+menu-


  • Category Archives Accountable Government
  • Obamas Classified Australian Immigration Deal

    Some American citizens were aware that President Obama and his administrations had brokered an immigration deal with Australia.

    WHAT WE DIDN’T KNOW IS THAT THE DEAL WAS CLASSIFIED

    The deal, which was announced in Novemberless than a week after Trump won the US election on Nov 8, 2016

    Charles E. Grassley, “Grassley Renews Call for Declassification of Covert Australia Refugee Deal”, Chuck Grassley website, February 2, 2017.

    June 10, 2017  Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has repeatedly and unsuccessfully called for the secret refugee deal with Australia to be declassified.53

    June 10, 2017  Elements remain classified, although the State Department is considering an application from the Senate Judiciary Committee to declassify the documents in the public interest.

    ———————————————————————

    Another Chapter in the Book of Revelations by Pearl Revere

    —————————————————————–

    The Covert became Classified both to American and Australian Citizens.

    How would American and Australian Citizens have reacted to the CLASSIFIED document if it had been DECLASSIFIED before the U.S. Election?

    Maybe we’re missing something, what was the Obama administration  getting  out of that classified deal ?— beyond Australia’s acceptance of the 50 “refugees” from Costa Rica — that is being kept secret from us?

    See Nayla Rush, “Expanded Central American ‘Refugee’ Program: Bring the Whole Family!” , Center for Immigration Studies blog, August 28, 2016.

    See Nayla Rush, “Autralia’s Unwanted Asylum Seekers (Mostly Iranians) to Be Resettled in the US”, Center for Immigration Studies, February 2017.

    Zoe Daniel and Stephanie March, “US refugee deal: Architect of deal says arrangement loosely based on Australia ‘doing more'”, ABC News, March 21, 2017.

    ————————————————————–

    Under President Trump’s Immigration Deals. (sworn in Jan 20, 2017)

    President Trump signed three executive orders the week of January 23, 2017

    On January 25 at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Trump signed executive orders on border security and interior enforcement. On January 27, he signed an executive order at the Pentagon on refugees and visa holders from designated nations.

    Why would President Trump be upset, eight days after he was sworn into office?

    ———————————————————-

    THE REST OF  THE STORY BY PEARL HARVEY

    ————————————————————–

    U.S.-Australia Refugee Resettlement Deal Is Underway | Center for …

    https://cis.org/USAustralia-Refugee-Resettlement-Deal-Underway

    Jun 10, 2017 – Soon after taking office, (JAN 28, 2017)  President Trump promised to study the “dumb deal“: “Do you believe it? The Obama administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal!” he tweeted……

    —————————————————————

    APRIL 2016 Who Are Australia’s 1,241 Unwanted Asylum Seekers?

    Most (1,147) are men.

    According to recent Australian detention statistics, there are 1,241 people in detention on Nauru and Manus Island (PNG): 380 on Nauru and 861 on Manus Island. Most (1,147) are men.25 Of the 380 in Nauru, 286 are men, 49 are women, and 45 are children. All 861 detained on Manus Island are men.

    ————————————————————–

    APRIL 2016  Australia’s 1,241 Unwanted Asylum Seekers

    Friction between asylum seekers and locals intensified (Riots, Mental Illness, Sexual Assault Allegations) after detention at the Manus camp was deemed unconstitutional by the Papua New Guinea Supreme Court in April 2016.

    Detainees (now called “residents”) were since allowed outside the camp.

    During UNHCR’s April 2016 visit to Manus Island

    United Nations experts concluded that the level of mental illness on both islands was alarming

    Experts concluded that “[t]he prevalence and severity of mental disorders presented by the asylum-seeker and refugee population on Manus Island is extreme.”

    Furthermore, a number of very severe psychiatric disorders were identified, including gross psychopathology consistent with psychosis as well as psychotic dissociation.

    ——————————————————-

    Riots, Mental Illness, Sexual Assault Allegations

    Following an inspection of the Manus and Nauru detention camps, United Nations experts concluded that the level of mental illness on both islands was alarming.36 During UNHCR’s April 2016 visit to Manus Island, medical experts found that 88 percent of asylum seekers and refugees surveyed “were suffering from a depressive or anxiety disorder and/or post-traumatic stress disorder. … Furthermore, a number of very severe psychiatric disorders were identified, including gross psychopathology consistent with psychosis as well as psychotic dissociation.” Experts concluded that “[t]he prevalence and severity of mental disorders presented by the asylum-seeker and refugee population on Manus Island is extreme.” Eighty-three percent of asylum seekers and refugees surveyed on Nauru “suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and/or depression.”

    Riots, fights with security guards and local residents, incidents of self-harm, and suicide attempts (including swallowing poison and self-immolation) were on the rise.

    The latest violent incident took place on Manus Island detention center in April. Dutton, the immigration minister, said the incident was the result of allegations of sexual assault against a five-year-old local boy who was led into the center.37 Manus Island locals got angry and violence broke out between them, camp security guards, and the detainees. Shots were fired inside the camp, but no one was hurt. Detainees refuted these allegations, claiming the fight was the result of a football field dispute. They said that the boy was led inside the camp a few days before the incident because he was asking for food.38

    Friction between asylum seekers and locals intensified after detention at the Manus camp was deemed unconstitutional by the Papua New Guinea Supreme Court in April 2016. Detainees (now called “residents”) were since allowed outside the camp.

    David Yapu, Manus Province commander, spoke to Fairfax Media:

    We have been warning the refugees to respect the laws of the locals, of Papua New Guinea. … You are free to walk around, but please make sure that you respect the locals. If you come in conflict with the law, police will not hesitate to deal with you. I want the message to be delivered to them. The bulk of them are okay but there are a few [troublemakers]. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.39

    In January, an asylum seeker was charged with raping a young local woman on Manus Island. This incident raises, according to the victim’s aunt, a serious problem as to how detainees are relating to local people on the island: “They don’t know our cultures and they don’t respect the women here, they do anything they want. … They are roaming here, looking for women and getting these small girls [young women] to have sex is not something the people of Manus would like to see.”40

    Another asylum seeker was arrested and charged with the rape of a 10-year-old girl. As reported in January 2017: “Police on the island said at least seven men had been arrested in recent weeks for offences such as public drunkenness and possession of drugs.”41

    Incidents like these have led to increased tension between the asylum seekers and the local people. Asylum seekers have been attacked outside the center and two Iranian men were beaten by police. But police and local representatives accuse the asylum seekers of “committing crimes and aggressively pursuing local women.”42

    ————————————————————-

    January 28, 2017

    U.S. President Donald Trump  seated at his desk speaks by phone with Australia’s Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, U.S.

    Turnbull, early in the call, pivots from introductory pleasantries to highlighting similarities in U.S. and Australian policies with regard to “national security and border protection.” Turnbull name-drops Jared Kushner, who he says he’d recently spoken to, and notes, “It is very interesting to know how you prioritize the minorities in your Executive Order.”

    AUSTRALIA’S  SMART  LINE ON IMMIGRATION

    January 28, 2017, Turnbull,  comments that 90 percent of the 12,000 Syrian refugees Australia has agreed to take in are Christian.

    it is a tragic fact of life that when the situation in the Middle East settles down the people that are going to be most unlikely to have a continuing home are those Christian minorities… It is not a sectarian thing. It is recognition of the practical political realities.”

    Data  obtained through Australia’s freedom of information law shows that 78 percent of the approximately 18,563 refugees from Syria and Iraq granted entry from July 1, 2015, to Jan. 6, 2017  of this year identified themselves as Christian.

     —————————————————————————————–

    JULY 2014 AUSTRALIA’S  HARD LINE ON IMMIGRATION

    Under Australia’s strict border policy, they are prevented from receiving asylum even if found to be refugees.

    The hardline policy adopted by Australia has resulted in there being no asylum seekers delivered to Australia by a boat smuggling operation since July 2014.

    Under the new legislation, even the thousands of asylum seekers who have returned home to the Middle East, Africa and Asia would be banned from ever traveling to Australia, even on a legitimate tourist or business visa, or as an Australian’s spouse.

    ————————————————————————————–

    MAR 23, 2017

    Australia rejects 500 Syrian and Iraqi refugees for security reasons – DW

    www.dw.com/en/australia-rejects-500-syrian-and…security-reasons/a-38082131

    Mar 23, 2017Australia has turned down more than 500 refugees from Syria and Iraq on security grounds, a minister says.

    The minister said the attack near Britain’s Parliament on Wednesday, in which an assailant with suspected links to Islamist terrorism killed three people and wounded dozens more using a car and a knife before being shot dead,

    justified the Australian government’s decision to be very selective about who it let into the country.

    “The tragic events in London and elsewhere demonstrate the government’s approach was prudent,

    THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT WE’D EXCLUDED ON NATIONAL SECURITY GROUNDS

    AND PEOPLE THAT WE DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT WE HAVE NOT BROUGHT TO OUR COUNTRY

    AND WE NEVER WILL.

    ———————————————————————-

    Nov, 13, 2016  Under President Obama and his administrations brokered immigration deal with Australia……

    Refugees being held at controversial detention facilities (REFUSED ENTRY ON NATIONAL SECURITY GROUNDS BY AUSTRALIA)  will be resettled in the United States, Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said Sunday.

    The group is the first of 1,250 refugees (REFUSED ENTRY ON NATIONAL SECURITY GROUNDS BY AUSTRALIA )

    That are ULTIMATELY expected to resettle in the United States, as part of an agreement with the Australian government, brokered by President Obama and his administrations.

    The refugees (REFUSED ENTRY ON NATIONAL SECURITY GROUNDS BY AUSTRALIA)  will soon arrive in the US are originally from Bangladesh, Iran, Sri Lanka, Somalia, and Myanmar, Australia’s Refugee Action Coalition said in a statement.

    They will be resettled across the US, in states including Arizona, Texas, California, Oregon, and New York.

    ——————————————————————–

    Jan 22, 2018 Update Australian refugees President Obama and his administrations “CLASSIFIED” brokered immigration deal with Australia……

    Second group of Manus Island refugees depart for US under resettlement deal

    Fifty-eight men leave ‘hell that the Australian government made for us’ months after first group of 54 refugees sent to US

  • Something Fishy Going on in WA State

    House Bill 2859: Modifying the management of the state’s fisheries by creating the department of fisheries separate from the department of wildlife

    Introduced in the House on January 18, 2018   Official Text and Analysis.

    View House Bill 2859

    ———————————-

    click on the link below … scroll down through the 226 pages

    Original Bill

    PAGE (4) NEW SECTION.  Sec. 1001.

     IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE TO HAVE….

    226 PAGES OF THIS?

    —————————————————————————–

     I am posting  this on my website,  behindmyback.org,  As  It is in the “BEST”  interest of the citizens  of  WA  State to be  “FULLY” informed and have an opportunity to make public comment.

    —————————

    Page (11) This is not just about fish….

    The director may:
    (1) SPEND MONEYS
    to improve natural growing conditions for fish
    by constructing  fishways, installing screens, and removing obstructions to migratory fish

    PAGE (79) AFFECTING CLALLAM COUNTY 2017 SMP UPDATE?

     Sec. 1121. RCW 77.55.141and 2010 c 210 s 28 are each amended to 21 read as follows:

    (1)In order to protect the property of marine waterfront shoreline owners it is necessary to facilitate issuance of permits for bulkheads or rockwalls under certain conditions.

    (2)The department shall issue a permit with or without conditions within forty-five days of receipt of a complete and accurate application which authorizes commencement of construction, replacement, or repair of a marine beach front protective bulkhead or rockwall for single-family type residences or property UNDER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

    ——————————

    PAGE ONE (1) OF 226 

    AN ACT Relating to modifying the management of the state’s  fisheries by creating the department of fisheries separate from the department of wildlife;

    Amending RCW’S PAGE (1) OF 226

    77.08.022, 77.08.024, 77.12.010,77.12.275, 77.12.420,

    77.12.455, 77.12.560, 77.12.760, 77.12.850,77.12.858,

    77.12.860, 77.12.865, 77.15.300, 77.15.310, 77.15.320,

    77.15.350, 77.15.370, 77.15.380, 77.15.382, 77.15.390,

    77.15.500,77.15.520, 77.15.522, 77.15.530, 77.15.540,

    77.15.552, 77.15.554,77.15.565, 77.15.570, 77.15.590,

    77.15.620, 77.15.640, 77.15.803,77.15.813, 77.15.805,

    77.15.809,77.15.811, 77.18.050, 77.18.060,77.50.010,

    77.50.020, 77.50.040, 77.50.050, 77.50.070, 77.50.080,

    77.50.090, 77.50.100, 77.50.110, 77.50.120, 77.55.021,

    AND, A FULL PAGE (2) OF 226

    and 79A.80.090; reenacting and amending

    RCW 77.55.011, 77.120.010, 77.15.080, and 77.15.160; adding a new Title to the Revised Code of Washington to be codified as Title 75A RCW; creating new sections; recodifying RCW,77.55.041,77.55.081, 77.55.111, 77.55.121, 77.55.131, 77.55.141, 7.55.151, 77.55.161, 77.55.181, 77.55.191, 77.55.241, 77.55.251, 77.55.261,77.55.291, 77.55.331, 77.57.040, 77.57.060, 77.60.020, 77.60.030,77.60.050, 77.60.100, 77.60.0…….

    AND,  A FULL PAGE (3) OF 226

    AND PAGE (4) OF 226

    77.135.210, 77.135.220, 77.135.230, AND, 77.135.240; repealing RCW 177.15.005, 43.300.005, AND, 77.04.013; prescribing penalties; providing an effective date; and providing an expiration date.

    ——————————————————-

    BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

    PART ONE

    DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES CREATED

    PAGE (4) ….NEW SECTION.  Sec. 1001.

    IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE

    TO HAVE 226 PAGES OF THIS?

    ————————————————-

    I am posting this on my website behindmyback.org,  As it is in the “BEST”  interest of the citizens of  WA State to be “FULLY”  informed and have an opportunity to make public comment.


  • 2017 Clallam Co SMP BOCC RCW 90.58.590

    Discovery Dec 8, 2017

    Under RCW 90.58.590 Clallam County BOCC has this option on the 2017 SMP Update.

    Local governments authorized to adopt moratoria

    Recognizing the fundamental role and value of properly exercised moratoria, the legislature intends to establish new moratoria procedures and to affirm moratoria authority that local governments have and may exercise when implementing the shoreline management act, while recognizing the legitimate interests of existing shoreline-related developments during the period of interim moratoria.”[ 2009 c 444 § 1.]

     (3) A moratorium or control adopted under this section may be effective for up to six months if a detailed work plan for remedying the issues and circumstances necessitating the moratorium or control is developed and made available for public review.

    Intent—2009 c 444: “The legislature recognizes that cities and counties have moratoria authority granted through constitutional and statutory provisions and that this authority, when properly exercised, is an important aspect of complying with environmental stewardship and protection requirements.

    —————————————————————————-

    The Clallam County BOCC has this option on the 2017 SMP Update.

    And,  most certainly the Citizens of Clallam County have provided  727  Public comments with enough local issues, circumstances and irregularities in the 2017  SMP Update Draft….

    To request the Clallam County WA  BOCC   use  their moratoria authority under RCW 90.58.590

    to  remedy the critical issues, imposed in and on the citizens in the Clallam County SMP Update between 2009 and Dec 13, 2017 including but not limited to,

    2017 SMP Update 727 Comments

    —————————————————————————-

    RCW 90.58.590

    Local governments authorized to adopt moratoria—Requirements—Public hearing.

    (1) Local governments may adopt moratoria or other interim official controls as necessary and appropriate to implement this chapter.
    (2)(a) A local government adopting a moratorium or control under this section must:
    (i) Hold a public hearing on the moratorium or control;
    (ii) Adopt detailed findings of fact that include, but are not limited to justifications for the proposed or adopted actions and explanations of the desired and likely outcomes;
    (iii) Notify the department of the moratorium or control immediately after its adoption. The notification must specify the time, place, and date of any public hearing required by this subsection;
    (iv) Provide that all lawfully existing uses, structures, or other development shall continue to be deemed lawful conforming uses and may continue to be maintained, repaired, and redeveloped, so long as the use is not expanded, under the terms of the land use and shoreline rules and regulations in place at the time of the moratorium.
    (b) The public hearing required by this section must be held within sixty days of the adoption of the moratorium or control.
    (3) A moratorium or control adopted under this section may be effective for up to six months if a detailed work plan for remedying the issues and circumstances necessitating the moratorium or control is developed and made available for public review. A moratorium or control may be renewed for two sixmonth periods if the local government complies with subsection (2)(a) of this section before each renewal. If a moratorium or control is in effect on the date a proposed master program or amendment is submitted to the department, the moratorium or control must remain in effect until the department’s final action under RCW 90.58.090; however, the moratorium expires six months after the date of submittal if the department has not taken final action.
    (4) Nothing in this section may be construed to modify county and city moratoria powers conferred outside this chapter.
    NOTES:
    Intent2009 c 444: “The legislature recognizes that cities and counties have moratoria authority granted through constitutional and statutory provisions and that this authority, when properly exercised, is an important aspect of complying with environmental stewardship and protection requirements.
    Recognizing the fundamental role and value of properly exercised moratoria, the legislature intends to establish new moratoria procedures and to affirm moratoria authority that local governments have and may exercise when implementing the shoreline management act, while recognizing the legitimate interests of existing shoreline-related developments during the period of interim moratoria.” [ 2009 c 444 § 1.]
    —————————————————————

    Comments and questions on the 2017 Clallam County SMP Update can  still be submitted individually to the elected county representatives:

    bpeach@co.clallam.wa.us – rjohnson@co.clallam.wa.us – mozias@co.clallam.wa.us


  • Clallam Co SMP Update Cathy Lear-DOE-ESA

    Clallam Co SMP Update Cathy Lear, Ecology et al. and ESA Margaret Clancy

    NOV 14, 2017 After researching the  SMP Update from 2009,  Discovery is in its infancy with a multitude of unanswered questions.

    2017 SMP Update Draft Discovery, public information documents, laying down the evidence, laying down the laws, Public notice and participation, laying down Ecology’s unscientific evidence, and in furtherance of the discover and due process of law, demanding answers to ten (10) unanswered questions from Ecology’s and nineteen (19) unanswered questions from Clallam County DCD Planning Dept Director Mary Ellen Winborn.

    Discovery: Cathy Lear, ia a Clallam County employee,  she was identified as the Project Manager for the Clallam County DCD SMP Update Draft on public request documents.

    The Clallam County Board of Commissioners  BOCC must question, Cathy Lear at a Public meeting and demand all documents relevant to the SMP Update from day one.

    Specifically, When, how and why ESA Adolfson  was awarded the SMP Update contract? Was there and open bid process by the BOCC for the contract?

    Or? Were the citizens of Clallam County, and our pristine private shoreline property,  just sucked into the contract with ESA Adolfson , by a process of coordination, linked to Jefferson County, Port Townsend and Sequim for consistency and compliance?

    ESA Adolfson has been document as the compliance experts, consultants, facilitators  in 25 WA State city  and county SMP Updates.

    Interestingly enough, as  Contractors, ESA Adolfson never gets sued

    The BOCC  must Question ESA Adolfson’s Margaret Clancy on her Whatcom County SMP Update, and the ten year legal battle (LAHRS V. WHATCOM COUNTY)  paid for by the citizens of Whatcom County.

    As the consultant for Whatcom County SMP Update, Margaret Clancy did not get sued.

    FIRST, LAY A FOUNDATION IN EVIDENCE

    LAHRS V. WHATCOM COUNTY

    A DOCUMENT OR OTHER PIECE OF EVIDENCE WHICH ASSURES THE COURT OF  THE TALENT AND EXPERIENCE OF A WITNESS OR THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE DOCUMENT OR ARTICLE.

    Victoria Luhrs wins 10-year battle to protect her Lummi Island home …

    https://pacificlegal.org/victoria-luhrs-wins-10-year-battle-to-protect-her-lummi-island-…

    Earlier this year, Whatcom County ended its decade-long legal battle to prevent Lummi Island resident Victoria Luhrs from building a shore defense work that is …

    ————————————————————————-

    LAYING DOWN THE LAW  RCW 90.58.100 IN EVIDENCE

     (6) Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall govern the issuance of substantial development permits for shoreline protection, including structural methods such as construction of bulkheads, and nonstructural methods of protection. The standards shall provide for methods which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage to single family residences and appurtenant structures due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall provide a preference for permit issuance for measures to protect single family residences occupied prior to January 1, 1992, where the proposed measure is designed to minimize harm to the shoreline natural environment.

    AND IN LAYING DOWN THE LAW RCW 90.58.100 IN WHATCOM COUNTY

    ESA ADOLFSON AND MARGARET CLANCY DID NOT GET  SUED.

    LAHRS V. WHATCOM COUNTY WAS A DECADE LONG LEGAL BATTLE

    —————————————————————————————-

    LEGAL ISSUES ON THE DCD 2017 SMP UPDATE DRAFT

    Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District (2013)
    The U.S. Supreme Court handed a victory to all property owners by ruling in favor of Coy Koontz Jr., represented by PLF attorneys, in his constitutional challenge to the heavy, unjustified demands that his family faced as a condition for a building permit. The 5-4 ruling affirms that the Fifth Amendment protects landowners from government extortion, whether the extortion is for money or any other form of property.

    ———————————————————————————-

    To Thwart the Constructional rights of Clallam County Shoreline Private Property owners…

    The Clallam County 2017 DCD SMP Update Draft does place  heavy, unjustified demands  as a condition for a building permit.

    Indeed, the Fifth Amendment protects landowners from government extortion, whether the extortion is for money or any other form of property.

    AND IN LAYING DOWN THE LAW…

    ESA ADOLFSON IS NEVER  MENTIONED

    AND ESA ADOLFSON NEVER GETS SUED.

    —————————————————————————

    Why am I making a Federal Case out of this?

    The U.S. Supreme Court handed a victory to all property owners

    EPA  granted the Clallam County SMP Update funding

    Because we have a top down government of paid experts, the professionals et al.,

    And, after all these years , I am still in DISCOVERY.

    ———————————————————————–

    The DOI are the experts on Natural Hazards and black line restrictions

    So, I sent the following inquiry to the Dear DOI, our BOCC and other concerned citizens.

    Dear DOI,

    RE: Natural Hazards and black line restrictions

    Specifically my inquiry, is how are the DOI Natural Hazards relate to the black line restrictions on our private shoreline property in the Clallam County WA, 2017 SMP Update?

    Contact Us | US Department of the Interior – DOI.gov

    https://www.doi.gov/strategicsciences/contact-us

    Contact Us. SSG logo-small. The Strategic Sciences Group (SSG) is co-led by the U.S. Geological Survey Associate Director for Natural Hazards. In addition, a …

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: ssg@ios.doi.gov

    Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 8:06 AM

    Subject: DOI Natural Hazards and black line restrictions

    Dear DOI,

    RE: Natural Hazards and black line restrictions

    Specifically my inquiry, is how are the DOI Natural Hazards relate to the black line restrictions on our private shoreline property in the Clallam County WA, 2017 SMP Update?

    NOV 9, 2017  I RECEIVED A WARNING “IF THE CITIZENS OF CLALLAM COUNTY ONLY KNEW THE EVIL OF THE BLACK LINE, THE DISCRIMINATION OF THE PURPLE COLOR”

    Exactly, what are the DOI black line Natural Hazards federal regulations and restrictions? (documents please)

    How are Channel Meander Zones legally defined by the DOI?  (documents please)

    How are critical shoreline (Natural Hazards)  area’s legally defined by the DOI? (documents please)

    There is NO LIDAR in Clallam County WRIA 20? Did someone just make up the Black Lines based on someones opinion or theory?  (please respond to this question)

    Nov 9, 2017, I was told, by our elected DCD Director, Mary Ellen Winborn, that the black lines restrictions (on map #41) placed on 20 acres of a 40 acre parcel of private shoreline property on the Sol Duc River were for our own protection.

    Which led to this posting on my blog behindmyback.org….

    ——————————————————–

    Behind My Back | 2017 SMP Draft New Black Lines and Purplewww.behindmyback.org/2017/11/10/7347

    • Nov 10, 2017 · THE NEW CLALLAM COUNTY DCD SMP Update 273 Page Draft is a very expensive, very complicated environmental designation, a Color Book coded with black lines

    Posted on November 10, 2017 12:26 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    THE NEW CLALLAM COUNTY  DCD SMP Update 273 Page Draft  is a very expensive, very complicated  environmental designation, a Color Book coded with black lines and  purple, and every other color of the rainbow to rule, regulate and restrict every  vested private shoreline property owner in Clallam County WA.

    SO WHAT’S NEW ABOUT THAT?

    DISCOVERY, NOV 9, 2017  I RECEIVED A WARNING “IF THE CITIZENS OF CLALLAM COUNTY ONLY KNEW THE EVIL OF THE BLACK LINE, THE DISCRIMINATION OF THE PURPLE COLOR”

    ————————————————————————–

    Which led to this posting on my blog behindmyback.org….

    Behind My Back | Clallam Co SMP Update Laying Down the Law

    • www.behindmyback.org/…/11/clallam-co-smp-update-laying-down-the-law

      Nov 11, 2017 · first, lay a foundation in evidence a document or other piece of evidence which assures the court of the talent and experience of a witness or the …

    Posted on November 11, 2017 8:57 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    FIRST, LAY A FOUNDATION IN EVIDENCE

    A DOCUMENT OR OTHER PIECE OF EVIDENCE WHICH ASSURES THE COURT OF  THE TALENT AND EXPERIENCE OF A WITNESS OR THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE DOCUMENT OR ARTICLE.

    LAY A FOUNDATION IN EVIDENCE, TO PROVIDE TO THE JUDGE THE QUALIFICATION OF A WITNESS (PARTICULARLY AN EXPERT WITNESS)

    AND NOW, YOU KNOW WHY I AM INSISTING ON DOCUMENTATION FROM THE DOI, WITH YOU AS MY EXPERT WITNESS

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    (360) 417-9452

    ————————————————————————————–

    NOV 14, 2017 How can the Clallam County BOCC get it, when they never even got it until Oct 30, 2017?

    How can the BOCC  move forward on the DCD approved 2017 SMP Update Draft,  infused with ESA compliance, ECOLOGY’s  questionable science,  with Discovery in its infancy and a multitude of  unanswered  questions?

    ————————————————————————

    THE DEADLINE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE DCD 2017 SMP DRAFT UPDATE  IS DEC 12, 2017….

    Email your comments to:  SMP@co.clallam.wa.us  Clallam County Board of Commissioners

    What will happen who knows?

    Meanwhile this Tenacious Clallam County Country Bumpkin  is doing the usual….

    I’ll just keep making more 2017 SMP Update Draft Public comments,  posting them on my website, and sending them around in cyberspace.

    THE BOTTOM LINE  ON THE 2017 CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE ……

    MUST NOT BE…..

    P.S.  I EXPECT TO HAVE SOME MORON TRY TO MAKE US MOVE OUR HOUSE BACK ANOTHER 500 FEET FROM THE BEACH.


  • 2017 SMP Draft New Black Lines and Purple

    THE NEW CLALLAM COUNTY  DCD SMP Update 273 Page Draft  is a very expensive, very complicated  environmental designation, a Color Book coded with black lines and  purple, and every other color of the rainbow to rule, regulate and restrict every  vested private shoreline property owner in Clallam County WA.

    SO WHAT’S NEW ABOUT THAT?

    DISCOVERY, NOV 9, 2017  I RECEIVED A WARNING “IF THE CITIZENS OF CLALLAM COUNTY ONLY KNEW THE EVIL OF THE BLACK LINE, THE DISCRIMINATION OF THE PURPLE COLOR”

    Question: “Why use Color Book?”

    Answer:  “Color Books have been in the news  a lot since Nov 8, 2016”

     Hello Clallam County Country Bumpkins et al. Who knew what on Jan 26, 2011?

    And, what have we discovered …. Nov 10, 2017?

    The Clallam County DCD SMP Update Draft is a 273 page color book, It  cost American taxpayers $1,329,915.00 dollars. A US Environmental  Protection  Assistance Grant  to Clallam County WA  for Project No  PO-00J08801-1-2- 3.

    Total Project cost, one million three hundred twenty nine thousand nine hundred and fifteen dollars.

    WHO’S ACCOUNTING FOR THE MONEY?

    I’m requesting an answer from  Jim Jones, Jr.  the Clallam County Administrator..

    ——————————————————–

    NOV 3, 2017 TO NOV 8, 2017 all links are below.

    DISCOVERY  From: Clallam County Public Records Center

    To: phew@wavecable.com

    What started as a $599,000.00 pass through grant from the EPA to Clallam County  for ESA Adolfson  facilitators/ consultants/ compliance experts, Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer, we were told,  to regulate 3300 vested  private shoreline turned into $1,329,915.00 dollar project.

    DISCOVERY  Jan 26, 2011 to Nov 10, 2017 continued….

    WHO KNEW, A PERSON THAT WE HAVE NEVER SEE, IN OR AT, OR QUESTIONED AT ANY PUBLIC 2017 DCD SMP UPDATE DISCUSSIONS, IS CLALLAM COUNTY EMPLOYEE CATHY LEAR THE PROJECT MANAGER.

    ———————————————————————————

    December 6, 2011 Cathy Lear comments on the SMP Update

    HELLO COUNTRY BUMPKINS…

    Doubtless, everyone with an advanced degree in forestry would understand these references.

    This way of writing is distracting, however, for those who do not customarily speak in these terms. I think it should be made more “speaks for itself to anyone” wherever possible. A shoreline inventory should be a tool useful to anyone interested, but especially to land use planners and citizens with property they want to develop.

    We cannot assume everyone speaks the language of academic society.  

    ———————————————————————–

    NOV 9, 2017   MORE DISCOVERY  on the 2017 DCD SMP Draft Update 273 PAGE COLOR BOOK . People send me stuff, people tell me stuff, I have a researched and documented history of the Clallam County SMP Update stuff.

    NOV 9, 2017  A WARNING “IF THE CITIZENS OF CLALLAM COUNTY ONLY KNEW THE EVIL OF THE BLACK LINE, THE DISCRIMINATION OF THE PURPLE COLOR”

    ——————————————————–

    I am very familiar with the color purple on maps used for the SMP Update. I did attended the 2012 SMP Update Forks Public Forum.

    WHO KNEW ABOUT THE “NEW”  EVIL BLACK LINES ON THE DCD 2017 SMP UPDATE DRAFT MAPS COLOR BOOK?  NOT ONLY DID THEY COLOR  OUR PRIVATE SHORELINE PROPERTY PURPLE,

    WHO KNEW?  AND, WHO KNOWS THAT THEY DREW “NEW” EVIL  BLACK LINES ON OUR PRIVATE SHORELINE PROPERTY?

    NOV 9, 2017 3:30PM I COULD DOCUMENT ON MAP #41 IN THE COLOR BOOK,  THE “NEW” EVIL BLACK LINES ON THE 2017 DCD SMP UPDATE DRAFT MAPS, THE BLACK LINES “TOOK”  20 ACRES OF A GEORGE C. RAINS SR TRUST PROPERTY FROM  A 40 ACRE PARCEL ON THE SOL DUC RIVER.

    I WAS ABSOLUTELY FURIOUS, I IMMEDIATELY WENT TO THE CLALLAM COUNTY COURT HOUSE.

    Nov 9, 2017 I met with DCD Director Mary Ellen Winborn

    We spoke for about an hour…

    RE: THE EVIL OF THE BLACK LINE AND THE DISCRIMINATION OF THE PURPLE COLOR.

    The bottom line… pretty much went like this.

    Mary Ellen said, “We have to leave this to the professionals”…..

    WHY WOULD ANYONE BELIEVE YOU?

    —————————————————————————

    DISCOVERY CONTINUED….

    After a seven years fight.. The nine unpaid volunteer members of the Clallam County Planning Commission, finally gave up..

    “WE HAVE TO LEAVE THIS TO THE PAID PROFESSIONALS”…..

    THE PAID PROFESSIONALS? THAT WROTE THE DCD 2017 CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE DRAFT AND PROVIDED THE NEW 273 PAGE COLOR BOOK…….

    DCD DIRECTOR MARY ELLEN WINBORN AND SR. PLANNER STEVE GRAY, IN COLLABORATION WITH ECOLOGY’S LOCAL COORDINATOR DOE MICHELLE MCCONNEL AND ESA ADOLFSON OVERPAID FACILITATOR MARGARET CLANCY (THAT INCLUDING JIM KRAMER)

    —————————————————————————-

    BACK TO THE 2017 DCD SMP DRAFT 273 PAGE $1,329,915.00 DOLLAR COLOR BOOK. As the concerned trustee for over 800 acres of designated forest land, seriously affected by the DCD 2017 SMP Update Draft…. I requested a paper copy of their color book .

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Mary Ellen Winborn

    Cc: Bill Peach ; mark mozias ; Randy Johnson

    Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:35 AM

    Subject: Requesting a copy of the 2017 SMP Update Draft

    ——————————————————————————–

    WE THE CITIZENS OF CLALLAM COUNTY CAN LEAVE THE 2017 DCD SMP DRAFT UPDATE UP TO THE PAID PROFESSIONALS AND ECOLOGY OR WE CAN CHALLENGE IT….

    Email your comments to:  SMP@co.clallam.wa.us  Clallam County Board of Commissioners

    LINKS TO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE DOCUMENTS….

