Page One

CHIEF JUSTICE WRITES 8-1 REBUKE OF FEDS

MSLF GETS BIG WIN AT SUPREME COURT

Spring 2014The Litigator

MOUNTAINSTATESLEGALFOUNDATION

Executive Offices:2596 South Lewis WayLakewood, Colorado 80227

303-292-2021Fax 303-292-1980

www.mountainstateslegal.org

The last word in Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States of America, the landmark battle for property rights by MSLF on behalf of a Fox Park, Wyo-ming landowner, came in mid-March from the Supreme Court of the United States where MSLF won big! Experts express amazement over the speed of the nearly unani-mous ruling (8-1) in favor of MSLFs client, coming as it did in a thought-ful and thorough opinion by the Chief Justice less than eight weeks after MSLFs Vice President and Chief Legal Of-ficer, Steven J. Lechner argued the case.

Marvin Brandts father received 83 acres from the United States in 1976 in exchange for lands the senior Brandt owned. The land came encumbered only by a railroad right-of-way used by the Laramie, Hahns Peak, and Pacific Railroad Company from Laramie to the Colorado line. In 1996, the Wyoming and Colorado Railroad Company, as the railroad was then known, sought to abandon the rail line; by 2004, it had removed all the tracks and ties. By operation of federal and state law, the right-of-way was extinguished and Mr. Brandts property became unencum-bered. Unfortunately, the United States said, contrary to a Supreme Court ruling it won in 1942, that it had retained an interest in the nonexistent right-of-way and intended to use it for a trail; thus the United States sued Mr. Brandt.

Beginning in 2006, through the Wyoming federal district court, the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Cir-cuit, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, MSLF battled for Mr. Brandt pro bono. Now, MSLFs Supreme Court victory will benefit thousands of landowners across America. Dur-ing oral argument, Justice Breyer, who

voted with the majority, speculat-ed that millions could be benefitted by the ruling.

The question be-fore the Court was, when a property is subject to a rail-road right-of-way granted under the General Railroad

Right-of-Way Act of 1875 and the right-of-way is abandoned by the railroad, whether the United States had retained an implied reversionary interest in the right-of-way after the underlying lands were patented into private ownership?

MSLF argued that a right-of-way under the 1875 Act granted an easement only and, upon abandonment by the railroad, any interest in the right-of-way was extinguished and passed to Mr. Brandt. The federal government argued that, in the 1875 Act, Congress granted more than a mere easement and that the fed-eral government retained a reversion-ary interest in the right-of-way, which allowed the United States to convert the abandoned railroad right-of-way into a public trail.

The Court ruled in favor of Mr. Brandt declaring that, in the words of the Chief Justice who wrote the opin-ion for the court, the United States lost in large part because it won when it argued the opposite before this Court more than 70 years ago in the case

of Great Northern R. Co. v. United States. Noted the Chief Justice, [If the beneficiary of the easement abandons it, the ease-ment disappears, and the landowner resumes his full and unencumbered interest in the land. Lectured the Chief Justice, The essential features of easementsin-cluding, most important

here, what happens when they cease to be usedare well settled as a matter of property law. Those basic common law principles resolve this case. More-over, nothing in the text of the [law] supports [the federal governments] improbable (and self-serving) reading.

Cre

dit

: Art

Lie

n

Cre

dit

: Jer

emy

P. J

acob

s of

E&

E P

ubl

ish

ing,

LL

C

Page Two

DOUBLE YOUR MSLF GIFT! TELL THE BOSS

WEB PAGE POLLVisitors to MSLFs web site at www.mountainstateslegal.org responded to

the following question: A New Mexico county bars residents from all oil and gas leasing and says nature, but not corporate entities, should have legal stand-ing to sue. Is that constitutional? One hundred percent (100%) said, No: The countys ordinance violates not just state law but also federal and state con-stitutional liberties. Zero percent (0%) said, Yes: The local bill of rights that elevates community rights over corporate rights is constitutional.

Vote on the new question at MSLFs web site today!Remember, the best way to keep abreast of MSLFs precedent-setting,

nationally-significant litigation is to check MSLFs highly acclaimed web site. MSLFs web site is updated at least every week and often daily. In particular, check for updates on MSLFs Legal Cases and News Releases.

