Klamath Adjudication

Foul Proceedings

The Klamath Falls Basin Adjudication process in Klamath Falls Oregon has been bringing out water thieves of every kind, the state having let attorneys into the mix which simply twist water laws without respect for Justice or regarding the Historical use within the Klamath River Basin. Sadly, it is turning the Klamath Basin Adjudication process into a sick joke placing Interpreted Law above written Law and Justice, and Court Procedure above Fact.

To assist Klamath Falls water users and help those within the Klamath River Basin that are having to fight against attorneys on their own, this site is presented to inform and educate on how to locate land and records to establish your water rights claim:  

>>> Click Here for Help on Searching Land Patents and Land Entry Files for Establishing Your Klamath Falls Adjudication Water Rights

 Attack on Klamath Basin Water Rights
 

The federal government, state government, local water boards, crooked corporations and socialist environmental groups are taking methodical steps to take and take control of your ranch water.

In an unprecedented violation against ranchers, farmers and property owners, these groups have financed a wave of attorneys to use procedure to take away your land value, water rights and indeed your land.


John Locke:         


Samuel Adams - Rights of the Colonists





Corruption

The Electric Corporations are laying down false claims;

This on water historically shown they have not used by USGS water gages; Simply to take water away from rightful users to increase the water through their own turbines;


Theft

The irrigation districts are attempting to create a situation of skimming rights off of each irrigator using the words "fair use", to get more water to sell to others at a higher rate or to sell out to the government or to corporations.

Proving they are as much a crook as the others.

They as the others have contested others rights not knowing anything about many of the people or rights they contested, nor had any interest or use of the water they contested; simply to make people prove their rights.


Manipulation

The Klamath Indian Tribes are doing the same for a quick resale of the water to corporations, government and irrigation districts in the future and as a future trading pawn.


Coercion

Environmentalists are attempting to get the government "classify" "good" farm land possessing valuable vested water rights as "marginal" farm land, so to get the people to sell their land and water rights at cut rate as willing sellers to the federal government so to get control of the land and water and keep it out of the hands of the citizens.

Using Taxpayer money though "right offs" and Tax exemption status being paid by the farmers and ranchers, against the ranchers.



A Better Way

***   A better way would be instead to simply remove zoning restrictions that have been keeping the farmer from selling his land at market determined parcel sizes so that the farmer can benefit from his land and water rights; and in turn more people can acquire and benefit from the land and water rights.

Something that the County should do.

-------------------

Ever wonder who will benefit most by having more water stay in the Klamath River?

The Electric Companies by far; Environmental special interests organizations a close second profiting by the turmoil.

Who else is financing all these attorneys and pushing the contestments?

Where else is the money to pay these high profile attorneys coming from?

A Stacked Deck

-------------------

By forcing you, an irrigator, farmer and rancher into:

1.) fighting through procedures and attorney and legal terminology you have very little knowledge about and where interpretation of the law has been corrupted to be greater than the original intent, you will either have to take your chances fighting through the stacked deck or

2.) hire an attorney for 350.oo +  an hour.


Planned Outcome

The two outcomes for Farmers and Ranchers in the Klamath Basin water struggle are obvious:

1.) The first choice, you stand to loose a good portion of the water you now use.

2.) The second choice you may keep some of your water, but may, in time, loose your ranch or farm trying to pay the attorney bills.

Farmers, Attorneys, Judges and State Administration
 

The idea that this legal procedure is friendly to those who are not attorneys is a farce. If you do not know procedure, the attorneys will railroad you with their tactics and the judge will not assist you unless you ask, and at that, only if you ask or know what or how to ask, and then the help is bare minimum, allowing important areas to slip by during the hearing and thus allowing the attorneys to conceal information that will make your case.

The conditions are such to set the stage for a water war buffered only by a State Water Resources Department that can only see numbers, and have not even researched their own archives to bring out records of the past, relying on your own ability to do research over a one hundred year period of time.

The judges, though required to know water law, have no understanding of vested rights that are under common law and will remain so after the adjudication.

An adjudication that must respect and protect vested water rights and only determine beneficial use.

The Water Resources Department has not been given the power to redefine the vested right, only to determine use.


Attempt of the State to Assume Undelegated Powers

But the State of Oregon Water Resources Department is now part of the problem:

And if you made a mistake 12 years ago not knowing the weight of your words at that time, every word you did not understand, record or map you did not really look over in context with the past, these will be used against you.

Not only by the contestants, but by the State Attorneys.

Did not know you actually had riparian rights?

Sorry!

If you did not claim them, the state will attempt to say that you lost them, even if you have been using the water for riparian uses since before 1909 and need them to water your cattle along the banks of your stream.

This is NOT How the original Law was written,

BUT the state is using the "FEE" loophole to TWIST the meaning and take away your water rights that you actually have.

The Original Oregon Law states clearly that if the water has been used, your right will not be voided or set aside!

The State "Interprets" the law incorrectly; and indeed that is how they present their ability to subvert the plain language of the law.

They say that the fees they have asked are "not unconstitutional";

But the fees or time for which to pay them do not precede the "purpose" for the Adjudication;

And that purpose is clearly written in Oregon Law: The Purpose of the Adjudication is to "Protect Valid Vested Water Rights".






