Liberty
Matters News Service
May 27, 2004
Hage Takings Trial Ends Well for Plaintiffs
Phase two of the Hage v. United States takings lawsuit
concluded its three week trial in Reno, Nevada last Friday. Plaintiffs were
optimistic about the testimony they presented and believed they were able to
discredit each of the government witnesses. The case is the first of its kind
to allege that environmental regulations and agency action caused the taking of
a ranch that operates on both private and federal lands. The court had already
ruled that Hage owned the water, rights of way, and other necessary rights to
operate the ranch. This trial was to present evidence proving government action
took those property rights. Notably, the government's key witness, David
Grider, the US Forest Service District Ranger that authorized the confiscation
of Hage's cattle, impeached his own testimony four times. A series of post
trial briefs will be filed between now and the closing arguments scheduled for
October. Daily reports of the trial can be read at www.stewards.us.
Wild Salmon Retain Endangered Status
The Bush administration
announced last week that it will continue to protect wild salmon under the
Endangered Species Act, a move that astonished environmentalists and property
rights advocates equally. Environmentalists have continued to push for added
protection of the "wild" salmon, even though there is ample evidence they are
not genetically different from hatchery-raised fish. "We'll let them justify to
a judge how they think hundreds of thousands of fish are threatened with
extinction," said Russ Brooks, a lawyer with the Pacific Legal Foundation.
Earlier, U. S. District Court Judge Michael Hogan termed it "arbitrary" to
separate wild fish from hatchery fish, the result of a lawsuit brought by
property rights advocates in Eugene, Oregon. "It is absolutely legally
indefensible," said Timothy Harris, general counsel for the building industry,
a key player in the in the lawsuit. "Under the Endangered Species Act, [wild
and hatchery-bred salmon] have to be considered the same species. This is a
real step backwards." Acting on rumors that the Bush administration was
considering lifting protections for the fish, Washington state Democrats, U.S.
Senators Maria Cantwell, Patty Murray and U. S. Rep. Norm Dicks, sent a joint
letter to the Bush administration urging retention of the protections. "There
is well-documented evidence that hatchery-bred fish can have negative impacts
on wild stock if hatchery facilities are not constructed and operated in a
manner that recognizes and is consistent with wild salmon," they wrote.
Stocks of Wild Salmon Retain Legal
Protection
Legislation to Split Ninth Circuit
Legislation to split the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals into three parts has been offered by Rep. Rick
Renzi (R-AZ) and Sen. John Ensign (R-NV). The Ninth Circuit Judgeship and
Reorganization Act of 2004, H.R. 4247 and S. 2278, would create new Ninth,
Twelfth and Thirteenth Courts from the old Ninth, the largest Appeals Court in
the nation. The new Ninth would hear cases from California, Guam, Hawaii, and
the Northern Mariana Islands and would be headquartered in San Francisco and
Los Angeles. The Twelfth Circuit would take in Arizona, Nevada, Idaho and
Montana and would be located in Phoenix, Arizona and Las Vegas, Nevada. The
Thirteenth Circuit would preside over Alaska, Oregon, and Washington from
Portland, Oregon and Seattle, Washington. The Ninth has irritated many by its
controversial and bizarre rulings, the most public of which was last year's
decision to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. Rep. Renzi said
his legislation is aimed at reining in liberal judges who use the bench to
advance a political agenda. "For too long, Arizonans [and other citizens] have
been held hostage by activist judges…who have consistently ruled against
ranchers, farmers, miners and our timber industry," Renzi
said.
Bill
Splits Controversial Ninth Circuit into Three Smaller Courts
Animal Rights: Activism or Criminal Act?
The Senate Judicial Committee last week held
hearings to learn more about the growing problem of eco-terrorism. FBI Deputy
Assistant Director John Lewis testified that the difficulty they face battling
this type of crime was the lack of strong federal laws. Lewis said the U. S.
Supreme Court, in a decision in Scheidler v. the National Organization for
Women, denied the use of the Hobbs Act to prosecute criminal cases, which has
been a useful tool in prosecuting eco-terrorist cases. In Scheidler, the Court
ruled that even though activists may be found to illegally interfere with,
disrupt or even deprive victims of the free exercise of their property rights
or their right to conduct business, this activity does not constitute extortion
as defined under the Hobbs Act, unless the activists seek to obtain or convert
the victims' property for their own use. In spite of testimony from those who
had been on the receiving end of animal rights' criminal tactics, Sen. Patrick
Leahy (D-VT) could see nothing but a Bush administration conspiracy to label
activists as terrorists. "This administration aggressively stamps everything
with a "terrorism label," he said, as he left early to attend another committee
hearing on HIV/AIDS. Ironically, the eco-terrorists target animal research
facilities that are vital to developing cures for AIDS and other deadly
diseases.
Vermont Brings Fear of "T" Word to Eco-terrorism
Hearing