Federal Judge Accuses Federal Agents of RICO Type Racketering

[monty]

https://www.facebook.com/11553941860...type=3&theater


Close

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.n...598a3c262fecc6

Timeline Photos

4 of 44

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...5c74c8d8fa05a2




RANGE magazine

Like This Page · March 19 ·

NEWS FROM THE HAGE FAMILY

It’s been nearly 40 years, spanning two generations, and the Hage family still has not received justice in their legal battle with the BLM and USFS, but they refuse to give up. NEXT STEP: Appealing the Forage Rights Case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The current generation, Wayne N. and his sister, Ramona, realize the stakes involved affect all the good producers because western water law hangs in the balance.

They are fighting the fight, but could use your help funding the legal battle.

In short, the Hage family has repeatedly established, through costly and endless litigation brought by the United States, that they were not in violation of any state or federal laws governing irrigation and livestock watering or grazing on federally administered land. (Analysis of U.S. v. Hage and Court Decisions available upon request.)

Donations to help fund the Supreme Court appeal would be greatly appreciated. Tax-deductible donations are being accepted and earmarked for U.S. v. Hage by Protect the Harvest, 480 Southpoint Circle, Brownsburg, IN 46112. Phone: (844) 360-8300, Email: info@protecttheharvest.com.
(Please identify as being for “U.S. v. Hage”)

Direct contributions can also be sent directly to: Wayne N. Hage, P.O. Box 513, Tonopah, NV 89049.

Analysis of U.S. v. Hage and Court Decisions available upon request. For those interested in filing Amicus or Friend of the Court Briefs, contact:
Ramona Hage Morrison, 775.722.2517, rhmorrison@sbcglobal.net. or
Mark Pollot, Esq., 208.867.8389, ConResCtr@cableone.net..

Here is a press release that spells out more details on their situation:

Hage Set to Appeal Ninth Circuit Ruling in Forage Right
Case to U.S. Supreme Court; Western Water Law Hangs in the Balance

In January, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a decision reversing all of the findings of Nevada Federal District Court Chief Judge Robert C. Jones in his 103-page decision in U.S. v. Hage (2007). Judge Jones had found among other things that government officials had “entered into a literal, intentional conspiracy to deprive the Hage family not only of their (grazing) permits but also of their vested water rights.” The Court added, “This behavior shocks the conscience of the Court and provides a sufficient basis for a finding of irreparable harm…”

The Ninth Circuit panel issued a scathing ruling reversing all of the trial court’s decisions, excoriating Judge Jones for supposed bias against the government Defendants. Wayne N. Hage and the Estate of E. Wayne Hage are appealing the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.The Hage family was warned the Ninth Circuit would rule in favor of the BLM and USFS by the lead Justice Department attorney. He informed Hage during settlement discussions the Justice Department was not concerned how Judge Jones would rule because the DOJ could get any decision they wanted out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The ruling from the Ninth Circuit completely overturns 150 years of western water law and precedent as well as the laws governing the infrastructure across federally administered lands in the West. The Ninth Circuit decision, as handed down by the three-judge panel, is also in direct conflict with the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in the related case, Hage v. U.S., (1991), (between the same parties regarding same property). There the Court recognized access as an essential component of a water right. In addition to a conflict between rulings in two different federal courts, due to the appellate panel’s brazen violations of the appellate rules of procedure regarding findings of fact and other procedural errors, analysts believe there is an increased likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court will review the Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling. (Analysis of U.S. v. Hage and Court Decisions available upon request.)

Under the rules of appellate procedure the Ninth Circuit was bound by Judge Jones’ findings of fact, unless the justices went to the extreme measure of finding Judge Jones had bias and had abused his discretion, which they did. Interestingly, Judge Jones was not the only trier of fact to make such findings. Chief Judge Loren Smith, from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington D.C., after hearing similar testimony during two separate trials in the related case of Hage v. U.S. (1991), made virtually identical findings of fact. Two well respected, experienced jurists, both Chief Judges of their respective courts, separated by the width of the country, separated by decades of hearings, having nothing in common but considering the conduct of the U.S. Forest Service and BLM employees against the Hage family, both reached virtually identical conclusions.
Two generations of the Hage family, beginning during the presidency of Jimmy Carter, have spent nearly 40 years in courts defending their Constitutionally protected property interests in federally administered land and their right to be allowed to graze their livestock around their vested waters as Congress clearly sanctioned. They have prevailed in three administrative appeals. They have successfully litigated three substantial federal court cases at the trial level in two separate federal courts. They have successfully defended their vested water rights against competing claims by the United States in a state water adjudication. The courts in multiple published decisions have repeatedly recognized their vested water rights, easements, rights-of-ways, forage, and improvements on federally administered land. Those rights stand on appeal in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

For a Summary of Hage saga:

FOX NEWS SPECIAL, “Enemies of the State,” https://youtu.be/67yR-Gj5u70;

“Enemies of the State” (shorter version), https://youtu.be/wJpapKqv2mE.

RANGE magazine (article and winner ) of the Freedom of the Press Award. Click on article in red titled, “Eye of the Storm” at http://www.rangemagazine.com/features/winter-13/range-wi13-contents.htm.

Photo of Wayne, left, Wayne N., and niece Kristin. Taken in 1999 during branding at Pine Creek Ranch near Tonopah, Nev. Photo taken by Ramona Hage Morrisson.

[monty]

Feds don't want Supremes to hear Hage appeal

http://rangefire.us/2016/09/22/feder...status-report/

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...re-Logo-1B.jpg


http://rangefire.us/wp-content/theme...ages/ad468.png



Federal Government Urges Supreme Court not to Hear Hage Appeal — Case Status Report

September 22, 2016

- Government/Politics, Land Use News, Property Rights, Public Lands, Ranching - Tagged: appeal, BLM Federal, Hage, Range, RANGEfire, Supreme Court - no comments


Reposted from FREE RANGE REPORT: The heirs and estate of Wayne Hage, an icon of the “Sagebrush Rebellion,” have asked the nation’s highest court to review a ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that overturned a significant victory for the family.

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploa...-1-300x238.jpg
E. Wayne Hage_______ Wayne N. Hage with niece

The federal government is urging the U.S. Supreme Court not to review its lawsuit with deceased Nevada rancher Wayne Hage, an icon of the “Sagebrush Rebellion.”
Hage’s decades-long battles with federal agencies have become emblematic of the broader resistance to government management of public lands.

His son, Wayne N. Hage, and estate have asked the nation’s highest court to review a ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that overturned a significant victory for the family.

The U.S. Department of Justice has requested that the Supreme Court let that decision stand because there’s not a significant legal controversy that would justify such a review.

A significant and convoluted legal point is whether the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management denied Hage’s family access to their water rights on public lands.

In 2013, a federal judge held that the agencies had engaged in a “conspiracy” to deprive Hage of his water rights and due process rights, but the 9th Circuit reversed that opinion.

The 9th Circuit found that Hage’s cattle could not cross federal property unless he had a grazing permit, which meant he committed trespass by allowing cattle to access the family’s water rights on public land.

Hage’s family is now seeking asking the U.S. Supreme Court to analyze that decision because it diverges from another appellate ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Attorneys for Hage argue that the 9th Circuit contradicted legal precedent that allows cattle to access water rights across the West, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit in regard to Hage.

Department of Justice attorneys, on the other hand, claim there is no conflict between federal appellate courts because the Federal Circuit found that government-installed fencing did not block Hage’s cattle from accessing water.

Mark Pollot, attorney for Hage’s estate, said this interpretation is incorrect because fencing wasn’t his only obstacle to water rights — the federal government also threatened Hage with prosecution.

“There is a vast gulf between what the 9th Circuit said and what the Federal Circuit said,” Pollot said.

