Posted on 04/22/2014 6:56:08 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Senior writer John McCormack joined Greta van Susteren's political panel Monday on Fox News to discuss the protest at the Bundy ranch in Nevada. Watch the video below:
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
Meanwhile, in this week's issue, the Scrapbook writes about the problems with Cliven Bundy's cause:
Twenty years ago, the federal government, which owns the land on which Bundy grazes his 900 cattle, decided to impose a grazing fee. Bundy opposes that fee, has consistently refused to pay it, and the federal Bureau of Land Management now claims that he owes $1 million in unpaid fees. Bundy has challenged the grazing fee in federal court—indeed, has challenged the federal government’s title to land in Nevada—and has consistently lost. Sixteen years ago, a federal judge issued a permanent injunction against Bundy, ordering the removal of his cattle. Bundy appealed that ruling to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and lost again. Last August, a federal court gave Bundy 45 days to remove his cattle, and in October, a federal district judge ordered Bundy not to “physically interfere with any seizure or impoundment operation.”
This does not sound to The Scrapbook like the dread hand of tyranny, in Nevada or Washington, oppressing an innocent farmer, or pushing some law-abiding citizen around. It sounds, instead, like a rancher gaming the system to his own financial advantage, and disguising his scheme in populist rhetoric: refusing to pay a tax which others must pay, and “tying up the courts”—for two decades!—as he continues to ignore the law. Far from acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner, the federal government has shown patience and forbearance in the face of lawlessness that customarily lands people in jail. It is worth noting that Bundy’s rancher-neighbors and the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, who contend with the same federal policies, offer him little support.
Bundy has exercised his First Amendment right to plead his case publicly and inflame his admirers. And inflamed they have been: A few hundred people from around the country converged on Nye County, Nevada—many armed and brandishing weapons—to disrupt the government’s attempt to enforce the law, taunting and attacking agents dutifully carrying out the orders of a federal court. Last week, fearful of violence, the BLM suspended its roundup and withdrew from the area.
This is no victory for anyone other than Bundy and, The Scrapbook hopes, a temporary one at that. There is a term to describe the people who surround him, and it isn’t “militia.” The word is “mob.” And what this mob has practiced is not civil disobedience but armed provocation of a democratic government which has afforded Cliven Bundy every right and privilege as a citizen. One of Bundy’s supporters boasted to the press that “we were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front.” This is the same spirit that animates people who attack firemen during riots, or opposed school integration with violence in Little Rock, Arkansas. In that case, 57 years ago, President Eisenhower was obliged to send the 101st Airborne because, as he said, “mob rule cannot be allowed to override the decisions of our courts.”
What was true then remains true today. Cliven Bundy is no hero of any kind. No conservative would pick and choose the laws he intends to obey, defy the rest, and challenge the rule of democracy with guns. No hero would adopt the terrorist’s tactic of placing innocents in harm’s way. Any fool can pick up a weapon and aim at an officer of the law; the moral power of civil disobedience lies in the willingness to defer to the law and accept punishment on principle.
“How many years in prison did Bill Clinton, Jon Corzine & Charley Rangel get?”
Maybe you want to be Bill Clinton. I do not. I believe the truth is important. I’m more concerned with being on God’s side than on selling an argument, and that means taking the truth seriously.
“Would you and your wife assent to the terms of the updated contract”
The contract ALWAYS allowed the government to revise it at will. The contract never specified XXXX AMU forever. Since the government had the right to change it at will, it had less market value than a fixed contract on private land. It is possible to sue the BLM successfully for arbitrary and capricious changes to an allotment - Hage did, and won.
“The language from the court cases is just that - the language of the Double Tongues.”
The language was provided by Bundy in sworn statements. You cannot complain that, when required to give a statement under oath, he did not say what you wish he said.
“And speaking of court cases, did the BLM have some sort of court order enabling them to destroy Bundy’s water infrastructure out there in the desert...”
Bundy could sue for a ‘taking’, except he had no legal right to install those in the first place. A right to water does not mean you get to put a water tank anywhere you want. It means access to water, but not anywhere you choose to access the water. And water is something notably missing from any of Bundy’s court filings.
