Judge Napolitano
Has a New Show Called "FREEDOM WATCH" Monday July 5, 2010.
Guest: Glen Beck
He discusses the Oil Spill with Glenn Beck
Obama's Solution with the Oil Spill.
- Geen Agenda
- More New Tax
He also discussed the new U.S. Sumpreme Court Ruling "McDonald v. City of Cicago"
Otis Mcdonald and Lawyer Alan Gura take on 2nd Amendment rights against the City of Chicago.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Friday, July 2, 2010
NATIONWIDE LANDMARK DECISION - McDonald v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1521
ON JUNE 31, 2010
McDonald v. City of Chicago, Case No. (08-1521)
Otis McDonad has been robbed 3 times, and feels that he should have the right to protect himself, but the laws prohibiting guns keeps him from carrying a concealed weapon. It is however a US Constitutional Right, 2nd Amendement Right. His Lawyer, Alan Gura.
There are 9 U.S. Supreme Court Justices and 5 ruled in favor and 4 ruled against gun rights.
http://www.chicagoguncase.com/
CHIGACO, IL "US SUPREME COURT RULING"
ANY CITIZEN IN AMERICA IS ALLOWED TO CARRY A GUN.
Other LANDMARK DECISION Cases:
Rancher - Property Rights
Wayne Hage v. US
Case No. 91-1470L
Filed: August 2, 2010
Hage v. United States
.Sub-categories :
•Articles •Briefs and Opinions •Other Documents •Legal Counsel Overview:
Few epic battles for property rights have been waged and won by landowners, but Hage v. United States is one of the greatest stories of all time. After spending 13 years fighting the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management for the right to use their land and water, Nevada ranchers, Wayne and Jean Hage, filed the most important federal lands takings case in American history. The members of Stewards of the Range supported their every step through the courts, which began in 1991.
The Hages owned the targeted property, Pine Creek Ranch, which was a combination of private land and federal grazing allotments that together controlled 1,100 square miles of Nevada’s High Desert. While the cow-calf operation is a normal sized ranch for the Nevada landscape (on average it takes 50 acres to feed one cow), the Hages controlled all the water on this vast landscape. The water is gravity flow to Las Vegas and gravity flow to Los Angeles.
The Hages found themselves in the crosshairs of those seeking to destroy private ownership of America’s resources through environmental regulations. In July of 1991, after the U.S. Forest Service confiscated their last remaining cattle and believed they had finally acquired this beautiful ranch property without paying a dime in compensation, Wayne and Jean did something never done before – they filed a claim for the taking of the rights they owned on the federal lands and their private property in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
June 6, 2008, the Court handed the Hages a dramatic victory. The court refused the government’s argument that the Hages were merely leaseholders who had no property rights in the federal lands. Instead, the Court awarded the Hages compensation for their range improvements, the water rights which flowed from the federal lands to their private lands, and the ditch right-of-ways which included the forage on 50 feet of each side of the ditches. They also awarded attorney’s fees, which is a critical deterrent to future frivolous lawsuits.
This was a landmark victory for Western ranchers and Americans nationwide. Although neither Wayne nor Jean was alive to celebrate the victory, they most certainly left a remarkable legacy for private property rights protection in America.
The government has filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals D.C. Circuit. It will be many years yet before final compensation and attorney’s fees will be awarded, however, the precedent stands and is used by landowners and attorneys across the nation today.
E. WAYNE HAGE and JEAN N. HAGE, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, CLAYTON YEUTTER, in his capacity as Secretary of Agriculture, F. DALE ROBERTSO...
http://americanstewards.us/about-us/historical-victories/hage-v-united-states/briefs-and-opinions
McDonald v. City of Chicago, Case No. (08-1521)
Otis McDonad has been robbed 3 times, and feels that he should have the right to protect himself, but the laws prohibiting guns keeps him from carrying a concealed weapon. It is however a US Constitutional Right, 2nd Amendement Right. His Lawyer, Alan Gura.
There are 9 U.S. Supreme Court Justices and 5 ruled in favor and 4 ruled against gun rights.
http://www.chicagoguncase.com/
CHIGACO, IL "US SUPREME COURT RULING"
ANY CITIZEN IN AMERICA IS ALLOWED TO CARRY A GUN.
Other LANDMARK DECISION Cases:
Rancher - Property Rights
Wayne Hage v. US
Case No. 91-1470L
Filed: August 2, 2010
Hage v. United States
.Sub-categories :
•Articles •Briefs and Opinions •Other Documents •Legal Counsel Overview:
Few epic battles for property rights have been waged and won by landowners, but Hage v. United States is one of the greatest stories of all time. After spending 13 years fighting the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management for the right to use their land and water, Nevada ranchers, Wayne and Jean Hage, filed the most important federal lands takings case in American history. The members of Stewards of the Range supported their every step through the courts, which began in 1991.
The Hages owned the targeted property, Pine Creek Ranch, which was a combination of private land and federal grazing allotments that together controlled 1,100 square miles of Nevada’s High Desert. While the cow-calf operation is a normal sized ranch for the Nevada landscape (on average it takes 50 acres to feed one cow), the Hages controlled all the water on this vast landscape. The water is gravity flow to Las Vegas and gravity flow to Los Angeles.
The Hages found themselves in the crosshairs of those seeking to destroy private ownership of America’s resources through environmental regulations. In July of 1991, after the U.S. Forest Service confiscated their last remaining cattle and believed they had finally acquired this beautiful ranch property without paying a dime in compensation, Wayne and Jean did something never done before – they filed a claim for the taking of the rights they owned on the federal lands and their private property in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
June 6, 2008, the Court handed the Hages a dramatic victory. The court refused the government’s argument that the Hages were merely leaseholders who had no property rights in the federal lands. Instead, the Court awarded the Hages compensation for their range improvements, the water rights which flowed from the federal lands to their private lands, and the ditch right-of-ways which included the forage on 50 feet of each side of the ditches. They also awarded attorney’s fees, which is a critical deterrent to future frivolous lawsuits.
This was a landmark victory for Western ranchers and Americans nationwide. Although neither Wayne nor Jean was alive to celebrate the victory, they most certainly left a remarkable legacy for private property rights protection in America.
The government has filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals D.C. Circuit. It will be many years yet before final compensation and attorney’s fees will be awarded, however, the precedent stands and is used by landowners and attorneys across the nation today.