Did you know that you might be able to double your gift for free? Thousands of companies match their employees charitable contributions. Matching gifts play a key role in help-ing MSLF fight its court battles. Please ask if your employer has a matching

gift program. Contact your human resources or personnel department to see if your company will match your gift to MSLF. Then, each time you mail your gift, please include a matching gift form from your employer. MSLF will do the rest!

PENDLEYS VIEWIn 1936, Melvin and Lula Brandt, in

a Chevy they owned outright, drove from Missouri to the Medicine Bow National Forest of southeastern Wyo-ming. When they reached Fox Park, which grew out of the transcontinental railroads need for cross ties made from lodgepole pine, they had two dollars. Melvin Brandt found work among the hearty Scandinavians who logged the forest.

He hired on to cut ties for Ole Alex-ander. With borrowed tools and boots, Melvin Brandt hiked into the woods, cut down a tree of at least 11 inches in diameter with a one-man crosscut saw, scored the sides with a six pound double-bit axe to create a minimum seven inch by four inch face, removed the scored wood with a broadaxe, and cut the shaped wood into eight foot lengths, each of which he lugged to the nearest road. Melvin Brandt got a nickel a tie.

In 1946, he and a friend bought out their boss and by 1951 they had built a permanent sawmill serviced by the Laramie, Hahns Peak & Pacific Railway, which ran east to Laramie and south to Colorado. In 1976, Melvin Brandt acquired from the U.S. Forest Service the 83 acres on which Fox Park, the mill, and his home sat, land encum-bered only by the railroad right-of-way.

Melvin and Lulas son Marvin, raised amidst the woods, the mill, and the hard work, took over the business, but the 1980 recession and the govern-ments decision to leave the timber to the pine beetle killed the mill. Marvin Brandt vowed, however, that he would keep the land. When the Forest Service threatened to take him to the Supreme Court to get his land for a trail where the railroad once ran, he fought back. In January 2014, Marvin Brandt heard a government lawyer tell the Court that the laws, documents, and rulings do not apply to the federal government. In March 2014, however, it was Marvin Brandt who left the Court victorious.

An Idaho woman who is barred from carrying a functional firearm for self-de-fense when she visits federal recreational facilities won her motion forbidding enforcement of the ban and defeated federal lawyers efforts to dismiss her lawsuit. Elizabeth E. Morris of Nez Perce County is licensed to carry a concealed weap-on, regularly carries a concealed weapon, and often recreates on lands managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-neers. Because the Corps of Engineers regulation bans func-tional firearms, even while camped in tents, Ms. Mor-riswho was issued an emergency li-cense by the Sheriff to carry a concealed handgun due to threats and physical attacks against her by a former neigh-boris subject to criminal prosecution if she seeks to exercise her Second Amend-ment rights. Alan C. Baker, a firearms instructor and resident of Idahos Latah

County, is a co-plaintiff in the suit, which was filed in August 2013 in Idaho federal district court. The Corps of Engineers did not respond to requests from MSLF, seeking exemptions from the firearm ban for its clients. The Idaho federal district court concluded that,

[t]he Corps regulation contains a flat ban on carrying a firearm

for self-defense pur-poses that completely ignor[es] the right of self-defense, and is therefore contrary to

Supreme Court prece-dent and unconstitutional.

The Corps of Engineers operates public parks and

recreational facilities at water re-source development projects and

is the nations largest provider of water-based outdoor recreation: 422 lake and river projects in 43 states, spanning 12 million acres, encompassing 55,000 miles of shoreline and 4,500 miles of trails, 90,000 campsites and 3,400 boat launch ramps. It controls 33 percent of all U.S. freshwater fishing.

IDAHOAN EARNS 2ND AMENDMENT WIN

The Wyoming Farm Bureau Federa-tion, astonished with the decision of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that the Wind River Indian Reservation includes the town of Riverton, challenged the decision before the U.S. Court of Ap-peals for the Tenth Circuit in Denver. With MSLF as its attorney, the orga-nization entered a lawsuit filed days earlier by the State of Wyoming.

In Decem-ber 2013, the EPA granted the Northern Arapa-hoe Tribe and the Eastern Shoshone Tribeboth of the Wind River Indian Reservation in Fremont and Hot Springs Coun-ties in west central WyomingTribe-as-State status under the fed-eral Clean Water Act. In so doing, however, the EPA also granted the Tribes jurisdiction over the City of Riverton, Wyoming and its resi-dents. The Farm Bureau, some of whose members live, work, and own property in Riverton or in the surrounding area, ar-gues the EPAs decision ignores more than one hundred years of actions by Congress, Wyoming, the Tribes, and rulings by a host of federal and state courts including the Supreme Court of the United States.

