Page One

FOREST SERVICE: COURT RULING IRRELEVANT

MICHIGAN LANDOWNERS SUE THE FEDS

Summer 2014

MOUNTAINSTATESLEGALFOUNDATION

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

Two Michigan landowners who own property in the Wolverine State’s Upper Peninsula filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Forest Service and its officials for deny-ing them the right to use their waterfront property in accordance with Michigan law and a prior federal court ruling won by MSLF.

David A. and Pamela F. Herr of Watersmeet in Gogebic County contend, in a complaint filed in the federal dis-trict court for the Western District of Michigan, North-ern Division, that the Forest Service ille-gally denies them use of Crooked Lake, a right guaranteed by Michigan law. More-over, argue the Herrs, the district court in which they filed their lawsuit previously addressed this issue, ruling specifically that the Forest Service may not deny riparian owners their rights on Crooked Lake. That lawsuit was filed and won by MSLF on behalf of neighbors of the Herrs. The Herrs have vacationed on Crooked Lake annually since the 1990s and bought their lakefront property in 2010.

Crooked Lake is a large, inland lake, 95% of which lies within the Sylvania Wilderness Area, which is part of the mil-lion acre Ottawa National Forest with its spruce, balsam, maple, birch, and aspen. At Watersmeet, the Ontonagon River flows north into Lake Superior, the Wis-consin River flows south into the Missis-sippi River, and the Paint River flows east into Lake Michigan. The area was added to the National Wilderness Preservation System in 1987 by the Michigan Wilder-

ness Act, which preserved “valid exist-ing rights.” Under Michigan law those include the right of riparian owners to use an inland lake’s surface for recreational activities such as boating and fishing, so long as their use does not interfere with

the reasonable use of the lake by other riparian owners. There are ten other private lakefront properties on Crooked Lake.

In Stupak-Thrall v. Glickman, 988 F.Supp 1055 (1997), in which MSLF represented Kathy Stupak-Thrall and

Bodil and Michael Gajewski, owners of two other Crooked Lake properties, the district court ruled the Forest Service lacked any authority to restrict the ripar-ian owners from exercising their rights to use motorboats on Crooked Lake. At issue was an attempt by the Forest Service to limit motorboat use to motor-boats with electric motors with a maximum size of 24 volts or 48 pounds of thrust.

In 2006, the Forest Service issued a new Ottawa National Forest Plan. Despite the district court’s ruling in Stupak-Thrall, the plan provides, “[o]nly electric motors with a maximum of 24 volts or 48 pounds of thrust (4 horse-power equivalent) or less will be permitted on [Crooked Lake] within the Sylvania Wilderness.” The agency says that the ruling of the Michigan federal

district court does not bind the Forest Service because the ruling applies not to all property owners on Crooked Lake but only to the property owners who filed the earlier lawsuit.

The Forest Service is doing more than spurning the district court’s on-point

ruling; it is thumbing its nose at the rebuke of the Supreme Court of the United States: “[A]n agency literally has no power to act … un-less and until Congress confers power upon it.... To permit an agency to expand its power in the face of a congressional limitation on its jurisdic-tion would be to grant to

the agency power to override Congress.” With their lawsuit, the Herrs seek to have the offending portion of the 2006 Ottawa National Forest Plan declared unlawful and set aside.

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 MSLF’s web site at www.mountainstateslegal.org responded to

the following question: “For six years, New York has barred state landowners from searching for energy on their lands while officials study the issue. Is the endless study and moratorium right?” One hundred percent (100%) said, “No: New York law says energy should be developed and permits issued expedi-tiously to create jobs!” Zero percent (0%) said, “Yes: Even though hydraulic fracturing has been used for 60 years, New York should take all due time.”

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

ally-significant litigation is to check MSLF’s highly acclaimed web site. MSLF’s web site is updated at least every week and often daily. In particular, check for updates on MSLF’s “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!