Who Will Profit

So who will profit?

Pacific Power and Light (now Scottish Power), irrigation districts and their bureaucracies, so they can lay more claim on your water, so they can further develop and make money on water that was meant to continue development of your farm and ranch;

As I continue this site, having been through the procedure of contesting and now being contested by people who simply wish to take that which they do not own nor in the past used, I will present actual case files that will show how these government attorneys, corporate attorneys manipulate the courts steal water, how courts stack the deck and state attorney turn a deaf ear.

Many of these files can be Reviewed online at http://www.ferc.gov, Klamath Project case Docket # 2082 on Fall Creek Power House Claims, Fall Creek a tributary to the Klamath River, on the Oregon California boarder, regarding Spring Creek water and USGS gage reports.



Find Your Water Right Records

Some Helpful Notes:

Look for patents in your County Records by searching back to the original owner - BUT DO NOT STOP THERE ! 

Also Look for the patents online on the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) web site GLO Records at: http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/PatentSearch/Default.asp? or (http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/) by entering Section, Township and Range of your properties legal description and or name if you have it of the patentee under their search.

Write down the numbers given there to help the Archives find your Land Entry Files for that patent ....... 

THEN: Call  202-501-5395  for operator or Mary Francis ext. 327 or write The Washington DC Archives:

OLD MILITARY AND CIVIL RECORDS (NWCTB-LAND),
TEXTUAL ARCHIVES SERVICES DIVISION,
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION,
700 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW,
WASHINGTON, DC 20408-0001 

and have them send you the forms for getting copies of the "LAND ENTRY FILES" for those patents, you will need one form for each patent you want the files to.
 

*** NOTE!!!!!! >>>> If will need the records CERTIFIED as a "True and Correct Copy" : Make sure to tell them! - As this is a different form and they will not change the request over the phone. If you send in the wrong form and then request for the information to be certified, they will destroy the old form with your credit card information - without telling you - and send you the new form; and the process will start all over again loosing much time!!!

SAVE the Reference Number in the top left hand corner of the form - you will need this number to trace each of your requests from the archives.

You will then have to mail the white portion of the form with request to pay for the search by credit card or by billing you to:

TEXTUAL ARCHIVES SERVICES DIVISION,
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION,
700 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW,
WASHINGTON, DC 20408-0001

A Postcard will be sent to you with a MASTER NUMBER they will use to keep tract of the progress of your order -NOTE: this number will differ from the number in the upper hand side of your form.

For Inquires on your requested forms after they have been sent CALL: 301-837-2000

This will arrive at the TRUST FUND section of the archives that will process the order and send the request back to the Archives research section who will do the search. Trust Fund Phone is 202-501-5170.

The Archives Search will be done by the office of George Shanner (sp) 202-501-5385  Ext. 260

 

Allow 60 - 90 days, so start early; If your case is already underway ask for an extension in time to receive these records or if the time for records is past; the hearing in Salem has already taken place; or the case has been sent to the Water Rights Adjudicator: Still Send them asking for the Adjudicator or hearing panel or both to "ask that the record be reopened" to accept these records and to take "Judicial Notice" of these records.

These files will tell the improvements done by the patentees to receive the patent, do not be discouraged if a ditch is not mentioned - if there are crops or clover and other that required irrigation to grow - This means they were irrigating and all that was needed to deliver the water  was present.

 Stay tuned 1/1/2004. RT

The Klamath Basin Adjudication, Klamath Falls Water Rights Adjudication and Federal Energy Commission Re Licensing report.

The time has come to reduce the Federal Government and its burden on this free country, find out how.

----------------

John Locke - Civil Government

John Locke 212. Besides this overturning from without, governments are dissolved from within:

First. When the legislative is altered, civil society being a state of peace amongst those who are of it, from whom the state of war is excluded by the umpirage which they have provided in their legislative for the ending all differences that may arise amongst any of them; it is in their legislative that the members of a commonwealth are united and combined together into one coherent living body. This is the soul that gives form, life, and unity to the commonwealth; from hence the several members have their mutual influence, sympathy, and connection; and therefore when the legislative is broken, or dissolved, dissolution and death follows. For the essence and union of the society consisting in having one will, the legislative, when once established by the majority, has the declaring and, as it were, keeping of that will. The constitution of the legislative is the first and fundamental act of society, whereby provision is made for the continuation of their union under the direction of persons and bonds of laws, made by persons authorized thereunto, by the consent and appointment of the people, without which no one man, or number of men, amongst them can have authority of making laws that shall be binding to the rest. When any one, or more, shall take upon them to make laws whom the people have not appointed so to do, they make laws without authority, which the people are not therefore bound to obey; by which means they come again to be out of subjection, and may constitute to themselves a new legislative, as they think best, being in full liberty to resist the force of those who, without authority, would impose anything upon them. Every one is at the disposure of his own will, when those who had, by the "delegation" of the society, the declaring of the public will, are excluded from it, and others usurp the place who have no such authority or delegation.