In December 2008, both Tribes sought Tribe-as-State status under 301(d)(2) of the Clean Air Act, which provides an ex-press congressional delegation to tribes of the EPAs authority to regulate air quality on fee lands located within the exterior boundaries of a reservation. The tribes expended 82 of their 87-page application arguing that they possessed jurisdiction over Riverton. Because their application ignored a host of federal statutes and federal and state court rulings, in 2009, the

State of Wyoming, the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, and other entities filed comments opposing the application.

The Reservation, which is shared by the Tribes, was established in 1868. In 1904, the Tribes signed an agreement

with the federal government ced-ing 1.480 million acres of land, which were to be opened for sale under the home-stead, townsite, coal, and mineral land laws, which was entered into with the United States Indian Inspector in ex-change for per capita payments to tribal mem-bers and capital improvement projects inside the diminished reserve or Res-ervation. In 1905, Congress ratified the 1904 agree-ment.

In 1906, the ceded lands were opened for settlement by a Presidential Proc-lamation and allotments were sold to non-Indians in an area that today makes up Riverton. In 1939, some unsold ceded lands were restored to the Reservation, but a significant portion was not. Riverton is located wholly on lands ceded in the 1904 agreement and never restored to the two Indian Tribes.

Over the decades, Congress, the Su-preme Court, and the Wyoming Supreme Court wrote of lands formerly embraced in the [Reservation], of the diminished reservation, and of lands that were ceded, granted, and relinquished. Moreover, challenges by tribal members of their convictions in state court for crimes committed in Rivertonputative Indian countrywere rejected, once with amicus support for the State of Wyo-ming from the United States.

Page Three

EPA: WYOMING CITY IS INDIAN COUNTRY JEWELL BACKS EPA The EPA wrote that its December

2013 determination is consistent with a 2011 Opinion of the Solicitor of the U.S. Department of the Interior. Secretary Sally Jewells Interior, home of the Indian Bureau since 1824, is the 500-pound gorilla on this issue, as it has been since 1873 when Congress transferred territo-rial responsibilities for the American West there from the State Department.

The Reservation was established in 1868, but, in 1904, the Tribes entered into an agreement with the United States to cede 1.48 million acres of land in exchange for per capita payments to tribal members and capital improvement projects within the Reservation. In 1905, Congress rati-fied the agreement, declared the lands were ceded, granted, relinquished, and conveyed to the United States, and referenced the new Reservation as the diminished reserve. In 1906, the ceded lands were opened for settlement by Presidential Proclamation; the land was sold to non-Indians, including land that became Riverton. In 1939, some of the unsold ceded lands were restored to the Reservation, but much of the land, includ-ing all land within Riverton city limits, was not.

Unfortunately, the Solicitor made unmitigated hash of this undisputed his-tory. In fact, her opinion slavishly tracks the Tribes 2008 EPA application in which they cherry-pick bits of congressional hearings and self-serving tribal docu-ments but ignore court rulings, the 1904 agreement, the 1905 Act, and their precise and binding language. Most egregious is the Solicitors failure to address a 1998 rul-ing of the U.S. Supreme Court on another tribes similar assertion. A unanimous Court, in an opinion by Justice OConnor, held Congress set forth the most certain statutory language, evincing [its] intent to diminish the [Reservation] by providing for total cession and fixed compensation.

In March, in a case from Wyoming, the Supreme Court rebuked the federal government for ignoring 139 years of legal precedent. The EPA will suffer the same fate, to paraphrase that ruling, for its improbable (and self-serving) reading of history.

RONALD REAGAN, SAGEBRUSH REBEL - HIS UNTOLD HISTORYSagebrush Rebel: Reagans Battle with

Environmental Extremists and Why It Mat-ters Today (Regnery 2013), by William Perry Pendley, tells what Reagan did, how those who followed diverted from his vision, and what America must do to restore its economy, its strength against its enemies, and its exceptionalism.

[Americas] energy boom ... would soon be bursting out all over if Obama would just do the nation a little favor. Repeat some Reagan history. [E]xcuse me, President Barack Obama, but please visit this book.

Jay AmbroseScripps Howard News Service

[T]argets of the new environmen-tal religion will find lessons [includ-ing] how one principled man and his confidence in the power of American potential could flip the radical environ-mentalist narrative and make daily life better for all Americans.