PENDLEY’S VIEWJonathan R. Kark of Fenton, New

York represents his family’s sixth generation on the land; he and his wife Patricia own 353 acres of land in north central Broome County, north-east of Binghamton, the county seat, where they run 50 head of cattle. Jon Kark and his wife have four children and four grandchildren. He prefers to run the cattle, operate his trucking company, help with the nonprofit, non-denominational Christian camp his father created in 1970 on part of the farm, and be with his family, but for the last six years he has been everywhere but home.

In July of 2007, he leased his mineral rights to an independent company for a five-year term; if the company drilled, made a discovery, and produced natural gas, it would pay a royalty. The potential value of that gas increased his property taxes and then Governor Pat-erson imposed a drilling moratorium to do an environmental study.

In June of 2009, the lessee of Jon Kark’s mineral estate filed six hori-zontal well applications, but the study droned on. By that time, Jon Kark had left town. Fearing loss of the family farm under the pressure of its mortgage and the county’s taxes, he hired on as a heavy equipment operator to develop energy resources anywhere but New York. In 2012, Jon Kark got lucky: in July, his lessee extended its term for another five years—until 2017—and in December, he was home for two weeks at Christmas. In 2013, he was home for only one week.

In February 2014, Jon Kark had enough of the delay—after nearly six years the study is still not finished—so along with Joint Landowners Coalition of New York with its 38 landowner groups representing 70,000 landown-ers and a million acres across fourteen counties—he sued Governor Cuomo, two State agencies, and their top of-ficials for the right to use their land.

Consistent with a friend of the court brief filed by MSLF, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that President Obama violated the Recess Appoint-ments Clause in making appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The Court, by 9– 0, narrowed a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Co-lumbia. In Janu-ary 2013, the D.C. Circuit held that: (1) “the Recess” of the Senate, for purposes of the [Constitution,] is one between enu-merated sessions of the Senate; and (2) a vacancy “hap-pens” during the recess only when it first occurs in that recess. The Court ruled instead, breaks of fewer than ten days are not recesses.

MSLF had advised the Court that presidential actions that negate the constitutional safeguards painstak-ingly crafted by the Framers result in a

government that is no longer limited and ethical, and further erodes individual lib-erty, the right to own and use property, and the free enterprise system. In April 2013, the NLRB filed a petition for writ of certiorari. On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court granted the petition.

On December 17, 2011, the U.S. Senate was in session, passed an adjournment order by unani-mous consent, and, from De-cember 20, 2011, to January 20, 2012, met every three days in pro forma sessions. During these sessions, the

Senate passed various laws. On Janu-ary 4, 2012, in a three-day adjournment between pro forma sessions, President Obama used the Recess Appointments Clause to appoint three individuals to the NLRB without the advice and con-sent of the Senate.

OBAMA’S RECESS APPOINTMENTS VOID!

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

The federal government’s use of race to award contracts is unconstitutional and must be stricken MSLF recently advised the District of Columbia federal district court. MSLF’s brief was filed as a friend of the court in support of a federal law-suit brought by Rothe Development, Inc., a Texas corporation that bids on and performs contracts for computer systems and programming services, against the U.S. Department of Defense and the Small Business Administration challenging a provision in the Small Business Act used to award federal contracts on the basis of the race of the owners and operators of those businesses. MSLF prevailed in a similar lawsuit before the U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark racial preference case, Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, that Time called “a legal earthquake.”

Rothe often bids for contracts with government agencies, including the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and branches of the military, to service com-puter systems. In 1998, Rothe lost a bid for a DOD contract to another company, despite being the low bidder, because the contract was awarded pursuant to a race-based program. In 2008, the United

States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the race-based program, on its face, as reenacted in 2006, violates the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Unfortunately, the DOD continues to award contracts on the basis of race through use of Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, which sets a “government wide goal” that “not less than 5 percent of the total value of all prime [federal] contract and subcontract awards for each fiscal year” be awarded to socially and eco-nomically disadvantaged small business concerns. The Small Business Administra-tion (SBA) is authorized to contract with DOD to provide goods and services and then to subcontract that work to qualifying businesses, either on a “sole source” or on a “competitive” basis; most of the DOD Section 8(a) contracts are sole source. To participate in the program, a firm must be 51 percent owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, which the federal government defines to include “Black[,] Hispanic[,] Na-tive[,] [and] Asian Pacific Americans... and other minorities”).

