publish a summary of the proposed regulation in a newspaper of general circulation in each area of the United States in which the species is believed to occur:

3). (8) The publication in the Federal Register of any proposed or final regulation which is necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Act shall include a summary by the Secretary of the data on which such regulation is based and shall show the relationship of such data to such regulation; and if such regulation designates or revises critical habitat, such summary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, also include a brief description and evaluation of those activities (whether public or private) which, in the opinion of the Secretary, if undertaken may adversely modify such habitat, or may be affected by such designation.

4). SEC 3 (B) Critical habitat may be established for those species now listed as threatened or endangered species for which no critical habitat has heretofore been established as set forth in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph. California

Desert Tortoise Research/Conservation Center (11,617 acres) was established as Critical habitat, there is no need to add 3,066,70 acres to this habit. Why are we paying millions of dollars, if you are going to declare the whole state a habitat? It is against the Endangered Species Act to list millions of acres in multiple states!

5). SEC 3 (C) Except in those circumstance determined by the Secretary, critical habitat shall not include the entire geographical area which can be occupied by the threatened or endangered species.It is obvious that Congress did not intend to declare millions of acres in this act!All areas have been declared as habit to force mitigation fee's out of the resident of the counties.

6). COOPERATION WITH THE STATES- The Secretary may enter into agreements with any State for the administration and management of any area established for the conservation of endangered species or threatened species. Any revenues derived from the administration of such areas under these agreements shall be subject to the provisions of section 401 of the Act of June 15, 1935 (49 Stat. 383; 16 U.S.C. 715s). (A) authority resides in the State agency of conserve resident species of fish or wildlife determined by the State agency. Note: It did not say County, know where in the Environmental Act does it state County (Clark County).

7.)(D) the State agency is authorized to establish programs, including the acquisition of land or aquatic habitat or interests therein, for the conservation of resident endangered or threatened species of fish or wildlife. Note the State can establish programs, including the acquisition of land, not the County or the nature Conservancy!

(2) Such Cooperative agreements shall provide for (A) the actions to be taken by the Secretary and the States; (B) the benefits that are expected to be derived in connection with the conservation of endangered or threatened species; (C) the estimated cost of these actions; and (D) the share of such costs to be borne by the Federal Government and by the States; except that (i) the Federal share of such program costs shall not exceed 75% of the estimated program cost stated in the agreement; and (ii) the Federal share may be increased to 90% when ever two or more States having a common interest in one or more endangered or threatened species, the conservation of which may be enhanced by cooperation of such States, enter jointly into agreement with the Secretary.

8). 715s. Participation of local governments in revenue from areas administered by United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Beginning with the next full fiscal year and for each fiscal year thereafter, all revenues received by the Secretary of the Interior for the sale or other disposition on animals, timber, hay, grass, or other products of the soil, minerals, shells, sand, or gravel, from other privileges, or from leases for public accommodation or facilities incidental to but no in conflict with the basic purposes for which those areas of Wildlife Refuge System were established, during each fiscal year in connection with the operation and management of those areas of the Wildlife Refuge System, Et el - shall be covered into the United States Treasury and be reserved in a separate fund for disposition as hereafter prescribed. Amount in the fund shall remain available until expended, and may be expended by the Secretary without further appropriation in the manner hereafter prescribed.

9). The Secretary shall pay out the fund, for each fiscal year beginning with the fiscal year ending September 30, 1979, to each county in which is situated any fee area whichever of the following amounts in greater: (A) An amount equal to the product of 75 cents multiplied by the total acreage of that portion of the fee area which is located within such county. (B) An amount equal to three-fourths of 1 per centum of the fair market value, as determined by the Secretary, of that portion of the fee area (excluding any improvement thereto made after the date of Federal acquisition which is located within such county.