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Clallam County Public Records Center

    To: phew@wavecable.com

    Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 2:18 PM

    Subject: Public Records Request :: P004353-102417
    Attachments:
    Hewett_doc_pdf.pdf

    Friday, November 03, 2017 9:09 AM

    Subject: Public Records Request :: P004384-103017

     

    Attachments:
    signed_ESA_full_contract-22_pgs.pdf
    SMA_Grant_Agr_G1000062.pdf

    From: Clallam County Public Records Center

    To: phew@wavecable.com

    Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2017 4:21 PM

    Subject: Public Records Request :: P004411-110317

    Attachments:
    PO-00J08801-1_Add_$499957__Signed_10-5-10.pdf
    PO-00J08801-2_Rebudget__Extend_to_12-31-14__Signed_10-16-12.pdf
    PO-00J08801-3_Rebudget__Extend_to_12-31-16__Signed_12-15-14_.pdf
    PO-00J08801-0_$1329915_Exp__12-31-12__Signed_8-3-10.pdf

    ——————————————————————————–

    IT APPEARS ABOVE, THAT THE PO-JOO8801  #3  REBUDGET  WAS ONLY EXTENDED TO DEC 31, 2016?

    HAS IT BEEN EXTENDED IN AND FOR  2017?

    —————————————————————————-

    BACK TO THE 2017 DCD SMP UPDATED DRAFT …

    What have I done about it?

    DISCOVERY PLUS… a huge number of SMP Public Comments

    PLUS…..

    I met with Commissioner Bill Peach for an hour on Oct 20, 2017

    I met with Prosecuting Attorney Mark Nicholas for one hour (follow the law)

    I met with Commissioner Mark Ozias on Nov 3, 2017

    I met  with my elected Commissioner Randy Johnson Nov 8, 2017

    I met with DCD Director Mary Ellen Winborn Nov 9, 2017

    PLUS…..

     I AM POSTING AND EMAILING THIS SMP PUBLIC COMMENT

    —————————————————————–

    WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

    Email your comments to:  SMP@co.clallam.wa.us  Clallam County Board of Commissioners

    THE DEADLINE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE DCD 2017 SMP DRAFT UPDATE  IS DEC 12, 2017….

    What will happen in eight months? who knows?

    Meanwhile this Tenacious Clallam County Country Bumpkin  is doing the usual….

    I’ll just keep making more 2017 SMP Update Draft Public comments,  posting them on my website, and sending around in cyberspace.

    DISCOVERY to be continued….

    ———————————————————————————–

    RE-DISCOVERY MY SMP PUBLIC COMMENT APRIL 18, 2012

    GIVE THEM AN INCH AND THEY’LL TAKE A MILE

    Seller disclosure as required by Clallam County 2012 SMP Update and WA State law

    But the best news of all is the assurance by the Planning Dept. that your private property will not have any loss of value due to Clallam County’s 2012 SMP Draft restrictions and regulations.

    BUT? What has Clallam County got to lose?

    RCW 90.58.290

    Restrictions as affecting fair market value of property. The restrictions imposed by this chapter shall be considered by the county assessor in establishing the fair market value of the property.

    [1971 ex.s. c 286 § 29.]

    INDEED, ONE MUST CONSIDER  ALL OF THE  RESTRICTIVE SMP  “SHALLS” ON PRIVATE VESTED SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNERS, AND IN PARTICULAR… THE UNDEVELOPED PRIVATE INVESTMENT SHORELINE PROPERTIES, VIEW, ETC?

    ———————————————————————
    RE-DISCOVERY MY SMP PUBLIC COMMENT APRIL 18, 2012
    www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/247_SMP041812.pdf

    Merrill, Hannah From: pearl hewett … Subject: SMP GIVE THEM AN INCH AND THEY’LL TAKE A MILEhave any loss of value due to Clallam County’s 2012 SMP Draft …

    I submit this as my SMP comment

    Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee

    George C. Rains Sr. Estate

    Member SMP Advisory Committee

    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

    Grandfathered is non-conforming.

    The statistics introduced at the last SMP Advisory meeting, on how many private property owners, property and single family dwellings will become non-conforming by the SMP Draft marine 175′, 150′ plus 10′ setbacks, has not been posted on the SMP web site. (the number was staggering)

    PER CATHY LEAR, they are waiting to compile the historic statistics to show the number of how many private property owners, property and single family dwellings were non-conforming on the old SMP marine setbacks. (hindsight is 20/20)

    How have the DOE restrictions, regulations and definitions on/of non-conforming property changed since 1976?

    I wrote the following as a tongue in cheek comment on the 2012 SMP Update.

    After seeing the statistics on non-conforming private marine property at the last SMP meeting, it is not funny, it is frightening.

    2013 OLYMPIC PENINSULA CLASSIFIED AD

    FOR SALE VIEW   LOT ON THE BEAUTIFUL STRAITS OF JUAN DE FUCA

    100FEET X400FEET

    Seller disclosure as required by Clallam County 2012 SMP Update and WA State law

    This is a 100% non-conforming lot

    There is a 175 foot setback from the HWL

    The is a 150 setback from the feeder bluff

    There is a 65 foot wetland setback

    There is a 50 foot buffer zone

    There is a 10 foot setback from buildings

    THE GOOD NEWS

    The buyer is left with 25% of his private property purchase, a 100X100 foot piece of private property (with a 75% loss of his usable private land where the buyer is free to put his 1700 sq foot home, his drain field, his parking and his deck and his garden.

    The buyer will be allowed a 20 foot view corridor (20’X300′) through the 300 feet of restricted use area of his private property. (leaving 80% of his view blocked)

    The buyer will be allowed to limb up and remove 30% of the vegetation blocking his view every 10 years on the 100 X 300 foot restricted use area of his private property.

    The buyer will be allowed a 6 foot wide foot path through the 300 foot restricted use area (in the view corridor) of his private property and home to the beach. (a full city block from beach)

    Using a variance and a geological study you may be able to reduce the setbacks and buffer zones.

    But the best news of all is the assurance by the Planning Dept. that your private property will not have any loss of value due to Clallam County’s 2012 SMP Draft restrictions and regulations.


  • SMP Update Concerns to Commissioners

    Oct 13, 2017 You, the elected Commissioners are now, at this late date, concerned about the Public Participation Strategy for the 2017 Clallam County SMP Update.

    You are planning open meetings, asking for public comments, and yes, you are planning the date for a public forum.

    ————————————————————————

    Just noting, 2010: The Clallam County Board of Commissioner’s expects to adopt a final SMP-Update Public Participation Strategy extended to March 16, 2010 @ 10 a.m. at the Board of Clallam County Commissioners Regular Meeting, 223 East 4th Street, Room 160, Port Angeles, Washington.

    ———————————————————————-

    Part one: Oct 13, 2017 , The history of us, the collective 3000 private shoreline property vested stakeholders? What happened to us between Dec 5, 2009 and Jan 26, 2011?

    Dec 5, 2009. the FIRST  public comment on the SMP Update was submitted and posted.

    Jan 26, 2011  The  SMP  Public participation strategy? The first, by invitation only SMP Update meeting was held  by  ESA Adolfson’s  paid, facilitators Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer.

    Not one of  Clallam County’s elected representatives bothered to attended this meeting. Not, Commissioners’, Tharanger, Chapman, Doherty or DCD director Miller. It was a bureaucrats meeting.

    What you, the elected, don’t know, have been denied access to by bureaucrats,  about SMP Update  600 plus public comments can hurt all Clallam County citizens.

    ——————————————————————————-

    2009: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    ·         120509 – DemComm – G  #1  CLALLAM COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE

    Resolution regarding County Shoreline Management Plan

     WHEREAS the nature of amendments to the plan as might be adopted by the Clallam County Board of Commissioners mayor may not adequately protect the quality of local waters from harmful development; and

    WHEREAS participation in the Shoreline Management Plan review process will be open to the public in a series of meetings over the next two years or more;

    THEREFORE be it resolved that the Clallam County Democratic Central Committee appoint a subcommittee of interested members to monitor the progress of the Shoreline Management Plan review, to suggest to the Central Committee communications to the county of the concerns or interests of Democrats in the elements of the plans and any proposed amendments, and to issue quarterly reports on the review process to the Central Committee.

    ·         December 5, 2009

    ————————————————————————-

    Bureaucrats created the final Clallam County Shoreline 2017 SMP Draft Update.

    Oct 13, 2017 I am just one concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property in Clallam County WA.

    However, what happens to one of us, on the Clallam County Shoreline Update (SMP) collectively happens to all 3000 of us.

    The SMP ball is now in your court. and just asking?  have you, the elected collectively, or as  an individual elected official, taken the time (due diligence) to visit and read the SMP public court of opinion,600 plus comments on the Clallam County WA SMP Update?

    What happened to the online 600 plus SMP Update Public Comments? You, the elected, are the now, the ultimate decision maker. Have the SMP Public comments of private property owners been taken into consideration by you as a Clallam County Commissioners in the final stages of SMP Update?

     —————————————————————–

    Part one: The history of us, the collective 3000? What happened to us?

    Jan 26, 2011, I was a concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property.

    I was one of  thirty (30) selected individuals, to be invited to attend the first Clallam County Shoreline Management Plan Update  (SMP) meeting.

    The meeting was presented by  ESA Adolfson’s  paid facilitators , Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer.

    In spite of the fact that it was a  private public  meeting, by invitation only, sixty (60) concerned citizens showed up and packed the room.

    Not one of  Clallam County’s elected representatives bothered to attended this meeting.

    Not, Commissioners’, Tharanger, Chapman, Doherty or DCD director Miller. It was a bureaucrats meeting.

    When I complained about it at a commissioners public meeting, after the meeting Commissioner Chapman insulted me, and said if I didn’t like the way things were going I should sign up for the SMP Update Citizens Advisory Committee.

    I did, I was appointed by DCD Miller.

    Cathy Lear said I must read everything. I did and that was when I started making Public SMP Update Comments.

    —————————————————–

    By May 5, 2011,

    I was an angry, concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property and a member of the appointed Citizens Advisory Committee

    050511 – PHewett – G

      #70 We, as a Citizens Advisory Committee, are not there to give input, constructive comment, or recommendation, we are there to be indoctrinated on compliance, based on misleading pie charts and statistics compiled and presented by ESA Adolfson. “Reading out loud” by Pearl Hewett of WAC 173-26-191 illegal or unconstitutional.

    —————————————————————————-

    By July 07, 2012, I  was a very frustrated, angry, concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property and  a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee

    July 7, 2012 I was so concerned about the SMP Update I compiled the

    COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS 2009-2012

    I am concerned with, the comment numbers with no comments? The fact that it took me 12 hours to compile the following information?

    Unfortunately the links 2009-2012 SMP public comments  are not  linked to the SMP Update

    Not one of Clallam County elected representative from 2011 is still in office.

    Please note, there is only one county employee, Steve Gray, still employed by Clallam County that is still rewriting and revising the SMP Update. Unless? County employee Cathy Lear is representing someone?

    And, Steve is still being directed  by the ESA Adolfson  paid consultant, facilitator  Margret Clancy.

    Just saying, Margaret Clancy is not legally responsible for whatever content she and Steve decide to put into the SMP Update.

    Just asking? Have Clallam County elected representatives sought or received any legal counsel?

    Am I concerned? YOU BET…

    ARE YOU CONCERNED? Read the 2009-2012 comments, go find and read the 600 plus SMP public comments,. You, the elected, not bureaucrats, are responsible for the fate of Clallam County, you are the ultimate and final SMP Update decision makers.

    SHOULD YOU, THE ELECTED BE CONCERNED?  You decide.