The Supreme Court of the United States reversed a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that had invalidated a 2006 voter-approved ballot initiative barring discrimination by the State of Michigan on the basis of race. The Court’s decision in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action is consistent with a friend of the court brief filed by MSLF, which won a landmark civil rights decision by the Court in 1995, urging that the Court reverse an en banc ruling by the Sixth Circuit invalidating the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI). A divided three-judge panel struck down the MCRI in 2011 after which the en banc appeals court granted review, only to rule that the MCRI, which garnered 58 percent of the

vote, violates the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment.

Citing frequently to its victory before the Court in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, MSLF urged the Court to reverse the appellate court’s ruling. Justice Kennedy’s opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Alito. Justices Scalia and Thomas and Justice

Breyer in separate opinions, concurred.In November 2006, voters approved

the MCRI and thus amended the State’s Constitution to prohibit preferential treat-ment in public education, government contracting, and public employment based on race, sex, ethnicity, or national origin. The amendment was first challenged in the Michigan federal district court for the

Eastern District of Michigan, which in March 2008 upheld the law. In July 2011, a three-judge panel reversed the district court’s ruling. Finally, after granting en banc review, the Sixth Circuit upheld the panel’s ruling in an 8-7 decision issued in November 2012.

The en banc court held the MCRI vio-lates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause because it denies minori-ties a “fair political process.” Relying on a political restructuring theory, the majority held that MCRI has a racial focus, targets a policy or program that benefits minorities, and reallocates political power or reorders decision making so as to place special bur-dens on minorities’ ability to achieve their goals through that process.

In November 2012, the State of Michi-gan petitioned the Supreme Court for re-view and in March 2013, the Court granted the petition and agreed to hear the case.

Page Three

FEDS’ QUOTA USE UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

MICHIGAN MAY PROHIBIT ALL RACE-BASED DECISION MAKING

SCALIA CITES MSLFIn Schuette, Justice Kennedy distin-

guished rulings on which opponents of a color-blind Constitution relied, but Justice Scalia would have overturned them because they ask courts to decide if a law reallocating policy-making author-ity concerns a “racial issue.” Justice Scalia cited MSLF’s landmark victory in Adarand in explaining why that is wrong.

“No good can come of such random judi-cial musing…. For one thing, it involves judges in the dirty business of dividing the Nation ′into racial blocs.′ That task is as difficult as it is unap-pealing. (Does a half-Latino, half-American Indian have Latino interests, American-Indian interests, both, half of both?) What is worse, the exercise promotes the noxious fiction that, know-ing only a person’s color or ethnicity, we can be sure that he has a predetermined set of policy ‘interests.’

More fundamentally...the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees ′obtai[n] with equal force regardless of [“]the race of those burdened or benefitted.[“]′ ”

Credit: Art Lien

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

RONALD REAGAN, SAGEBRUSH REBEL - HIS UNTOLD HISTORYSagebrush Rebel: Reagan’s 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.

“[America’s] 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 nation’s economy. [These] zealots have turned many [federal laws] into tools of social control.”

Peter HannafordReagan associate and biographer

“ Reagan believed uniquely in America’s future and its young people; his policies on energy and the environ-ment ensured prosperity for decades.”