J. Christian Adams, Esq.Author, Injustice, Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department

[Pendley] understands the goal of environmental extremists: gain control of policy in order to force Americans to reduce their standard of living by shrinking the nations economy. [These] zealots have turned many [federal laws] into tools of social control.

Peter HannafordReagan associate and biographer

Sagebrush Rebel extols Reagan, exposes Clinton for his pandering to uncompromising environmentalists, and excoriates Obama. This is a must read.

William TuckerAuthor, Terrestrial Energy

Reagan believed uniquely in Americas future and its young people; his policies on energy and the environ-ment ensured prosperity for decades.

Ron Robinson, Young Americas Foundation and The Reagan Ranch

Sagebrush Rebel is one of the most important, insightful, and inspirational books about Ronald Reagans domes-tic policies since An American Life by President Reagan himself. It is a must read for those interested in all that the President accomplished.

Edwin Meese, IIIReagans Attorney General

The story of Ronald Reagans policies on natural resources and the environment has never been told, or has been distorted by his political enemies. Sagebrush Rebel corrects the record for the first time, with relevant insights for our policy debates over resource man-agement today.

Steven F. HaywardReagan biographer and author, The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counterrevolution: 1980-1989

Ronald Reagana life-long con-servationist and environmentalistbe-lieved people are part of the ecosystem. That was heresy to those who Reagan called environmental extremists, so they lie about his record. The truth is in Sagebrush Rebel.

Mark R. LevinRadio talk show host and author, The Liberty Amendments

The obsession of environmentalists is regulating private property, control-ling growthboth human and econom-icand trying to predict and alter the future. Sagebrush Rebel reveals Presi-dent Reagan would have none of that.

Linda Chavez, syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor

The progressive war on western civilization is never-ending. We musttake up Reagans fight to preserve the American way of life. SagebrushRebel shows us how. Buy it now!

Michelle Malkin, syndicated columnist, best-selling author, and Fox News contributor

Page Four

Warriors for the West

Sagebrush Rebel is FREE with a $50.00 contribution to MSLF; see the COUPON on page 5. Autographed copies are also available for $60.

If you liked Reagan, you will love Sagebrush Rebel. It is the perfect gift! Contact MSLF for pricing of copies bought in large quantity.

KEEP READING!The Litigator, MSLFs quarterly

newsletter, is the indispensable tool for staying informed regarding the latest in MSLFs precedent-setting, nationally-significant, public-interest litigation. The Litigator is mailed on the first of February, May, August, and November. Ensure that you keep receiving The Litigator by contributing $25 annually.

Prominently displayed at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Library

Page Five

Mountain States LegalFoundation (MSLF) Is ANonprofit, Public-InterestLegal Foundation, That IsA 501(c)(3) Organization,Since Its 1977 Founding.

Therefore, Your GenerousContributions To MSLF AreTax Deductible!

MSLF CANNOT REST;ITS ROLE ESSENTIALTO REMAINING FREE

In 2014, MSLF will have been goingto court for 37 years, fighting to compelcompliance with the commands of theConstitution and federal law to ensurethat America remains a nation of laws.At no time during these nearly fourdecades has the need for MSLF to go tocourt on behalf of those who could notafford legal representation been less-ened. In fact, as the federal bureaucracyhas grown and as federal laws havebecome more far-reaching and intrusive,MSLFs caseload has increased dramati-cally. That is obvious from a review ofthe scores of MSLF cases.

Your Support Is VitalIf there is one lesson MSLF has

learned over the past 37 years, it is that,regardless of which party occupies theWhite House or controls Congress, thethreat to liberty remains and MSLF mustbe ready, willing, and able to go to courtto defend freedom. As Thomas Jeffersononce said, Eternal vigilance is the priceof liberty. One of the prices that mustbe paid for MSLF to remain vigilant isthe price that tens of thousands of Amer-icans pay annually by making their tax-deductible contributions to MSLF andits aggressive litigation.

The support of MSLF by tens ofthousands of Americans committed tofreedom could not be more important.Your support will ensure that MSLFremains IN THE COURTS FOR GOOD!

MSLF receives no government funds (except when it wins in court and thejudge orders the federal government to pay attorneys fees and expenses).

MSLFs sole source of support is the tax-deductible contributions of thosewho support its aggressive litigation program.

MSLF is a nonprofit, public-interest I.R.C. 501(c)(3) corporation, which makesthe contributions it receives tax deductible.

