Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evidence for Klamath Falls
Original Work ^ | 6-10-02 | Forest Glen Durland

Posted on 06/10/2002 3:22:12 PM PDT by forest

In June, 2002, Forest Glen Durland sent Notices of Evidence to two 9th Circuit Court judges and to numerous agencies involved in unconstitutional actions in the Klamath Basin. The purpose was to put these people on notice.

Another reason was to comply with the Misprision of Felony law that mandates that citizens report known crimes. That Forest has done, and to the people committing the crimes.

These documents are printed below.

The list of the addressees is linked below.

The letters to the judges and Departments of Agriculture and Interior were sent via Registered Mail, Return Receipt.

All others were sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt.

In addition, a copy of Magna Carta American Style was included for the judges.

Judge Ann L. Aiken in Eugene, OR

Judge Saundra B. Armstrong in Oakland, CA


 

Evidence for the Court Record

June 4, 2002

Notice to Federal Employees concerning Farmers and Loggers in Klamath and Siskiyou Counties

The federal government has no authority to control farms, farm water or timber. Anyone violating that truth is committing serious breach of law. The misprision of felony law demands that such violations be reported.

1.The Supreme Court has cited the Federalist Papers as a definitive document for the Constitution of the U.S.

2.The Federalist Papers are vital to the meaning Constitution.

3.The Federalist Papers state that the Constitution is a limiting document.

4.The Constitution authorizes the federal government to do certain duties. All else is unconstitutional.

5.The Constitution limits land control by the federal government to the Capitol in Washington DC, post offices and post roads, forts and docks, etc., period. To consider other aspects is to violate the Constitution.

6.No treaty can supersede that constitutional limitation. Treaties are inferior to the Constitution of the United States and have no standing here. No wildlife can authorize government exception.

7.The EPA, ESA, BoR, BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, national forests, etc., are unconstitutional.

8.People have the right to be let alone. So ruled the United States Supreme Court.

 

Any federal employee violating these truths is subject to the following laws:

1.The Supreme Law of the Land consisting of the Constitution of the United States, the Federalist Papers and Supreme Court Cases

2.Oath of Office

3.Rule of Law

4.Color of Law

5.Accessory After the Fact

6.Misprision of Felony. This letter is in compliance. Your appropriate action is requested.

7.Posse Comitatus law

8.18 USC 241 bars conspiracy against rights.

9.5 USC 706 encourages citizens to take overbearing federal regulatory agents and bureaucrats to court.

 

In summary, the federal government must cease farm, water and timber control in Klamath and Siskiyou Counties The UN must be removed. Unconstitutional suits by ecologists, etc., must be negated.

Extensive documentation is available at <http://www.uhuh.com> in posts listed on the opening page.

1.KBD - study the documented version at <http://www.uhuh.com/action/klamfalls/kfallsdc/kbd.htm>.

2.Constitution Trumps Treaties - Supreme Court cases. Nicknamed ConTrump.

3.Limited Federal Government - thesis with extensive documentation. Included are

a."Protecting Our Property Rights" by Doug Fiedor in Fiedor Report On the News #243.

b."Court Cooks Glancing Goose" by Doug Fiedor in Fiedor Report On the News #215.

 

Two Ninth Circuit Court judges have ruled on the Klamath Basin water crisis, and federal agencies are currently involved in a ruling concerning endangered species, all a direct violation of the Constitution and the laws listed herein above. It is requested that your court peacefully observe Constitutional limitations and rule accordingly. Your good will can be shown by your dating and signing the enclosed Magna Carta American Style, returning it me, and implementing it.

Please enter this evidence into your records concerning the closing of the Headgates in Klamath Falls, OR.

 

Sincerely,

 

Forest G. Durland

14675 1/2 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, CA 95070-6081. (408)867-4410. c. 2002 by Durland


[The evidence notice to federal agencies is identical except for the title and the ending paragraph, which follows:]

 Evidence for the Agency Record

...

Two judges in the Ninth Circuit Court have ruled on the Klamath Basin water crisis, and federal agencies are currently involved in a ruling concerning endangered species, all a direct violation of the Constitution and the laws listed herein above. It is requested that your office peacefully observe Constitutional limitations with the original intent by the Founding Fathers, and rule accordingly.

Please enter this evidence into your records concerning species rulings affecting Klamath Falls, OR.

...


Go to Magna Carta American Style

Go to Evidence Notice Mailing List

Go to Klamath Solution posted on FreeRepublic for Freepers

Go to KBD (Klamath Basin Document) adapted for Freepers and posted on FreeRepublic

Go to U-Write KBD adapted for Freepers and posted on FreeRepublic



TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections; US: California; US: Oregon
KEYWORDS: 9thcircuitcourt; constitution; enviralists; federalistpapers; klamathbasincrisis; klamathlist; landgrab; misprisionoffelony; otcbb; treatiesnull
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061 next last
Posted in conjunction with the KDB Series (Klamath Basin Document)
1 posted on 06/10/2002 3:22:12 PM PDT by forest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: all


What? You haven't contributed to Free Republic yet?

Did you know Free Republic is funded solely by us?

Don't wait until it too late! Do you part, contribute if you can,

or bump the fundraising thread.

A Tribute to Freepers - Summer Freepathon! Thread 2

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
Send PayPal direct to JimRob@psnw.com

2 posted on 06/10/2002 3:43:13 PM PDT by WIMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forest
Like my Dad used to say: GO GET 'EM MY BOY!

There are times I wish I had become a lawyer, just to screw these bastards. Best of luck; hope it works.

3 posted on 06/10/2002 3:44:54 PM PDT by the crow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *Klamath_list;farmfriend;editor-surveyor
*Index Bump and fyi
4 posted on 06/10/2002 3:55:46 PM PDT by Fish out of Water
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: forest
The Constitution authorizes the federal government to do certain duties. All else is unconstitutional.