[monty]

I am going by memory, I believe it has been established and upheld by the courts, ranchers with water rights also have forage rights for two miles from the water. Another little known fact is small farms and ranches without grazing rights have a right to graze their "farm flock" within a 2 mile radius of the farm or homestead.

Many accuse Bundys of claiming the land. They don't claim the land, they claim forage rights around their water rights.

[monty]

Supremes refuse to hear Hage appeal

http://www.capitalpress.com/Livestoc..._Capital_Press
Supreme Court turns down Hage lawsuit appeal

http://eor-cpwebvarnish.newscycleclo...4.jpg&MaxW=600AP Photo/Elko Daily Free Press, Mark Waite, File
Rancher Wayne Hage is shown in 1997 in the area where federal agents seized 100 head of his cattle in 1991, in Meadow Canyon near Tonopah, Nev. Hage, who battled the federal government for decades over public lands and private property rights and came to epitomize Nevada's Sagebrush Rebellion, died in 2006. An appeal of a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has been turned down by the U.S. Supreme Court.


Buy this photo


The U.S. Supreme Court won’t review a court decision that stripped deceased Nevada rancher Wayne Hage of a legal victory against the federal government.

In 2013, the estate of Hage — an icon of the “Sagebrush Rebellion” against federal land policies — prevailed in a lawsuit filed by federal agencies that alleged his cattle trespassed on public land.

U.S. District Judge Robert Jones ruled that Hage’s cattle could legally cross federal property to access a stream in which he owned water rights. The judge also found that federal officials had engaged in a “literal, intentional conspiracy” against him.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision earlier this year, ruling that water right ownership doesn’t give ranchers the right to run cattle across federal land.

Mark Pollot, attorney for Hage’s estate, claimed the 9th Circuit misinterpreted the law and undermined water rights across the West.

He asked the Supreme Court to review the case, but that request has now been denied.
The federal government initially didn’t react to the Supreme Court challenge, but the nation’s highest court ordered it to file a response.

For that reason, Pollot was optimistic that the justices were interested in the case, so their denial comes as a surprise, he said.

“It’s directly contrary to prior decisions by the Supreme Court and to state laws,” Pollot said.
It’s possible the eight justices were evenly split on whether to take the case and realized that it would likely result in a stalemate, which would effectively uphold the 9th Circuit decision, he said.

Though the Hage case wasn’t granted Supreme Court review, Pollot said the litigation is likely to continue.

For one, Hage’s son and namesake is still liable for trespass, which he plans to challenge, he said.
Secondly, there’s a possibility for future problems if federal agencies don’t permit Hage’s estate to divert water from the stream in which it holds water rights, Pollot said.

“We still have some options I’m not ready to discuss,” he said.

[monty]

Corrupt US District Court Judge Gloria Navarro fines Hage family $587,000.00

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/bu...al-land-nevada


25 18 0 Share0
Posted March 1, 2017 - 11:00am UpdatedMarch 1, 2017 - 11:51am

Court rules Hage family must pay $587k for grazing cattle on federal land in Nevada




http://www.reviewjournal.com/sites/d...59_8079639.jpgRancher Wayne Hage Sr. is shown in this November 1997 file photo, taken near the spot where federal agents seized 100 head of his cattle in 1991, in Meadow Canyon near Tonopah, Nev. (Associated Press
RELATED
Goldfield rancher agrees to pay fine

US Supreme Court closes book on Wayne Hage, Sagebrush Rebellion court case

Nevada ranching family loses federal lands court case

Nevada rancher questions Bundy's legal strategy


By SEAN WHALEY
REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU


CARSON CITY — A U.S. District Court judge has ordered a Nevada ranching family engaged in a long-running dispute with federal agencies to pay $587,000 for grazing cattle on BLM and Forest Service lands without permission.