    A concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property in Clallam County WA.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Trustee George C.Rains Sr. Estate

    —————————————————————

    July 07, 2012 COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS 2009-2012

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: undisclosed concerned citizens and elected officials

    Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 10:02 AM

    THE SHORT FORM IS AN EMAIL

    CLICK ON THE TOP LINK TO READ THE FULL 6300 WORD DOCUMENT

    Subject: COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS 2009-2012

     

    • TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
    • If you want to read the  full SMP comment? Go to the Clallam County SMP website. Click on Public comments. Identify the comment by using the name and the date (no comment #  is displayed).
    • I am concerned with, the comment numbers with no comments? The fact that it took me 12 hours to compile the following information? If the online Public Comments will be compiled? Read by the decision makers? And if the comments of private property owners will be taken into considereration by the Planning Dept. and the Clallam County Commissioners in the final SMP Update? Public Forums are being scheduled and the private property owners of Clallam County need to be advised.
    • Pearl Rains Hewett concerned member of the DOE SMP Advisory Committee
    • 050511 – PHewett – G
    • #70 We, as a Citizens Advisory Committee, are not there to give input, constructive comment, or recommendation, we are there to be indoctrinated on compliance, based on misleading pie charts and statistics compiled and presented by ESA Adolfson. “Reading out loud” by Pearl Hewett of WAC 173-26-191 illegal or unconstitutional.
    •  

    COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP COMMENTS 2009-2012

    July:

    ·         070212 – RKonopaski – G

    ·         #284 clarifying the setbacks on marine shorelines?

    June:

    ·         062312 – ESpees – G

    ·         #283 excessive 175-150 + 10 foot setbacks

    ·         061712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #282 DOE private meeting

    ·         061412 – PHewett – G

    ·         #281 150′ wetland setbacks Futurewise and Grays Harbor

    ·         061412 – PHewett – SED

    ·         #280 WHAT IS THE ECONOMIC FUTURE OF CLALLAM COUNTY?

    ·         061112 – PHewett – G

    ·         # 279 See Nollan, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987). precautionary setbacks

    ·         060912 – PHewett – G

    ·         #278 25  No setback increases See Nollan, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987).

    ·         060712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #277 Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights v. Sims. 65% taking violates law

    ·         060312 – ESpees – G

    ·         #276 No taking of private property for public access

    May:

    ·         053012 – PHewett – SED

    ·         #275 RE-DESIGNATE TO FRESHWATER RURAL

    ·         052912 – PHewett – G

    ·         #274 fight back COORDINATION PROCESS 43 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1712

    ·         052412 – RCahill – SMPdraft

    ·         #273 the spirit and intent of the Department of Ecology’s Shore land’s and Environmental Assistance, publication number 09-06-029, shall and should, be changed to may.

    ·         052212 – JBlazer – SED

    ·         #272 The problem… my parcel and the 2 parcels to the south would be hard pressed to build residences that take advantage of the marine view using the 175 ft setback in the proposed designation of Freshwater Conservancy.

    ·         052112 – MBlack – SMPdraft

    ·         #271 The overall concern I have is that you are in fact taking future uses away from private land holders without clearly acknowledging doing so.

    ·         051712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #270 problem SELLING AND BUYING DOE SMP NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY

    ·         051612 – PHewett – PPS

    ·         #269 SMP Public Forum participation

    ·         051512 – ASoule – SMPdraft

    ·         #268 SMP references to sea level rise

    ·         051212 – PHewett – G

    ·         #267 FORKS SMP PUBLIC FORUM problems  MAY 10, 2012

    ·         051212 – KNorman – SED

    ·         #266 I hope that you will reconsider the classification of these lots based on this information as to do otherwise would be a severe hardship on the owners of the lots and would constitute a “taking” of the land.

    ·         051112 – FutureWise-PPS – SMPdraft

    ·         #265 Clallam County v. Futurewise 7 years + lawsuit Carlsborg. The current SMP updates are an opportunity to significantly improve protection for the straits and the county’s other shorelines.

    ·         050812 – EBowen – G20

    ·         #264  S. Gray to Ed Bowen long overdue Final Draft WRIA 20 Preliminary SMP Elements Report

    ·         050812 – WFlint – SED

    ·         #263  redesignateThe Lower Lyre River should be designated as Freshwater Residential (FRSD), and not Freshwater Conservancy (FC) as it is now proposed.

    ·         050812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #262 SCIENTIFIC PAPERS AND THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW DOE has consistently ignored questions asked on SMP comments, posted on the Clallam County SMP Update website, and at SMP Advisory meetings. I am requesting answers to the following questions to comply with the core principles of Due Process and the DOE SMP taking of private property in Clallam County.

    ·         050712 – USFWS – SMPdraft

    ·         #261  The Service strongly supports maintaining the feeder bluffs in their natural functioning condition.

    ·         050612 – PHewett – G

    ·         #260 If it is not recorded with the Clallam County Auditor’s Office it is not on the Property Title. What should be recorded with the Auditor’ s office for Public Record?

    ·         050512 – ESpees – G

    ·         #259 The premise of the SMA/SMP Undate ‘that there is and environmental crisis’ that requires a draconian governmental intervention is bogus.

    ·         050412 – LMuench – G

    ·         #258 I think you would best be served by showing shrubs as well as trees. Since the graphics are done, what about a red arrow pointing to the trees saying “may be limbed for views.” This is a major issue with shoreline land owners.

    ·         050412 – ESpees – G

    ·         #257 The negative ECONOMIC IMPACT of the DoE imposed SMA/SMP Update for 2012 will be staggering!!!

    ·         050412 – PHewett – G

    ·         #256 Clallam County DOE SMP update, written text, uses our safety and protection as an excuse to take, restrict and control the use/development of our private property.

    ·         050312 – JBettcher – G

    ·         #255 I appreciate the public benefit of a healthy ecosystem but oppose the taking of private property by prohibiting private landowners from applying the best engineering practices to resist natural whims.

    ·         050212 – PHewett – G

    ·         #254 REAL ESTATE LOW MARKET VALUE OF NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY

    April:

    ·         042812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #253 Increased Ins.FEMA AND OTHER POLICY SPECIFIC INSURANCE COVERAGE

    ·         042812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #252 House Bill 2671  If a county appeals the (DOE) Department of Ecology’s final action on their local shoreline master program and  the appeal is given to the Growth Management Hearings Board?

    ·         042812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #251 No. 87053-5 lawsuit against GMA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    ·         042612 – PHewett -G

    ·         #250 CLALLAM COUNTY- County NEGLECT OF WIRA 20 SMP PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS

    ·         042112 – Spees – G

    ·         #249 this insane outrageous governmental over reach under the thinly veiled cover of saving the environment. The problem now is not the environment.

    ·         042112 – PHewett – G

    ·         #248 PARTIAL DISCLOSURE OF negative SMP IMPACT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS

    ·         041812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #247 The statistics introduced 474 at the last SMP Advisory meeting, on how many private property owners, property and single family dwellings will become non-conforming by the SMP Draft marine 175′, 150′ plus 10′ setbacks, has not been posted on the SMP web site.

    ·         041712 – Port of PA – G

    ·         #246 Excessive buffers Table 4.1 the proposed draft buffer in row “a” should be modified from 100’ to 50’

    March:

    ·         032912 – PHewett – G

    ·         #245 THE MOST UNSCIENTIFIC PARTS OF THE DOE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP ARE, that even with DOE’S 1616 employees and a billion dollar budget.DOE doesn’t have a single analyst capable of compiling and reporting the most important documented/published scientific statistics provided by The Clallam County Inventory and Characteristic reports.

    ·         032612 – PHewett – G

    ·         #244 ESA Adolfson’s consultant’s failure to comply with WA State Law RCW 90.58.100 Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion.

    ·         032512 – PHewett – G20

    ·         #243 WIRA 20 Sol Duc River Reach 80 needs to be re-designated on proposed draft to 3.1.1.4 Freshwater Conservancy (FC)

    ·         032312 – RCrittenden – SMPdraft

    ·         #242 Thus, all regulation is evil by its nature and it is repressive. The best regulations are those that are the least that is necessary to accomplish their intended legitimate purpose. And “legitimate” is not to be broadly construed.

    ·         032212 – PHewett/RCrittenden – G

    ·         #241 Dr. Robert N. Crittenden SMP critical comments, testimony, tables and reviews

    ·         032112 – OEC – SMPdraft

    ·         #240  Change “should” to “shall” ,,,,culverts, and bridges shall be conducted using best practices….

    ·         031712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #239 Who controls PATENT LAND GRANTS ISSUED PRIOR TO STATEHOOD

    ·         031412 – MBarry – G

    ·         #238 These shorelines are critical for wildlife and natural ecological functions. I favor large setbacks. I favor development restrictions

    ·         030912 – PHewett – G/NNL

    ·         #237 Mitigation is for the rich Building Permit 2012-00014 issued to owners, David and Maria Tebow, Battle Creek MI. Two story 4 bedroom house 4770 sq feet, garage 927 sq feet, covered deck 173 sq feet with 19 plumbing drains (Number of Bathrooms?) Setbacks 60/25/25 Project value $486,781.18. the written guarantee bythe Clallam County DCD of no net loss to ecological functions (documented on building permit)

    ·         030512 – ESpees – SMPdraft

    ·         #236 There is no way that these voluminous shoreline land use policies can be understood. It takes no imagination to understand that this process is not ‘due process’ in the taking of beneficial use of our Private Property

    ·         030412 – PHewett – SMPdraft

    ·         #235 DOE Public Trust Doctrine web site (88 pages) has gone missing, creating law by rule

    ·         030312 – KAhlburg – SMPdraft

    ·         #234 The last sentence runs directly counter to this assurance and needs to be modified or deleted. It otherwise will constitute yet another unfunded mandate burdening the County and “other entities” (which ones?).

    ·         030212 – PHewett – NNL/SMPdraft

    ·         #233 Lake Sutherland is a perfect example of Ecology’s NO NET LOSS.

    ·         With a 35 foot setback since 1976 there is no net loss of ecological function in Lake Sutherland.

    ·         030112 – MarineResourcesCouncil – SMPdraft

    ·         #232 It may also be possible that under certain development conditions, if done to minimize impervious surface and maximize water infiltration, could enhance the function of the buffer and perhaps allow for a narrower buffer.

    February:

    ·         022812 – FutureWise – SMPdraft

    ·         #231 The first half establishes the expected character of shoreline buffers, and is well stated. But the second half goes on to state that only 80% of the buffer vegetation is protected, and that 20% can be used for lawns and other use areas.

    ·         022812 – PHewett – NNL

    ·         #230 NO NET LOSS MENTIONED In law RCW 36.70A.480 but has never been defined (4) Shoreline master programs shall provide a level of protection to critical areas located within shorelines of the state that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources as defined by department of ecology guidelines adopted pursuant to RCW 90.58.060.

    ·         022812 – PHewett – NNL

    ·         #229 The policies, goals, and provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW and applicable guidelines shall be the sole basis for determining compliance of a shoreline master program

    ·         022712 – WDOE- SMP Statue

    ·         #228 Gordon White letter dated Feb. 27,2012 page 4, disclaimer of creating enforceable state LAW by rule on Page 88 of the WA State Public Trust Doctrine.

    ·         022412 – QuileuteNation – SMPdraft

    ·         #227 TRIBAL comment

    January:

    ·         010312 – LowerElwhaKlalllamTribe – SED

    ·         #226 TRIBAL comment

     

     

    WHATEVER? Error! Filename not specified.