**********************************************

4. RIGHT (REMOVE ILLEGAL GOVERNMENT HARASSMENT TODAY)

BY DAVID HINKSON

RIGHT(REMOVE ILLEGAL GOVERNMENT HARASSMENT TODAY)

LARGEST FARM\RANCH GRAB IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD WHO WILL BE HUNGRY? WHO WILL BE UNEMPLOYED? WHO DID IT?

by David R. Hinkson

If you are wondering who will be hungry, it's not only children in the third world nations; it will be you and your children in America! If you are wondering who will be unemployed, it will be you! If you are wondering who's doing this, you will be surprised to find that your Federal Government, controlled by the President, is selling you out and destroying your standard of living, including your food supplies now. If the American people don't wake up and demand these activities stop, the freedoms we now have will be gone! Private property will no longer be owned or used freely by Americans. Food, jobs, and the use of our Natural Resources are directly related to the right to own and control property. If we don't take a stand now to save our country and our Constitution, our present standard of living is in real jeopardy.

THE LAW WAS FORGED: In 1979 the Endangered Species Act was modified or retyped without Congressional approval with changes. This new version changed the meaning of the law and was used against our rights as Americans. As you continue reading, be aware that the laws and activities used to accomplish the injustices in the stories to follow are not laws but are retyped versions of laws. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife/Bureau of Land Management (Federal agencies) are using the retyped version of the Endangered Species Act to steal your property by stopping all use of private lands in counties across America. County governments are being told that they cannot issue building permits or allow use of Private land because an endangered species has been discovered. These Federal Agencies are handing out copies of a forged law. Using species, which are not endangered, the Federal Government in collusion with private land grabbing groups is using the Endangered Species Act to forcibly steal taxpayer money, land, property rights and freedoms from Americans.

A small sample list of Counties with Endangered species which were affected by this practice are as follows: (a) Coachella Valley, Riverside, California (Fringe-toed Lizard), (b) San Mateo County, California (Mission Blue butterfly),(c) Sacramento, County, California (Longhorn Beetle) (d) Kern County, California (Tipton Kangaroo Rat, the San Joaquin kit Fox) (e) Kern County, California (Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard), (f) Riverside County, California (Stephens' kangaroo rat) (g) North Del Largo, Florida (wood rat and cotton mouse) (h) San Diego County, California (Bell's vireo) (i) Oregon's (spotted owl).Did you know that Arizona, California and New Mexico, and Nevada have the same Tortoise. Does this tortoise needs 20 million acres? As you read this letter, all building permits and construction on Private Land in St George, Washington County, Utah is shut down to add even more habitat for the same species of tortoise! Apparently the additional 4 million acres just added in Nevada was not enough habitat for this species. Let's explain one of the standard attacks...First the Federal bureaucrats brought the targeted County to its knees by forcing the County Building Department to comply with the retyped version of the Endangered Species Act. (Clark County invited the Nature Conservancy to take control of Clark County, the Commissioners passed laws to increase the power of the Nature Conservancy and hired the Nature Conservancy as a contractor to take charge of Private Property. We must demand the immediate investigation and prosecution of any Government official who might be on the take and conspiring with the Nature Conservancy.) The Clark County building department collects $550 per acre or building permit in Habitat fees. The money is then given to the Nature Conservancy to purchase Private land (which has decreased in value considerably due to restrictions on its use as "habitat".)

The Nature Conservancy just happened to be involved in the rescue of the Counties listed above. What does more Private habitat mean? If approximately 85% of the land in Clark County, Nevada is Federally controlled, and most all uses of Federal lands are under habitat attack, why would they want to make the remaining private 15% unusable? Isn't 85% enough? How they are accomplishing this is to demand all landowners pay for an Environmental Assessment (EA) before the land can be used. The Private Land owner and/or users of Federal lands must hire an approved biologist. The approved biologist will decide if you are going to be allowed to use the land and if you will be allowed to trespass. He will decide how much money is due to the Nature Conservancy. This allows the Nature Conservancy to totally control or regulate usage of all lands. If they tell you that you can't use your land, your land will become worthless, and the Nature Conservancy will make you an offer to purchase. This whole scheme is illegal and unconstitutional. People are being herded into the cities because rural lands have been deemed unusable habitat. Building permits will not be issued and trespassing will not allowed. The Nature Conservancy has plenty of your money, which was collected by County Building Departments and Approved Biologist in mitigation fees. Thus, Nature Conservancy collected hundreds of millions of dollars regulating the use of Private Property and Natural Resources. Example of fees collected: 100 million for the Riverside Rat, 130 million for the Oregon Owl. The Nature Conservancy will buy your unusable devalued property with your money at a bargain, or just charge you for the privilege of using your own property. If 85% of the land in Clark County is Federally controlled, you will never guess who drafted and hired the biologists to organize the Habitat Plan for the Federal Lands? The Federal Area Plan disallows use of all resources including Private water rights and outlaws all shooting of firearms (Gun Control). Clark County's Nevada Federal Habitat Plan created 4 million new acres of protected Tortoise Habitat in Clark County alone (90% of all land in Clark County).

These two plans, County and Federal amount to the destruction of all Lumber, Mining, Cattle ranching and Farming in this County, including Hunting. If any one wants to use private lands or federally controlled lands, you must report to the new people in charge of America, the Nature Conservancy. As you read this letter, this group is working with the Federal Agencies and is moving across America, finding an Endangered Species to use in new area plans. No one in any State or County is safe. In addition to the seizure of land, area plans and endangered habitat plans are being used to attack water rights. There will always be a beetle or some kind of creature, which needs protecting. Water supplies are claimed as bird habitat, bug habitat, or need protection as scenic or special Riparian Zones. Farms can not run without water or water rights. Water rights are rights, which are part of the property. The Nature Conservancy is taking, on the average, one American farm every 24 hours, 365 days per year and shutting them down under the guise of preserving habitat. They usually attack the water using the illegal version of the Endangered Species Act leaving the farm worthless. The farm is then classified "prairie", "habitat" or otherwise protected. When purchased, the farms are purchased for a small portion of their former value because the land uses and values have been affected. These farms are being purchased or forcibly taken with sums of money being collected through building permits and illegal Mitigation fees. Examples of attacks: In Idaho the Bureau of Reclamation opened the flood gates draining the dams and letting the water escape, they stated this would allow the endangered Salmon an easier swim. When the many farmers depending on this water could not get enough water, they filed bankruptcy. You will never guess who purchased these farms for a bargain price? Currently the Virgin River on the Arizona-Nevada border has 50 small farms. The Bureau of Land Management's new Habitat Conservation Plan for Clark County, Nevada (as drafted by the Nature Conservancy) declared the Virgin River to be a "Scenic and Wild River". The effect of this is to stop all use of the water by the Farmers who own Private water rights.

As these Farmers can't plant their crops or water their, they will go broke and file bankruptcy. Who will end up buying these properties? We have discovered that the Nature Conservancy is also receiving stolen tax payer dollars directly from you, to purchase the farms of America in a variety of creative ways. Example: The U.S. Agency for International Development (Overseas Private Investment Corporation is part of the U.S. Agency for International Development. This agency gives large grants to American Businesses to build new factories and gives the owners up to 60,000 per employee as an incentive to relocate their factory to foreign soils. Why would a Federal Organization which uses our tax dollars to move our jobs overseas, give large grants of money to shut down our Farms?) Arranged for the Nature Conservancy to receive Federal Grants. Example: Panama owed the U.S. Treasury $30 million; a grant of $8 million came from the U.S. Agency of International Development and was given to the Nature Conservancy. This $8 million dollars was used to purchase a $30 million dollar note from the Federal Treasury discounted to $10 million. Total cost to the Nature Conservancy to receive $30 million dollars of your money was $2 million dollars. Total cost to the U.S. taxpayer $38 million dollars. The Nature Conservancy will collect $2.5 million in interest alone every year. The Nature Conservancy will have done this scam 13 times collecting more that 90 million dollars of taxpayer money in Latin America alone. This selling of good notes at a huge discount is nothing short of treason. Between contributions from private citizens and corporations and the theft of our Foreign Debt, along with county land schemes (working with select County Commissioners), and water grabs, the Nature Conservancy with the help of the Federal agencies will achieve total control of the American lands, resources and Food supplies.