That executive order is not what established grazing fees, it had to do with the way they were to be calculated.
Grazing fees/management fees were first charged by Grazing Boards set up by the Forest Service in the early 1900s.
The Taylor Grazing Act 1934 created a Division of Grazing, grazing allotments, established Grazing Boards, charged fees. In 1939 the Division of Grazing became Grazing Service- fees were charged.
1946 Grazing Service and General Land Office became BLM, charged grazing fees.
1978 Law signed by President Carter was to give more credence, power what have you to those using public land other than ranchers. The law was to originally raise grazing fees on public land to the same as for leasing deeded, but due to many restrictions and requirements to build fences, etc. ranchers felt it wasn’t fair to pay same fees and that part didn’t pass. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=30058
1979 Sagebrush Rebellion (Nevada led, but other states joined in)- Ranchers feeling pressure from environmental groups influencing BLM and Forest Service policy, removing cattle for wilderness areas, etc. Ranchers fought back by attempting to get Public Land turned over to the states to manage. The state of Nevada legislature claimed 49 million acres from BLM by passing an act declaring so, as did Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming. When Reagan was running for President he stated: “I happen to be one who cheers and supports the Sagebrush Rebellion. Count me in as a rebel.” The Sagebrush Rebellion never really ended, many lawsuits, claims over several years. It simmered down when Presidents Reagan and Bush were in office because they reined in the Forest Service and BLM and supported ranchers.
1986 Reagan’s Executive order was in response to the law signed by President Carter and the Sagebrush Rebellion- mainly the purpose was establishing a set way to determine fees so fees could not be arbitrarily raised beyond reason to put a rancher out of business, which many claimed was happening.
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1986/21486b.htm
There is more...rules regulations and laws, pressure from environmental groups...Earth First is a big player that was out in front to get all cattle removed from Public Lands (all lands for that matter)- slogan “Cattle free by 93” was a declaration of war against ranchers. and now Earth First keeps a low profile letting biological diversity groups take the lead, same goal, put ranchers out of business.
In a nutshell, since the 1970s there has been a war waged against ranchers that have grazing rights on public land by environmentalists/liberals and they have fought BLM and Forest Service in court over what they see as favored treatment of ranchers. At first Forest Service and BLM supported ranchers but then began to support environmental groups.
It is not the price of grazing fees that is the issue, they cannot be arbitrarily raised (Reagan’s executive order) so instead the government cuts the number of cattle allowed. The number of cattle allowed to graze has to be a fluctuating number because of rain/drought conditions. The theory is when range conditions are good the number is allowed to be more but when there is a drought or fire that means less forage so numbers will be lower. The issue is the government started lowering the number of cattle allowed for other reasons, like the desert tortoise...though many critters, and other things are used as excuses as well. The government uses allowed numbers to drive ranchers out of business when they choose to do so. Say a rancher has grazing rights for 1000 head of cattle but the government says he can only run 800 not because of range condition but due to environmental reasons, then suppose they keep lowering the number every time it is up for renewal until the number allowed is so low it is impossible for the rancher to stay in business. That is what happened to the ranchers in the area of the Bundy ranch and that is what happened to Bundy, the government lowered his allowed number of cattle to 150, which would put him out of business. If he had signed the lease he would have been agreeing to it and would have been unable to try to do anything about it in court but would have been out of business. Since he refused to sign it the government would not let him pay fees so it was a catch 22 situation that happened because he decided to stand his ground.
The Sagebrush Rebellion has never officially ended which is why Bundy claims the land is state not federal.
Other ranchers have stood their ground, Kit Laney, Diamond Bar Ranch, NM (Forest Service went after him); Wally Klump, Arizona; Wayne Hage, Nevada, likely more that I don’t know about..the Hage battle is interesting because at one point a judge ruled in his favor and stated the government was doing underhanded things to run him out of business and awarded him damages (I think that was later overturned and his estate is still fighting the battle)
There is a lot to this, and the more you find the more you will find.
