> WOW, this is really worth reading. This citizen went through the wringer. > If you personally know any civics teachers, political science professors, > economics professors or environmental studies professors they ought to be > given this article and asked to have their students read and discuss this > document. (Academic freedom!) Every high school and college student > should read it to get insight on the reason freedom and property rights are > so tightly linked and so they can counter the barrage of fake-environmental > propaganda that they are fed. Every county commissioner and elected > official should read this article, too. Let's distribute it. > ---------- > > Subject: PROPERTY: revealing story of a rancher and the national debt: > > Date: Sunday, January 09, 2000 10:47 AM > > WOW, What a story! > > > > Source: Asheville Tribune > > http://www.ashevilletribune.com > > > > The revealing story of a rancher and the national debt: > > http://www.ashevilletribune.com/hage1.htm > > > > Wayne Hage is the new husband of Rep. Helen Chenoweth from Idaho. > > > > The revealing story of a rancher and the national debt > > Special Report By David Morgan, The Asheville Tribune > > > > CASE HISTORY: HAGE V. UNITED STATES > > > > After years of successfully ranching in California, Wayne & Jean Hage > (she is now deceased) purchased a large cattle ranch in Nevada, Pine Creek > Ranch, in the spring of 1978. The acreage involved is approximately 752,000 > acres. However, as it is mostly desert land, the land's ability to support > cattle is far less than might be supposed from its size. > > > > Located in the high desert mountains of central Nevada, the remote > operation seemed an unlikely place for a war that would rock the very > foundation of federal land management agencies. Wayne purchased the > operation from the well-respected Arcularius Brothers who sold the ranch > because the regulatory pressure by the U.S. Forest Service had become > unbearable. Since Wayne had always been able to work with the agency, he > believed he could resolve problems that might occur. Wayne soon learned the > only way he could satisfy the Forest Service was to allow them to > confiscate his property. > > > > One of the first incidents that drew the line between Wayne and the > Forest Service revolved around a critical spring that Wayne owned. Situated > close to the Forest Service Ranger Station in Meadow Canyon, the district > ranger decided they would pipe the water from the spring, through a newly > installed $50,000 water purification facility, into their cabin. > > > > During a Congressional hearing, regarding Federal land acquisitions that > had been done without State or Congressional consultation, Rep. John > Shadegg asked Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt to provide Congress > with a list of other lands that were being considered for further federal > acquisition, Babbitt sternly responded, "No." After a stunned silence, the > secretary added, "I don't mean to be disrespectful." However, Babbitt told > the Committee that if they did not cooperate, he would ask the President to > "use his power" to get more lands with or without their approval. > > > > Wayne learned of this after the project was complete, and rightfully > objected. He explained that if they needed his water, they could make > appropriate arrangements. They refused to cooperate and would not > acknowledge that he owned the water even though he held two court decrees > affirming his water right. Wayne even held a field hearing where the state > water engineer acknowledged Wayne's ownership and the Forest Service's > illegal confiscation. But, still today, the Forest Service has maintained a > fence around the spring so that cattle and wildlife cannot drink, and the > water is still being piped into the ranger's cabin. > > > > Retaliation > > > > Because Wayne questioned the Forest Service's actions, the Forest Service > began an unbelievable retaliation campaign. In a 105-day period they sent > Wayne 40 certified letters and personally visited him 70 times, each time > citing him in violation of a bureaucratic regulation. Wayne had to respond > in writing and take corrective action to each one of their allegations, no > matter how trivial. In fact, most, if not all, were wild goose chases or > violations the Forest Service themselves had created. > > > > Some of these charges stated Wayne was not maintaining his drift fences. > In order to comply with their rules, Wayne would check and mend if > necessary the fences in question. One of these incidents involved sending a > horse and rider to the top of Table Mountain to ride the 20-mile fence > line. After doing this, the rider found only one problem. There was one > staple missing. The Forest Service had dutifully marked it with a blue > flag. > > > > Also, among these charges were 45 accounts of trespass where Wayne's > cattle were allegedly found in the wrong location. For every one of these, > Wayne would send a crew of riders to locate the cattle and attempt to > comply with the regulations. Often, there were no cattle to be found, > leaving Wayne to wonder if there ever were. Also, on several occasions > there were eyewitnesses who watched the Forest Service employees move > Wayne's cattle into trespass areas, and then immediately cite him for the > violation. > > > > Over the next eight years he filed three administrative appeals, and won > all three. They cost him over $150,000 in attorney and consultant fees, not > to mention the countless hours, personal resources, and lost income also > expended. Twice, his pickup was shot at while he was close by, a not so > subtle warning. His wife and children were run off the road personally by > the District Ranger. > > > > Even though he won every case, the agency would create new regulations > that would wear Wayne down, force him to expend his time and resources > fighting their new regulations, and eventually run him completely out of > business. The final straw came when the Forest Service confiscated at > gunpoint over 100 head of his cattle. Armed with semi-automatic weapons and > bulletproof vests, 30 Forest Service riders confiscated his cattle in July > of 1991. > > > > "We got the land and the mineral rights away from the Indians, and we > said, oh, we'll make a deal, we'll have a nation-to-nation relationship > with you, and we will provide for the education and health care and housing > of your people;" > > - President Bill Clinton, July 12, 1999, Remarks to the National Academy > Foundation Conference in Anaheim, California. > > > > Although they had no legal justification for their actions, they took the > cattle, handed Wayne a bill for their cost of gathering the cattle, > transported the cattle to a sale yard which refused to auction the stolen > cattle, and eventually the Forest Service held their own private sale and > kept the proceeds. > > > > The confiscation did not go quite as planned, however. They needed to > infuriate Wayne to the point that he would also come armed and give them > the excuse to eliminate Wayne altogether. Wayne came armed, but with a 35 > millimeter camera. Just more evidence for the case he knew he would have to > file. > > > > September 26, 1991, after being forced to sell every cow he owned in > order to comply with federal regulations, Wayne filed a landmark takings > case, Hage v. United States, for the regulatory and physical taking of his > ranch. > > > > Criminal Desperation > > > > A year later, the same agency filed two felony charges against Wayne for > clearing scrub brush from his legally owned right-of-way. Although the > Forest Service knew he was not in violation and admitted this on the record > later, they also knew filing criminal charges against him might force Wayne > to drop his takings suit. After loosing the case at jury trial, Wayne > prevailed before the Ninth Circuit, overturning the felony charges against > him. > > > > (See a complete timeline by clicking here.) > > http://www.ashevilletribune.com/timeline.htm > > > > What's It All Really About? > > > > In a recent radio interview on WTZY (880AM) in Asheville, NC, Hage spoke > about the true nature of the case. What he said was that basically all of > this has to do with our national debt. > > > > Excerpts from WTZY interview: > > > > "During the Civil War we accumulated $2.8 billion worth of debt which the > North owed mainly to the House of Erlinger in London and the House of > Rothchild in Paris, who had financed both sides in the War. We couldn't pay > the debt, so for the first time in our nation's history they decided to > collateralize that debt with the mineral estate of the Western lands and > Alaska. During the late 1800's we were able to internalize that debt to > where we owed it to ourselves. > > > > In the 1960's the general teaching of Economics 101 was that we shouldn't > worry too much about our national debt as we owed it to ourselves, and > hence it wouldn't have to be paid off. Besides all that gold, silver, gas, > oil and other mineral rights out west more than adequately collateralize > it. > > > > "... This exchange of land, mineral rights, commercial properties, and > natural treasures between the Untied States and the State of Utah is the > largest such land exchange in the history of the lower 48 States. The > exchange will help capitalize a long-neglected State school trust by > putting it on solid footing and allowing it to pay rewards to the children > of Utah fro generations to come. The Untied States will obtain valuable > land, thus allowing it to consolidate resources within the Grand > Staircase-Escalante National Monument, the Goshute and Navajo Indian > Reservations, and the national parks and forests in Utah. I especially wish > to thank Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt and Kathleen McGinty, > outgoing Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), for their > contribution to this major achievement." > > - President Bill Clinton, October 31, 1998 speaking about H.R. 3830, the > "Utah Schools and Land Exchange Act of 1998. > > > > But during the initiation of the Great Society and the Vietnam War we > began once again to borrow from overseas, as we didn't want to tax > ourselves enough to pay for what was needed. We began to "externalize" our > debt, a fatal mistake. Well, when we began to externalize our debt heavily, > Charles deGaulle of France said, "I don't think you fellows can redeem your > dollar debt with gold." We said, "Oh, yes we can!" So he said that he would > rather have gold and began to raid our Treasury. When Nixon became > President, he was faced with this mess and had to close the gold window; we > were running out of gold. We, in effect, were running out of collateral. > > > > What Nixon did next, and what stunned a lot of folks, was to set up the > Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and we began to pass massive > environmental laws. And for what real purpose? All of them have had one > effect collectively, whether at the Federal, state or local level. The one > thing they all do is that they effect the transfer of private property out > of the hands of private individuals and place that property into the hands > of government. Now what is that all about? > > > > Well, when we ran out of gold and, in order to keep the foreign interests > from cashing in their bonds and notes and imploding and destroying the US > economy, we had to show them that the resources of the US adequately > collateralized their debt. In order for it to be properly colleralized, we > had to show them that US citizens and US interests would not be developing, > drilling and mining those resources. The effect of this was to > disenfranchise American citizens of access to their resources for the > purpose of making their resources available to the international