Page One

ARIZONA DECREE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

MINERS BRIEF LAND CLOSURE APPEAL

Spring 2015

MOUNTAINSTATESLEGALFOUNDATION

Executive Offices:2596 South Lewis WayLakewood, Colorado 80227303-292-2021Fax 303-292-1980www.mountainstateslegal.org

A 120-year-old nonprofit, non-partisan mining trade association with thousands of members filed its opening brief in its appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of three rulings by an Arizona federal district court in the groups challenge to a decision by the Secretary of the Inte-rior closing, for twenty years, a million acres of federal land man-aged by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in an area called the Arizona Strip in northwestern Arizona.

The American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) (once Northwest Mining Association) of Spokane, Wash-ington, claimed in its 2012 complaint and later in its legal briefs and oral arguments that Interior Secretary Salazars January of 2012 order withdrawing land from entry under the General Mineral Law to block access to millions of pounds of the nations highest-grade uranium ore violates federal laws. AEMA urged the Arizona federal district court to rule the Secretary violated the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the U.S. Forest Service violated the National For-est Management Act, and the Secretary violated the constitutional bar against the establishment of religion.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, an agency within the Department of the Interior, the lands withdrawn by Secretary Salazars order contain uranium that, if mined to capacity, would generate enough electricity to power Los Angeles for 154 years. Experts believe the United States must develop domestic sources of

uranium in the face of higher prices and increased global demand. America is over 90% dependent on foreign sources of ura-nium to fuel the 104 nuclear reactors that

provide power for 1 in 5 American homes and businesses.

Although the Arizona federal district court ruled that the legislative veto provision set forth in FLPMA is unconstitutional, it ruled that provision

was severable from the provision used by the Secretary to withdraw the mil-lion acres. MSLF argued that Congress would not have given the Secretary such authority to make withdrawals of 5,000 acres or more had it not required notice of vast withdrawals and retained the right to veto them. Therefore, because the provision Congress sought to use to limit the Secretarys power was indispensable to its grant of power but is now unconsti-tutional, the grant of power also must be stricken.

The Arizona Strip, which lies north of the Colorado River in northern Arizona, is bordered to the south by the northern rim of Grand Canyon National Park. In the 1984 Arizona Wilder-ness Act, Congress designated 250,000 acres of federal land on or near the Arizona Strip as wil-derness and released 600,000 acres of land in the same area for multiple use, which includes uranium mining, as a result of an historic compromise among environmen-tal groups, uranium mining interests, the livestock industry, and others.

In July of 2009, Secretary Salazar pro-

posed to withdraw from operation of the General Mining Law 633,547 acres of BLM lands and 360,002 acres of National Forest lands in the Arizona Strip for up to 20 years purportedly to protect the Grand Canyon watershed from adverse effects of locatable hardrock mineral exploration and mining.

In February of 2011, the BLM issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) regarding the proposed withdrawal in response to which the then NWMA filed comments noting that uranium mining is not a threat to the environment of the Grand Canyon or the Colorado River watershed, given the scores of state and federal laws

enacted to protect those resources.In June of 2011, Secretary Salazar

issued an emergency withdrawal of the lands; in October of 2011, the BLM issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS); and, in January of 2012, Secretary Salazar issued his order.

Educate family and friends of these threats to their liberty Pass this on!

Educate family and friends of these threats to their liberty Pass this on! 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: The EPA decreed that an American Indian reservation in Wyoming has jurisdiction over one million acres of Wyoming land plus the town of Riverton. Is that right? One hundred percent (100%) said, No: Since 1904, agreements, decisions, and court rulings say the land is not Indian country. Zero percent (0%) said, Yes: An opinion issued by the top lawyer for the U.S. Department of the Interior says it is okay.

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

ally-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 VIEWGiven President Obamas war on

coal, it is worth reviewing how Ameri-ca came to rely on coal, the first war on coalthat waged by President Carter, and President Reagans response. Reagan knew Carters policies violated federalismstates are sovereign and must be allowed to run their affairsand respect for the marketplacethe United States must not act as a mo-nopolist but must make its resources available. Thus, Reagan returned coal reclamation jurisdiction to the states and leased western federal coal. In 1990, coal production hit a billion tons.