John Locke 213. This being usually brought about by such in the commonwealth, who misuse the power they have, it is hard to consider it aright, and know at whose door to lay it, without knowing the form of government in which it happens. Let us suppose, then, the legislative placed in the concurrence of three distinct persons: -- First, a single hereditary person having the constant, supreme, executive power, and with it the power of convoking and dissolving the other two within certain periods of time. Secondly, an assembly of hereditary nobility. Thirdly, an assembly of representatives chosen, pro tempore, by the people. Such a form of government supposed, it is evident:

John Locke 214. First, that when such a single person or prince sets up his own arbitrary will in place of the laws which are the will of the society declared by the legislative, then the legislative is changed. For that being, in effect, the legislative whose rules and laws are put in execution, and required to be obeyed, when other laws are set up, and other rules pretended and enforced than what the legislative, constituted by the society, have enacted, it is plain that the legislative is changed. Whoever introduces new laws, not being thereunto authorized, by the fundamental appointment of the society, or subverts the old, disowns and overturns the power by which they were made, and so sets up a new legislative.

John Locke 215. Secondly, when the prince hinders the legislative from assembling in its due time, or from acting freely, pursuant to those ends for which it was constituted, the legislative is altered. For it is not a certain number of men -- no, nor their meeting, unless they have also freedom of debating and leisure of perfecting what is for the good of the society, wherein the legislative consists; when these are taken away, or altered, so as to deprive the society of the due exercise of their power, the legislative is truly altered. For it is not names that constitute governments, but the use and exercise of those powers that were intended to accompany them; so that he who takes away the freedom, or hinders the acting of the legislative in its due seasons, in effect takes away the legislative, and puts an end to the government.

John Locke 216. Thirdly, when, by the arbitrary power of the prince, the electors or ways of election are altered without the consent and contrary to the common interest of the people, there also the legislative is altered. For if others than those whom the society hath authorized thereunto do choose, or in another way than what the society hath prescribed, those chosen are not the legislative appointed by the people.

John Locke 217. Fourthly, the delivery also of the people into the subjection of a foreign power, either by the prince or by the legislative, is certainly a change of the legislative, and so a dissolution of the government. For the end why people entered into society being to be preserved one entire, free, independent society to be governed by its own laws, this is lost whenever they are given up into the power of another.

John Locke 218. Why, in such a constitution as this, the dissolution of the government in these cases is to be imputed to the prince is evident, because he, having the force, treasure, and offices of the State to employ, and often persuading himself or being flattered by others, that, as supreme magistrate, he is incapable of control; he alone is in a condition to make great advances towards such changes under pretense of lawful authority, and has it in his hands to terrify or suppress opposers as factious, seditious, and enemies to the government; whereas no other part of the legislative, or people, is capable by themselves to attempt any alteration of the legislative without open and visible rebellion, apt enough to be taken notice of, which, when it prevails, produces effects very little different from foreign conquest. Besides, the prince, in such a form of government, having the power of dissolving the other parts of the legislative, and thereby rendering them private persons, they can never, in opposition to him, or without his concurrence, alter the legislative by a law, his consent being necessary to give any of their decrees that sanction. But yet so far as the other parts of the legislative any way contribute to any attempt upon the government, and do either promote, or not, what lies in them, hinder such designs, they are guilty, and partake in this, which is certainly the greatest crime men can be guilty of one towards another.

John Locke 219. There is one way more whereby such a government may be dissolved, and that is: When he who has the supreme executive power neglects and abandons that charge, so that the laws already made can no longer be put in execution; this is demonstratively to reduce all to anarchy, and so effectively to dissolve the government. For laws not being made for themselves, but to be, by their execution, the bonds of the society to keep every part of the body politic in its due place and function. When that totally ceases, the government visibly ceases, and the people become a confused multitude without order or connection. Where there is no longer the administration of justice for the securing of men's rights, nor any remaining power within the community to direct the force, or provide for the necessities of the public, there certainly is no government left. Where the laws cannot be executed it is all one as if there were no laws, and a government without laws is, I suppose, a mystery in politics inconceivable to human capacity, and inconsistent with human society.

John Locke 220. In these, and the like cases, when the government is dissolved, the people are at liberty to provide for themselves by erecting a new legislative differing from the other by the change of persons, or form, or both, as they shall find it most for their safety and good. For the society can never, by the fault of another, lose the native and original right it has to preserve itself, which can only be done by a settled legislative and a fair and impartial execution of the laws made by it. But the state of mankind is not so miserable that they are not capable of using this remedy till it be too late to look for any. To tell people they may provide for themselves by erecting a new legislative, when, by oppression, artifice, or being delivered over to a foreign power, their old one is gone, is only to tell them they may expect relief when it is too late, and the evil is past cure. This is, in effect, no more than to bid them first be slaves, and then to take care of their liberty, and, when their chains are on, tell them they may act like free men. This, if barely so, is rather mockery than relief, and men can never be secure from tyranny if there be no means to escape it till they are perfectly under it; and, therefore, it is that they have not only a right to get out of it, but to prevent it.

John Locke 221. There is, therefore, secondly, another way whereby governments are dissolved, and that is, when the legislative, or the prince, either of them act contrary to their trust.