I would call it a catastrophe, him, his family, relatives and friends--one that he might have avoided a l-o-n-g time ago. These problems don't suddenly appear one day out of the blue. You know that.
I hope he lawyers up fast and good. I would sent him a check TODAY for said attorney: $1000.00 bucks if he needed it. You read it kiry. He's got that dough from me if he needs it.
I am willing to put my money where my mouth is, just to help him out.
Too bad he didn't lawyer up before to prevent this.
You can ask Jim if I donate. I do and will again.
I guess you follow the rules that YOU want to follow and if naming calling someone who disagrees with you feels good then you will do it. Shame on you for stooping to the ad hominum attack.
It shows that your brain has run out of logic and you have nothing better to resort to than name calling. Shame on you.
I agree with you 100%.
Why don't you start writing some small articles right here on FR? Make them chronological if you can.
After a while they WILL soon turn out to be a SERIES of articles. They will start fitting into a pattern of logic that will reflect your very straight and clear thinking.
After more time, those articles will suddenly become clear to you as chapters in a book. It doesn't have to be a 1000-page epic; it can just be a couple of hundred pages.
***You can even include articles from your friends, those that are willing to put their words in print.
You can ask "names" to contribute.
You can self-publish! Get started by just getting on the ole computer and writing!
========================
Yes, I know all this from personal experience. :o)
Yes, it takes some up front money but to see YOUR thoughts on the printed page...nothing like it.
If When you publish I would love an autographed copy from you. (please).
Boy did he and his wife ever pony up for “higher” education.
Thanks for the info. That’s the best explanation of the whole thing I’ve read so far. I knew some of that (I’m well aware of the push to close off Federal land to logging, mining and motor vehicles as well as ranching), but not all.
They really want to keep everyone off of federal land, and some politicians are doing shady deals with OUR land...interesting that it used to be called Public Land.
I just call it Federal land to distinguish it from State owned land, which is also public land, and is pretty substantial in some states. Of course the eco-Nazis want people off that too.
Yes we do have democrat/socialist spies here , several on this thread.
maybe some of the low info voters might have an excuse in not seeing obama is a criminal because the media hides his crimes but democrat posters on here faking being conservatives do not as here Obama’s crimes are exposed
but this cloudmountain or whatever is just a such an evil socialist propagandist that it defends Obama and says that Obama is not a criminal when this one has seen some of the crimes Obama has perpetrated as these have been exposed on freerepublic. the low info voters are less evil than these socialists on this thread. and they think they fool me . i can spot them a mile away. they don’t fool me . they are not conservatives but they do love government and Obama
I know what you are, now.
It avoided my posts as long as it could, then gave some mealy-mouth "answer" which didn't even address my direct point.
It's here to misdirect, change the subject and spout a pious line of BS that some FReepers might buy.
Not you or I, nor most others.
“the moral power of civil disobedience lies in the willingness to defer to the law and accept punishment on principle.”
Also a good way to end up in a FEMA re-education camp. :-)
Maybe you want to be Bill Clinton. I do not. I believe the truth is important. I’m more concerned with being on God’s side than on selling an argument, and that means taking the truth seriously.
Bill Clinton to endorse Charlie Rangel for re-election
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3147776/posts
Jon Corzine will probably press flesh at the fundraiser...
Yes, the "truth" is important all right. Our Lords in Washington LOVE it when the good little peasants have learned to tell the truth to their rightful lieges, and their hired guns.
I'm thinking the Founders would have given you an answer you wouldn't like.
Sorry to hear a supposed conservative doesn’t want to tell the truth. Joining up with the Father of Lies isn’t a good idea, long term.
Bundy is no different that Hobby Lobby taking the Fed to court for what they consider to be an unconstitutional act on their part.
Is the “tea party” threatened because Hobby Lobby won’t just pay the darn abortion money?
What if Hobby Lobby loses and still refuses to pay the darn abortion money and starts getting fined and refuses to pay the fine?
Will the Commerce Department send armed agents to surround their stores and pick off their managers and cashiers?
I agree. So why ARE you siding with Harry Reid, one of the chief minions of the Father of Lies?