Today, Obamas promised war on coal includes the EPAs cap and trade regulations, its trifecta of power plant killing regulations, and its unprec-edented veto of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit for a West Virginia coal mine. Another agency moved to reverse a federal rule that will cost up to 220,000 jobs and $20 billion in coal production in Appalachia.

Now an environmental group, hoping for another unilateral Obama edict, demands an end to federal coal leasing because the U.S. is not getting fair market value for its coal. Rea-gan confronted that charge in a radio address he drafted: Now voices are being raised on the Hill saying that a moratorium should be put on the leasing of all coal bearing government lands. Totally forgotten is the fact that the American people as customers will end up paying for that coal. Included in the price will be the cost of the lease and even that 12-1/2% royalty [paid to the federal government]. It seems to me [the coal sale] not only protected the government interests, [it showed] con-sideration for the ultimate consumer you and me.

With the power grids long-term reliability at risk, electricity prices to skyrocket nationwide, and coal mines closing, Reagans consideration for American citizens is refreshing.

Joseph Bottum, in The Weekly Stan-dard, levels a withering attack under the title Fracking the Constitution Secessionism on the left.

Rivers have rights, they say down in Mora County, New Mexicoinalienable and funda-mental rights, beyond the power of any govern-ment to touch. Aquifers, too. Wetlands, streams, ecosystems, and even natural communities, whatever that undefined term means: All of them have rights to exist and flourish. The land itself has an intrinsic right to exist without defilement.

Its all written down in County Ordinance 2013-01. Mora is a multi-cultural community with indigenous roots of Many, [which means] every-body and everything in Mora has got rights. Everybody and everything, that is, except the United States gov-ernment, the New Mexico State gov-ernment, oil and gas drillers, corpora-

tions, and anyone who disagrees with Ordinance 2013-01. They dont have any rights at all.

Seriously. The ordinance openly names the First and Fifth Amendments when it strips corporations of rights.

No freedom of speech or power to petition the gov-ernment for a corporation, no access to a trial or due process of law. In fact, when the topic is oil and gas, even individual citizens lack rights to sue and have legal judgments enforcedbe-cause, in a nice bit of circu-larity, the very act of suing

or trying to enforce a judgment is a crime. Drilling for oil is illegal in Mora County, and so is seeking to engage in activities prohibited by this ordinance, which includes filing a lawsuit chal-lenging the ordinance [as MSLF did].

But the most fascinating moment in the ordinance comeswhere Mora County, New Mexicothreatens to se-cede from the United States Theyre talking civil war in Mora

MORA COUNTY GETS HARSH REBUKE

Educate family and friends of these threats to their liberty Pass this on!

A Colorado nonprofit, public-interest group that educates others on the dangers of excessive taxation, regulation, and government spending and protects citizens right to petition government filed its opening and reply briefs with the Colorado Court of Ap-peals; the group challenges the adverse ruling by a Colorado district court that a bag tax imposed by the City of Aspen is constitutional. The district court, shortly after oral arguments in August of 2014, ruled the assessment a fee, not a tax; thus, according to the district court, it does not violate the Colorado Constitutions Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR).

In a lawsuit filed in Pitkin County District Court in 2012, the Colorado Union of Taxpayers Foundation (CUT), represented by MSLF, alleged that un-der TABOR its members should have been able to vote on a $0.20 tax im-posed on each disposable carryout bag Aspen grocers provide to customers,

which went into effect in May of 2012 and applies to paper bags distributed by grocers. Like a sales tax, the bag tax is collected from customers by grocers and remitted to Aspen. CUT seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and refund of all taxes. CUT argues that, under the rulings of the Colorado Supreme Court, because the bag charge is a tax and not a fee for services, TABOR requires that voters approve it.

In October of 2011, the Aspen City Council passed a Waste Reduction Fee, similar to taxes imposed by Tellu-ride, Carbondale, and Basalt, to collect a 20 cent tax on each disposable carry-out bag grocers provide to customers. The City Council was urged to enact the tax because, Aspen considers itself

an environmental leader and this topic presents an opportunity for Aspen to continue to take a progressive stance on environmental issues. Revenue

from the tax funds general expenses of Aspen govern-ment, including public educa-tional campaigns, infrastructure, pollution-reduc-tion equipment, and community cleanup events.

The City of Aspen attempts to circumvent TABOR by calling the tax a fee; however, the Colorado Supreme Court has held that nomenclature does not control and that a tax is subject to TABOR if its purpose is to raise revenue for general governmental spending. A fee is charged to individu-als who use a service; a tax funds the general expenses of government.