MSLF is committed to the vision of the Founding Fathers: individual liberty,the right to own and use property, limited and ethical government, and thefree enterprise system.

MSLFs commitment to the Constitution ensures that America remains a nationof laws and not of men and that the rich liberty legacy of this nation continues.

MSLF does only one thing: it goes to court in defense of the Constitution,strict adherence to the laws of the land, and those who cannot afford to hirelegal counsel to protect their rights.

Only YOU can ensure that MSLF may continue its vital work.

Federal, state, and local taxes take an ever-increasing share of oneshard-earned income.Gift giving decreases taxes while advancing charitable goals.Although many mechanisms for legally lowering taxes have been

eliminated, the opportunities for reducing taxes by charitable giving remain!Income Tax A person may deduct up to 50 percent of his or her ad-

justed gross income (AGI) for gifts of cash to a qualified charity; that limit is 30 percentfor gifts of appreciated property. Itemized deductions made during 2013, includingcharitable deductions, are reduced for individuals earning $250,000 (married couplesearning $300,000) or more. Please consult your tax adviser.Estate Tax A person who dies in 2013 is entitled to an exclusion of up to $5,250,000;however, estates in excess of that amount may deduct charitable gifts, by will or trust.Because 2013 federal estate taxes over $5,250,000 range from 15 percent to 40 percent,for every charitable gift of $1,000, the estate saves up to $400 in federal taxes. Pleaseconsult your tax adviser. MSLF does not provide tax advice.

Contributions of stock can be made electronically to MSLFs brokerageaccount DTC 0164. When transferring stock, indicate acct. #7080-3528,Charles Schwab & Co., 518 17th St., Suite 100; Denver, CO 80202.

(Adam J. Rehmer 303-260-5916; Fax: 303-260-5095).

Please notify MSLF BEFORE making the transfer; there is no way to identify astock donor without prior notification. Thank you!

Problem u

Solution uReason u

The Means u

Stock uTransferInformation

GIFT: $_____________ o$1000 o$500 o$250 o$100 o$50 o$25o Check Payable to Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF)o Credit Card ___MC ___Visa ___Discover ___AmEx

Credit Card # _________________________________________________________________CVV# (3 digit code on back of card) ___________________ Exp. Date _______________Signature _____________________________________________________________________

NAME (Please print) _______________________________________________________________ADDRESS ________________________________________________________________________CITY ______________________________________ STATE ____________ ZIP _______________PHONE __________________________________________________________________________EMAIL ___________________________________________________________________________o Yes, I want to help MSLF in its defense of constitutional liberties and the rule of law.o I made my contribution for $50, or more. Please send me Sagebrush Rebel.o I have ADDED $10 to my $50 gift; send me an autographed Sagebrush Rebel.o I/We put MSLF in my/our will; (print name) .

A Minnesota company that owns valuable residential property in Keystone, Colorado but has been barred from using the land sued Summit County and its officials for violating its rightsunder the U.S. Constitutions Fifth and Four-teenth Amendments and provisions of the Colorado Constitutionto use its prop-erty. Magni Keystone, LLC of Stillwater, Minnesota alleges in its complaint filed in Colorado State District Court for Summit County that, although its property is in a prime residential location and is adjacent to retail shopping and services, Magni has been barred from developing the prop-erty. Magni, represented by MSLF, seeks declaratory and injunction relief from Summit Countys actions or in the alterna-tive an award of just compensation for the unconstitutional taking of its property. At issue is the Browns Cabin Property, unde-veloped 4.348 acres of land adjacent to East Keystone Road and State Highway 6 at the entrance to the River Run Neighborhood with dramatic views of the Keystone Ski

Area north west of the Eisenhower Tunnel.Magnis land is subject to the 1995

Keystone Resort Planned Unit Development (PUD), which is governed and enforced by Summit County as a recorded land use des-ignation that encumbers the land, binding Magni and its suc-cessors or assigns. The PUD as to Magnis land limits use to multi-family employee restricted units. Not to exceed 100 actual employee restricted units. The PUD allows for density transfers within its boundaries but the transfers are so costly as to render them uneconomical. The PUD also limits the pricing for employee restrict-ed units; that is, the units may not be priced higher than 125% of a federally determined affordable rate.

Magnis land is subject to Summit Countys Land Use and Development

Code, which is legally binding and sets county-wide rules on development, modi-fication of zoning designations, and the density credit transfer program.

In January 2013, seeking to build mar-ket rate condominiums on its land, Magni

submitted an applica-tion for a Major PUD Amendment. The Sum-mit County Planning Department declared the application incomplete. Magni responded and over the next several months cooperated with Summit County and

its various boards, entities, and officials to complete its proposal. In December 2013, the Planning Commission rejected Magnis proposal and in January 2014, the County rejected the proposal primarily due to Magnis refusal to purchase $2.28 million worth of Transferrable Develop-ment Rights (TDR), an impossibility for Magni.

LANDOWNER SUES COLORADO COUNTY OVER LAND USE BAR

Page Six

A small Colorado energy company that holds valuable federal oil and gas leases, but was denied its right to explore them, filed an administrative appeal challenging that denial. WillSource Enterprise, LLC, an oil and gas exploration company located in Denver, holds eight oil and gas leases in the White River Na-tional Forest in Mesa County, Colorado, just west of an area com-monly referred to as the Thompson Creek Divide. With MSLF as its attorney, WillSource filed an appeal with the U.S. Department of the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) challenging a January 2014 decision by the Colorado State Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) uphold-ing the June 2012 retroactive cancellation of three of its leases and seeks a stay of the decision. WillSource immediately appealed the 2012 decision and made a

formal presentation regarding its appeal in late January 2013; a final BLM ruling was pending ever since. Some 80 federal oil and gas leases were issued throughout the Divide but environmental groups have used various political and legal tactics to

prevent their devel-opment.

In 1995, Will-Source was issued eight oil and gas leases, seven of which are in the Willow Creek Unit, which was approved in 2003 and consists of 8,643 acres of federal leases; WillSource is

the designated operator. Environmental stipulations limit drilling in the unit to five months each year. In November of 2004, WillSource completed a well. Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs) two other wells in the unit were approved in 2004; both wells were granted yearly extensions from 2004 to 2009 as a result of conflicting and

shifting BLM and U.S. Forest Service regu-lations, primarily as to a Forest Road the agency required WillSource to reengineer and rebuild so as to be allowed to drill. WillSources 2009 request for an extension was denied.

WillSource sought a paying well determination and approval of a partici-pating area (PA), which the BLM granted by determining Little Beaver #1-20 well was capable of producing energy in pay-ing quantities. The BLM made its deter-mination in September of 2010, effective November of 2004.

In 2011, the Forest Service imposed new requirements on WillSource, includ-ing the hiring of a third party, licensed, road engineer and obtaining a $500,000 bond, which required a $300,000 collateral, funds WillSource lacks.

In November of 2011, the BLM wrote WillSource, all lands not within the . . . [PA] . . . were automatically eliminated from the unit area effective November 11, 2009, which invalidated three of Will-Sources seven leases.

COLORADO ENERGY OUTFIT FIGHTS LEASE CANCELLATION

Page Seven

LEGAL

ACTION

NOTABLE

QUOTES

n The TABOR Foundation, which defends Colorados Taxpayers Bill of Rights, which requires a vote before any new taxes or indebtedness, filed its opening brief and later its reply brief with the Colorado Court of Appeals in its appeal of the dismissal of its challenge to a Colorado law that permitted the imposition of taxes labeled fees by the Colorado Bridge Enterprise.

.nMSLF successfully ended its defense of the rights of landowners in Pennsylvania to develop their privately owned oil, gas, and mineral rights beneath the Allegheny National Forest against attempts by environmental groups and the Obama Administration to subject them to costly and time-consuming National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review. MSLF won

Thank you for all the good work you do. I know it must be frustrating at times, but please dont give up.Melvin ManrosePrescott Valley, AZ

You are doing great work. Its great to know someone is trying hard to save this country.Ethel BidwellHat Creek, CA

I hope you can now get your attor-neys fees paid [in Marvin M. Brandt Revo-cable Trust v. United States of America].Julian C. Smith, Jr. Washoe Valley, NV

Thank youfor all the meaningful work you do. It is refreshing to know we still have someone to stand up and fight for America! I especially love that you win.Cathi TownsendMillersville, MD

Please keep up the good workthis is so very important for our country.Rosemarie NeumanStevensville, MT

You are a blessing and a guardian of our rights and protector of our Constitu-tion.James A. FlynnShenandoah, TX

You guys do a great job. We support you all the way.Jimmy G. SucklaCortez, CO

Your foundation should be applauded for defending cases [regarding climate change] and/or filing briefs against imposi-tion of [the EPAs] ridiculous regulations.Steven R. HeubergerLibertyville, IL