How much of this activity is President Bush allowing? How much of our runaway Federal Deficit represents stolen monies? This is probably just the tip of the iceberg. If President Bush is allowing the systematic rape of America, at what point will our economic system collapse. I will predict the price of gold will rise, dramatically right before the collapse of America, because the looters will start exchanging their stolen dollars for gold and other commodities right before the total collapse of America. In the Nevada area, Clark County is drafting Area Air Plans to comply with the Clean Air Act. This act will be the used to create another source of endless fees and taxes from businesses and car owners. There are so many environmental laws to comply with. The United States has spent $1 trillion on foreign oil in the last decade. This represents one fourth of our net worth as a Country. Refineries in California are heading for the border, due to increased environmental attacks. 75% of American Farm production has been lost in the last 14 years; due to attacks against water rights, legitimate purchase, and land grab schemes. Activities by the United States Fish and Game, the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, NASA et al are all part of the Executive Branch. President Bush has announced he wants to be remembered as the Environmental President! Al Gore has announced that he is an environmental expert. Vice President hopeful Senator Gore was interviewed by Nightline, and he argued that Americans were not entitled to just compensation if the federal government took land or property for Environmental Reasons. Mr. Gore encourages taking land from Americans without just compensation and worked with Senator Al Cranston to shut down the mining and other uses of the natural resources in California.

I have contacted Congressman Bilbray, Senators Reid and Bryan (Nevada) concerning the taking of property without just compensation and the response was an overwhelming, "That's okay." I have informed the above-mentioned elected official that the Endangered Species Act was forged, their response was hostile. During our discussion it appeared as if they were upset that RIGHT had discovered this activity. If you apply for a Federal Trademark ($250), or drill a water well in California ($850), or buy a new tire ($2), or you bring a car into California ($600), there is an Environmental Tax collected. The Executive Branch is working full time to add more tax to all American commerce (Read my lips-no new taxes).

Everywhere you go in America, new Environmental Controls or taxes are emerging controlled by the Executive Branch. This may be the most insidious and lucrative new movement ever experienced in modern times. And to think it is being sold to us under the guise of "saving a poor helpless species". Each of these species or nature itself has been turned into a profit center. During the 1990's, businesses will be systematically forced to leave America, reducing available Jobs, Energy Resources will be non-existent due to regulation, Food Resources will dwindle due to available land reduction, prices of all commodities will climb through the ceiling (all natural resources are under attack and threat of theft), the standard of living will fall, the American dream will be forever a dream. I see the United States of Europe increasingly competitive in the world markets. I see the extensive collapse of American freedoms and industry. The Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) will be exercised to keep Americans in their place with an increased demand for total gun control to decrease projected casualties of U.N. forces. The protection of our rights and freedoms was the original purpose for the creation of our Constitution.