A Colorado group that defends the rights of taxpayers filed its appeal with the Colorado Court of Appeals challenging the ruling of a Denver County District Court that new taxes being collected by three Colo-rado governmental entities violate the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR). The TABOR Founda-tion alleged in its late 2013 lawsuit that, under the Colorado Constitution, its mem-bers should have been allowed to vote on new taxes that the 2013 General Assembly authorized to be collected by the Regional Transportation District (RTD) and the Scien-tific and Cultural Facilities District (SCFD). The lawsuit names the RTD, the SCFD, and the Colorado Department of Revenue, all government districts as defined by TABOR, whose tax policies require voter approval. The Foundation, represented by MSLF,

seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and an order requiring refund of all revenues collected, plus interest, as TABOR requires.

MSLF was before the district court in early February of 2015, and argued that the levying of taxes on the listed items is without voter approval because the plain language of previous ballot measures dem-

onstrates the districts do not have voter approval. The district court rejected those arguments

In 2013, the General Assembly enacted HB13-1272, which authorizes the RTD and SCFD, for the first time, to levy sales and use taxes on food, beverages, cigarettes, advertising materials, and food containers. Both RTD and SCFD lobbied in support of the bill and RTD identified numerous proj-ects that will receive the increased revenues

generated by the bill. The food tax applies to candy, or a

preparation of sugar, honey, or other natural or artificial sweeteners in combination with chocolate, fruit, nuts, or other ingredients or flavorings in the form of bars, drops, or pieces. The beverage tax applies to soft drinks, or nonalcoholic beverages that contain natural or artificial sweeteners, but not beverages that contain milk or milk products, soy, rice, or similar milk substitutes, or greater than fifty percent of vegetable or fruit juice by volume.

The cigarette tax includes items likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as a cigarette. The advertising tax applies to advertising materials that are distrib-uted in Colorado by any person engaged solely and exclusively in the business of providing cooperative direct mail adver-tising. The food container tax applies to nonessential food and beverage items, such as utensils, napkins, grocery bags, bags for bulk produce, carryout containers for leftover food, straws, toothpicks, stirring sticks, and cup sleeves.

Page Three

COLORADO TAXPAYERS APPEAL ASPENS GROCERY BAG TAX

TABOR FOUNDATION APPEALS ON DENVERS ILLEGAL TAXES

Educate family and friends of these threats to their liberty Pass this on!

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 environmental religion will find lessons [including] how one principled man and his confidence in the power of American potential could flip the radical environmentalist 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 envi-ronmental 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

Reagan believed uniquely in Americas future and its young people; his policies on energy and the environment ensured pros-perity 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 domestic poli-cies since An American Life by President Reagan himself. It is a must read for those interested in all that the President accom-plished.

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 management today.

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

Ronald Reagana life-long conser-vationist and environmentalistbelieved people are part of the ecosystem. That was heresy to those who Reagan called envi-ronmental 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, controlling growthboth human and economicand trying to predict and alter the future. Sage-brush Rebel reveals President Reagan would have none of that.

Linda Chavez, syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor

The progressive war on western civi-lization is never-ending. We must take up Reagans fight to preserve the American way of life. Sagebrush Rebel 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 the audiobook is FREE with a $25.00 contribution to MSLF; supplies are limited; see the COUPON on page 5.

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.

NOW AN AUDIOBOOK! Sagebrush Rebel becomes evenmore relevant with each passing dayand the news from across the country. No need to miss out on this amazing untold history of Ronald Reagan; it is now available as an audiobook read by the author himself. FREE with a $50 contribution to MSLF.

Prominently displayed at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Library

Educate family and friends of these threats to their liberty Pass this on! Page Five

Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF) Is A Nonprofit, Public-Interest Legal Foundation, That Is A 501(c)(3) Organization,Since Its 1977 Founding.

Therefore, Your GenerousContributions To MSLF Are Tax Deductible!

MSLF CANNOT REST; ITS ROLE ESSENTIAL TO REMAINING FREE

In 2015, MSLF will have been going to court for 38 years, fighting to compel compliance with the commands of the Constitution and federal law to ensure that America remains a nation of laws. At no time during these nearly four decades has the need for MSLF to go to court on behalf of those who could not afford legal representation been lessened. In fact, as the federal bureaucracy has grown and as federal laws have become more far-reach-ing and intrusive, MSLFs caseload has increased dramatically. That is obvious from a review of the scores of MSLF cases all across America.