Well, that means that the Klamath Falls Project was itself unconstitutional and that the facilities need to be demolished posthaste, with all land taken by eminent domain for the project returned to their rightful owners, heirs, or assigns, and all land held by the the State of Oregon prior to the Klamath Falls Project being returned to the State.

5 posted on 06/10/2002 4:01:40 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fish out of Water; *Enviralists; 1Old Pro; 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub; a_federalist; abner...
Truth?

We don't need no steeenking truth!

6 posted on 06/10/2002 4:02:24 PM PDT by editor-surveyor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Why are you so antagonistic to liberty?

Have you ever seen any tyranny that you didn't love?

7 posted on 06/10/2002 4:04:54 PM PDT by editor-surveyor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
I fail to see how this extra-COnstitutional action can be "all right," while that one over there is heinously wrong.

This isn't "resistance to tyranny," it's a bunch of farmers saying they have a right to public subsidy.

8 posted on 06/10/2002 4:06:36 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
"Well, that means that the Klamath Falls Project was itself unconstitutional and that the facilities need to be demolished posthaste, with all land taken by eminent domain for the project returned to their rightful owners, heirs, or assigns, and all land held by the the State of Oregon prior to the Klamath Falls Project being returned to the State."

Hardly.

9 posted on 06/10/2002 4:12:03 PM PDT by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: nightdriver
I fail to see where the Constitution authorizes the building of water projects. The plaintiffs' brief says that those actions not permitted by thre Constitution are forbidden. I'm just taking the plaintiffs' claims to their logical conclusion.
11 posted on 06/10/2002 4:15:18 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Fish out of Water;marsh2; dixiechick2000; Helen; Mama_Bear; poet; Grampa Dave; doug from upland...
Ok, seems to be 2 threads on the same thing posted by the same guy. Pinging anyway.
12 posted on 06/10/2002 4:16:19 PM PDT by farmfriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rabidone
As the US Constitution does not call for a standing national military- doesn't this same argument require the destruction of the United States Marines, Navy, Army, Air Force (and perhaps Coast Guard)?

You misinterpret the Constitution. It plainly says that Congress has the power to "RAISE armies" (but no appropriation for said armies shall last more than two years), but it has the power to MAINTAIN a navy (which can include a landing force--the Marines, and has done so from the earliest days of the Republic).

An argument could be made (and the Libertarian Froot Loop Fringe actually does attempt to make it) that the Air Force is unconstitutional.

If you really wanted to argue those points, then the Army, as it stands today, is legal (its budget appropriations are for this fiscal year only, and Congress can, if they choose to do so, zero out the Army's budget tomorrow and close it down October 1st). The Navy and Marine Corps are also legal. The Air Force is on shaky ground, but a simple Congressional reorganization can transfer its assets to the Navy (many of its assets already directly support the Navy's missions). The Coast Guard can also be considered an element of the Navy.

13 posted on 06/10/2002 4:22:16 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
Measure twice, "Post Article" once, Honorable Grasshopper, and you will master the Tao of Free Republic =:o)
14 posted on 06/10/2002 4:25:23 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
"it's a bunch of farmers saying they have a right to public subsidy."

You've peddled that lie here before, but Jeff and AuntB presented credible evidence that the participants paid off every penny and more. - There is no subsidy, the operations turn a profit.

15 posted on 06/10/2002 4:56:05 PM PDT by editor-surveyor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
You've peddled that lie here before, but Jeff and AuntB presented credible evidence that the participants paid off every penny and more. - There is no subsidy, the operations turn a profit.

Well, yeah. Once you delete the initial subsidy (I sure as hell can't swing an interest-free loan, nor can I force land sales at gunpoint, nor can I just make a sweetheart deal with the statehouse for their lands, nor can I simply rewrite a treaty with the local Indian tribe at the drop of a hat), it makes a profit.

If they had to pay market prices for the land AND the loans, this thing would have gone broke in a few years.

Like I said, the plaintiffs' case reduces down to "it may be unconstitutional as hell, but it's OUR pet unconstitutionality, so we ought to continue deriving the benefits thereupon."

16 posted on 06/10/2002 5:01:19 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
I'm just taking the plaintiffs' claims to their logical conclusion.

Nope, as far as I am concerned, you're taking your interpretation of the plaintiff's claim's to your logical conclusion ... the logic of which is extremely dubious IMHO.

The pertinent Reclamationm Act was a contract between the government and the people involved. The government has not kept faith with the terms or conditions of the contract. What should happen is that the project should be privatized as was intended. Your claims about these particular farmers being on some kind of free ride as respects this project or the water involved are so much smoke and hot air whose only purpose is (IMHO) to support your own position.

But [YAWN], what else is new? 'Nuff said.

17 posted on 06/10/2002 5:05:10 PM PDT by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
Uh, Jeff...the contract was, according to the plaintiffs' brief, not within the powers of the Federal Government to make.
18 posted on 06/10/2002 5:14:00 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Interesting stuFf...Bump !!

Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!

Molon Labe !!

19 posted on 06/10/2002 5:27:15 PM PDT by blackie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
You are missing the big picture.

I don't mean to imply that the problems in Klamath are small by saying Klamath is a small picture, but the big picture problem is the continued expansion of Federal Reserved Water Rights.

Judicial Activism in the last half of the 20th century has created a 800# gorilla that can trump any pre-existing water right. It has created much uncertainty thru-out the west. Those Klamath water rights are a 100 years old. There are some threatened rights that go back to the Spaniards.

Babbitt said: "If we can control the water, we can control the West".

20 posted on 06/10/2002 5:32:46 PM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson