Federal Judge Declares Illegal BLM Bundy Ranch Landgrab A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
"Luciferian Mummy" Harry Reid uses the Muttonheads of BLM to Line his Abyssal Pockets
http://www.infowars.com/federal-judge-blm-engaged-in-a-criminal-conspiracy-against-ranchers/
In his opinion of United States v. Estate of Hage, U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Jones reveals that after late Nevada rancher E. Wayne Hage indicated on his 1993 grazing permit renewal that by signing the permit, he was not surrendering his family?s long-standing water and forage rights on the land, the BLM not only rejected the permit but also conspired for decades to both deny his family?s property rights and to destroy their cattle business.
?Based upon E. Wayne Hage?s declaration that he refused to waive his rights ? a declaration that did not purport to change the substance of the grazing permit renewal for which he was applying, and which had no plausible legal effect other than to superfluously assert non-waiver of rights ? the Government denied him a renewal grazing permit based upon its frankly nonsensical position that such an assertion of rights meant that the application had not been properly completed,? Judge Jones wrote. ?After the BLM denied his renewal grazing permit for this reason by letter, the Hages indicated that they would take the issue to court, and they sued the Government in the CFC [Court of Federal Claims.]?
And at that point, Jones explained, the BLM refused to consider any further applications from Hage.
?The entire chain of events is the result of the Government?s arbitrary denial of E. Wayne Hage?s renewal permit for 1993?2003, and the effects of this due process violation are continuing,? he stated.
Judge Jones continued:
In 2007, unsatisfied with the outcome thus far in the CFC, the Government brought the present civil trespass action against Hage and the Estate. The Government did not bring criminal misdemeanor trespass claims, perhaps because it believed it could not satisfy the burden of proof in a criminal trespass action, as a previous criminal action against E. Wayne Hage had been reversed by the Court of Appeals. During the course of the present trial, the Government has: (1)invited others, including Mr. Gary Snow, to apply for grazing permits on allotments where the Hages previously had permits, indicating that Mr. Snow could use water sources on such land in which Hage had water rights, or at least knowing that he would use such sources; (2) applied with the Nevada State Engineer for its own stock watering rights in waters on the land despite that fact that the Government owns no cattle nearby and has never intended to obtain any, but rather for the purpose of obtaining rights for third parties other than Hage in order to interfere with Hage?s rights; and (3) issued trespass notices and demands for payment against persons who had cattle pastured with Hage, despite having been notified by these persons and Hage himself that Hage was responsible for these cattle and even issuing such demands for payment to witnesses soon after they testified in this case.
By filing for a public wa
In his opinion of United States v. Estate of Hage, U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Jones reveals that after late Nevada rancher E. Wayne Hage indicated on his 1993 grazing permit renewal that by signing the permit, he was not surrendering his family?s long-standing water and forage rights on the land, the BLM not only rejected the permit but also conspired for decades to both deny his family?s property rights and to destroy their cattle business.
?Based upon E. Wayne Hage?s declaration that he refused to waive his rights ? a declaration that did not purport to change the substance of the grazing permit renewal for which he was applying, and which had no plausible legal effect other than to superfluously assert non-waiver of rights ? the Government denied him a renewal grazing permit based upon its frankly nonsensical position that such an assertion of rights meant that the application had not been properly completed,? Judge Jones wrote. ?After the BLM denied his renewal grazing permit for this reason by letter, the Hages indicated that they would take the issue to court, and they sued the Government in the CFC [Court of Federal Claims.]?
And at that point, Jones explained, the BLM refused to consider any further applications from Hage.
?The entire chain of events is the result of the Government?s arbitrary denial of E. Wayne Hage?s renewal permit for 1993?2003, and the effects of this due process violation are continuing,? he stated.
Judge Jones continued:
In 2007, unsatisfied with the outcome thus far in the CFC, the Government brought the present civil trespass action against Hage and the Estate. The Government did not bring criminal misdemeanor trespass claims, perhaps because it believed it could not satisfy the burden of proof in a criminal trespass action, as a previous criminal action against E. Wayne Hage had been reversed by the Court of Appeals. During the course of the present trial, the Government has: (1)invited others, including Mr. Gary Snow, to apply for grazing permits on allotments where the Hages previously had permits, indicating that Mr. Snow could use water sources on such land in which Hage had water rights, or at least knowing that he would use such sources; (2) applied with the Nevada State Engineer for its own stock watering rights in waters on the land despite that fact that the Government owns no cattle nearby and has never intended to obtain any, but rather for the purpose of obtaining rights for third parties other than Hage in order to interfere with Hage?s rights; and (3) issued trespass notices and demands for payment against persons who had cattle pastured with Hage, despite having been notified by these persons and Hage himself that Hage was responsible for these cattle and even issuing such demands for payment to witnesses soon after they testified in this case.
By filing for a public wa
View Comments