I am very impressed with MSLFs accomplishments.Thorn L. Mayes, Jr.Durango, CO

[MSLFs victory in Morris v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers] is awesome. How refreshing to hear of common sense prevailing....Greg CarlsonOrono, MN

a preliminary injunction in 2009 and a permanent victory in 2012; both rulings were sustained by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

nA Colorado state district court denied Colorado taxpayers a preliminary injunction in their challenge to the constitutionality of new taxes that were imposed by the General Assembly without a vote of the people; the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR) case now goes to trial.

n On behalf of Montana counties and ranchers, MSLF prevailed in its efforts to limit the scope of a federal study regarding management of a national monument created by President Clinton. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit returned one aspect of MSLFs earlier victory for additional study by the BLM.

n A Nebraska attorney represented by MSLF filed his opening and reply briefs with a Nebraska federal district court seeking to ensure that the mandatory dues required of him by the state bar

association complies with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

n MSLFs brief on behalf of the Colorado Farm Bureau Federation was accepted by the Colorado Court of Appeals over the objections of plaintiffs who won a ruling from a Colorado state district court killing an agricultural use of a familys farm in Delta County.

n A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Denver rejected the argument by MSLF that Colorado legislators have no standing to challenge the constitutionality of TABOR and that the issue is a political question that courts may not address.

n A Colorado man and national Second Amendment group filed their reply brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to preserve and enhance their victory over the U.S. Postal Service and its ban on firearms in vehicles in its parking lots and in Post Office buildings.

Non Profit Organization

U.S. Postage

PAID

Denver, CO

Permit No. 847

MOUNTAINSTATESLEGALFOUNDATION

2596 South Lewis WayLakewood, Colorado 80227

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICERWilliam Perry Pendley

VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF LEGAL OFFICERSteven J. Lechner

VICE PRESIDENTADMINISTRATIONJanice K. Alvarado

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

John R. Gibson, NV: ChairmanJohn J. Blomstrom, WY: Vice ChairmanFrank S. Priestley, ID; SecretaryPeter K. Ellison, UT; TreasurerStephen M. Brophy, AZDavid Allen New, IDL. Jerald Sheffels, WADon Sparks, TX

NEW YORK LANDOWNERS SUE CUOMO FOR PROPERTY RIGHTSA coalition of 70,000 New York landowners and three

property owners sued Governor Andrew Cuomo, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), the New York Department of Health (DOH), and two State officialsCommissioners Joseph J. Martens and Nirav R. Shah of the DEC and DOC respectively. In their lawsuit, filed in New York Supreme Court, Albany County, the plaintiffs ask that the DEC be compelled to complete its studies pursuant to the State Envi-ronmental Quality Review Act to per-mit the landowners to use their land to develop energy supplies. The lawsuit follows a January letter seeking a date certain on which the study will be completed and after more than five and a half years of a moratorium barring use of privately owned property to develop the Marcellus Shale, which underlies portions of the Empire State. The landowners are represented by MSLF and Scott R. Kurkoski of Vestal, NY.

Named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit were the Joint Landowners Coalition of New York (JLCNY) of Binghamton, the Kark Family Trust in Colesville, and LADTM, LLC, and Schaefer Timber and Stone, LLC both of Deposit.

The DEC oversees the regulation of oil and natural gas drill-

ing in New York. The New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) requires the DEC to consider various factors prior to approving activities that may have an adverse effect on

the environment but also to expedite proceedings to minimize procedural and administrative delay in obtaining permits to extract oil or natural gas. In 1992, to streamline the well permitting process, the DEC prepared a Ge-neric Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS), which recognized the use of both horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (HF).

In 2008, the Environmental Conser-vation Law was amended as to spac-

ing requirements of drilling units for wells utilizing horizontal drilling and HF and then-Governor David Paterson directed the DEC to initiate a formal public process to update the 1992 GEIS as to HF and imposed a moratorium on any new permits. The DEC issued a draft supplemental GEIS, received thousands of public comments, held multiple public meetings, and issued a revised draft supplemental GEIS (SGEIS); nonetheless, the Final SGEIS remains unpublished.

Recently, New York and its officials moved to dismiss the lawsuit and MSLF filed a brief in opposition.

Cre

dit

: Joe

Mas

saro

of

En

ergy

in D

epth