financial > interests that hold the debt of the US. Indeed, at the present time, about > 40% of all our debt is held by and owed to foreign interests. > > > > Look at the mines. Where I live, in Nevada, we have major mines all > around us. At one time they were all owned by US citizens. But now the only > mines here that operate are those held by those countries that own the debt > of the U.S. If you or I discovered a major gold deposit, neither our kids > nor we would ever live long enough to mine one shovelfull of it. All the > rules, regulations, and laws would drive us under. We would have to sell > out for nothing to the government or to a foreign entity, who would find > their ability to mine it would be rather easy. (Editor's note: The recent > seizure by President Clinton of over $1 trillion dollars worth of high > grade coal in Utah to establish a "park" was settled by the US government > paying the owners merely $14 million dollars for research and development > costs of the coal. See story on Page 28 of The Asheville Tribune, print > edition.) > > > > Another little known but important fact that should be remembered is that > treasury bills and debts held by foreign interests are secured while those > held by US citizens are not. > > > > Little by little, our entire form of government is being reversed. A > fundamental tenant of economics is that all wealth comes from the land; > every bit of wealth originates in the land. The cornerstone of a truly free > society is the ownership of private property by the people. In such a > society the people own the means of production. In a totalitarian society, > the opposite takes place. There, the government owns the land, the wealth, > and the means of production. They, in effect, rent the land to the people. > > > > > "As President, I have worked very hard to honor tribal sovereignty and to > strengthen our governement-to-government relationships. Long ago, many of > your ancestors gave up land, water, and mineral rights in exchange for > peace, security, health care, education from the Federal Government. It is > a solemn pact." > > - President Clinton, Remarks to the Conference on Building Economic > Self-Determination in Indian Communities, August 6, 1998. > > > > And what this means is that in a free society where the people own the > land, the government has to come to the people for its operating budget - > for tax dollars in order to operate. The government has to listen to what > the people have to say. That is the essence of a free society. > > > > In a totalitarian society where the government owns the resources, they > don't have to go to the people for funds to operate. > > > > Our government today owns over 40% of the resource base of the U.S. > (Shaded areas of map above.) The corporate U.S. government has come to have > its own assets and is having to listen less and less to its citizens. And > it is attempting to get more and more property under the guise of > environmentalism. If you really want to find out who is really behind all > this, follow the money of who is behind and invests heavily in the > environmental entities. It is big money, and comes from powerful interest > groups from all around the world. A couple of excellent books I would > advise you to read are Trashing the Economy and Undue Influence by Ron > Arnold if you really want to find out who the real powers are. They can > both be obtained from Stewards of the Range in Idaho; their phone number is > 208-336-5922. > > > > Now, as I have said, that if laws protecting private property can be > weakened, the value of the property declines. As government regulations > increase, the productive capacity of private property decreases and the > value of the property itself is reduced. Government ownership of and > regulation of the lands and resources of a nation have never in history > provided for a free society, nor for a productive one. (Editor's note: Even > today in Russia, after the recent "democratic" revolution, the government > owns all of the land. The Russian citizens cannot own land in Russia.) > Taking productive resources and lands away from citizens under the guise of > "protecting" the environment is simply a method by which the government > steals power for itself. > > > > "Finally, the bill includes an unjustified transfer of millions of > dollars of mineral rights to the State of Montana. I intend to use my line > item veto authority to cancel the dollar drain on the (U.S.) Treasury that > would result from this unwarranted action." - President Clinton, November > 14, 1997, Statement on singing the Department of the Interior and Related > Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998. > > > > Karl Marx considered the elimination of private property key to the > establishment of a socialist government. There was good reason behind this > premise. If people had no value left in their property that value must be > in the hands of government. The terms property rights and property control > are synonymous. Property rights are the ability of the individual to > exercise control over his property. It is only through the right to control > the use of property that the individual can make the property produce value > or wealth. If regulation or law transfers control over one's property to > the government, then the ability of the property to produce wealth is also > transferred to the government. Marx was right. The elimination of private > property is essential if socialism or communism is to supplant a free > society." > > > > Submit your comments by Emailing feedback@ashevilletribune.com. > > > > [END] > > > > ----------- > > ***NOT FOR PROFIT*** Posted for Research and Discussion Purposes Only. Teresa (Spokane, Wa.) Kapoonis59@aol.com ALDRICH ~ APPERSON ~ ASHTON ~ COGGESHALL ~ ENEAS ~ FRIES ~ JAMES ~ HALLICOLA ~ HOFFER ~ MCKAY ~ LEIS ~ LOCHMAN ~ MEACHAM (W) ~ NAULT(H) ~ OLNEY ~ SMALL ~ TANNER ~ WHIPPLE ~ WILLIAMS