    SMP Comments 2011:

    December:

    ·         120811 – PHewett – G

    ·         #225 PROBLE  WETLANDS NOT ON SMP MAPS Attachments: Lowell OREGON Local Wetland Inventory Report DRAFT.docx

    ·         120811 – PHewett – G

    ·         #224 Perkins and Coie  Your Request on Tacoma SMP Attachments: 12-13-10 letter to Gary Brackett.pdf; SMA and Public Access.pdf legal paper against SMP taking

    ·         120711 –OlympicEnvironmentalCouncil (OEC) – G

    ·         #223 Sea level  rise and climate change

    ·         120611 – WDOE- ICR20

    ·         #222  Draft WRIA 20 Inventory and Characterization

    November:

    ·         113011 – ESpees – G

    ·         #221 In the WRIA Process and the SMA/SMP Update Process the concept of State regulation of land use based on Feeder Bluffs and Littoral Drift Cells is a False Construct.

    ·         112511 – ESpees – G

    ·         #220 The DoE’s current cram-down of NNL and increased set-backs based on precautionary principle and ‘new understandings of science’ (non-science/non-sense/pseudo-science) should be rejected.

    ·         112411 – ESpees – G

    ·         #219 Impact on all stakeholders It’s content is extremely pertinent to the work we are doing in Clallam County’s SMA/SMP Update.

    ·         111611 – MPfaff-Pierce – SED

    ·         #218 Specifically, I am requesting that you reclassify the entire Whiskey Creek Beach Resort area as Modified Lowland. Right now you are proposing that a short area west of the creek be designated as Modified Lowland and the rest as High Bank.

    ·         111111 – JPetersen – SED

    ·         #217 Many activities would be prohibited without really looking at the specifics.

    ·         111011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #216 This is on the DOE Public Trust Doctrine web site (88 pages)”Finally, SMP’S, unlike other comprehensive plans, are adopted as WAC’S and become part of the state’s Shoreline Master Program. As such, all local SMP rules, regulations, designations and guidelines BECOME STATE LAW AND ARE ENFORCEABLE. in this manner, protection of public trust resources and uses becomes binding.”

    ·         110711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #215 SMP FOLLOW THE LETTER OF THE LAW not the WAC’S

    ·         110711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #214 Court: Washington Supreme Court Docket: 84675-8 Opinion Date: August 18, 2011 Judge: Johnson Areas of Law: Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use Applicable Law and Analysis. In affirming the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court explained that even though there is significant local government involvement in the creation of SMPs, the process is done in the shadow of the Department of Ecology’s (DOE) control.

    ·         110711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #213 the Shoreline Management Act dictates that the Department of Ecology retains control over the final contents and approval of SMPs. Therefore, SMP regulations are the product of state action and are not subject to RCW 82.02.020.”

    ·         110611 – PHewett – G

    ·         #212 EXCLUDED SMP DOE WAC’S DO NOT BECOME LAW

    ·         110511 – ESpees – NNL

    ·         #211 In keeping with regard to no net loss was unclear and without any foundation.

    ·         110511 – ESpees – G

    ·         #210 The law has recently been perverted by State Agencies to usurp private property rights, an uncompensated State taking by regulation.

    ·         110511 – PHewett – G

    ·         #209 There is no WA State law requiring any taking of private property for public access on the Clallam County SMP Update.

    ·         110411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #208 WHO CAN STOP DOE WAC’S FROM BECOMING STATE LAWS?

    ·         110411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #207 Victory for PLF Whatcom County’s shoreline management rules conflict with state law, which mandates that counties “shall provide for methods which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage to single family residences and appurtenant structures due to shoreline erosion.” RCW 90.58.100.

    ·         110411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #206 BY Law there is NO mention of the words “imminent or danger or soft armoring” IF THIS WORDING IS USED ON THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT IT CONTRADICTS WA STATE LAW RCW 90.58.100 Protection of single family residences IT WILL BECOME CLALLAM COUNTY LAW.

    ·         110311 – WDFW – ICR

    ·         #205 A useful tool may be to describe, in general, the range of possible existing conditions within any portion of the shoreline.

    ·

    October:

    ·         103111 – WDOE – ICR

    ·         #204  Not a copy format

    ·         103111 – JLarson – ICR

    ·         #203 I made at last SMP-WG meeting be incorporated into record

    ·         102011 – PHewett – SED

    ·         # 202 Who’s toes will you be stepping on by using this? Will you be able to notify the private property owners that are inadvertently compromised? Are there any single family residences, in any areas, where you have not specifically provided comment on protection by Law?

    ·         102011 – PHewett – SED

    ·         #201 Is this another WAC overstepping it’s authority and the LAW?

    ·         101911 – PHewett – NNL

    ·         #200 The concept of no net loss in this State originated with earlier efforts to protect wetlands. In 1989, Governor Booth Gardner signed an Executive Order establishing a statewide goal regarding wetlands protection.

    ·         101811 – JEstes – G

    ·         #199 There are 3,289 shoreline property owners in Clallam County about to be subject to further regulation and restriction on the use of their land.

    ·         101711 – PHewett – G

    ·          #198 Unconstitutional Conditions of  WAC 173-26-191 Some master program policies may not be fully attainable by regulatory means due to the constitutional and other legal limitations on the regulation of private property.

    ·         101711 – WSP – ICR20

    ·         #197 Any additional comments on the two Clallam County SMP Inventory and Characterizations Reports are due by October 31, 2011

    ·         101111 – PHewett – G

    ·         #196 WAC’S ARE NOT LAW’S? Guidelines Are Not Law’s? Rules Are Not Law’s?

    ·         100811 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #195 WAC 365-195-905 Criteria for determining which information is the best available science

    ·         100611 – PHewett – G

    ·         #194 REMOTE VIEWING AND SPACIAL DATA I did not find a State- of- the art- GSI and remote sensing facility for WA State?

    No b comment for #193?

    ·         100411 – PHewett – G/ICR

    ·         #192 Please bring the SMP Public Comments up to date.

    ·         100311 – JTatom – G

    ·         #191 As a property owner in Clallam County, I cannot imagine that you, as servants of the county, would even consider placing additional restrictions on residents who live near shorelines (marine, rivers, streams and lakes). Already we find ourselves so restricted that we are unable to use large portions

    ·         of our “privately” owned property.

    ·         100111 – PHewett – G

    ·         #190 Is it the intent, of two Elected County Commissioners, that total control of all private property in Clallam County, be given to the Federal Government and the WA State DOE, one way or the other?

    September:

    ·         092611 – PHewett – G/ICR

    ·         #189 Taking of Private Property for Public Access I insist that ESA Adolfson give us the total land acreage of private property that is affected by the SMP Update subject to NO NET LOSS and taking for Public Access.

    ·         092511 – PHewett – G

    ·         #188 private property owners pay for Noxious Weed Control ‐ LMD#2 Lake Sutherland

    There is no #187  public comment?

    ·         092211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #186 SHORELINE RESIDENTS SWAMPED BY REGULATIONS

    ·         092211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #185 I tried to stress the fact that it is not lack of public land, it is the lack of public access to that publically owned land,that is the problem.

    ·         092211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #184 CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTIC REPORT Based on the “Best Available Science?”

    ·         092211 – JamestownSKlallamTribe – ICR

    ·         #183 Tribal comment

    ·         091311 – LowerElwhaKlallamTribe – ICR

    ·         #182 Tribal comment

    ·         091011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #181 CLALLAM COUNTY SECTION 35.01.150 Real property assessments. PROTECTION FOR LOSS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY VALUE?  The restrictions imposed by the Shoreline Master Program shall be considered by the County Assessor in establishing the fair market value of the property.

    ·         091011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #180 PUBLIC COMMENT REPORT ON SMP Public Forum July 14, 2011 every public comment and question asked.

    ·         090411 – JLewis – CR/ICR

    ·         #179 Public access across our property through our wetlands and over our berm to our private beach would be of great concern to us. Here are some questions and concerns we’d like addressed and you consider amending the provisions for providing public shoreline access:

    ·         090311 – ESpees – G

    ·         #178 The Drift Cells, Littoral Drift, and

    ·         Feeder Bluffs Construct are so much BS/Smoke and Mirrors.

    ·         090311 – ESpees – G

    ·         #177 The Shoreline Master Program Update is rigged. NNL & larger setbacks do not represent the ‘will of the people’. It does not protect the rights of the Citizens.

    ·         090211 – ESpees – G

    ·         #176 I gave my opinion about ‘locking up’ shorelines property based on salmon and endangered species as a pretext

    August:

    ·         083111 – WDNR – ICR

    ·         #175 THREAT? Incidentally, many of the docks and other development may

    ·         encroach onto State owned aquatic lands without proper DNR authorization.

    ·         083111 – MarineResourcesCouncil – ICR

    ·         #174 There is obviously no “ground truthing” of the information in this report.

    ·         083111 – JLWisecup – G

    ·         #173 It lists it as a slide area although for the past 32 years we have had no indication of any land movement or building shift.

    ·         083111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #172 It is more loony insanity being foisted on the Citizens of the State of Washington by a Government and their agents that are out of control.

    ·         083111 – ESpees -G

    ·         171 The SMA/SMP and the WRIA processes are a means of locking up, transferring ownership to the State, and regulating the use of these areas/preventing private economic and other beneficial use of these prime areas.

    ·         082811 – PHewett – G

    ·         #170 SILT DAMAGE FROM ELWHA TO DUNGENESS SPIT?

    ·         082511 – ElwhaMorseMgmtTeam – ICRMaps

    ·         #169  Chris Byrnes commented on the yellow dots off shore (indicating “no appreciable drift”), argued that if it was so small, there wouldn’t be drifting anyway.

    ·         082511 – CoastalWatershedInstitute – ICR

    ·         #168 The characterization needs to be revised to include existing CLALLAM specific information and appropriate relevant recommendations that are in this existing information.

    ·         082511 – DAbbott – G

    ·         #167 I would like to see every effort made to ensure the constitutional rights of private property ownership made by those who have influence in our lawmaking process. These rights have been encroached upon over the years and there is a renewed concern today by many private citizens.

    ·         082411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #166 WA State SMP is requiring Public access on private property at the expense of the property owner.

    There is no comment#164

    There is no comment #163

    ·         081011 – MarineResourcesCouncil – ICR

    ·         #162 I urge you to look at the reach/s or resource issues within all reaches for accuracy, omissions, and errors.

    ·         There is no comment #161

    ·

    ·         081011 – WSP – ICR

    ·         #160 not able to copy

    ·          

    ·         There is no comment #159

    ·          

    ·         There is no comment #158

    ·          

    ·         080511 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #157 A huge treat to Private Property owners.Wetlands are not included on SMP Update maps showing the areas that are a threat and risk of development.

    ·

    ·         There is no comment #156

    ·

    ·         There is no comment #155

    ·

    ·         080111 – FutureWise – ICR

    ·         #154 The Sierra Club

    July:

    ·         072611 – WASeaGrant – ICR

    ·         #153 Coastal Hazards Specialist

    There is not comment #152

    ·         072211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #151 Fact or Fiction, It is illegal to collect water in a rain barrel?

    ·         The State owns all rainwater?

    ·         072011 – CCPlCom – ICR

    ·         #150 The July Forum attendance was low and those that attended appeared to be struggling with the information presented and the questions to ask.

    There is no comment #149

    ·         072011 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #148 Marine and Fresh water reach’s impaired by water temperature for fish recovery

    ·         072011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #147 Freshwater reaches impaired by water temperature (32) Marine reaches impaired by water temperature (6) Contaminated Marine Reaches (5)

    ·         Contaminated Freshwater Reaches (2) plus several

    ·         072011 – ESpees – G

    ·         #146 What the hell does NNL (No Net Loss of ecological function) mean? What is the plan for the amount of setbacks? What is the basis of this vague indefinable policy?