Your Support Is VitalIf there is one lesson MSLF has learned

over the past 38 years, it is that, regard-less of which party occupies the White House or controls Congress, the threat to liberty remains and MSLF must be ready, willing, and able to go to court to defend freedom. As Thomas Jefferson once said, Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. One of the prices that must be paid for MSLF to remain vigilant is the price that tens of thousands of Americans pay annually by making their tax-deductible contributions to MSLF and its aggressive litigation in defense of freedom.

The support of MSLF by tens of thou-sands of Americans committed to free-dom could not be more important. Your support will ensure that MSLF remains IN THE COURTS FOR GOOD!

MSLF receives no government funds (except when it wins in court and the judge orders the federal government to pay attorneys fees and expenses).MSLFs sole source of support is the tax-deductible contributions of those who support its aggressive litigation program.MSLF is a nonprofit, public-interest I.R.C. 501(c)(3) corporation, which makes the 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 the free enterprise system.MSLFs commitment to the Constitution ensures that America remains a nation of 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 hire legal coun-sel 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 elimi-

nated, the opportunities for reducing taxes by charitable giving remain! Income Tax A person may deduct up to 50 percent of his or her adjusted gross income (AGI) for gifts of cash to a qualified charity; that limit is 30 percent for gifts of appreciated property. Itemized deductions made during 2015, including charitable deduc-tions, are reduced for individuals earning $258,250 (married couples earning $309,900) or more. Please consult your tax adviser.Estate Tax A person who dies in 2015 is entitled to an exclusion of up to $5,430,000; how-ever, estates in excess of that amount may deduct charitable gifts, by will or trust. Because 2015 federal estate taxes over $5,430,000 range from 15 percent to 40 percent, for every charitable gift of $1,000, the estate saves up to $400 in federal taxes. Please consult 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. (Joanna

Heckman, CFP-Vice President, Financial Consultant; 303-260-5916; Fax: 303-260-5911). Please notify MSLF BEFORE making the transfer; there is no way to identify a stock donor without prior notification. Thank you!

Problem u

Solution uReason u

The Means u

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 made my contribution for $25, or more. Please send me Sagebrush Rebel, the audiobook.

Stock uTransferInformation

Educate family and friends of these threats to their liberty Pass this on!

A Wyoming nonprofit association that began in 1872 and represents 1,000 beef cattle producers welcomed the ruling by a Wyoming federal district court that refused to overturn a mandate that the Secretary of the De-partment of the Inte-rior fulfill her duty to manage wild horses on federal, state, and private lands in one of the nations largest counties, in central Wyoming along the Colorado border. The Wyoming Stock Growers Association (WSGA), repre-sented by MSLF, which also filed on its own behalf, had urged the district court to reject legal arguments by the American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign and others in their attempt to void decades of federal court rulings and admissions by federal officials that the United States must remove all wild horses from private lands and all excess wild horses from

federal lands in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. The most recent decree came in a lawsuit filed by the Rock Springs Grazing Association (RSGA). The court

upheld the removal plan, set forth in a 2013 consent decree, but required correc-tion of minor pro-cedural errors. The ruling was in accor-dance with a MSLFs brief asserting that Congress intended to protect property

rights and that the argument made by those seeking to overturn the decree would eviscerate those rights.

In 1979, in one of its first lawsuits, MSLF, on behalf of the RSGA, sued the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for its refusal to obey the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act by removing wild horses from grazing lands used by RSGA members. In March of 1981, the Wyoming federal district court

orderd the BLM to remove excess wild horses. In March of 1982, the court is-sued another order setting new limits for wild horses and ordering that the BLM comply by September of 1984. When the BLM failed to comply, MSLF sought a show cause order; the BLM confessed error and entered into an agreement to remove excess wild horses.

Within a decade, however, the BLM was again out of compliance with federal law, the Wyoming district courts orders, and the BLMs stipulation agreement. In 2003, the State of Wyoming sued. The BLM confessed error and entered into a Consent Decree. In time, the BLMs compliance with the decree suffered from poor management and inaccurate methodologies. In 2009 and 2010, the BLM removed no wild horses and re-fused to comply with the courts orders; rather, the BLM demanded that livestock grazing end. In July of 2011, the RSGA sued for removal of wild horses; in April of 2013, the district court approved a consent decree to that effect.