The order dated Feb. 27 from Gloria Navarro, chief judge of the Las Vegas District Court, also requires the family of the late Wayne Hage to remove any livestock from federal lands within 30 days. Within 45 days the Hage estate has to file a statement of compliance with the order or face contempt of court.

Federal officials believe the Hage family has removed its livestock from the federal lands at issue in the case.
The order was the result of a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision issued last year that overturned a lower court ruling in favor of the Hage family. The 9th circuit court directed the Las Vegas court to issue a new order complying with the appeals court findings in the decision.

Hage died in 2006, and the fight has been carried on by his family and son, Wayne N. Hage Jr.

The order could bring an end a decades-long dispute that centered on the Hage family’s Pine Creek Ranch near Tonopah. The case is well known in the West and among property-rights advocates who continue to maintain that the federal government exercises a heavy hand in relations with those who make their livelihood off the land.
Navarro calculated the damages based on the number of cattle Hage grazed on the federal lands from 2004 to 2011.

The order also permanently prohibits the Hage family from putting their livestock on federal lands without permission.

In May 2013 U.S. District Judge Robert Clive Jones issued a 104-page opinion detailing what he called the federal government’s vindictive actions against the ranching family.

But on appeal, the 9th circuit court reversed Jones and found in favor of the government claims that Hage was trespassing on public lands by grazing cattle without a permit. The court also criticized Jones, who is now on senior status, for his decision that “plainly” contravened federal law.

Contact Sean Whaley at swhaley@reviewjournal.com or 775-461-3820. Follow @seanw801 on Twitter.

[monty]

I don't think we should be surprised by Harry Reid's hand picked judge's descision. What really is sad is Nevada's latino governor Bryan Sandoval, Latina Senator Cortez-Masto and Lantino Congressman Kiuhen, all Reid puppets were elected by George Soros's electronic voting machines. In fact the entire Southern Nevada Division of the US District Court system is mostly hand picked Reid personnell. And we can thank our current Senator Dean Heller for the Soros machines. He was Secretary of State who installed them.

Nevada is still a territory of the USA. It will never have full statehood.

[monty]

My friend and former neighbor, Gary Carver, hits the nail on the head


https://s19.postimg.org/b8lof6q77/IMG_1520.png

[monty]

The estate of E. Wayne Hage's Pine Creek Ranch has forage rights dating back more then 100 years. The BLM is saying these rights are not inheritable, the same as they have done to Jeanette Finicum. Young Wayne has cattle of his own separate from those of the estate. Young Wayne has never had BLM permits. He was running his cattle on the two mile limit from the ranch water rights, which were always honored in the past, even for ranches with no range rights. Any rancher who did not have forage rights to large areas of land still had the right to graze his animals within 2 miles of the ranch. My dad referred to these as farm flock rights. I am unclear if the Hage estate was fined in court this action also.

Edit: Wayne has informed me he is the only one who was fined.

Edit: The last time I spoke with young Wayne the estate had not seen one penny of the settlement the United States Court of Federal Claims awarded his father.

http://freerangereport.com/index.php...remove-cattle/


Judge: Nevada Rancher’s Son Must Pay $587K, Remove Cattle

March 3, 2017 Associate Editor Leave a comment

https://i1.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=300%2C210
March 3, 2017
Associated Press reports:

A Nevada rancher whose father led a decades-long fight with the U.S. government over grazing and property rights has been ordered to pay $587,000 and remove any livestock he has on federal lands by the end of the month.

Wayne N. Hage is the son of cattleman and longtime Sagebrush Rebellion figure Wayne Hage, who died in 2006.

Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro in Las Vegas says he also has to show by mid-April that he has complied.
Hage tells the Las Vegas Review-Journal he doesn’t have livestock on the range in question.

He declined to say if he can pay the judgment fees and penalties.

The Hage family battle over property in Nye County preceded the fight involving federal agencies and rancher Cliven Bundy, and an armed standoff in April 2014 near Bunkerville.

Additional Information: In 2013, the Nevada U.S. District Judge Robert Clive Jones ruled that the Hages, because they had the right to use water from nearby streams, also had an easement — a right to bring their cattle across public lands, and let them graze, within a reasonable distance of the water, which he defined as a half mile. The judge dismissed all the trespassing claims except two, awarded the government $165.88 in damages, and ordered federal agencies to issue grazing permits to the family.

This was overturned by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2016 who wrote in their ruling that “An owner of water rights — like all other persons — may graze cattle on federal lands only if he or she has obtained a grazing permit or other grazing authorization. Water rights are irrelevant to that basic requirement.”

Related

Feds want 'convoluted' ruling against Nevada ranching family to stand September 21, 2016 In "Government Run Amok"

Nevada, Oregon Bundy trials marred by bumbling prosecutors, tainted witnesses

[monty]

Judge Robert C. Jones ruled following the law. The corrupt 9th circuit overturned and remanded back to US District Court stipulating Judge Jones be off the case. Obama put Judge Jones out to pasture, appointed Harry Reid's puppet Gloria Navarro to the Nevada District who ignored the law.

Roni Bell Sylvester

Yesterday at 7:36am ·

Livestock Grazing on Federal Lands

Contraire to popular belief by the uninformed, no act, including FLPMA and ESA has extinguished existing Livestock Grazing rights or make any superior to them.

In other words, "existing rights," including Forage and Water put to beneficial use by Allotment Owners, constitutes their ownership of - i.e. becomes "Property" of Allotment Owners.

Nothing, including the Taylor Grazing Act and Wild Horse and Burro Act, has extinguished those rights or bumped any critter - including Sage Grouse, Feral Horses etc., into "Preference."

Therefore, Allotment Owners do not have to strive for "Preference" position, as no act has ever denied them that historic position.

This knowledge will adjust your thinking, in that it will rightfully place any "after acts and critters" into low secondary positions, and leave Livestock Grazing in Preference.


20 Likes3 Comments17 Shares

[monty]

Kierán Suckling's Center for Biological Diversity ~ The destroyer of western ranchers, their campaign against grazing

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/p...ing/index.html

• ABOUT
• ACTION
• PROGRAMS
• SPECIES
• NEWSROOM
• PUBLICATIONS
• SUPPORT

• Sign Up
• Search
• http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/a...ve_108x108.png

GRAZING

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/a...imBartlett.jpg

HOME > PROGRAMS > PUBLIC LANDS > GRAZING > GRAZING

IN THE NEWS February 29, 2016 – "Backlog Grows For Rangelands Awaiting Environmental Health Checkup," Oregon Public Broadcasting Get the latest on our work for biodiversity and learn how to help in our free weekly e-newsletter. RELATED CAMPAIGNS • Mining • Wildlife Services + DOCUMENTS AND PUBLICATIONS + MEDIA + SPECIES Contact: Randi Spivak

GRAZING
The ecological costs of livestock grazing exceed that of any other western land use. In the arid West, livestock grazing is the most widespread cause of species endangerment. By destroying vegetation, damaging wildlife habitats and disrupting natural processes, livestock grazing wreaks ecological havoc on riparian areas, rivers, deserts, grasslands and forests alike — causing significant harm to species and the ecosystems on which they depend.

Despite these costs, livestock grazing continues on state and federal lands throughout the arid West. Livestock grazing is promoted, protected and subsidized by federal agencies on approximately 270 million acres of public land in the 11 western states. Federal-lands livestock grazing enjoys more than $100 million annually in direct subsidies; indirect subsidies may be three times that.

ECOLOGICAL COSTS

Cattle destroy native vegetation, damage soils and stream banks, and contaminate waterways with fecal waste. After decades of livestock grazing, once-lush streams and riparian forests have been reduced to flat, dry wastelands; once-rich topsoil has been turned to dust, causing soil erosion, stream sedimentation and wholesale elimination of some aquatic habitats; overgrazing of native fire-carrying grasses has starved some western forests of fire, making them overly dense and prone to unnaturally severe fires.