For the legislative acts against the trust reposed in them when they endeavour to invade the property of the subject, and to make themselves, or any part of the community, masters or arbitrary disposers of the lives, liberties, or fortunes of the people.

John Locke 222. The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property; and the end while they choose and authorize a legislative is that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the society, to limit the power and moderate the dominion of every part and member of the society. For since it can never be supposed to be the will of the society that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one designs to secure by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making: whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence. Whensoever, therefore, the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society, and either by ambition, fear, folly, or corruption,

(APP Note: See this in Samuel Adams Statement within the Rights of the Colonists, 1772:  "If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.")

endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people, by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and by the establishment of a new legislative (such as they shall think fit), provide for their own safety and security, (APP Note: See this in the Declaration of Independence) which is the end for which they are in society. What I have said here concerning the legislative in general holds true also concerning the supreme executor, who having a double trust put in him, both to have a part in the legislative and the supreme execution of the law, acts against both, when he goes about to set up his own arbitrary will as the law of the society. He acts also contrary to his trust when he employs the force, treasure, and offices of the society to corrupt the representatives and gain them to his purposes, when he openly pre-engages the electors, and prescribes, to their choice, such whom he has, by solicitation, threats, promises, or otherwise, won to his "designs", and employs them to bring in such who have promised beforehand what to vote and what to enact. Thus to regulate candidates and electors, and new model the ways of election, what is it but to cut up the government by the roots, and poison the very fountain of public security? For the people having reserved to themselves the choice of their representatives as the fence to their properties, could do it for no other end but that they might always be freely chosen, and so chosen, freely act and advise as the necessity of the commonwealth and the public good should, upon examination and mature debate, be judged to require. This, those who give their votes before they hear the debate, and have weighed the reasons on all sides, are not capable of doing. To prepare such an assembly as this, and endeavour to set up the declared abettors of his own will, for the true representatives of the people, and the law-makers of the society, is certainly as great a breach of trust, and as perfect a declaration of a "design"

(APP Note: See this in the Declaration of Independence and compare 223-226:

 (" ... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a "design" to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government  and to provide new guards for their future security.)

to subvert the government, as is possible to be met with. To which, if one shall add rewards and punishments visibly employed to the same end, and all the arts of perverted law made use of to take off and destroy all that stand in the way of such a >>"design"<<, and will not comply and consent to betray the liberties of their country, it will be past doubt what is doing. What power they ought to have in the society who thus employ it contrary to the trust that along with it in its first institution, is easy to determine; and one cannot but see that he who has once attempted any such thing as this cannot any longer be trusted.

Counter by Rapid Axcess

 

John Locke - Civil Government
(continued)

John Locke 222:   The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their "property"; and the end while they choose and authorize a legislative is that there may be laws made, and rules set, as "guards" and "fences" to the properties of all the society, to limit the "power" and moderate the "dominion" of every part and member of the society.

For since it can >>>"never" be supposed<<< to be the will of the society that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one >>>designs to secure<<< by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making:

"whenever" the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the "property" of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a "state of war with the people",

who are thereupon absolved from "any farther obedience", and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence. Whensoever, therefore, the legislative shall "transgress" this fundamental rule of society,"


John Locke 149:  "....And thus the community perpetually retains a supreme power of saving themselves from the "attempts" and "designs" of "anybody", even of their "legislators", whenever they shall be so "foolish" or so "wicked" as to lay and carry on "designs" against the liberties and "properties" of the subject.

For no man or society of men having a power to deliver up their preservation, or consequently the "means" of it, to the absolute will and arbitrary "dominion" of another, whenever any one shall go about to bring them into such a slavish condition, they will always have a right to preserve what they have not a power to part with, and to "rid" themselves of "those" who invade this fundamental, sacred, and unalterable law of self-preservation "for which" they "entered" into "society". ..."


 

Foolish Environmental Proposals:

RE: Klamath Falls Hearing Statement, Oregon Natural Resources Council (Environmental Group Now "Oregon Wild" .org) June 16th, 2001

See the Environmentalist Statement - (Andy Kerr)
http://www.andykerr.net/KlamathBasin/KFHearingStatement.html

In Rebuttal

In opposition to such notions that environmentalists such as these have, it is historically established that such notions are founded in the advancement of socialism:



Our advice to Klamath Falls County Citizens and Klamath County Government is to:

1.) Establish County laws restricting federal intervention of local County laws and local County legislation.

The Federal government is not a "party" but a servant. It is limited to what delegated powers under which it was first established. Powers to debate local issues on water use, or land use is not a power that was delegated to it. When the state was created, the land fell to the state and their respective counties.

The federal government therefore has no say, it is not only neutral, but a non entity . The only delegated power is for transferring its lands and powers in those lands, into the hands of the people of each state and community the land resides for distribution to the citizens who wish to reside there.

The only land the federal government may possess in limited portions that have been sanctified by each state, is for forts. That's it.

This is established in the Constitutional Debates, the federal government has no policing powers of federal law outside the "10 mile square" of Washington DC, and cannot create such laws that effect the Union at Large;

Only after a declaration of war granted by states to be used in foreign wars;

State insurrections are state controlled operations that can request aid from the federal government - i.e. other state's militia; but the federal government cannot dictate, the state having full powers of application over military and militia while within the boarders of the state that requested assistance.

See Constitutional Debate.


2.) Establish Federal Bills that will Transfer all Federal Lands into the ownership and Control of the counties.

This is to provide local commonwealths most closely effected (1 - 5 miles maximum area) within the county exclusive powers of their area over outside manipulations or controls. Bringing control to citizens most affected within that County by and to any issue of their area.




3.) Ranchers need to work to increase values of land, and NOT fall prey to selling at a cut rate to the federal Government, but to remove the federal government from the county, and remove adverse zoning laws to allow smaller ranches, for homes and businesses of all types so that more people can benefit from the land;

This is far more practical than removing productive land from availability to private ownership by citizens.




4.) Remove the Funnel created by the Federal governments involvement in the county which has allowed  paths for  national and international environmental laws into your county and state, and you will remove the chains of socialism from your wrists.

They will be removed because "the federal government will not be there" as a catalyst for the environmental movement to ride upon; or for the environmental movement to derive power from, to dictate what you do with your private land.

The power will be gone from them, and into your hands; as you, and your county and local communities will have "absolute control of the land for your personal and family's benefit".


You will have removed the powers of a distant and unconcerned legislator over your private property.




5.) Do you know why your land would be hard at this time to derive profit either in production or sale?

a.) Because you are "denied the right" to "use it" as "you see fit".

b.) You are limited by mandated zoning laws passed from federal to state to county restricting the size you may sell at.

c.) You are restricted by what type of business you can have and where it can be located.




6.) Zoning exceeds simple practical building codes and practical pollution standards and arbitrarily decides what, where and how you live and do business.

Get rid of the federal government and zoning from your communities and you still can retain your building codes and pollution standards, but you will be able to do what you want with your property.




7.) Environmentalists attempt to shroud their intent and goals to remove land and power from communities.

They use "catch phrases" after presenting what they determine a real value which is usually 1/20 or less the real value, then offer to double it for "Willing Sellers"  and say, it is  because it is "...just the right thing to do" (Andy Kerr Public Hearing Statement:  http://www.andykerr.net/KlamathBasin/KFHearingStatement.html )

Kerr and others like him use the same tactics in their bid to removing leasees from the Cascade Siskiyou Monument saying that the ranchers need to be "kept whole" offering them a choice to either willingly sell at "their stipulated price - value" or risk getting nothing for their lease land by simply pressuring the BLM through bogus and slanted studies by so called  "environmental Professionals" all trained by college professors with the same prejudice and endless studies that insure continuation of the professions they teach.

They will then will "of course" increase elk herds in place of cattle herds; Then establish more federally "mandated" studies; That forcibly paid by you through arbitrary forced and mandated, non enumerated unconstitutional taxation; So to benefit from the turmoil stirred up by these environmental groups and professional environmentalists for job security through donations sent in from environmental brain washing of others and government contracts... again forcibly paid by you through arbitrary forced and mandated, non enumerated unconstitutional taxation.

Kerr's article attempts to rationalize his environmental impositions by indicating the federal government would be able to purchase what he terms "marginal farm land" after a lengthy speech in his article on how much subsidized farming there is in Klamath Falls, and that at 4,000 feet elevation he presents that it is ...really not the ideal for farming;

This type of statement clearly attempting to disillusion both the land owners and the public into believing their highly valuable land that is ideal for Farming, simply because it is flat, farmable, rich soiled, easily accessible and above all, has extremely valuable water rights...

Water rights which they the environmentalists, of course, are after to take away from the land and really devalue it; so the land itself can be taken for minimal cost now or later.

Kerr concedes that $4000.oo an acre (twice of what he personally has deemed it is worth) is not enough however to compensate for the "loss of life style" ... but Kerr explains ....enough to "get clear of the bank" and have a "little something" left for retirement or the kid's "college fund"....


.....How thoughtful of him, and so not to be construed incorrectly, a statement I sarcastically have presented.




8.) It appears that there are always environmentalists there  to relieve you of the "burdensom" land you own from prices "held down from mandated zoning laws" and "controlled market prices".

By getting rid of zoning, the land value will increase because of the many other uses can be freely developed at each person's and property owner's will.




9.) We will show you how to make your farmland valuable.

Convince your county commissioners to refuse state and federal zoning mandates. Our Elect those who will.

Take away restrictions on property so ranchers will be able to break their land into "market determined" smaller parcels,  divide the land, build upon them and use them "as they see fit".

The  land would then command far higher "per acre" free market prices.

There will not only be money for the kids college fund and retirement, but for investment and farm and lifestyle improvement.

Not only that, but land will be more available for ownership by others and their posterity. 

Farmers outweigh environmentalists in the Klamath Falls area;

Vote the right farmers into county positions that will take command, establish local laws that defy state and federal undelegated impositions, empower local law enforcement of those laws and protect the rights and property of the people in the Klamath Basin.