E. WAYNE HAGE and JEAN N. HAGE, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, CLAYTON YEUTTER, in his capacity as Secretary of Agriculture, F. DALE ROBERTSO...
http://americanstewards.us/about-us/historical-victories/hage-v-united-states/briefs-and-opinions
Monday, June 28, 2010
FBI INVESTIGATIONS
The FBI Investigated Corruption of These two Superior Court Judges
1. Dudley S. Welker
2. Rustin Lines
Now The People of Graham County want a FBI Investigation of all public records, which is long overdue, dealing with the following:
1. R. Douglas Holt, Presiding Superior Court Judge
2. Kenneth A. Angle, County Attorney
3. Terry Cooper, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
We believe there is a conspiracy to commit fruad and racketeering between R. Douglas Holt, Kenneth A. Angle, and Terry Cooper, and possibly Preston J. Allred, that need to be resolved.
1. Dudley S. Welker
2. Rustin Lines
Now The People of Graham County want a FBI Investigation of all public records, which is long overdue, dealing with the following:
1. R. Douglas Holt, Presiding Superior Court Judge
2. Kenneth A. Angle, County Attorney
3. Terry Cooper, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
We believe there is a conspiracy to commit fruad and racketeering between R. Douglas Holt, Kenneth A. Angle, and Terry Cooper, and possibly Preston J. Allred, that need to be resolved.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Dan Martinez - Property Rights
Daniel Martinez
v.
U.S. Forest Service
Martinez cattle are sold by USFS in Texas
Another chapter in the ongoing saga of a dispute between a rancher and the federal government has been written. Cattle impounded by the U.S. Forest Service were sold at auction in Texas last week.
The grazing allotment dispute between the Martinez family and the Forest Service, which has been simmering on the coals for well over a year, is now in federal court. The Forest Service said the cattle belonging to the Martinez family were illegally grazing on the Pleasant Valley and Hickey allotments in the Clifton Ranger District of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest.
The cattle are from the Martinez Ranch, northeast of Clifton. The ranch was owned for decades by Abelardo “Abe” Martinez Sr. and was purchased by his three sons, one of whom is Dan, the family's spokesman. Dan contends the Forest Service is wrong and has acted illegally in the impound action.
He successfully filed a petition for an injunction in Graham County Superior Court in late November that kept the cattle from being sold in Dalhart, Texas, on Dec. 1. However, the case was moved to federal court by a U.S. attorney and the injunction expired.
Forest Service spokesman Bob Dyson said in a Dec. 16 news release that 328 head of cattle were sold at a public auction in Dalhart for “about $159,606” on Dec. 15. He said 12 of the cattle died after they were in Texas.
“There was a two-week delay in selling the animals as a result of an Arizona Superior Court injunction, so the animals stayed at the sale barn longer than anticipated.” Dyson said. “Because of the two-week delay, 10 cows and two calves eventually died despite efforts of the sale barn and its veterinarian to treat the animals with antibiotics. There are still over 30 head scheduled to be sold at the Dalhart facility.”
Dyson said money from sale of the cattle “goes toward offsetting costs incurred by the Forest Service, the State of Arizona and the sale barn for gathering and caring for the cattle and completing brand inspections and ear tagging. If there are any receipts left, then the remaining money goes to the previous owner of the cattle.”
That is unlikely to happen. Clifton District Ranger Frank Hayes said impoundment and other related costs come to about $400,000. He said the amount received for the cattle was affected negatively due to the antibiotic treatments, which had to be disclosed to buyers, who must then wait 30 days before the cattle can be slaughtered.
He said a certified letter was sent to Martinez notifying him of the cattle sale and related facts. He said Martinez was also notified that 37 head of cattle that were still in Arizona were shipped to Dalhart on Dec. 16.
Dyson said the Forest Service tried for over a year to have Martinez remove the cattle from federal land. Dan Martinez, who now owns the Martinez Ranch with his two brothers, adamantly disagrees with the Forest Service and said removal of the cattle is a criminal act on the part of the federal agency.
At the heart of the dispute between the USFS and the Martinezes is a Forest Service requirement of the waiver of a grazing permit by Abelardo Sr. in order to have it reissued to his sons. The permit process would involve a reduction in the number of cattle that can be grazed and affect access to parts of the San Francisco River, Zieroth said.
In late July, Dan Martinez said the Forest Service wanted his father to waive certain rights, and his father refused to do so. He said his father has never been involved in the legal system and the Forest Service is trying to “take advantage of these small ranchers.”
Not so, Apache Sitgreaves Forest Supervisor Zieroth said. She said the matter simply comes down to the fact the Martinezes do not have grazing permits. She said the USFS has tried to work with the Martinezes to resolve the issue, but they have refused to comply. She said the Martinezes' Pleasant Valley allotment grazing permit expired in August 2004.
On July 25, the Forest Service sent the Martinezes notices of intent to impound unauthorized livestock. Dan Martinez faxed a copy of the impound notice to The Copper Era. “Refused for Fraud!” was scrawled in large letters on the notice.
Martinez also said he would not resist removal of the cattle but would take action afterward. “I intend to prosecute criminals,” he said. “There's not even a court order. We haven't seen any legal documents.”
Zieroth said a court order was not necessary to impound Martinez's cattle and the Forest Service followed proper procedure leading up to and during the action. She said, “Under federal regulations, unauthorized livestock must be impounded and removed from federal lands, and if they are not redeemed by the owner of the livestock, they are sold at public auction.”
The Forest Service is relieved “to have completed this phase of the lengthy process in removing the cattle from the National Forest,” Zieroth said in the Dec. 16 news release announcing the cattle sale.
She said, “We have been especially concerned for the health and welfare of the cattle so we were a bit disappointed when the injunction delayed their timely disposition. We can now move ahead to authorize a new grazing permittee for the Pleasant Valley Allotment.”
While the case is in federal court, Martinez apparently intends to have his day in state court in Arizona. On that same day the remaining cattle were shipped from Arizona to Texas, The Copper Era received a faxed copy of a letter from Martinez's attorney, Billy W. Boone, to a livestock commission company representative in Dalhart demanding Martinez's cattle be returned to him or face court action in Arizona.
Boone said in his letter, dated Dec. 12, “Rather than avail itself of the legal channels in Arizona courts to challenge the rights which pre-date the Forest Service, the U.S. Forest Service simply stole the cattle without judicial process nor seeking authority of the courts in Arizona. He said the Forest Service circumvented the law by moving the cattle to New Mexico and then to Dalhart.
“Constantly moving the cattle from jurisdiction to jurisdiction when there are auctions in Arizona should make one sit back and wonder why?” Boone writes. “It certainly does not pass the smell test.”
Boone also says, “As you are aware, by letter from Mr. Dan Martinez, that he is the owner and there is a lien on those cattle for $600,000 that pre-dates the U.S. Forest Service's wrongful seizure of the cattle. Demand is hereby made for the return of Mr. Martinez's cattle. If the cattle are either sold or not immediately returned to Mr. Martinez, you along with the auctioneer company will join the individuals form the U.S. Forest Service as defendants in state court in Arizona.”