Ron Robinson, Young America’s Foundation and The Reagan Ranch

“Sagebrush Rebel is one of the most important, insightful, and inspirational books about Ronald Reagan’s 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, IIIReagan’s Attorney General

“The story of Ronald Reagan’s 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 Reagan—a life-long con-servationist and environmentalist—be-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 growth—both human and econom-ic—and 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 Reagan’s 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, MSLF’s quarterly newsletter, is the indispensable tool for staying informed regarding the latest in MSLF’s 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 amazinguntold history of Ronald Reagan; it isnow 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 2014, MSLF will have been going to court for 37 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 less-ened. In fact, as the federal bureaucracy has grown and as federal laws have become more far-reaching and intrusive, MSLF’s caseload has increased dramati-cally. That is obvious from a review of the scores of MSLF cases.

Your Support Is Vital If there is one lesson MSLF has learned over the past 37 years, it is that, regardless 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 isthe price that tens of thousands of Amer-icans pay annually by making their tax-deductible contributions to MSLF and its aggressive litigation. The support of MSLF by tens of thousands of Americans committed to freedom 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).MSLF’s 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.MSLF’s 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 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 one’shard-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 percent for gifts of appreciated property. Itemized deductions made during 2013, including charitable deductions, are reduced for individuals earning $250,000 (married couples earning $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. Please consult your tax adviser. MSLF does not provide tax advice.

Contributions of stock can be made electronically to MSLF’s 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 a stock donor without prior notification. Thank you!

Problem u

Solution u

Reason u

The Means u

Stock u

TransferInformation

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 $50, or more. Please send me Sagebrush Rebel, the audiobook.

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

A speech delivered by William Perry Pendley before a Hillsdale College event in Colorado Springs was published in its Imprimis magazine, which is mailed to 2.8 million well-informed followers of the Michigan institution, and features speeches at Hillsdale events by “famous and influential conservatives [who are] political, business, media, and academic leaders,” including Ronald Reagan, George Will, and Justice Clarence Thomas.

Entitled “Sagebrush Rebel-lion Redivivus,” the April issue discussed recent events in the American West, many of which include the work of MSLF.

In the late 1970s, President Carter’s “War on the West” spawned what came to be known as the Sagebrush Rebellion, which Ronald Reagan em-braced during his campaign for president in 1980: “I happen to be one who cheers and supports the Sagebrush Rebellion,” candidate Reagan proclaimed in a speech in Salt Lake City. “Count me in as a rebel.” The uprising was spurred by the fact that, more than any other region, the American West had been victimized by the environ-mental policies implemented—utterly regardless of their destructive economic and human consequences—during the previous two decades. Reagan had seen firsthand the transformation of the environmental movement from one of conservation and stewardship, in which the part played by human beings and technology was vital, to a movement in which humans and technology were understood to be enemies of nature. As articulated by Reagan, opposition to extreme environmentalism represented a return to true environmentalism. Amer-ica’s “environment[al] heritage” will not be jeopardized, he promised, while at the same time insisting that “we are going to reaffirm that the economic prosperity of

our people is a fundamental part of our environment.”

In terms of the public land issue, Rea-gan blamed “a tiny minority opposed to economic growth” for locking up federal lands that hold “probably 70 percent of the potential oil in the United States,” and he vowed to support the use of federal lands to meet America’s energy, economic, and foreign policy needs. As former gov-

ernor of California, he knew all too well that the federal government owns a third of the land that makes up the U.S., the vast majority of this being in the West ...

Some portion of this federally owned land, of course, consists of parks, which are preserved for public recreation. Other parts are wilderness areas, where motor-ized activity is barred. But most of the land controlled by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service is open, by law, to “multiple use” activi-ties, including cattle grazing, recreation, and energy and mineral development. This is the land where disputes arise over use—and it is in these disputes where the Obama administration has picked up where the Carter and Clinton administra-tions left off, adopting the no-use policies promoted by environmental groups who view all federal lands as off limits to pro-ductive human activity.

A typical way these policies get implemented is for environmental interest groups to sue a government agency under either the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and for the agency then to settle the lawsuit in the interest group’s

favor. [Recently,] Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt filed a lawsuit against the Interior Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over such “sue and settle” tactics [seeking] to restrict land use for agriculture, oil and gas drilling, wind farms, and other activities ...