Make your laws and Use the local laws and powers  to take control and protect property rights in land and water.



John Locke: 186. "The conqueror, it is true, usually by the force he has over them, compels them, with a sword at their breasts, to stoop to his conditions, and submit to such a government as he pleases to afford them; but the inquiry is, what right he has to do so? If it be said they submit by their own consent, then this allows their own consent to be necessary to give the conqueror a title to rule over them. It remains only to be considered whether promises, extorted by force, >>>"without right"<<<, can be "thought consent", and how far they "bind".

To which I shall say, >>>"they bind not at all"<<<; because >>>"whatsoever"<<< >>>"another"<<< >>>>>>>>gets from me "by force"<<<<<<<<,  (APP Note: Without Consent)

 I still retain the right of, and he is obliged presently to restore. He that forces my horse from me ought presently to restore him, and I have still a right to retake him.

By the same reason, he that forced a promise from me ought presently to restore it -- i.e., quit me of the obligation of it; or I may resume it myself -- i.e., choose whether I will perform it.

For the law of Nature laying an obligation on me, only by the rules she prescribes, "cannot oblige me" by the violation of her rules; such is the "extorting" >>>"anything" from me "by force"<<<.

Nor does it "at all" alter the case, to say I gave my promise, no more than it excuses the force, and passes the right, when I put my hand in my pocket and deliver my purse myself to a thief who demands it with a pistol at my breast."

Combating Intimidation

Intimidation, whether immediate or eventual, is as much a method of force as is a pistol, or arbitrary law that engages the public powers that possess the means to wrest property or rights to use property from a rightful owners hands.




John Locke 193. But granting that the conqueror, in a just war, has a right to the estates, as well as power over the persons of the conquered, which, it is plain, he hath not, nothing of absolute power will follow from hence in the continuance of the government. Because the descendants of these being all free men, if he grants them estates and possessions to inhabit his country, without which it would be worth nothing, whatsoever he grants them they have so far as it is granted property in; the nature whereof is, that, without a man's own consent, it cannot be taken from him.

John Locke 194. Their persons are free by a native right, and their properties, be they more or less, are their own, and at their own dispose, and not at his; or else it is no property. Supposing the conqueror gives to one man a thousand acres, to him and his heirs for ever; to another he lets a thousand acres, for his life, under the rent of L50 or L500 per annum. Has not the one of these a right to his thousand acres for ever, and the other during his life, paying the said rent? And hath not the tenant for life a property in all that he gets over and above his rent, by his labour and industry, during the said term, supposing it be double the rent? Can any one say, the king, or conqueror, after his grant, may, by his power of conqueror, take away all, or part of the land, from the heirs of one, or from the other during his life, he paying the rent? Or, can he take away from either the goods or money they have got upon the said land at his pleasure? If he can, then all free and voluntary contracts cease, and are void in the world; there needs nothing but power enough to dissolve them at any time, and all the grants and promises of men in power are but mockery and collusion. For can there be anything more ridiculous than to say, I give you and yours this for ever, and that in the surest and most solemn way of conveyance can be devised, and yet it is to be understood that I have right, if I please, to take it away from you again to-morrow?

APP Note: Relate this to US Land Patents absolute granting of properties and the Attempt of the Federal Government to condemn such land (or water by common law attached to the land) later, or the state to condemn such property after giving consent to adjudicate such transfer by authority of the United States by which it was a party, or to create new regulations upon it after granting it with none; To encircle that land in national monument and control the inroads and water, or to regulate limits to anything with regard to it, or to arbitrarily tax it into debt and thereby rendering the land not owned but rented, when no taxes were in established at the receiving of it, or to tax it without consent, or tax without consent for things built upon that property to improve its value, or raised upon it to derive sustenance and earnings from his labors, or derive any such without consent from those he wills it to.

And you will find that neither the federal government, nor the state government has the power to do so, nor has any power of such been delegated to it by the original compacts they exist under.

For once property is possessed of a person, it is any governments duty to protect it, and not to devise a design to wrest it away after all rights had been released ; As this clearly established by Locke that the protection of property is the purpose of government and the reason that the person enters into society.

John Locke 202. Wherever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another's harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command to compass that upon the subject which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate, and acting without authority may be opposed, as any other man who by force invades the right of another. This is acknowledged in subordinate magistrates. He that hath authority to seize my person in the street may be opposed as a thief and a robber if he endeavours to break into my house to execute a writ, notwithstanding that I know he has such a warrant and such a legal authority as will empower him to arrest me abroad. And why this should not hold in the highest, as well as in the most inferior magistrate, I would gladly be informed. Is it reasonable that the eldest brother, because he has the greatest part of his father's estate, should thereby have a right to take away any of his younger brothers' portions? Or that a rich man, who possessed a whole country, should from thence have a right to seize, when he pleased, the cottage and garden of his poor neighbour? The being rightfully possessed of great power and riches, exceedingly beyond the greatest part of the sons of Adam, is so far from being an excuse, much less a reason for rapine and oppression, which the endamaging another without authority is, that it is a great aggravation of it. For exceeding the bounds of authority is no more a right in a great than a petty officer, no more justifiable in a king than a constable. But so much the worse in him as that he has more trust put in him, is supposed, from the advantage of education and counsellors, to have better knowledge and less reason to do it, having already a greater share than the rest of his brethren.