He adds, “Please be advised that Mr. Martinez has reported the theft of these cattle to the appropriate authorities in Arizona.”
Recall started
Boone does not say in his letter what “proper authorities” he is referring to. They certainly are not authorities from Greenlee County where the cattle were rounded up and impounded. Greenlee County Attorney Derek Rapier and Sheriff Steve Tucker said the cattle impoundment is a federal matter over which they have no jurisdiction. Their stand has angered some people in Greenlee and a recall of both has been started.
Duncan resident Donald Vandell filed an “application for serial number for recall” on behalf of Americans For Property Rights on Dec. 6 with the Greenlee County Elections Director's Office.
Vandell said in the filings on Rapier and Tucker that both “stood by while U.S. Forest Service employees broke Arizona law.” He said both refused to enforce a provision of the Arizona Constitution that says, “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
In both documents Vandell said, “This property includes cattle. A court order is required to forcibly remove an private property from a citizen of the State of Arizona, United States of America. The U.S. Forest Service has not received a court order from a court in Arizona.”
In a second letter to the editor in today's Copper Era, Rapier reiterates his stand that federal and not local law applies to the case and the county has no jurisdiction in the matter.
Posted by Frank DuBois at 12:53 PM 0 comments Permalink
http://thewesterner.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_thewesterner_archive.html
Martinez cattle case moves to federal court
By Walter Mares, Copper Era managing editor
Published on Wednesday, December 7, 2005 11:09 AM MST
A case involving the impoundment of cattle by the U.S. Forest Service is headed to federal court. That, and not the county superior court, is where Forest Service officials and the Greenlee County Attorney say the matter belongs.
The U.S. Attorney's Office in Albuquerque moved the case to the federal district court in Phoenix on Nov. 29. The move was made after the cattle's owner filed an injunction locally to prevent sale of the cattle, most of which have already been shipped to Texas for sale.
The cattle, belonging to the Martinez family, were impounded by the Forest Service in October and November. The Forest Service said the cattle were illegally grazing on two allotments on Forest Service land near the Martinez Ranch northeast of Clifton. The USFS said the Martinez family's grazing permit for the Pleasant Valley was canceled in 2004 and the Martinezes never had a permit for the Hickey allotment.
Dan Martinez, who is the spokesman for the ranch he owns with his two brothers, adamantly disagrees with the Forest Service and said removal of the cattle is a criminal act on the part of the federal agency.
Waiver of a grazing permit is at the center of the dispute between the USFS and the Martinezes. Abelardo Martinez Sr., who owned the ranch since the 1940s, sold the ranch to his three sons. The Forest Service is requiring Martinez to waive his permit to the agency so it can then be issued to the sons. Dan Martinez, who lives in Santa Fe, N.M., said his father will not waive the grazing permit and the USFS is trying to make him give up his rights.
Apache-Sitgreaves Forest Supervisor Elaine Zieroth said waiver of the Pleasant Valley permit and reissuing it to the Martinez brothers would involve two modifications, and that appears to be what the Martinezes object to. One modification involves decreasing the number of cattle that can be grazed on the Pleasant Valley allotment. The other change involves modifying grazing along the San Francisco River to meet environmental regulations.
Dan Martinez has said in court documents he filed in Graham County Superior Court that the Forest Service has broken the law and stolen the cattle from his private property. Martinez has also filed a deed claim on the Pleasant Valley allotment with the Greenlee County Recorder's Office claiming the allotment is his private property.
The Forest Service said Martinez is wrong. Zieroth told The Copper Era the allotment is not part of the Martinez Ranch. She said it is Forest Service property and Martinez's deed claim is invalid. She said “there is no mechanism” for Martinez to legitimately claim the property as his. She also said Forest Service personnel have not been on the Martinez Ranch itself, other than perhaps to use a county-maintained public road that runs through a corner of the property.
“We had it surveyed and put up markers to make sure we did not go onto the Martinez property,” Zieroth said and reiterated neither the Pleasant Valley nor the Hickey allotments are the Martinez's personal private property.
Greenlee County Attorney Derek Rapier is in agreement. Rapier wrote a letter to the editor in today's Copper Era, which said, “Mr. Martinez appears to rely heavily on a case known as Hage vs. U.S. Mr. Hage made land claims very similar to Mr. Martinez and in 2002, the court ruled against Mr. Hage. The court looked at all of the laws Mr. Hage presented going back to 1785 and found that none of them give the rancher any ownership in federal grazing lands.
“The court also looked at U.S. Supreme Court decisions from as early as 1911 and as recent as 2000 which all ruled that use of public lands never turns into ownership of public lands. These decisions also make it clear that the federal government has exclusive authority to manage federal public lands, including the power to modify permit conditions and reduce herd size.”
Rapier and Greenlee County Sheriff Steve Tucker have been criticized by Martinez and some of his supporters for not intervening and preventing the Forest Service from impounding the cattle. Both maintain the matter is a federal issue in which they have no jurisdiction.
“Although individual county officials have expressed their personal opinions on this issue, under the current state of the law, Greenlee County has no legal authority to get involved in the dispute between the Forest Service and Dan Martinez,” Rapier said. “Although Mr. Martinez believes otherwise, no law or court decision, either federal or state, supports the view that county government has authority over the federal government regarding management of federal lands.”
Around 300 head of cattle that were rounded up and impounded were shipped Dec. 1 to Dalhart, Texas, for sale. A few remain in Arizona. Most of the proceeds will go toward offsetting the USFS's costs of impounding and shipping the cattle, Zieroth said.
Martinez filed a petition for injunction to stop the sale and prevent any more of his cattle from being shipped out of Arizona. He filed the petition in Greenlee County Justice of the Peace #1 Court and was heard by Rocky Manuz. It was forwarded to the Greenlee Superior Court, where Judge Monica Stauffer recused herself. The matter was moved to Judge Corey Sanders in Graham County Superior Court. Sanders granted a 10-day injunction on transport and sale of the Martinez cattle.
Clifton District Ranger Frank Hayes said the actual injunction was signed Nov. 28, the same day Martinez also filed a request to make the injunction permanent and request the livestock be returned to Arizona. Hayes said the Forest Service was not notified until it was served with an order to appear at a Dec. 1 hearing. However, that hearing was canceled.
On Nov. 29, Albuquerque-based U.S. Attorney Howard Thomas removed the case to the federal district court in Phoenix. Hayes said Thomas agreed to keep the injunction on sale and transport of the cattle in place for the meantime.
Forest Service spokesman Bob Dyson, Springerville, said he expects quick action on the case but did not have a specific hearing date. “It's too early to tell as far as a hearing,” he said. “I'm sure the U.S. attorney is working on it now.”
Dyson said federal court is where the matter belongs. “We've always assumed since its (grazing dispute) inception that's where it was headed.