NEPA’s consequences are [similarily] wide-ranging. Since its passage in 1969, not a single new oil refinery has been built. Following forest fires in the West, “[NEPA] regulations ... [delay] harvests of diseased or burned timber indefinitely.” And before Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans ... plans to build a hurricane barrier and to raise and strengthen the levees were halted by environmentalist NEPA lawsuits.

* * *Executive agencies can also simply

implement the extremist environmental agenda on their own. This is how the Obama administration’s “war on coal” is being waged following the failure to pass the president’s “cap and trade” legislation even in the Democrat-controlled Senate. This January, the Environmental Protec-tion Agency (EPA) set limits on how much carbon dioxide new coal-fired power plants are allowed to produce—limits that will require expensive and unproven tech-nology, severely limiting the likelihood of new plants being built. This follows past regulation that will force the retirement of more than 30,000 megawatts of power capacity by the end of 2016. Later this year, the EPA plans to establish limits for already existing power plants, with dev-astating implications for coal-rich Western states such as Wyoming ....

[F]rom 2009 through 2013, oil and nat-ural gas production on private land was up 61 percent and 33 percent, respectively; on federal lands, by contrast, oil produc-tion was down eleven percent and gas production was down 28 percent. This is no mere coincidence ....

It is little wonder that there is talk of another Sagebrush Rebellion like that embraced by Ronald Reagan in the late 1970s. Westerners know they deserve better, and that they and their states can be better stewards of their land than federal bureaucrats.

2.8 MILLION LEARNED AMERICANS READ OF MSLF’S BATTLES

Page Six

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

LEGAL

ACTION

NOTABLE

QUOTES

n On behalf of a 110-year old association of Arizona cattlemen, MSLF urged a federal district court to reverse a decision by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to close nearly 100,000 acres of federal land in the Sonoma Desert National Monument to grazing.

n  An independent Colorado oil man fighting the attempt by the federal government to cancel valuable energy leases in western Colorado filed additional pleadings with the Interior Board of Land Appeals.

n  MSLF’s clients, some 70,000 New York landowners, were in State court in Albany opposing efforts by Governor Cuomo and others to dismiss their lawsuit seeking the right to use their property to recover valuable energy resources. MSLF’s Vice President and

“Thank you for all you do to protect Ameri-ca from the evil ones in Washington, D.C.”Jerome B. GholsonMcLeansboro, IL

“Only brilliant, famous people with important things to say are published in Im-primis! Please accept my most enthusiastic congratulations.”Penn R. PfiffnerLakewood, CO

“I tip my hat at you…. I wish we could clone you all.”Jack R. VenrickRollins, MT

“Your organization along with others I support are what stands between us and that dark night of the rule of man rather than the rule of law.”James M. McCullyVacaville, CA

“Your Litigator continues as an excel-lent publication. Great work.”R.L. MooreLynden, WA

“I do appreciate all you do saving land from the land grabbers.”Jack L. DanielsDeridder, LA

“[Sagebrush Rebel] fills an impor-tant gap in the story of the Reagan years. Indeed, if we lived in a more perfect world than we do, it would be required reading in all college environment courses.”Peter D. HannafordEureka, CA

“Thanks for your tenacious legal efforts in defending our constitutional liberties and the rule of law. Keep up the good fight.”Jean StullenbargerYuma, AZ

“May God multiple your efforts and these funds.”Diane CarkhuffMidwest City, OK

“Many, many thanks for spearhead-ing the challenge to the State of New York (on behalf of the land and property owners) regarding the stalling of the hydro-fracking on the Southern Tier.”Robert BarkerEvans Mills, NY

“I watched [MSLF on] the Fox News report and also read ... Hillsdale College’s Imprimis!” Excellent, most excellent!”Judy KeelerAnimas, NM

Chief Legal Officer Steven J. Lechner appeared on the landowners’ behalf.