A 111-year old association of Arizona cattlemen welcomed a ruling by an Arizona federal district court that allows them to continue to exercise their graz-ing rights while they seek to demonstrate to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) that it should not have closed nearly 100,000 acres of federal land to grazing. The Arizona Cattle Growers Association (ACGA), which since January of 1904 has sought orderly, systematic laws protect-ing livestock and property and represents more than 2,000 beef cattle producers and indus-try leaders throughout Arizona, filed a friend of the court brief with the Arizona federal district court urging the district court to require the BLM to revisit the issue of grazing in the Sonoma Desert National Monument. MSLF represents

the ACGA.ACGA , represented by MSLF, re-

sponded to a lawsuit by environmental groups demanding that more federal

lands in the Monument be closed to grazing. The

ACGA supported a remand for further study arguing that the BLM did not have sufficient evi-dence to support elimi-nating grazing. Grazing will continue while the BLM revisits its decision.

On January 17, 2001, during the final days of

his second term, President Clinton issued a proclamation

creating the Sonoran Desert National Monument, which specifically provided:

Laws, regulations, and policies followed by the Bureau of Land Man-agement in issuing and administering grazing permits or leases on all lands under its jurisdiction shall continue to

apply with regard to the lands in the monument...Prior to the Proclamation, livestock

grazing occurred on 252,500 acres of what is now Monument land north of I-8. On August 26, 2011, the BLM issued a draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) regarding grazing in the Monu-ment. The BLM allowed a 90-day public comment period on the Draft RMP and then, on June 15, 2012, the BLM issued its Proposed RMP and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). On September 14, 2012, the BLM issued a Record of De-cision (ROD) adopting its proposed RMP, which ended grazing on 95,290 acres of the Monument north of I-8 but continu-ing grazing on the remaining 157,210 acres of the Monument north of I-8.

On May 20, 2013, Western Water-sheds Project and the Sierra Club filed a complaint in Arizona federal district court, demanding that portions of the RMP allowing grazing be vacated and remanded for further analysis.

WYOMING STOCKMEN PLEASED WITH WILD HORSE RULING

ARIZONA CATTLEMEN SAVE GRAZING RIGHTS IN MONUMENT

Page Six

Educate family and friends of these threats to their liberty Pass this on!

Pendley Is In WaPo

Page Seven

LEGAL

ACTION

NOTABLE

QUOTES

nMSLFs brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to uphold a ruling by a Minnesota federal district court that Minnesotas ban on carbon dioxide emission generated outside the state is a per se violation of the dormant Commerce Clause won the attention of Minnesotas Star-Tribune, which mentioned MSLFs defense of the intent of the Founding Fathers.

nOn behalf of an Ohio woman who seeks to exercise her Second Amendment rights when she travels to Illinois, MSLF urged an Illinois federal district court to strike down state law that restricts her rights.

n MSLF urged the Supreme Court of

Thank you for your fight for the right to conduct business and preserve essential products like coal.Carol W. LagrasseStony Creek, NY

Thank you for the lovely letter about Jon Kark [one of the landowners suing Gov-ernor Cuomo.] God bless you warriors.Alberta Kanya Fair Haven, NY

[W]e respect and applaud all that you do.Abram Suydam Jr.Somerset, NJ

Keep on doing good.Lois A. SheffetteOxnard, CA

Thank you for all you have done for America.Carlene ElaineTulelake, CA

Thank you for continuing to keep us informed!R. Lee LoecheltAlabama Forest Owners Association, Inc.Birmingham, AL

Keep the good fight alive!Gus FleischliCheyenne, WY

Thank you for your superb efforts to defend TABOR.Margaret L. BradyCentennial, CO

the United States to review a case brought by two Texans challenging how state senate districts are apportioned. MSLF argues Texas created voting districts that under represent eligible voters but over represent non-eligible voters in violation of the constitutional principle of one man, one vote.

n MSLF urged the Supreme Court to reverse a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit involving a regulatory program adopted during the Great Depression that caused the taking of a California familys crops.

n MSLF urged the Colorado Court of Appeals to uphold a Colorado state district court ruling striking a ban on hydraulic fracturing in Longmont, Colorado in a challenge brought by the Colorado Oil and Gas Association because the Oil and Gas Conservation Act preempts local regulation of oil and gas activites.