Supplemental pay for your "military retirement"? You seem to have put in an awful lot of work on this issue, judging by your posting history on the Bundy blowup.
I seem to recall that ANOTHER "retired veteran" did much the same, plus, was invoking the pious Christian schtick at the same time.
It just so happens that "retired military" and "Christian" are two big sellers on Free Republic.
Hmmmmmmmm...
“So why ARE you siding with Harry Reid, one of the chief minions of the Father of Lies?”
I haven’t. Not in the least. But LYING about WHY Bundy did things is not required, nor is it acceptable.
“judging by your posting history on the Bundy blowup.”
Yep. Posting FACTS. Posting about the LAW. And posting about the source of the problem, which is CONGRESS.
“It just so happens that “retired military” and “Christian” are two big sellers on Free Republic.”
I’m ashamed of neither.
[Wayne] Hage didn’t get his money. His legal theories sucked. However, the BLM has been ordered to give his heirs a grazing permit and access to water.
In your numerous discussions of the Wayne Hage case, you did The Progressive Thing - you left out stuff that you didn't want the other reader knowing.
Most people call it "lying by omission". It's one of the reasons I became a dedicated enemy of politicians in general, and Democrats in particular.
I'm sorry to see that a supposed conservative & Christian doesn’t want to tell the truth, but prefers to lie by omission to carry his point. Which makes it not a point, at all. And now, the rest of the Wayne Hage story:
Federal Judge Accuses Federal Land Managers of Attempting to Bankrupt Ranch
http://watchdogwire.com/nevada/2013/06/14/federal-judge-accuses-federal-land-managers-of-attempting-to-bankrupt-ranch/
June 14, 2013
In a scathing 104-page opinion a Nevada federal judge lambasted the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service for behavior that “shocks the conscience” of the court, accusing federal officials of attempting to bankrupt the Hage family ranch by entering into “a literal, intentional conspiracy to deprive the Hages not only of their permits but also of their vested water rights.”...
...This past fall, Judge Jones held a three-day hearing at the end of the trial of this case and found Tonopah Bureau of Land Management area manager Tom Seley and Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Service ranger Steve Williams in contempt for witness intimidation and attempts to circumvent the jurisdiction of the court. The judge said there was “intent to deprive this court of jurisdiction by intimidation of witnesses and threats against witnesses.”
Jones ordered from the bench, “Mr. Seley can no longer be an administrator in this BLM district. I don’t trust him to be unbiased. Nor can he supervise anybody in this district.”
He said the two tried to destroy the ranch financially by filing claims against the Hages’ water rights and sending solicitations for 10-year grazing permits on a grazing allotment held by the Hages.
Ten months later, the online office directories of both agencies list both men as still holding down the same jobs...
Hage Forage Right Trial Ends With BLM and U.S. Forest Service Employees Found in Contempt
http://hosted.verticalresponse.com/239864/86d36d9a87/569000697/9e9d8d7a64/
RENO, NV—Friday, August 31, a weeklong show-cause hearing ended with Chief Federal District Court Judge Robert C. Jones finding Tonopah Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manager Tom Seley and Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Service ranger (USFS) Steve Williams in contempt of court. The contempt, including witness intimidation, occurred during the pendency of the five-year-old forage right case, U.S. v. Estate of E. Wayne Hage and Wayne N. Hage.
Seley was specifically found having intent to destroy the Hages’ property and business interests. “Mr. Seley can no longer be an administrator in this BLM district. I don’t trust him to be unbiased. Nor can he supervise anybody in this district,” the judge stated in his order from the bench.
The contempt finding was the result of the USFS and BLM having filed suit against Wayne N. Hage and the Estate of E. Wayne Hage in 2007 but then also seeking alternative remedies while the case was pending in derogation of the court’s jurisdiction.
“The problem is Mr. Seley especially, and to a lesser extent, Mr. Williams...had to kill the business of Mr. Hage. They had to stop him in any way possible,” the judge noted as the motive for their contemptuous actions. “My problem was that you were seeking remedy outside this court,” he added.