Keystone predators like the grizzly and Mexican gray wolf were driven extinct in southwestern ecosystems by “predator control” programs designed to protect the livestock industry. Adding insult to injury — and flying in the face of modern conservation science — the livestock industry remains the leading opponent to otherwise popular efforts to reintroduce species like the Mexican gray wolf in Arizona and New Mexico.

ECONOMIC COSTS

The federal livestock grazing program is heavily subsidized. The western livestock industry would evaporate as suddenly as fur trapping if it had to pay market rates for services it gets from the federal government. In 2015 the Center commissioned resource economists to study the costs of livestock grazing on public lands. We found that the federal lands grazing program generated $125 million less than what the federal government spent on the program in 2014. Further, we found that federal grazing fees are 93 percent less than fees charged for non-irrigated western private grazing land, or just $1.69 per animal per month for each cow and calf that grazes the public land. (It costs more to feed a house cat.)

Despite the extreme damage done by grazing, western federal rangelands account for less than 3 percent of all forage fed to livestock in the United States. If all livestock were removed from public lands in the West, in fact, beef prices would be unaffected.


OUR CAMPAIGN

Since our founding, the Center has led efforts to reform overgrazing on public lands in the West. Our work protecting endangered species has removed cattle from hundreds of vulnerable riparian areas in national forests in Arizona, New Mexico and California over the years; in 1999 and 2000 alone, we brought pressure and lawsuits resulting in cows and sheep being removed or restricted on more than 2.5 million acres of habitat for the desert tortoise, southwestern willow flycatcher and least Bell’s vireo in the vast California Desert Conservation Area, and in 2012 legislation was passed to allow permanent retirement of grazing privileges in the California Desert Conservation Area to offset impacts from development of large-scale industrial solar projects — an unequivocal acknowledgement of the significant impacts that public lands grazing has on the arid western landscapes.

Center legal action has compelled the Forest Service to do an environmental impact statement on the impacts of grazing on more than 13 endangered species; in the late 1990s, our work persuaded the Bureau of Land Management to remove cattle from all or part of 32 allotments along the middle Gila River and the Forest Service to remove cattle from 250 miles of streams on 52 allotments in the upper Gila.

The Center also played a leading role in the Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection, including drafting of a report criticizing the proposed “Ranch Conservation” element of Pima County’s Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan and promoting alternative recommendations to stop grazing in critical habitat for imperiled species. In 2010, Center work helped stop domestic sheep grazing on 7,500 acres in and around the greater Yellowstone ecosystem to protect grizzly bears, lynx, wolves and bighorn; we also halted grazing on a quarter-million acres of Oregon’s Malheur National Forest to protect steelhead trout. In 2011, Center appeals stopped grazing on 33,000 acres of national forest land in Arizona.

The Center and allies sued the federal government to compel it to fix agency budget woes by reforming the grazing program, which loses money just as rapidly and consistently as it destroys habitat. Unfortunately, in 2014 the Obama administration announced it would refuse to increase grazing fees to levels reflecting grazing’s true financial and environmental costs.

Livestock grazing is also a major threat to greater sage grouse across Sagebrush Sea. In 2014 and 2015 we worked to reign in livestock grazing to protect sage grouse habitat and the myriad other species that this beautiful ecosystem supports in new land-management plans across about 60 million acres of federal public lands.
Photo of cattle on public land by Kim Bartlett, Animal People, Inc.

http://freerangereport.com/index.php...e-regulations/

4 reasons Congress should disapprove economy-killing sage grouse regulations

March 14, 2017 editor Leave a comment

Ironically, at the time the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service finalized the harmful sage grouse plans in 2015, the bird was doing fine, with an increasing population of nearly 425,000, due to a successful incentive-based approach to conservation led by states.

https://i0.wp.com/freerangereport.co...size=601%2C143