“We've always felt this is a federal action and does not pertain to state or local statutes,” he added.
Dan Martinez said the Forest Service is trampling on his federal and state constitutional rights. He also said the USFS has failed to use due process and did not have a court order to remove the cattle. Zieroth said the Forest Service followed every legal procedure necessary and a court order was not required. “We are doing it under federal laws and regulations that allow us to administratively impound anything that's trespassing on the forest,” she said. Hayes said the Forest Service “has bent over backward” to amicably resolve the dispute with the Martinezes and the cattle impoundment was a last resort. Zieroth said after the notice of impoundment was issued in July, letters were sent to Martinez giving him a final opportunity to remove the cattle, but he chose not to.
http://www.eacourier.com/articles/2005/12/07/local_news/news02.txt
UPDATE:
v.
U.S. Forest Service
Martinez cattle are sold by USFS in Texas
Another chapter in the ongoing saga of a dispute between a rancher and the federal government has been written. Cattle impounded by the U.S. Forest Service were sold at auction in Texas last week.
The grazing allotment dispute between the Martinez family and the Forest Service, which has been simmering on the coals for well over a year, is now in federal court. The Forest Service said the cattle belonging to the Martinez family were illegally grazing on the Pleasant Valley and Hickey allotments in the Clifton Ranger District of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest.
The cattle are from the Martinez Ranch, northeast of Clifton. The ranch was owned for decades by Abelardo “Abe” Martinez Sr. and was purchased by his three sons, one of whom is Dan, the family's spokesman. Dan contends the Forest Service is wrong and has acted illegally in the impound action.
He successfully filed a petition for an injunction in Graham County Superior Court in late November that kept the cattle from being sold in Dalhart, Texas, on Dec. 1. However, the case was moved to federal court by a U.S. attorney and the injunction expired.
Forest Service spokesman Bob Dyson said in a Dec. 16 news release that 328 head of cattle were sold at a public auction in Dalhart for “about $159,606” on Dec. 15. He said 12 of the cattle died after they were in Texas.
“There was a two-week delay in selling the animals as a result of an Arizona Superior Court injunction, so the animals stayed at the sale barn longer than anticipated.” Dyson said. “Because of the two-week delay, 10 cows and two calves eventually died despite efforts of the sale barn and its veterinarian to treat the animals with antibiotics. There are still over 30 head scheduled to be sold at the Dalhart facility.”
Dyson said money from sale of the cattle “goes toward offsetting costs incurred by the Forest Service, the State of Arizona and the sale barn for gathering and caring for the cattle and completing brand inspections and ear tagging. If there are any receipts left, then the remaining money goes to the previous owner of the cattle.”
That is unlikely to happen. Clifton District Ranger Frank Hayes said impoundment and other related costs come to about $400,000. He said the amount received for the cattle was affected negatively due to the antibiotic treatments, which had to be disclosed to buyers, who must then wait 30 days before the cattle can be slaughtered.
He said a certified letter was sent to Martinez notifying him of the cattle sale and related facts. He said Martinez was also notified that 37 head of cattle that were still in Arizona were shipped to Dalhart on Dec. 16.
Dyson said the Forest Service tried for over a year to have Martinez remove the cattle from federal land. Dan Martinez, who now owns the Martinez Ranch with his two brothers, adamantly disagrees with the Forest Service and said removal of the cattle is a criminal act on the part of the federal agency.
At the heart of the dispute between the USFS and the Martinezes is a Forest Service requirement of the waiver of a grazing permit by Abelardo Sr. in order to have it reissued to his sons. The permit process would involve a reduction in the number of cattle that can be grazed and affect access to parts of the San Francisco River, Zieroth said.
In late July, Dan Martinez said the Forest Service wanted his father to waive certain rights, and his father refused to do so. He said his father has never been involved in the legal system and the Forest Service is trying to “take advantage of these small ranchers.”
Not so, Apache Sitgreaves Forest Supervisor Zieroth said. She said the matter simply comes down to the fact the Martinezes do not have grazing permits. She said the USFS has tried to work with the Martinezes to resolve the issue, but they have refused to comply. She said the Martinezes' Pleasant Valley allotment grazing permit expired in August 2004.
On July 25, the Forest Service sent the Martinezes notices of intent to impound unauthorized livestock. Dan Martinez faxed a copy of the impound notice to The Copper Era. “Refused for Fraud!” was scrawled in large letters on the notice.
Martinez also said he would not resist removal of the cattle but would take action afterward. “I intend to prosecute criminals,” he said. “There's not even a court order. We haven't seen any legal documents.”
Zieroth said a court order was not necessary to impound Martinez's cattle and the Forest Service followed proper procedure leading up to and during the action. She said, “Under federal regulations, unauthorized livestock must be impounded and removed from federal lands, and if they are not redeemed by the owner of the livestock, they are sold at public auction.”
The Forest Service is relieved “to have completed this phase of the lengthy process in removing the cattle from the National Forest,” Zieroth said in the Dec. 16 news release announcing the cattle sale.
She said, “We have been especially concerned for the health and welfare of the cattle so we were a bit disappointed when the injunction delayed their timely disposition. We can now move ahead to authorize a new grazing permittee for the Pleasant Valley Allotment.”
While the case is in federal court, Martinez apparently intends to have his day in state court in Arizona. On that same day the remaining cattle were shipped from Arizona to Texas, The Copper Era received a faxed copy of a letter from Martinez's attorney, Billy W. Boone, to a livestock commission company representative in Dalhart demanding Martinez's cattle be returned to him or face court action in Arizona.
Boone said in his letter, dated Dec. 12, “Rather than avail itself of the legal channels in Arizona courts to challenge the rights which pre-date the Forest Service, the U.S. Forest Service simply stole the cattle without judicial process nor seeking authority of the courts in Arizona. He said the Forest Service circumvented the law by moving the cattle to New Mexico and then to Dalhart.
“Constantly moving the cattle from jurisdiction to jurisdiction when there are auctions in Arizona should make one sit back and wonder why?” Boone writes. “It certainly does not pass the smell test.”
Boone also says, “As you are aware, by letter from Mr. Dan Martinez, that he is the owner and there is a lien on those cattle for $600,000 that pre-dates the U.S. Forest Service's wrongful seizure of the cattle. Demand is hereby made for the return of Mr. Martinez's cattle. If the cattle are either sold or not immediately returned to Mr. Martinez, you along with the auctioneer company will join the individuals form the U.S. Forest Service as defendants in state court in Arizona.”
He adds, “Please be advised that Mr. Martinez has reported the theft of these cattle to the appropriate authorities in Arizona.”