The court noted, “You got a random draw of a judge. You submitted to this civil process.” Then, Seley and Williams pursued their own remedies by trying to extort money out of third-party ranchers who had leased cattle to Wayne N. Hage. They issued trespass notices, demands for payments, their own judgments, and in one instance coerced a $15,000 settlement. All of this was done during the time the court had jurisdiction over these issues.
Counts against Seley and Williams included filing on top of the Hages’ vested and certificated stockwater rights with intent of converting those rights to a new permittee; sending 75 solicitations for 10-year grazing permits in the Ralston allotment aiming to destroy the Hages’ grazing preferences and water rights; issuing temporary permits to third parties, in particular Gary Snow of Fallon, Nev., with the knowledge that Snow’s cattle would drink the waters belonging to the Hage family; and, finally, the assessment of fines, penalties and judgments on third parties whose cattle were under the legal possession of Wayne N. Hage.
Judge Jones remarked about the July 26 Federal Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling in the parallel constitutional Fifth Amendment takings case, U.S. v. Hage. The court expressly said the Hages have “an access right” to their waters. He also noted that the court did not overturn any of the Hages’ property rights that the Court of Claims found the Hages to own. Also, the takings that were overturned were overturned on the basis that the claims were not ripe, not because the government was acting correctly.
The hearing began Monday, August 27, with a cadre of agency heads from Washington, D.C., regional and state offices turning up in Reno to defend their policies and employees in court. After intense questioning by the court, Judge Jones made witness credibility findings in which USFS Region 4 Director Harv Forsgren was found lying to the court, and Nevada head of the USFS, Jeanne Higgins, was not entirely truthful. After those findings, several other named witnesses did not testify.
In his bench ruling Friday night, Judge Jones stated: “The most persuasive testimony of anybody was Mr. Forsgren. I asked him has there been a decline in AUMs [animal unit months/livestock numbers] in the West. Then I asked him has there been a decline in the region, or this district. He said he doesn’t know. He was prevaricating. His answer speaks volumes about his intent and his directives to Mr. Williams.” The court noted that anybody who is school age or older knows “the history of the Forest Service in seeking reductions in AUMs and even an elimination of cattle grazing during the last four decades. Not so much with the BLM—they have learned that in the last two decades.”
In his findings of witness intimidation, Judge Jones noted: “Their threats were not idle. They threatened one witness’s father’s [grazing] allotment.” The judge referenced testimony wherein Steve Williams delivered trespass notices accompanied by an armed employee. In one instance the armed man snuck up behind one of the witnesses with his hands ready to draw his guns. “Packing a gun shows intent,” the court noted.
In explaining the findings to Seley and Williams, the court found there was “intent to deprive this court of jurisdiction by intimidation of witnesses and threats against witnesses.” He added, “Where you crossed the line is you took civil action yourself in order to kill the business of Hage.”
Seley and Williams were held personally liable for damages totaling over $33,000 should the BLM and USFS fail to fund the losses to Hage and third parties. In addition, Judge Jones imposed an injunction wherein the BLM and USFS are prevented from interfering with third-party leasing relationships when the livestock are in the clear operational control of Wayne N. Hage. The judge ordered Hage to reapply for a grazing permit and ordered the federal government to immediately issue permits to the Hages for the winter grazing season on the Ralston allotment.
The judge said he had already written 100 pages of his final decision from the main trial ending June 6. He indicated his published decision should be forthcoming in early October. Wayne N. Hage represented himself, pro se, and Mark Pollot, a Boise, Idaho, attorney, represented the Estate.
==========================
I'm not sure why a supposed "conservative" would be defending this sort of naked government thuggery, as you did ("Hage didn’t get his money. His legal theories sucked"), but it's something I and many others on this site would never do.
Take the King's Shilling, and keep attacking Bundy and Hage.
Just don't try to pawn your swill off on me.
I did not leave it out. I have mentioned it in numerous posts. For example:
Nevada Showdown: All Hat, No Cattle (Hurl Alert applicable?)
Tuesday, April 15, 2014 8:56:12 AM · 39 of 115
Mr Rogers to wideawake
A fellow named Hage has fought things in court for as long as Bundy. The court ruled:
“In the present case, the Government’s actions over the past two decades shocks the conscience of the Court, and the burden on the Government of taking a few minutes to realize that the reference to the UCC on the Estate’s application was nonsensical and would not affect the terms of the permit was minuscule compared to the private interest affected. The risk of erroneous deprivation is great in such a case, because unless the Government analyzes such a note in the margin, it cannot know if the note would affect the terms of the permit such that the acceptance is in fact a counteroffer.
The Government revoked E. Wayne Hage’s grazing permit, despite his signature on a renewal application form, because he had added a reference to the UCC to his signature indicating that he was not waiving any rights thereby. 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....
...The Government has sufficiently proved an ongoing trespass to warrant a permanent injunction, although not so broad an injunction as the Government desires. Defendants are also entitled to an injunction, as outlined, infra. There is a great probability that the Government will continue to cite Defendants and potentially impound Defendants’ cattle in the future in derogation of their water rights and those statutory privileges of which the Government has arbitrarily and vindictively stripped them. There is also a probability that Defendants will continue to permit their cattle to graze in excess of the incidental grazing permitted during stock watering that cannot reasonably be prevented. The Court will therefore enjoin all parties in certain respects and will require Hage to apply for a permit and the Government to grant it...
...THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that the denial of E. Wayne [*192] Hage’s renewal grazing application for the years 1993—2003 was an abuse of discretion, as well as a violation of due process, as the only reason given for the denial was that the applicant noted near his signature that he did not thereby relinquish certain unidentified rights under the UCC, a superfluous condition that cannot possibly have affected the terms of the permit. It is this violation that has led to all of the allegedly un-permitted grazing to date and the BLM’s refusal to offer any permit to Hage himself.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Government is enjoined from unreasonably interfering with the ability of Defendants Wayne N. Hage and the Estate of E. Wayne Hage to bring cattle to those water sources and attendant ditches in which these Defendants have vested rights to water their cattle as identified herein. The Government may impose reasonable regulations upon access to these water sources, such as specifying which routes shall be used for ingress and egress, if it is necessary to impose such restrictions for legitimate purposes. Reasonable regulations are those that neither prohibit access to the water nor restrict access to the water in a way that unreasonably burdens the ability to access and use the water.”
A more productive course of action might be for the state of Nevada to sue the BLM, arguing the BLM is violating public law by trying to eliminate grazing on public land in violation of federal law.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies
And from post 181, this thread:
“The contract ALWAYS allowed the government to revise it at will. The contract never specified XXXX AMU forever. Since the government had the right to change it at will, it had less market value than a fixed contract on private land. It is possible to sue the BLM successfully for arbitrary and capricious changes to an allotment - Hage did, and won.”
This:
Beck Warns Americans Against Falling in With ‘Right’s Version of Occupy Wall Street’ (Bundy)
Tuesday, April 15, 2014 8:39:41 AM · 103 of 201
Mr Rogers to Lou Budvis
“Just when did he come to this brilliant legal conclusion that the land really belonged to Nevada?”
Probably around 1990-1993. There were folks going around telling folks that. One of them, Hage - a guy with more smarts than Bundy IMHO - lost his legal arguments in court last year (his estate, since he died), but the court also said the behavior of the BLM “shocks the conscience of the court”. It pointed out that the BLM went looking for a fight and created a problem where there did not need to be one.
Here:
Bundy Boots the BLM – Is This a Significant Moment?
Monday, April 14, 2014 7:58:58 AM · 33 of 70
Mr Rogers to agere_contra
The current status of the Hage case can be found here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/144609491/United-States-v-Estate-of-Hage-No-2-07-cv-01154-RCJ-VCF-Findings-of-Fact-Conclusions-of-Law-and-Injunction-D-Nev-May-24-2013
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies
Hage’s legal theory that the BLM & USFS could not administer land because the feds cannot own it sucks. Sorry, but that is the truth and the courts have consistently applied the law as it has stood from the 1800s - and rejected Hage’s legal theory about the feds owning land.
The court DID, however, also attack the feds for creating a fight where none was needed - as I have pointed out.
Sorry to see you choose to lie again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.