    ·         072011 – PHewett – ICR20

    ·         #145 On page 5-14 HOKO_RV_05 is not listed. Shore line length 3.8 miles and Reach area 246.40 acres 100% timber

    ·         071711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #144 TOP TEN PUBLIC SMP UPDATE CONCERNS

    ·         071711 – ESpees – G

    ·         #143 Tribes not affected by Shoreline Mgmt. Plan Updates

    ·         071611 – ESpees – G

    ·         #142 the DoE/EPA attempt to strip the Citizens of their private property rights.

    ·         071611 – ESpees – G

    ·         #141 It uses Drift Cells and Littoral Drift as excuses to take away private use and protections of private property. This has to do with ‘feeder bluffs’

    ·         071211 – TSimpson – ICR

    ·         #140 Page 6-12 Needs Correction :Lines 19-22

    ·         071211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #139 COLD ENOUGH? For Salmon Recovery?

    ·         Based on their own reports and data, the amount of tree canopy, logging, development and public access are NOT factors in the impaired water temperature? Perhaps 50 years ago the water WAS cold enough?

    ·         071211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #138 Why is Green Crow the only contaminator mentioned by name? We should be given the exact location of every specific contaminated site and the full identity of EVERY contaminator.

    ·         071111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #137 Conspicuously absent from the report of the first meeting is an accounting of the economical impact.

    ·         070811 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #136 If more public access is needed, it is not the responsibility of Private Property Owner’s to provide it.

    ·         070811 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #135 The Clallam County SMP update requires private property owners to give public access to their privately owned marine shorelines, prior to permitting development.

    ·

    ·         No comment # 134

    ·         No comment #133

    ·         No Comment #132

     

     

    .

    WHATEVER? Error! Filename not specified.

     

    SMP Comments 2011 cont.

    June:

    ·         062811 – JLMcClanahan – G20

    ·          #131 She was very concerned about any potential regulatory changes that would result in the loss of options for using their two parcels in the future.

    ·         062411 – RTMcAvoy – G20

    ·         #130 they are against any such change for the reasons stated herein.

    ·         062411 – DMansfield – G20

    ·         #129 Adamant about no further restrictions on property

    ·         062411 – PCWidden – G20

    ·         #128 Concerns about changing the current SMP status from Rural to Conservancy.

    No comment #127

    ·         062011 – JEstes – G

    ·         #126  detail on how members of the public and affected property owners are being notified

    No Comment # 125

    ·         060611 – WDOE – CR

    ·         #124 local DOE

    ·         060611 – PortofPA – CR

    ·         #123 LIMIT NOT PROHIBIT

    ·         060411 – ESpees – CR

    ·         #122 The salmonid stocks in Clallam County are not limited by freshwater habitat

    ·         060311 – JamestownSKlallamTribe – CR

    ·         #121 Tribal Comment

    ·         060311 – HBell – CR

    ·         #120 This is not required by the RCW nor the WAC. WAC 173-26-241

    ·         060311 – WSP – CR

    ·         #119 State Park comment

    ·         060311 – WDOE – CR

    ·         #118 Local DOE

    ·         060311 – ESpees – CR

    ·         #117 By Dr. Robert N. Crittenden

    ·         060211 – RCrittenden – CR

    ·         #116 the low abundance of these stocks is also being used, to perpetrate the deception that it is caused by habitat loss.

    ·         060211 – JEstes – CR

    ·         #115 the CR is one of several steps the County will take to consider if any existing “policies or regulations need to change.” There must be demonstrated

    ·         need for any changes and all affected landowners should be invited to consider any changes.

    ·         060211 – SForde – G

    ·         #114 Which one of my individual rights are you protecting with the Shoreline Master Plan and/or any updates to it? The answer: Nonein fact, you are violating them.

    ·         060211 – QuileuteNation – CR

    ·         #113 Tribal comment

    ·         060211 – CRogers – CR

    ·         #112 -Page 4 typo error

    ·         060211  –  QuileuteNation – CR

    ·         #111 Tribal comment

    ·         060111 – AStevenson – CR

    ·         #110 a marked up PDF of the Consistency Review

    ·         060111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #109 SMP Update – SMP Update Rigged Process

    No comment #108

    ·         060111 – PHewett – G #107

    ·         TOTALITARIAN: by definition(concerned with) arrogating (to the state and the ruling party) all rights and liberty of every choice, including those normally belonging to individuals, etc.

    ·         060111 – MTWalker – G

    ·         #106 The SMP should be rejected in all it’s forms. It erodes our rights and freedoms, does not comply with and is in fact contrary to the Constitution, is poorly written, poorly organized, vague, and its objectives are ambiguous/obscure.

    ·         060111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #105 Tribes Not Affected

    May:

    ·         053111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #104 The SMP erodes our rights and freedoms

    ·         053111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #103 The NNL Policy, larger setbacks and buffers, and new forced public access to private property will further erode our freedoms.

    ·         053111 – MGentry – G

    ·         #102 Green Point, group. 35 were invited and 17 showed up plus Dave Hannah was there to answer questions on bluff stability. Of the 17 only one was aware of SMP or said they had been contacted about forums.

    ·         053111 – PHewett – G / CR

    ·         #101 Pacific Legal Foundation If government blocks access to your land, it has committed a taking Dunlap v. City of Nooksack

    ·         052911 – ESpees – G

    ·         #100 Adopting the NNL Policy and enlargement of current buffers is making bad policy worse.

    ·         052911 – PHewett – G

    ·         #99 SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Many of the problems that were the REASON that the public voted for the original Shore Line Management Act have already been corrected.

    ·         052811 – ESpees – G

    ·         #98 The DoE, an unelected State agency, is making radical policy based on the new State religion of earth worship.

    ·         052811 – RHale – G

    ·         #97 SMP’S are nothing more than a new version of a death panel and a method for which to take property rights of state Registered/ Deeded and “taxed” owners.

    ·         052711 – ESpees – G

    #96 Article 1. Section 1. Of the Washington State Constitution

    Political Power: All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

    052711 – PHewett – G

    #95 WA State DOE Budget is A THOUSAND MILLION IS A BILLION written AS $1,034.0 Million (the Doe can’t even write it as a BILLION)

    ·         052611 – MGentry – G

    ·         #94 I reported to Steve and Sheila only one of the group of 20 we met with had received notices like this. Can you determine why?

    No comment #93

    ·         052111 – PHewett – G

    ·         #92 Directing and identifying how our Clallam County Officials can withhold permits to private property owner’s because the State can’t legally or constitutionally regulate our private property at a state level.

    No comment #91

    ·         051811 – JPetersen – CR

    ·         #90 One of the items that should be addressed in the new shoreline program is the relative inaccuracy of the Critical Areas maps in regards to Meander Hazard Zones.

    ·         051811 – NOTAC – CR

    ·         #89 MANY comments on the Consistency Review

    No comment #88

    No comment #87

    No comment #86

    No comment #85

    No comment #84

    No comment #83

    ·         051311 – PHewett – G

    ·         #82 WA The Supreme Court has granted review in several additional cases against the SMP this month.Citizens for Rational Shoreline Planning, et al. v. Whatcom County, et al., No. 84675-8.

    ·         051311 – PHewett – G

    ·         #81 United States Supreme Court RULES An environmental restriction on property development that serves no environmental purpose is unjustifiable.

    ·         051311 – PHewett – G

    ·         #80 Pacific Legal Foundation If government blocks access to your land, it has committed a taking Dunlap v. City of Nooksack

    No comment #79

    No comment #78

    ·         051011 – TSummer – G

    ·         #77 No privacy on private beach I have met some extremely rude people who confront me and won’t leave my backyard because they believe the beach SHOULD BE public.

    ·         050611 – PHewett – G

    ·         #76 Clallam County SMP has/will taken the value of private property located in critical areas, setbacks, buffer zones and shorelines and is legally controlling and regulating the removal of all vegetation on all private property located in critical areas, setbacks, buffer zones.

    ·         050611 – PHewett – CR

    ·         #75 TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS Statistics taken from Clallam County future land use map 79.2 % of Clallam County is PUBLIC LAND 17.1% or less of Clallam County is PRIVATE PROPERTY 3.7% other

    No comment #74

    No comment #73

    ·         050511 – PHewett – CR

    ·         #72 LAKE SUTHERLAND RCW 90.24.010 Petition to regulate flow

    ·         050511 – PHewett – CR

    ·         #71 Oregon Voters May Require Compensation for Damage to Land Value Due to Regulations

    ·         050511 – PHewett – G

    ·         #70 We, as a committee are not there to give input, constructive comment, or recommendation, we are there to be indoctrinated on compliance, based on misleading pie charts and statistics compiled and presented by ESA Adolfson. “Reading out loud” by Pearl Hewett of WAC 173-26-191 illegal or unconstitutional.

    ·

    April:

    ·         042611 – ESpees – G

    ·         #69 Since, all of the SMP public comments are being held private?

    I guess we will have to find a way to make our privatized, public

    comments PUBLIC?

    ·         042311 – MBlack – G

    ·         #68 This is crazy-making and counterproductive. Please pick one that can be defined.

    ·         042011 – KAhlburg – G

    ·         #67 Public comments

    ·         041811 – QuileuteNation – G

    ·         #66 Tribal Comment

    ·         041411 – RColby – G

    No comment #65

    No comment #64

    No comment #63

    ·         #62 We are still suffering under the Good Ole Boys mentality out here because in Clallam bay one property owner is using his lands for staging a scrap metal yard right next to Charlie creek.

    ·         041411 – TSimpson – G

    ·         #61  To mandate setbacks is arbitrary. Each site is different.

    ·         041211 – BBrennan – G

    ·         #60  We are in the process of evaluating the existing well and have had utilities reconnected to the property. Over the next few years we hope to see these projects come to fruition, but are concerned that shoreline setback changes could impede our progress.

    ·         041111 – NN – G

    ·         #59 hand written

    ·         041111 – MGentry – G

    ·         #58 hand written

    ·         041111 – NN – G

    ·         #57 Hand written

    ·         041111 – RMorris – G

    ·         #56 same as #57 hand written

    ·         041111 – NMessmer – G

    ·         #55, 56 and 57 are identical

    ·         041011 – RMorris – G

    ·         #54 I would really like to see a ban on the use of yard-related herbicides and pesticides within buffer zones near aquatic areas.

    No comment #53

    No comment #52

    ·         04 –11- RMorris – G

    ·         #51 #55, 56 and 57 are identical

    ·

    March:

    ·         031511- PHewett – G

    ·         #50  Summary  was not representative of the meeting I attended on Jan. 26, 2011. There was no mention of Lake Sutherland and the outpour of concern by the private property owners.

    ·         031511 – RMorris – G

    ·         #49 My first look at the report is that is looks good.

    ·         031511 – RMorris – G

    ·         #48 Is the Clallam County MRC research and data bases being used in this work?

    No comment #47

    ·         031411 – MGentry – G

    ·         #46 I would be really interested in knowing what portion of the population actually has even an elementary understanding of what’s going on with this planning process, the decisions being made and how those will affect the common citizen.

    ·         031111- JWare – G

    ·         #45 Thank you for providing the opportunity to participate and learn more about the Clallam County Shoreline Master Plan.