Recall started
Boone does not say in his letter what “proper authorities” he is referring to. They certainly are not authorities from Greenlee County where the cattle were rounded up and impounded. Greenlee County Attorney Derek Rapier and Sheriff Steve Tucker said the cattle impoundment is a federal matter over which they have no jurisdiction. Their stand has angered some people in Greenlee and a recall of both has been started.
Duncan resident Donald Vandell filed an “application for serial number for recall” on behalf of Americans For Property Rights on Dec. 6 with the Greenlee County Elections Director's Office.
Vandell said in the filings on Rapier and Tucker that both “stood by while U.S. Forest Service employees broke Arizona law.” He said both refused to enforce a provision of the Arizona Constitution that says, “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
In both documents Vandell said, “This property includes cattle. A court order is required to forcibly remove an private property from a citizen of the State of Arizona, United States of America. The U.S. Forest Service has not received a court order from a court in Arizona.”
In a second letter to the editor in today's Copper Era, Rapier reiterates his stand that federal and not local law applies to the case and the county has no jurisdiction in the matter.
Posted by Frank DuBois at 12:53 PM 0 comments Permalink
http://thewesterner.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_thewesterner_archive.html
Martinez cattle case moves to federal court
By Walter Mares, Copper Era managing editor
Published on Wednesday, December 7, 2005 11:09 AM MST
A case involving the impoundment of cattle by the U.S. Forest Service is headed to federal court. That, and not the county superior court, is where Forest Service officials and the Greenlee County Attorney say the matter belongs.
The U.S. Attorney's Office in Albuquerque moved the case to the federal district court in Phoenix on Nov. 29. The move was made after the cattle's owner filed an injunction locally to prevent sale of the cattle, most of which have already been shipped to Texas for sale.
The cattle, belonging to the Martinez family, were impounded by the Forest Service in October and November. The Forest Service said the cattle were illegally grazing on two allotments on Forest Service land near the Martinez Ranch northeast of Clifton. The USFS said the Martinez family's grazing permit for the Pleasant Valley was canceled in 2004 and the Martinezes never had a permit for the Hickey allotment.
Dan Martinez, who is the spokesman for the ranch he owns with his two brothers, adamantly disagrees with the Forest Service and said removal of the cattle is a criminal act on the part of the federal agency.
Waiver of a grazing permit is at the center of the dispute between the USFS and the Martinezes. Abelardo Martinez Sr., who owned the ranch since the 1940s, sold the ranch to his three sons. The Forest Service is requiring Martinez to waive his permit to the agency so it can then be issued to the sons. Dan Martinez, who lives in Santa Fe, N.M., said his father will not waive the grazing permit and the USFS is trying to make him give up his rights.
Apache-Sitgreaves Forest Supervisor Elaine Zieroth said waiver of the Pleasant Valley permit and reissuing it to the Martinez brothers would involve two modifications, and that appears to be what the Martinezes object to. One modification involves decreasing the number of cattle that can be grazed on the Pleasant Valley allotment. The other change involves modifying grazing along the San Francisco River to meet environmental regulations.
Dan Martinez has said in court documents he filed in Graham County Superior Court that the Forest Service has broken the law and stolen the cattle from his private property. Martinez has also filed a deed claim on the Pleasant Valley allotment with the Greenlee County Recorder's Office claiming the allotment is his private property.
The Forest Service said Martinez is wrong. Zieroth told The Copper Era the allotment is not part of the Martinez Ranch. She said it is Forest Service property and Martinez's deed claim is invalid. She said “there is no mechanism” for Martinez to legitimately claim the property as his. She also said Forest Service personnel have not been on the Martinez Ranch itself, other than perhaps to use a county-maintained public road that runs through a corner of the property.
“We had it surveyed and put up markers to make sure we did not go onto the Martinez property,” Zieroth said and reiterated neither the Pleasant Valley nor the Hickey allotments are the Martinez's personal private property.
Greenlee County Attorney Derek Rapier is in agreement. Rapier wrote a letter to the editor in today's Copper Era, which said, “Mr. Martinez appears to rely heavily on a case known as Hage vs. U.S. Mr. Hage made land claims very similar to Mr. Martinez and in 2002, the court ruled against Mr. Hage. The court looked at all of the laws Mr. Hage presented going back to 1785 and found that none of them give the rancher any ownership in federal grazing lands.
“The court also looked at U.S. Supreme Court decisions from as early as 1911 and as recent as 2000 which all ruled that use of public lands never turns into ownership of public lands. These decisions also make it clear that the federal government has exclusive authority to manage federal public lands, including the power to modify permit conditions and reduce herd size.”
Rapier and Greenlee County Sheriff Steve Tucker have been criticized by Martinez and some of his supporters for not intervening and preventing the Forest Service from impounding the cattle. Both maintain the matter is a federal issue in which they have no jurisdiction.
“Although individual county officials have expressed their personal opinions on this issue, under the current state of the law, Greenlee County has no legal authority to get involved in the dispute between the Forest Service and Dan Martinez,” Rapier said. “Although Mr. Martinez believes otherwise, no law or court decision, either federal or state, supports the view that county government has authority over the federal government regarding management of federal lands.”
Around 300 head of cattle that were rounded up and impounded were shipped Dec. 1 to Dalhart, Texas, for sale. A few remain in Arizona. Most of the proceeds will go toward offsetting the USFS's costs of impounding and shipping the cattle, Zieroth said.
Martinez filed a petition for injunction to stop the sale and prevent any more of his cattle from being shipped out of Arizona. He filed the petition in Greenlee County Justice of the Peace #1 Court and was heard by Rocky Manuz. It was forwarded to the Greenlee Superior Court, where Judge Monica Stauffer recused herself. The matter was moved to Judge Corey Sanders in Graham County Superior Court. Sanders granted a 10-day injunction on transport and sale of the Martinez cattle.
Clifton District Ranger Frank Hayes said the actual injunction was signed Nov. 28, the same day Martinez also filed a request to make the injunction permanent and request the livestock be returned to Arizona. Hayes said the Forest Service was not notified until it was served with an order to appear at a Dec. 1 hearing. However, that hearing was canceled.
On Nov. 29, Albuquerque-based U.S. Attorney Howard Thomas removed the case to the federal district court in Phoenix. Hayes said Thomas agreed to keep the injunction on sale and transport of the cattle in place for the meantime.
Forest Service spokesman Bob Dyson, Springerville, said he expects quick action on the case but did not have a specific hearing date. “It's too early to tell as far as a hearing,” he said. “I'm sure the U.S. attorney is working on it now.”
Dyson said federal court is where the matter belongs. “We've always assumed since its (grazing dispute) inception that's where it was headed.
“We've always felt this is a federal action and does not pertain to state or local statutes,” he added.