This document created the Executive Branch, Congress and the Federal Courts who have now banned together to sell us out. Right now we can be arrested and punished without a trial, have our money and lands taken without due process or just compensation. And many of our elected official approve (Hopeful Gore, Cranston of CA., Bush, Quayle, Harry Reid of NV, Bilbray of Nv, Bryant of NV, etc). As your elected officials push for more Wilderness areas, be aware that Wilderness areas have no value because they cannot be used for any purpose. Wilderness lands have been pledged as collateral at $2 dollars per acre for the Federal Trade Deficit, along with select private properties. This land is not being set aside for preservation but is part of the biggest land grab scheme in the history of the World. Our natural resources belong to the American people, not the people who bribed (PAKS) our elected officials. As the Environmentalists demand that the lumber companies pay more money for the privilege of harvesting trees (old trees are thinned), this increased cost is transferred directly to the consumer. Which in turn raises the cost of housing, creates more unemployment, makes foreign lumber cheaper to buy. This is not in the long term or short-term best interest of our country. If the American people own the resources there should be minimal charge by the Federal Government for these resources. As our balance of trade becomes increasingly "out of balance", the regulations and taxes are increasing the cost of our own raw materials. We are not now and certainly won't be in the future, able to compete in the world markets. This eventually will lower the American Standard of Living.

This is a very creative new tax. The next level is that we can't even use these resources. That is the stage we are in now. Misc. Assets of the Nature Conservancy as of June 1990 are $727,928,000. Nevada Examples: Gov. Bob Miller signed Assembly Bill 376, which allows fees up to $1,000 per acre to generate funds to set up tortoise habitat. The Nature Conservancy backed the measure! On Sept 15, 1990 Clark County NV Commissioners approved by a 4/3 vote to spend an additional $256,000, to add 113,000 additional acres to a sanctuary near Searchlight NV for the Tortoise. (Commissioners Jay Bingham Paul Christensen and Bruce Woodbury voted against the Measure, Mr. Woodbury stated: "I think this has gone to far"), Karen Hayes, Don Slesinger, (Don Slesinger is pushing plans for Clark County Using Clean Air Act ) William Pearson, Thalia M. Dondero voted for this measure and it passed! The Nature Conservancy donated $27,500 for this extra habitat. The Nature Conservancy owns ducks Unlimited! The Nature Conservancy owns many other environmental Groups. Colo. Historical Society, Conservancy International, Palmer Foundation, South West Land Alliance, Trust for public land, American Farms, etc. Hunters are being charged to hunt, while donations are being solicited from others to protect the species. In 1986, "a coalition of government agencies and private conservation organizations signed the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), to restore waterfowl populations.

Ducks Unlimited has been a leading partner in the planning and implementation of NAWMP and has pledged $300,000,000 to be spent on the plan!" Does this sound familiar? Harry Reid has received praise for his handling of the IRS, while attacking every other civil and Constitutional right Americans have! Harry Reid has Repeatedly tried to Cancel all Multiple Use of Federal Lands. Sen. Reid, Sen. Bumpers Sen Bilbray, and Bryan worked hard to claim as much land as Wilderness as possible for the World Bank. Sen. Reid working in Conjunction with the Nature Conservancy is cooperating in an effort to shut down his own hometown! While specking at the formal signing ceremony (Nature Conservancy and Clark County) Senator Harry Reid who was one of the supportive speakers stated; "I know its a good settlement because everybody is unhappy. The Nature Conservancy led the lobbying effort in NV to get Question 5 on the November ballot, to finance the creation of a desert wetlands park in the Las Vegas Wash. Guess who ends up owning this land and water? Guess who is paying extra on there property taxes in Clark County? Secret Valley Bank Acct Number 236-8290 Quote; "should the funds not be expended on desert tortoise approved by the Service (?) Within 2 years of their placement in the County fund, then these funds shall be transferred to the Nature Conservancy for such purposes"!