-----------
 

John Locke Chapter 11: Of the "Extent" of the Legislative Power

John Locke 134. THE great end of men's entering into society being the enjoyment of their properties in peace and safety, and the great instrument and means of that being the laws established in that society, the first and fundamental positive law of all commonwealths is the establishing of the legislative power, as the first and fundamental natural law which is to govern even the legislative. Itself is the preservation of the society and (as far as will consist with the public good) of every person in it. This legislative is not only the supreme power of the commonwealth, but sacred and unalterable in the hands where the community have once placed it. Nor can any edict of anybody else, in what form soever conceived, or by what power soever backed, have the force and obligation of a law which has not its sanction from that legislative which the public has chosen and appointed; for without this the law could not have that which is absolutely necessary to its being a law, the consent of the society, over whom nobody can have a power to make laws9 but by their own consent and by authority received from them; and therefore all the obedience, which by the most solemn ties any one can be obliged to pay, ultimately terminates in this supreme power, and is directed by those laws which it enacts. Nor can any oaths to any foreign power whatsoever, or any domestic subordinate power, discharge any member of the society from his obedience to the legislative, acting pursuant to their trust, nor oblige him to any obedience contrary to the laws so enacted or farther than they do allow, it being ridiculous to imagine one can be tied ultimately to obey any power in the society which is not the supreme.

John Locke 135. Though the legislative, whether placed in one or more, whether it be always in being or only by intervals, though it be the supreme power in every commonwealth, yet, first, it is not, nor can possibly be, absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people. For it being but the joint power of every member of the society given up to that person or assembly which is legislator, it can be no more than those persons had in a state of Nature before they entered into society, and gave it up to the community. For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life or property of another. A man, as has been proved, cannot subject himself to the arbitrary power of another; and having, in the state of Nature, no arbitrary power over the life, liberty, or possession of another, but only so much as the law of Nature gave him for the preservation of himself and the rest of mankind, this is all he doth, or can give up to the commonwealth, and by it to the legislative power, so that the legislative can have no more than this. Their power in the utmost bounds of it is limited to the public good of the society.10 It is a power that hath no other end but preservation, and therefore can never have a right to destroy, enslave, or designedly to impoverish the subjects; the obligations of the law of Nature cease not in society, but only in many cases are drawn closer, and have, by human laws, known penalties annexed to them to enforce their observation. Thus the law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for, other men's actions must, as well as their own and other men's actions, be conformable to the law of Nature -- i.e., to the will of God, of which that is a declaration, and the fundamental law of Nature being the preservation of mankind, no human sanction can be good or valid against it.

John Locke 136. Secondly, the legislative or supreme authority cannot assume to itself a power to rule by extemporary arbitrary decrees, but is bound to dispense justice and decide the rights of the subject by promulgated standing laws, 11 (APP Note: See these exact words in the Rights of the Colonists)  and known authorized judges. For the law of Nature being unwritten, and so nowhere to be found but in the minds of men, they who, through passion or interest, shall miscite or misapply it, cannot so easily be convinced of their mistake where there is no established judge; and so it serves not as it aught, to determine the rights and fence the properties of those that live under it, especially where every one is judge, interpreter, and executioner of it too, and that in his own case; and he that has right on his side, having ordinarily but his own single strength, hath not force enough to defend himself from injuries or punish delinquents. To avoid these inconveniences which disorder men's properties in the state of Nature, men unite into societies that they may have the united strength of the whole society to secure and defend their properties, and may have standing rules to bound it by which every one may know what is his. To this end it is that men give up all their natural power to the society they enter into, and the community put the legislative power into such hands as they think fit, with this trust, that they shall be governed by declared laws, or else their peace, quiet, and property will still be at the same uncertainty as it was in the state of Nature.

John Locke 137. Absolute arbitrary power, or governing without settled standing laws, can neither of them consist with the ends of society and government, which men would not quit the freedom of the state of Nature for, and tie themselves up under, were it not to preserve their lives, liberties, and fortunes, and by stated rules of right and property to secure their peace and quiet. It cannot be supposed that they should intend, had they a power so to do, to give any one or more an absolute arbitrary power over their persons and estates, and put a force into the magistrate's hand to execute his unlimited will arbitrarily upon them; this were to put themselves into a worse condition than the state of Nature, wherein they had a liberty to defend their right against the injuries of others, and were upon equal terms of force to maintain it, whether invaded by a single man or many in combination. Whereas by supposing they have given up themselves to the absolute arbitrary power and will of a legislator, they have disarmed themselves, and armed him to make a prey of them when he pleases; he being in a much worse condition that is exposed to the arbitrary power of one man who has the command of a hundred thousand than he that is exposed to the arbitrary power of a hundred thousand single men, nobody being secure, that his will who has such a command is better than that of other men, though his force be a hundred thousand times stronger. And, therefore, whatever form the commonwealth is under, the ruling power ought to govern by declared and received laws, and not by extemporary dictates and undetermined resolutions, for then mankind will be in a far worse condition than in the state of Nature if they shall have armed one or a few men with the joint power of a multitude, to force them to obey at pleasure the exorbitant and unlimited decrees of their sudden thoughts, or unrestrained, and till that moment, unknown wills, without having any measures set down which may guide and justify their actions. For all the power the government has, being only for the good of the society, as it ought not to be arbitrary and at pleasure, so it ought to be exercised by established and promulgated laws, that both the people may know their duty, and be safe and secure within the limits of the law, and the rulers, too, kept within their due bounds, and not be tempted by the power they have in their hands to employ it to purposes, and by such measures as they would not have known, and own not willingly.