Dan Martinez said the Forest Service is trampling on his federal and state constitutional rights. He also said the USFS has failed to use due process and did not have a court order to remove the cattle. Zieroth said the Forest Service followed every legal procedure necessary and a court order was not required. “We are doing it under federal laws and regulations that allow us to administratively impound anything that's trespassing on the forest,” she said. Hayes said the Forest Service “has bent over backward” to amicably resolve the dispute with the Martinezes and the cattle impoundment was a last resort. Zieroth said after the notice of impoundment was issued in July, letters were sent to Martinez giving him a final opportunity to remove the cattle, but he chose not to.
http://www.eacourier.com/articles/2005/12/07/local_news/news02.txt
UPDATE:
The Environmentalists threatened the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service by way of suit in a letter and is now considered evidence in a Civil RICO Action and are now looking at serving prison sentences of 20 years each if convicted, there is evidence of Conspiracy to Commit Fraud and Racketeering as a Organized Crime Syndicate.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Secession Movement Sweeps All 50 States
SECEEDING FROM THE UNION
I believe Sucession from the Union, should be the main priority or agenda that is most talked about in this country. It is very important that Sucession should be taken seriously by every State in the Union. Doing everything phisically possible to enure that every citizen in America is protected from our Federal Government. The Government works for the people because we have allowed them to, and they only exist because we allow them to exist. The People of America have the right to abolish our Federal Governement if they overreach their boundies or thier very existence is so out of control that we are to take arms in order to protect ourselves from such Communists.
Arizona
Article VI: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Please refer to the Folloewing links for information on Secession.
http://secessionnews.com/
http://www.associatedcontent.com/topic/39377/secession.html?cat=37
http://secessionuniversity.com/
Secession Movement Sweeps All 50 States
Since my first report of Texas and Louisiana residents petitioning the federal government to peacefully withdraw from the United States, the numbers have grown, until now all 50 states have petitions going and many of them have already succeeded in making their goal and topping the 25,000 necessary signatures, which triggers an official response from the White House.While some commenters have claimed that is was only a 100,000 or so people that were pushing this, the figures are pushing upwards of 1 million and that is just since Saturday. The petitions are gaining national attention and I’ve received many emails in support of the effort and some that are against it.
Let me say those who are opposed believe that this is what Barack Obama wants: divide and conquer.
Well, stop and think for a moment. We are divided in this society. It wasn’t just Barack Obama doing it though. Mitt Romney made the comment that there are 47% living on the government dole and Obama supporters. Well, that wasn’t completely true as I wrote about here. However, both men saw the country divided ideologically. It is. There is no getting around that.
But here’s the good news. These petitions to peacefully withdraw so a common unity around the principles that the Founders united around. Remember, the Revolutionary War was not wanted by the majority of the people. Neither was the War of Northern Aggression. But both were fought on principles and both were fought because of an oppressive government.
I do not wish to see bloodshed here in America with a war. In fact, that is the last thing I want. It is the last thing these petitioners want. Their petitions are for a “peaceful withdraw,” not a forcible one.
With all of this said, it will be interesting to see exactly how the White House responds. I’m guessing they will basically blow it off and say there will be no withdrawing, but then again look who is being petitioned. However, I think the public knowledge that there are those of us who are fed up with an ever encroaching federal government by both parties is healthy for the country as a whole. These states will not be divided. I am confident that we will look out for each other, but those of us who do not believe it is government’s place to be charitable would like to voluntarily do that, not be forced to do so.
Though you can find in my previous article a list of states and petitions, I’m providing and updates and alphabetized list here for quick reference.
May things remain peaceful and God grant us changed hearts of our leaders and our people and true repentance of His own people, the Church, and may He heal our land.
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/11/secession-movement-sweeps-all-50-states/#ixzz2JRUkV9QK
Source:
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/11/secession-movement-sweeps-all-50-states/
Read More:
http://patriot-newswire.com/2012/11/union-dissolving-40-states-now-petitioning-white-house-for-secession/
www.successcouncil.com
DECLARING SOVEREIGNTY
Articles
Increasing Number of States Declaring Sovereignty
Oklahoma House defends its sovereignty from D.C. intrusion
21 States Claiming Sovereignty
Our 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolve, Will Defeat the New World
States Rights, 10th Amendment & Secessionist Movement 2009
New Hampshire and Washington legislators reaffirm states' rights UPDATE: 8 more states
States take the tenth
State Sovereignty Movement Quietly Growing
Federalism and the 10th Amendment
Oklahoma declares Sovereignty!
States Rights Movement vs Federal Government
21 States Claiming Sovereignty
21 States Claiming Sovereignty
Freedom’s Phoenix
February 12, 2009
February 12, 2009
21 States Claiming Sovereignty: AZ, AL, AK, AR, CA, CO, GA, HI, ID, IN, KS, ME, MI, MO, MT, NH, NV, OK, PA, TX, & WA
Wow… it will be interesting to see how this turns out… it’s about time people started stepping up and speaking out. As people have pointed out in comments, all of these (except for HI) are explicit restatements of what has always been in place, but not necessarily enforced, as detailed by the 10th Amendment. HI is actually aiming for total sovereignty as it is claimed that HI was never really a state of the U.S. to begin with. However, I believe the intent of these bills is to let the federal government know that the states’ sovereignty will not be overwritten… say in case certain gun ban laws get passed… or other “War Time / Martial Law” type plans come into play. Check them out:
AZ: http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hcr2024p.htm
AL: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
AK: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
AR: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
CA: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/93-94/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sjr_44_bill_940829_chaptered
CO: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
GA: http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/1995_96/leg/fulltext/sr308.htm
HI: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-1372.htm
ID: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
IN: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
KS: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
ME: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
MI:http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(21rmjiv1sl0wvw55yxurwl55))/documents/2009-2010/Journal/House/pdf/2009-HJ-01-22-002.pdf
MO: http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/bills091/bills/HR212.HTM
MT: http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm
NH: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html
NV: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
OK: http://www.ok-safe.com/files/documents/1/HJR1089_int.pdf
PA: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
TX: (not officially declared recently, but is supposedly sovereign since it was never willfully ceded to the States – put on planning list)
WA: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2009&bill=4009
AL: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
AK: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
AR: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
CA: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/93-94/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sjr_44_bill_940829_chaptered
CO: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
GA: http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/1995_96/leg/fulltext/sr308.htm
HI: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-1372.htm
ID: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
IN: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