Quoted in Oct 91 issue of Nature Conservancy; "Based on a similar effort in Nevada, builders, ranchers, and Government are working together to create a plan which will protect the desert tortoise and allow development in the St George Utah Area to continue! We must demand all of the stolen money, Land and Farms be returned. If you have any questions concerning the above facts, in this article we will be happy to provide documented proof, please write or call for an appointment. "RIGHT" is a growing organization dedicated to exposing the growing illegal bureaucratic activity which affects the Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and opportunities of Americans? If we don't act now and warn our fellow Americans, your right to own Real Property will be lost forever. If you are interested in joining "RIGHT" please send the application with or without/money below to RIGHT 302 E. Carson, Suite 400, Las Vegas Nevada 89101. A membership in "Right" is $25 per year including current news releases. Any extra money donated will be spent for copying and distributing printed materials. If you can't afford the membership, just give us your information and join. Please help us before it is too late to save our country. If you support our cause and are unemployed, it is a good time to protest with us and make a difference by handing out this and other letters; we will make handouts available, just call us. Your time would be the best asset this organization could receive. This article was written for RIGHT by David R. Hinkson. Call (702-361-5655 Doug Noland) (361-5766 David Hinkson) (Max Wilson 221-9209) or Send written comments to Right 302 E. Carson, Suite 400 Las Vegas NV 89101. PLEASE COPY THIS MATERIAL, IT'S NOT PROTECTED!

The Green Party In France

The Green Party In France, before the Berlin wall was tore down, there were 1,800 Senate Seats. These Senate Seats were held by freely elected Communist officials. After the Berlin was Tore down, these elected officials changed their party name too the GREEN PARTY! Communist disappeared all over the world overnight. In America 1,200,000 registered Communists all disappeared. The news media would have use believe that all the Communist in the World admitted their Ideologies were wrong. And the millions of devote Leninists just became Capitalists.

Micahel Gorvachave received a $1,00,000 Federal Grant to organize the Green Party. The Green Party headquarters was placed on the Berkley Campus, in Berkley California (phone #(502 649-9773). Micahel Gorvachave stated the new symbol for world peace is the green cross.

We tried to call the Green Party and got a message to enter our code numbers. We did find Green Party representatives on most Junior and High School Campuses. They refer to themselves as the Conservation Movement. These educators are working full time to teach our Children. Communist belief: Communist believe the Individual must sacrifice for the good of the whole; Green Party member’s belief that the Individual must sacrifice for the good of mother earth. The Communist didn't hesitate to use whatever force was necessary to reach their goals. I feel the goals are the same!

The Green Agenda needed a new Religion, to confirm the standard Communist doctrine. This Religion is known as the NEW AGE Church or (BOCA) for short. Maurice Strong is the profit for the New Age Church; this Church is headquartered in Colorado. Mr. Maurice Strong is a Billionaire from Canada, and best of friends with a Mr. Rockefeller. Mr. Strong is Married to a women named Hanab. Mr. Maurice Strong was the organizer who is credited in 1991 with putting together the Rio Summit in Rio. Mr. Strong stated he had the power and the people in place to bring economically ruin any Country, which didn't sign all of his Treatise in Rio. If fact this economic war is slated for the second month in 1992. If you look in your local bookstore you will be surprised at the amount of New Age Material Available for your review. Mr. Strongs speaking as a Profit of our new godmother Earth, he feels that man is not polluting, man is the pollution. What do you have when millions of devoted Communist feel your existence is pollution, because you don't agree with their ideologies! Please go to your nearest book store and read this material for yourself. This new Religion would have us worshiping the creation. Most currant Religions believe in a God of some sort. To make God a tree, rock, or swamp, will justify every activity the Communist set out to do. I believe the Communist party is in complete control of the Executive Branch of the United States Government. I believe that the currant national debt was escalated deliberately, in preparation for our Economic Collapse! We sent a letter to the Department of Justice, and received a letter back stating they didn’t think the above steeling of farms, forging Federal laws, bribery Embezzlement, Treason, was worth even investigating. In our fight with the Federal Government we filed an Appeal with the Land Appeals Court. This agency like the others has ignored the law and refused to address the taking of our farm.

In my opinion the News Media is totally controlled by the Green Party/Rockefellers. I came to this conclusion after tying the GREEN Party and Mr. Rockefeller to the above activities.