.n MSLF, which won a landmark civil rights case before the Supreme Court, urged the Court to review a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that upheld the right of the University of Texas Austin to grant admission on the basis of race.

n Two Michigan landowners replied to federal lawyers at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and urged the appellate panel to reverse a ruling of a Michigan federal district court and reinstate their lawsuit against the U.S. Forest Service and its officials for barring use of waterfront property that they own in the Upper Peninsula.

Regarding George P. Shultzs March 15 [Washington Post] Sunday Opinion commentary, A Reagan approach to cli-mate change: President Ronald Reagans highly successful secretary of state was wrong to call his prescription the Reagan way. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even worse was Mr. Shultzs impli-cation that energy socialism has anything to do with the marketplace.

Here is the true Reagan way, as he an-nounced at the 1980 Republican National Convention: America must get to work producing more energy. The Republican program for solving economic problems is based on growth and productivity. Large amounts of oil and natural gas lay beneath our land and off our shores, untouched because the present admin-istration seems to believe the American people would rather see more regulation, taxes and controls than more energy. He never wavered from that while in of-fice. To produce more energy, Reagan turned to the free market, optimistic that independent oil and gas producers using unconventional technologies would make vast discoveriesleading to the energy, environmental and economic miracle that is producing a glut of oil and gas. This is the Reagan way: energy indepen-dence and affordable energy for all of the worlds people.

William Perry PendleyLetters to the Editor

Educate family and friends of these threats to their liberty Pass this on!

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 PendleyVICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF LEGAL OFFICERSteven J. LechnerVICE PRESIDENTADMINISTRATIONJanice K. AlvaradoEXECUTIVE COMMITTEEJohn J. Blomstrom, WY; ChairmanDon Sparks, TX; Vice ChairmanFrank S. Priestley, ID; SecretaryRoy G. Cohee, WY; TreasurerErnest Angelo, TXStephen M. Brophy, AZRoger Cymbaluk, NDJohn R. Gibson, NVThomas C. Jepperson, UT L. Jerald Sheffels, WA

VICTORIOUS CALIFORNIA MINER SEEKS FEES OWED BY FEDS A California miner who won the right to placer mine on

his claim in the mountains of northern California after a 2007 ruling by the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) recently heard his appeal of the ruling of a California federal district court that he may not be reimbursed by the United States for his legal expenses for his victory argued. Steven J. Lecher, MSLF Vice President and Chief Legal Officer, argued the case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In 2007, the IBLA ruled against the U.S. Forest Service and upheld a 2003 administrative law judges (ALJs) ruling that the claim of Donald Enoa disabled veteran on fixed incomehas an economic value more substantial than the other uses argued by the federal agency and is not on sacred, scenic, or geologically unique public land. When Mr. Eno sought reimbursement under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) for attorneys fees and expenses, however, another ALJ ruled against him after concluding that the governments legal action was substantially justified. In 2010, the IBLA upheld that ruling and Mr. Eno filed a lawsuit in federal court. In 2012, a California federal district court that held Mr. Eno re-ceived only a license and was not entitled to EAJA attorneys

fees and expenses.Mr. Eno owns the Hound Dog placer mining claim, which

is located in the Plumas National Forest Service near Quincy, California, some 110 miles northeast of Sacramento. Since

1998, he has paid taxes and maintenance fees on the claim. Because the land upon which his claim is located was withdrawn in 1927 for use as a power site, in 1996, the Forest Service sought an order barring mining be-cause it would substantially interfere with other uses of the land. In late 2003, the ALJ rejected the Forest Services arguments.

In an attempt to stop Mr. Eno from developing his claim, the Forest Service as-serted that the gold and travertine he discov-ered have no value and that the land is more valuable as a scenic or geologically unique site or as a sacred site to American Indian

religious practitioners. The government asserted, for example, that any mining would interfere with cultural myths allegedly important to some Maidu Indians; in fact, one Forest Service attorney met with Maidu Indians, unsuccessfully urging them to so assert. A five-day hearing was conducted in June of 2002, after which the Forest Service and Mr. Eno filed various briefs. In his brief, Mr. Eno pointed out, for example, that the traver-tine alone is worth $20-35 million.