KS: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
ME: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
MI:http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(21rmjiv1sl0wvw55yxurwl55))/documents/2009-2010/Journal/House/pdf/2009-HJ-01-22-002.pdf
MO: http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/bills091/bills/HR212.HTM
MT: http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm
NH: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html
NV: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
OK: http://www.ok-safe.com/files/documents/1/HJR1089_int.pdf
PA: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
TX: (not officially declared recently, but is supposedly sovereign since it was never willfully ceded to the States – put on planning list)
WA: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2009&bill=4009
Ernest Hancock
Freedom’s Phoenix
February 12, 2009
21 States Claiming Sovereignty: AZ, AL, AK, AR, CA, CO, GA, HI, ID, IN, KS, ME, MI, MO, MT, NH, NV, OK, PA, TX, & WA
http://www.mrstep.com/politics/az-wa-mo-nh-ok-claiming-sovereignty/
Wow… it will be interesting to see how this turns out… it’s about time people started stepping up and speaking out. As people have pointed out in comments, all of these (except for HI) are explicit restatements of what has always been in place, but not necessarily enforced, as detailed by the 10th Amendment. HI is actually aiming for total sovereignty as it is claimed that HI was never really a state of the U.S. to begin with. However, I believe the intent of these bills is to let the federal government know that the states’ sovereignty will not be overwritten… say in case certain gun ban laws get passed… or other “War Time / Martial Law” type plans come into play. Check them out:
AZ: http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hcr2024p.htm
AL: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
AK: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
AR: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
CA: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/93-94/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sjr_44_bill_940829_chaptered
CO: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
GA: http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/1995_96/leg/fulltext/sr308.htm
HI: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-1372.htm
ID: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
IN: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
KS: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
ME: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
MI: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(21rmjiv1sl0wvw55yxurwl55))/documents/2009-2010/Journal/House/pdf/2009-HJ-01-22-002.pdf
MO: http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/bills091/bills/HR212.HTM
MT: http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm
NH: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html
NV: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
OK: http://www.ok-safe.com/files/documents/1/HJR1089_int.pdf
PA: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
TX: (not officially declared recently, but is supposedly sovereign since it was never willfully ceded to the States – put on planning list)
WA: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2009&bill=4009
http://www.infowars.com/resources/states-rights.html
SPECIAL ACTION - Due Process
Discovery - Aberment
AZ Rules of Civil Procedure 8d
other cases: Include CV2010-007, CR2009-096, CR2008, CV2005-022
IN AND FOR THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN THE COUNTY OF GRAHAM
Name , ex rel People of State of Arizona
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF ARIZONA - GRAHAM COUNTY
Presiding Superior Court Judge; R. Douglas Holt,
Superior Court Judge; D. Corey Sanders,
JP Judge; Gary Griffith,
County Attorney Kenneth Angle,
Deputy County Attorney; Leslie Capace,
Deputy County Attorney; Stuart G. Ross,
Judge Robert C. Pursley,
Judge Richard M. Jernigan,
Judge Chris C. Long,
Defendants,
CV2009-300 Discovery Questions
43 Questions, name
1. Do you agree Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated Title 38 Ch. 1 Genneral Provisions Article 1 Definitions 101.Definitions for Office Board or Commission, Public Institution, Officer, or Public Officer, is the subject matter?
IF NO ANSWER IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED THE ANSWER IS YES, IF THE ANSWER IS NO, PLEASE PROVIDE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, OR APPLICABLE LAW.
2. Do you agree, there is a mandate on a public official to indorse thereon his official bond, by the officer, and the approving officer in reference to Tiltle 38-253?
Arizona Revised Statutes, 1901 Chapter 19, Section 231. 1912 adopted as the law of Arizona.
IF NO ANSWER IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED THE ANSWER IS YES, IF THE ANSWER IS NO, PLEASE PROVIDE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, OR APPLICABLE LAW.
3. Do you agree, that (Title 38-253 Approval of Bond Filing), is the time prescribed for filing the oath and the bond one day prior to taking any office? Revised Statutes of Arizona, 1901 Chapter 19 Section 227 and 228. 1912 adopted as the laws of Arizona.
IF NO ANSWER IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED THE ANSWER IS YES, IF THE ANSWER IS NO, PLEASE PROVIDE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, OR APPLICABLE LAW.
4. Do you agree bonds of deputies and employees, shall be filed with the officer appointing the deputy or employee? Revised Statutes of Arizona, 1901Chapter 15, Section 210 and 215. 1912 adopted as the laws of Arizona.
IF NO ANSWER IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED THE ANSWER IS YES, IF THE ANSWER IS NO, PLEASE PROVIDE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, OR APPLICABLE LAW.
5. Do you agree the board of supervisors under such limitations and restrictions as are prescribed by law, may: 1Supervise the official conduct of all county officers and officers of all districts of and other subdivisions of the county charged with assessing, collecting, safekeeping, managing, or disbursing the public revenues see that such officers faithfully perform their duties and direct prosecutions for delinquencies, and, when necessary, require the officers to renew their official bonds, make reports and present their books and accounts for inspection. ARS Title 11-251, Powers of the Board. See Soruce: Revised Statutes of Arizona, 1901, chapter 14, Section 200. 1912 adopted as the laws of Arizona.
IF NO ANSWER IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED THE ANSWER IS YES, IF THE ANSWER IS NO, PLEASE PROVIDE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, OR APPLICABLE LAW.
6. Do you agree, the board of supervisors has the power to fill by appointment all vaccancies occorring in county or precinct offices? See Ref. (ARS Ttile 11-251 Paragraph 16.) See source: Revised Statutes of Arizona, 1901. 973, 1000, 1012, 1027, 1044, Laws of 1912. Chapter 62, Section 1.
IF NO ANSWER IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED THE ANSWER IS YES, IF THE ANSWER IS NO, PLEASE PROVIDE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, OR APPLICABLE LAW.
7. Do you agree, that a failure to qualify or take the oath of office, or to file the official bond within the time prescibed results in an absolute loss of the right to enter on the office? See source Revised Statutes of Arizona, 1901 Chapter 19, Section 250, and 254. 1912 adopted as the laws of Arizona.
IF NO ANSWER IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED THE ANSWER IS YES, IF THE ANSWER IS NO, PLEASE PROVIDE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, OR APPLICABLE LAW.
8. Do you agree, that where statute provides that an officer who failed within a timely mannor to qualify to file his bond shall be deemed to refuse such office? See source: Revised Statutes of Arizona, 1901 Chapter 19, Section 250, and 254. 1912 adopted as the laws of Arizona.
IF NO ANSWER IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED THE ANSWER IS YES, IF THE ANSWER IS NO, PLEASE PROVIDE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, OR APPLICABLE LAW.
9. Do you agree, that it has also been held however that a defacto board or body cannot create a dejure officer?
IF NO ANSWER IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED THE ANSWER IS YES, IF THE ANSWER IS NO, PLEASE PROVIDE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, OR APPLICABLE LAW.
10. Do you agree that one who is not entitled to hold or perform the functions of more than one at one time, may not collect compensation for more than one office, for the same period, unless authorized by law.
IF NO ANSWER IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED THE ANSWER IS YES, IF THE ANSWER IS NO, PLEASE PROVIDE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, OR APPLICABLE LAW.
Questions 11. - 43. , Comming Soon!
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
John Stossel
John Stossel - Free Market
As a libertarian, Stossel says that he believes in both personal freedom[15] and the free market. He frequently uses television airtime to advance these views and challenge viewers' distrust of free market capitalism and economic competition. He received an Honoris Causa Doctorate from Francisco Marroquin University, a libertarian university in Guatemala, in 2008. He told The Oregonian, on October 26, 1994:
“ I started out by viewing the marketplace as a cruel place, where you need intervention by government and lawyers to protect people. But after watching the regulators work, I have come to believe that markets are magical and the best protectors of the consumer. It is my job to explain the beauties of the free market.[16] ”
“ I'm a little embarrassed about how long it took me to see the folly of most government intervention. It was probably 15 years before I really woke up to the fact that almost everything government attempts to do, it makes worse.[17] ”
Stossel argues that personal greed creates an incentive to work and to innovate.[18] He has promoted school choice as a way to improve American schools, because he believes that when people are given a choice, they will choose the better schools for their children.[19] Referring to educational tests that rank American students lower than others he says:
“ The people who run the international tests told us, "the biggest predictor of student success is choice." Nations that "attach the money to the kids" and thereby allow parents to choose between different public and private schools have higher test scores. This should be no surprise; competition makes us better.[20] ”
He has also criticized government programs as inefficient, wasteful, and harmful.[21]
Stossel opposes corporate welfare and bailouts.[22]
He opposes legal prohibitions against pornography, marijuana, gambling, ticket scalping, prostitution, homosexual activity, and assisted suicide,[23] and believes most abortions should be legal.[24]
He opposes the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq.[5]
LIBERTY, FREEDOM, LIBERTY, FREEDOM, LIBERTY, FREEDOM, LIBERTY
John Stossel Show, Monday July 5, 2010.
More Guns, Less Crime.
(Braidy Bill, Campaine, Vice President - Dennis Hennigan is against gun rights.)
Stossel discussed the right for students at a college campus to carry concealed weapons.
Do Gun Control Laws Kill
Mark Walters defended himself by revealing to the robber, that he was carrying a weapon for self defense, which gave the robber good intention to leave, at that time.
Gun Possession, Prevents Crime.
Mark Walters has a Radio show called "Armed American Radio"
Stossel also discussed the new U.S. Supreme Court Ruling, "McDonald v. City of Chicago" Gun Rights Case.
A New York Senator said well we have locks on asprin, why not on guns.
John Stossel
http://www.johnstossel.com/
As a libertarian, Stossel says that he believes in both personal freedom[15] and the free market. He frequently uses television airtime to advance these views and challenge viewers' distrust of free market capitalism and economic competition. He received an Honoris Causa Doctorate from Francisco Marroquin University, a libertarian university in Guatemala, in 2008. He told The Oregonian, on October 26, 1994:
“ I started out by viewing the marketplace as a cruel place, where you need intervention by government and lawyers to protect people. But after watching the regulators work, I have come to believe that markets are magical and the best protectors of the consumer. It is my job to explain the beauties of the free market.[16] ”
“ I'm a little embarrassed about how long it took me to see the folly of most government intervention. It was probably 15 years before I really woke up to the fact that almost everything government attempts to do, it makes worse.[17] ”
Stossel argues that personal greed creates an incentive to work and to innovate.[18] He has promoted school choice as a way to improve American schools, because he believes that when people are given a choice, they will choose the better schools for their children.[19] Referring to educational tests that rank American students lower than others he says:
“ The people who run the international tests told us, "the biggest predictor of student success is choice." Nations that "attach the money to the kids" and thereby allow parents to choose between different public and private schools have higher test scores. This should be no surprise; competition makes us better.[20] ”
He has also criticized government programs as inefficient, wasteful, and harmful.[21]
Stossel opposes corporate welfare and bailouts.[22]
He opposes legal prohibitions against pornography, marijuana, gambling, ticket scalping, prostitution, homosexual activity, and assisted suicide,[23] and believes most abortions should be legal.[24]
He opposes the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq.[5]
LIBERTY, FREEDOM, LIBERTY, FREEDOM, LIBERTY, FREEDOM, LIBERTY
John Stossel Show, Monday July 5, 2010.
More Guns, Less Crime.
(Braidy Bill, Campaine, Vice President - Dennis Hennigan is against gun rights.)
Stossel discussed the right for students at a college campus to carry concealed weapons.
Do Gun Control Laws Kill
Mark Walters defended himself by revealing to the robber, that he was carrying a weapon for self defense, which gave the robber good intention to leave, at that time.
Gun Possession, Prevents Crime.
Mark Walters has a Radio show called "Armed American Radio"
Stossel also discussed the new U.S. Supreme Court Ruling, "McDonald v. City of Chicago" Gun Rights Case.
A New York Senator said well we have locks on asprin, why not on guns.
John Stossel
http://www.johnstossel.com/
In 2002 The Oath of Office was filed by public officers in the State of Arizona correctly!
The Graham County Human Rights Association petition the Arizona Supreme Court with 150 signitures of qualified elctors living in Arizona, And informed them that their was no public officer in Graham County that has taken the proper oath required by law. IN 2002 the Arizona Supreme Court went to every county in the state and made all public officials take the proper Oath of Office. Now in 2010, The Graham County Human Rights Association, and others have found that most of the public officers in Graham County have either failed to file an oath of office, vacant in the office from not filing timely, or have failed to file the correct Oath of Office.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
The Political Outlook on Freedom!
People standing in the fight for liberty and Justice, for all Americans.
Rand Paul
http://www.randpaul2010.com/
Ron Paul - Texas
http://www.ronpaul.com/
Sylvia Allen - AZ Senate
http://sylviaallen.wordpress.com/
http://www.allenazsenate.com/
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano - New Jersey -
Freedom Watch, Constitutional Watch Dog
http://www.judgenap.com/
Richard Mack - Ret. Sheriff
http://www.richardmack.com/
Rand Paul
http://www.randpaul2010.com/
Ron Paul - Texas
http://www.ronpaul.com/
Sylvia Allen - AZ Senate
http://sylviaallen.wordpress.com/
http://www.allenazsenate.com/
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano - New Jersey -
Freedom Watch, Constitutional Watch Dog
http://www.judgenap.com/
Richard Mack - Ret. Sheriff
http://www.richardmack.com/
Headlines:
DNA Testing - Texas
http://www.innocenceproject.org/index.php
Wrongful Prosecution and Imprisonment in IL.
http://www.exonerated.org/content/
DNA Testing - Texas
http://www.innocenceproject.org/index.php
Wrongful Prosecution and Imprisonment in IL.
http://www.exonerated.org/content/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)