Demand for prosecution: It took 40 years for the Jewish people to hunt down and prosecute the Nazis for their crimes. If this Green movement succeeds, mankind will live in Communism forever. You and what Army will take back democracy. This generation will be remembered as the generation, which destroyed all freedoms and democracy. Those of you who survive the big purge of pollution, will have the rest of your lives as slaves to labor as Cannon Fodder (name used at the Wilderness Conference to describe you). It is a fact that the Federal Government is deliberately, using tax payer dollars to ship Technology and jobs to key foreign lands. The same agencies are deliberately working with the Nature Conservancy to stop all food supplies for the American People. The Nature Conservancy is Currently doing Area Plans as described above on our oceans, to stop all fishing and use of Ocean food sources (FACT). If we put the farms out of Business, shut down all fishing. And steal the wealth of this nation. Who is getting this wealth? By rapping our Economic Base, we will be ripe for conquest. The Communist/Green Party is using our greedy Capitalist System to purchase our elected officials. We are so stupid and Greedy we would sell the rope to the very people who are building the Scaffolding, to be used to hang us! If anyone’s Constitutional Rights are violated everyone must be concerned.

*****************************************

5. THE ILLEGAL TAKINGS OF VALLEY WELLS RANCH

BY DAVID HINKSON

The reason I am writing this letter is to explain how the B.L.M. and the department of Interior, has violated my Constitutional rights and how the passage of the proposed Senate Bill 11 and House of Representative Bill 780 allows the Federal Government to take my property without just compensation or due process, thus violating my 5th Amendment Constitutional Rights.

SENATE BILL 11 AND HOUSE OF REP BILL 780 CANCELS ALL USE OF PROPERTY AND OWNERSHIP OF WATER, AND IMPROVEMENTS:

The Ivanpah Valley is currently Federal Land listed in the Jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. I acquired interest in the Ivanpah Valley through my predecessors in the chain of title recorded in the San Bernardino recorders office dating back to the year 1889. My property interests in the Ivanpah Valley is in the form of a ranch, my predecessors in title Ranched the land for over 100 years, I currently own the improvements on the federal land such as water rights, fences, wells, watering holes, and springs in the Ivanpah Valley. My predecessors in title ranched and farmed this Valley Before the Bureau of Land Management or the Department of Interior existed.

Under the Senate Bill 11 and House of Representative Bill 780, the Bureau of Land Management has announced its plans to close all of my rights to future grazing, with no provision to reimburse for loss of property. The Bureau of Land Management has refused to do a Takings Implication Assessment, as outlined in Ronald Regan’s Executive Order 12630, which is law. Even after serving them with the proper notice, I have received no response. I feel that the B.L.M. Is stalling for time because they believe the Senate Bill 11 and House of Representative Bill 780 will permanently deprive me of my property.

ILLEGAL USE OF AREA PLAN

Because I own the water, and the currant improvements on the federal land, and the Bureau of Land Management has repeatedly tried to take my property without consideration I filed a Desert Land Entry which allows prior appropriated water owners the right of Entry, to develop a small farm and receive a patent. The following is still Law.

43 UNITED STATES CODE 316 States the following

Any U.S. Citizen that has bona fide prior vested water rights, under the doctrine of prior appropriations is entitled to file a Desert Land Entry and receive his entry if he can prove prior appropriations of water."Congress felt that if an individual already owned part of the property on Federal Land (namely water), a U.S. Citizen should be entitled, to develop a small farm, even after Congress repealed all other entry laws, they left this one law intact.

I applied for application under the above law; I received notice from the B.L.M. that the California Desert Conservation Area plan closed all federal land to agricultural entry. The below section will explain how the Bureau of Land Management is using Area Plans in direct conflict with the wishes of Congress.By wrongfully using Area plans the Bureau of Land Management can control all federal land without any input from Congress.The Bureau of Land Management is wrongfully using this Area Plan to stop multiple uses; this is why the Bureau of Land Management is so anxious to pass Senate Bill 11 and House of Representative Bill 780.