n An 119-year-old nonprofit, non-partisan mining trade association with thousands of members—the American Exploration and Mining Association (formerly the Northwest Mining Association) of Spokane, Washington—urged an Arizona federal district court to overturn a decision by the Secretary of the Interior to lock up a million acres of uranium-rich federal land in northwestern Arizona.

n The Supreme Court of the United States, consistent with a friend of the court brief by MSLF, held the EPA exceeded legal authority in adopting its green-house-gas (GHG) regulations to address “climate change.” MSLF argued and the Court held that the EPA is not required to regulate GHGs.

n On behalf of Alaskan landowners in Juneau and Seward, MSLF appeared before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to reinstate a lawsuit against Alaska Department of Natural

Resources officials challenging their claim to beds of small streams that cross private property. An Alaska federal district court dismissed the case. MSLF attorney Gina Cannan argued the case.

n A Louisiana man who obtained a federal oil and gas lease in 1982 but has not been granted the right to explore his lease filed a motion for summary judgment in his lawsuit, which was filed in the District of Columbia in November 2013.

n An Idaho woman, who won a preliminary injunction against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to bar it from enforcing its ban on firearms at its recreational sites in 43 States, filed a motion for summary judgment in her lawsuit. An Idaho man is also represented by MSLF in the case.

n A Stillwater, Minnesota company barred by Summit County from using its valuable residential property in Keystone filed its opening brief Colorado state court.

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 PRESIDENT–ADMINISTRATIONJanice K. AlvaradoEXECUTIVE COMMITTEEJohn J. Blomstrom, WY; ChairmanDon Sparks, TX; Vice ChairmanFrank S. Priestly, ID; SecretaryRoy G. Cohee, WY; TreasurerJohn R. Gibson, NV L. Jerald Sheffels, WA

MONTANA LANDOWNERS BATTLE GIANT TRIBAL WATER GRABTwo Montana families sued by American Indian tribes in

Montana federal district court are being defended by MSLF. Robert and Judy Harms of Hot Springs and Wayne and Betty Stickel of Lonepine in northwestern Montana, both of which towns lie within the Flathead Indian Reservation, were sued by the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes on February 27, 2014. In their lawsuit, the Tribes claim all water and land within the boundaries of the Reserva-tion and thus challenge the validity of the original homesteaders’ patents—signed by the President—and seek to acquire those lands and their water rights. In addition, the Tribes challenge a federal law assigning primary responsibility for adjudicating and administrating water rights to State and not federal courts—the McCarran Amendment of 1952.

MSLF argues that its clients’ land was open for entry for 105 years, and in private hands for much of that time and that the wa-ter rights appurtenant to those lands were owned fully by its clients and their predecessors for decades. MSLF will vigorously defend those rights.

The 1.3 million acre Flathead Indian Reservation is home to the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, which include the Salish, Pend d’Oreille, and Kootenai. Established by the Treaty

of Hellgate in July 1855, the Reservation is located mostly in Lake County, but also in Sanders, Missoula, and Flathead counties and contains part of Flathead Lake, the largest single natural body of fresh water in the American West. In 1908, the U.S. Supreme Court

held that a tribe’s express reservation of its land impliedly reserved water to satisfy the purposes of the treaty.

In 1904, Congress, with the Flathead Allotment Act, required allotment of Reservation lands to tribal members and provided that the unallotted lands could be free for settlement and entry under the homestead laws. In 1905, Montana passed a law to make “it easier for the United States to proceed with its valuable work of reclamation and improvement of

land.” In 1908, Congress created the Flathead Irrigation Project for all landowners and provided for repayment of construction and operation/maintenance costs. In 1909, President Taft opened the Reservation to settlement by non-Indians.

In 1926, Congress compelled creation of irrigation districts un-der Montana law, leading to three districts: the Flathead, the Jocko Valley, and the Mission. In 1985, Montana’s Supreme Court held the state’s water law was facially adequate to adjudicate federal and Indian reserved water rights.