John Locke 138. Thirdly, the supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent.  (APP Note: See these exact words in the Rights of the Colonists) For the preservation of property being the end of government, and that for which men enter into society, it necessarily supposes and requires that the people should have property, without which they must be supposed to lose that by entering into society which was the end for which they entered into it; too gross an absurdity for any man to own. Men, therefore, in society having property, they have such a right to the goods, which by the law of the community are theirs, that nobody hath a right to take them, or any part of them, from them without their own consent; without this they have no property at all. For I have truly no property in that which another can by right take from me when he pleases against my consent. Hence it is a mistake to think that the supreme or legislative power of any commonwealth can do what it will, and dispose of the estates of the subject arbitrarily, or take any part of them at pleasure. This is not much to be feared in governments where the legislative consists wholly or in part in assemblies which are variable, whose members upon the dissolution of the assembly are subjects under the common laws of their country, equally with the rest. But in governments where the legislative is in one lasting assembly, always in being, or in one man as in absolute monarchies, there is danger still, that they will think themselves to have a distinct interest from the rest of the community, and so will be apt to increase their own riches and power by taking what they think fit from the people. For a man's property is not at all secure, though there be good and equitable laws to set the bounds of it between him and his fellow-subjects, if he who commands those subjects have power to take from any private man what part he pleases of his property, and use and dispose of it as he thinks good.

John Locke 139. But government, into whosesoever hands it is put, being as I have before shown, entrusted with this condition, and for this end, that men might have and secure their properties, the prince or senate, however it may have power to make laws for the regulating of property between the subjects one amongst another, yet can never have a power to take to themselves the whole, or any part of the subjects' property, without their own consent; for this would be in effect to leave them no property at all. And to let us see that even absolute power, where it is necessary, is not arbitrary by being absolute, but is still limited by that reason and confined to those ends which required it in some cases to be absolute, we need look no farther than the common practice of martial discipline. For the preservation of the army, and in it of the whole commonwealth, requires an absolute obedience to the command of every superior officer, and it is justly death to disobey or dispute the most dangerous or unreasonable of them; but yet we see that neither the sergeant that could command a soldier to march up to the mouth of a cannon, or stand in a breach where he is almost sure to perish, can command that soldier to give him one penny of his money; nor the general that can condemn him to death for deserting his post, or not obeying the most desperate orders, cannot yet with all his absolute power of life and death dispose of one farthing of that soldier's estate, or seize one jot of his goods; whom yet he can command anything, and hang for the least disobedience. Because such a blind obedience is necessary to that end for which the commander has his power -- viz., the preservation of the rest, but the disposing of his goods has nothing to do with it.

John Locke 140. It is true governments cannot be supported without great charge, and it is fit every one who enjoys his share of the protection should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it. But still it must be with his own consent -- i.e., the consent of the majority, giving it either by themselves or their representatives chosen by them; for if any one shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people by his own authority, and without such "consent of the people", he thereby "invades the fundamental law of property", and "subverts the end of government". For what property have I in that which another may by right take when he pleases to himself?

John Locke 141. Fourthly. The legislative cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands, for it being but a delegated power from the people, they who have it cannot pass it over to others. (APP Note: The United Nations Has No Powers because the United States having limited delegated powers cannot abrogate new powers nor transfer powers, not existing or contrary to the peoples rights, of the united states, to others) The people alone can appoint the form of the commonwealth, which is by constituting the legislative, and appointing in whose hands that shall be. And when the people have said, "We will submit, and be governed by laws made by such men, and in such forms," nobody else can say other men shall make laws for them; nor can they be bound by any laws but such as are enacted by those whom they have chosen and authorized to make laws for them.

John Locke 142. These are the "bounds" which the "trust" that is put in them by the society and the law of God and Nature have set to the legislative power of every commonwealth, in all forms of government.

First: They are to govern by promulgated established laws, not to be varied in particular cases, but to have one rule for rich and poor, for the favourite at Court, and the countryman at plough.

(APP Note: See these exact words in the Rights of the Colonists)

Secondly: These laws also ought to be designed for no other end ultimately but the good of the people.

Thirdly: They must not raise taxes on the property of the people without the consent of the people given by themselves or their deputies.

And this properly concerns only such governments where the legislative is always in being, or at least where the people have not reserved any part of the legislative to deputies, to be from time to time chosen by themselves.

Fourthly: Legislative neither must nor can transfer the power of making laws to anybody else, or place it anywhere but where the people have.