AREA PLANS:

Bureau of Land Management was authorized by congress to do an Area Plan in accordance with section 601 of title 43 U.S.C.

Section 601 Act 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1712, states the following.

Also 43 U.S.C. 1711 provides as follows

"After Promptly terminating the management decision or action the Secretary shall prepare and maintain on a continuing basis an inventory of all public lands and their resource and other values, giving priority to areas of critical environmental concern. The preparation and maintenance of such inventory or the identification of such areas shall not, of itself, change or prevent change of the management or use of public lands".

Unless approved by congress the Desert Conservation Plan is just an inventory and identification Plan, with no power to change or prevent change of management or use. Congress disapproved this plan 8 years in a row.

The B.L.M. is currently using an Invalid Area Plan to stop all use of federal lands, stalling for passage of Senate Bill 11 and House of Representative Bill 780.

When congress authorized the Department of Interior to proceed with the California Desert Conservation Plan, it required that "The plan was to follow the principles of multiple use and sustained yield". It can be shown in reviewing the currant plan that it is all classified as wilderness and is totally protected (excepting 4%), this plan doesn't allow for the balanced use, as congress authorized. There is no multiple or sustained yield with any balance or proportion in the currant California Desert Conservation Plan, and under the new proposed Senate Bill 11 and House of Representative Bill 780 they will terminate all ranching, mining, mineral leasing, geothermal and other mineral exploration, grazing, and trespassing.If the Bureau of Land Management could legally use Area Plans as they are currently, they would not need to pass these bills, because they already have terminated multiple use.

After being wrongfully rejected by the Dept of Interior I filed a Takings Implication Assessment, pursuant to EXECUTIVE ORDER #12630 FEDERAL REGISTER. Vol. 53. No. 53 so as to provide myself with the opportunity to protect my rights against the Department of Interior under a Constitutional Issue (Fifth Amendment).

EXECUTIVE ORDER #12630 SEC. 2. (a) Provides as follows:

"Policies that have takings implications: refers to Federal regulations, proposed Federal regulations, proposed Federal legislation, Comments on proposed Federal legislation, or other Federal policy statements that if implemented or enacted, could effect a taking, such as rules and regulations that propose or implement licensing."

The Takings Implication Assessment demands taking issues be addressed when new laws are proposed to Congress. It also allows for litigation directly into Federal Court as a Constitutional issue, using the Fifth Amendment, without going through the Department of Interiors Administrative Appeal Process. It also preserves the lawsuit, with no dead lines, allowing a suit to be started many years later.

EXECUTIVE ORDER #12630 SEC. 5.(b) Provides as follows:

"Executive departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitting by law, identify the takings implications of proposed regulatory actions and address the merits of those actions in light of the identified takings implications, if any, in all required submissions made to the office of Management and Budget. Significant takings implications should also be identified and discussed in notices of proposed rule making and messages transmitting legislative proposals to the Congress, Stating the departments and agencies conclusions on the takings issues."

I have looked in the Federal Registry and I did not find any proposals identifying taking implications on proposed Acts in front of Congress or regulatory actions as required by Sec. 5 (b) of Executive Order #12630. The Bureau of Land Management has failed to comply with Executive Order 12630, in preparing Rep Bill 780 and Senate Bill 11.

The Bureau of Land Management didn't comply with this Executive Order, even after being formally notified that Senate Bill 11 and House of Representative Bill 780 if passed would take my property without due process.

As a U.S. Citizen and a Vietnam Veteran it was very disheartening to know that the law is not the law, as passed by Congress, we discovered that it doesn't seem to matter that Congress approves or rejects laws because the bureaucrats are apparently doing what ever they so desire, with complete disregard for the wishes of Congress.

Very Truly Yours

David R. Hinkson

Go Back

Four Winds 10 - News