    No comment #44

    ·         030211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #43 Indian Tribes Role in Local Watershed Planning (ESHB 2514)

    ·         030211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #42 INVITATION TO ALL PERSONS RCW 90.58.130

    No comment #41

    February:

    ·         021711 – MLangley – G

    ·         #40 PRO SMP but Too often shoreline owners bear the burden of inconsiderate visitors.

    ·         021511 – PHewett – G

    ·         #39  My son listened to me complain for days about the SMP and illegal trespass by DFW on our land, then he gave me some invaluable advise. If you have a complaint? CLIMB THE LADDER!

    ·         020211 – RBrown – G

    ·         #38 Sorry I couldn’t make it to the latest SMP focus group

    January:

    ·         012611 – MBoutelle – G

    ·         #36 hand written erosion problem

    No comment #35

    No comment #34

    No comment #33

    No comment #32

    ·         012111 – CAbrass – G

    ·         #31 One of our concerns is the lack of guidelines and drainage requirements for new housing development above the level of waterfront property.

    ·         011811 – DJones – G

    ·         #30 I received a phone call today reporting that a man is going around Lake Sutherland taking photos of the docks. His response was that it is for the Shoreline Master Program (SMP)Update.

    2010:

    The Clallam County Board of Commissioner’s expects to adopt a final SMP-Update Public Participation Strategy extended to March 16, 2010 @ 10 a.m. at the Board of Clallam County Commissioners Regular Meeting, 223 East 4th Street, Room 160, Port Angeles, Washington.

    No comment #29

    No comment #28

    No comment #27

    No comment #26

    ·         110810 – WDNR – G

    ·         #25 Please include myself and Hugo Flores as contacts for the WA DNR and

    ·         include us in any mailings regarding your future planning efforts.

    No comment #24

    ·         080510 – PSP – G

    ·         #23 PSP

    No comment #22

    No comment #21

    No comment #20

    No comment #19

    No comment #18

    No comment #17

    ·         031010 – WDOE – PPS

    ·         #16  SMP Update Public Participation Strategy

    ·         030910 – WDOE – PPS

    ·         #15 We talked about how to include the transient or tourist public in the outreach strategy

     

    No comment #14

    No comment #13

     

    ·         030810 – LMuench – PPS

    ·         #12 SMP Update Public Participation Strategy

    ·         030410 – QuileuteNation – PPS

    ·         #11 Tribal comment, I am thinking the person who drafted it just

    ·         looked at state requirements and did not go beyond that

    No comment #10

    No comment #9

    No comment #8

    No comment #7

    No comment #6

    No comment #5

    ·         022410 – FutureWise – PPS

    ·         #4 The very nature of this product is about public participation. Some

    ·         description of it is needed, including how it is intended to be used in the SMP.

    No comment #3

    ·         020910 – JMarrs – PPS

    ·         #2 I am pleased with the emphasis I see on making the process open and transparent.

    2009: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    ·         120509 – DemComm – G  #1  CLALLAM COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE

    Resolution regarding County Shoreline Management Plan

     WHEREAS the nature of amendments to the plan as might be adopted by the Clallam County Board of Commissioners mayor may not adequately protect the quality of local waters from harmful development; and

    WHEREAS participation in the Shoreline Management Plan review process will be open to the public in a series of meetings over the next two years or more;

    THEREFORE be it resolved that the Clallam County Democratic Central Committee appoint a subcommittee of interested members to monitor the progress of the Shoreline Management Plan review, to suggest to the Central Committee communications to the county of the concerns or interests of Democrats in the elements of the plans and any proposed amendments, and to issue quarterly reports on the review process to the Central Committee.

    ·         December 5, 2009

     REMEMBER… This is just 

    Part one: The history of us, the collective 3000? What happened to us?

    To be Continued….

    Behind My Back | SMP Public Comment # 160

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/02/11/smp-public-comment-160/

    SMP Public Comment # 160 Posted on February 11, 2015 1:01 pm by … … No Clallam County elected representatives attended this meeting. Thirty (30) people …

    ——————————————————————————

    Behind My Back | SMP and other Matrix Mumbo Jumbo

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/03/23/smp-and-other-matrix-mumbo-jumbo/

    (OF THE 617 WRITTEN SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS POSTED ON THE SMP WEBSITE?) … OR ORAL COMMENT INCLUDED IN THE “NEW SMP 160+ MATRIX”? … There is no accountability as to what Clallam County government agency or other …. UNDER AN EXPEDITED RULE- MAKING … full text on behindmyback.org.

    ———————————————————————-

    19 Unresolved SMP Issues AN SMP Public … – Clallam County

    www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/635_PHewett.pdf

    Jul 4, 2015 – On 19 unresolved SMP issues that went to the Planning … The 19 unresolved SMP issues on July 10, 2012 ….. Of …www.behindmyback.org.

    The bottom line…..

     REMEMBER… This is just 

    Part one: The history of us, the collective 3000?

    You the elected are responsible for what happens to all of us.


  • DOI NPS ONP ARAMARK J-1 Visa Holders?

    DEPT OF THE INTERIOR (DOI)

    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (NPS)

    OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK (ONP)

    AND, ARAMARK J-1 Visa Holders

    THE EXCHANGE VISITOR VISA (J-1) IS A NON-IMMIGRANT VISA ISSUED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE THAT PROVIDES “COUNTLESS OPPORTUNITIES” FOR INTERNATIONAL CANDIDATES LOOKING TO TRAVEL AND GAIN EXPERIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES.

    ———————————————————-

    August 01, 2017 What ARAMARK did  with J-1 Visa Holders at Lake Quinault Lodge was just the tip of the iceberg. 16 JOBS TAKEN FROM OUR DEPRESSED LOCAL COMMUNITY WHERE FEW ARE WORKING.

    Same day,  QUESTIONING, What ARAMARK has done with J-1 Visa Holders at Lake Crescent Lodge?

    ——————————————————————————

    August 9, 2017 QUESTIONING EVERYTHING ARAMARK

     I stopped at the at the ONP Fairholme Store, Fairholme Campground … What has ARAMARK done  with J-1 Visa holders, at the fairly large ONP campground, ideally situated near the water and with direct access to Lake Crescent, an Olympic National Park Service?

    This is what happened about 12 noon on Wed August 9, 2017.

    A kid wearing a ARAMARK tee shirt was coming out the back door of the Fairholme Store.

    I said, Excuse me, do you have a restroom?

    He said, yes but it’s out of order.

    Are there any other restrooms?

    Yes, he said, in the campground, go up there (west) and turn right.

    I said, And pay $30.00 just to go to the bathroom?

    No, he said, you can just sneak in…..

    ———————————————————

    Really, I’LL just sneak into an ONP CAMPGROUND, in my car with  SIX TRUMP BUMPER STICKERS? (and not get a ticket?)

    ———————————————————–

    That did it… I asked, are you an American Citizen?

    He said YES.

    I mentioned foreign visa workers, Lake Quinault Lodge hired 16 of them?

    He said Do you mean J-1 Visa workers (So, I finally know what they are), what’s wrong with that?

    Wrong? I said, American citizens need work.

    He said, I never thought of that…

    I asked how many of them are there?

    The very nice kid said, OH,THERE ARE LOTS OF THEM.

    —————————————————————————-

    So, what can I DOCUMENT?

    The J-1 Exchange Visitor Program was created in 1961 as part of THE FULBRIGHT-HAYES ACT

    AND,  FOR OTHER PURPOSES 1961-1971-2017?

    THERE ARE 15 CATEGORIES OF THE J-1 VISA, OF WHICH CULTURAL VISTAS IS A DESIGNATED PROGRAM SPONSOR FOR THREE: INTERN, TEACHER, AND TRAINEE EXCHANGES.

    CULTURAL VISTAS ALSO HOLDS SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS THROUGH WHICH IT SPONSORS INDIVIDUALS PARTICIPATING IN THE IAESTE program AND THE Work, English Study, Travel (WEST) program. MOREOVER, IN 2015, CULTURAL VISTAS WAS AMONG SELECT ORGANIZATIONS TO BE DESIGNATED AS A SPONSOR OF THE NEW U.S.-Mexico Internship Exchange Program

    ———————————————————————————

    THE FULBRIGHT-HAYES ACT?

    THE ACT’S TITLE WAS DISARMINGLY SIMPLE: “…to amend the Surplus Property Act of 1944 to designate the Department of State as the disposal agency for surplus property outside the United States, its Territories and possessions, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.”

    The “OTHER PURPOSES” consisted of an ingenious marriage of necessity and IDEALISM. THERE WAS THE NECESSITY OF DIVESTING OURSELVES BY THE SALE ABROAD OF SURPLUS WAR PROPERTIES FOR NONCONVERTIBLE CURRENCIES RATHER THAN SCARCE DOLLARS.

    THE IDEALISM involved using a portion of the proceeds to enable Americans to learn and understand more about other countries, and the citizens of those countries to learn and understand more about us.

    An early history of the Fulbright Program,

    EXCERPTED FROM CAREER SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE ( SES) OFFICER DONALD B. COOK’S HISTORY OF THE PROGRAM,

    written for the 1971 J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board’s annual report,

    The J-1 Exchange Visitor Program was created in 1961 as part of the Fulbright-Hayes Act, a public law written to “INCREASE MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE PEOPLE OF THE OTHER COUNTRIES THROUGH EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL EXCHANGES.” The U.S. Department of State has authority over the J-1 program.

    Under the Fulbright-Hays Act, the exchanges under the supervision of the Fulbright Scholarship Board were further extended geographically. BY 1971, THERE WAS SOME FORM OF ACADEMIC EXCHANGE WITH 100 COUNTRIES. Today, Fulbright operates in over 155 countries in all world regions.

    ————————————————————————————–

    AUG 10, 2017 I’M LOOKING FOR THE PART WHERE ACADEMIC AND CULTURAL EXCHANGE FOR FOREIGN STUDENTS, CHANGED TO  AMERICAN JOBS BEING  GRABBED AND GIVEN TO VISA (J-1) WORKERS AND TAKEN AWAY FROM AMERICAN CITIZENS?

    ————————————————————————

    THE EXCHANGE VISITOR VISA (J-1) IS A NON-IMMIGRANT VISA THAT PROVIDES “COUNTLESS OPPORTUNITIES” (LOTS OF THEM) FOR INTERNATIONAL CANDIDATES (LOTS OF THEM) LOOKING TO TRAVEL AND (LOTS OF THEM) GAIN EXPERIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES.

    THE EXCHANGE VISITOR VISA (J-1) IS A NON-IMMIGRANT VISA ISSUED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE.

    THE LAST TWO SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE WERE HILARY CLINTON AND JOHN KERRY APPOINTED BY OBAMA.

    —————————————————————

     THE EXCHANGE VISITOR VISA (J-1) IS A NON-IMMIGRANT VISA THAT PROVIDES “COUNTLESS OPPORTUNITIES” (LOTS OF THEM) FOR INTERNATIONAL CANDIDATES (LOTS OF THEM) LOOKING TO TRAVEL AND (LOTS OF THEM) GAIN EXPERIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES.

    SO? LORD ONLY KNOWS? HOW MANY VISA (J-1) WORKERS  ARAMARK IMPORTED (LOTS OF THEM) ARE EMPLOYEED IN AMERICA AND NOBODY KNOWS HOW BADLY ARAMARK’S VISA (J-1) WORKFORCE(of 270,000+ ) HAS IMPACTED AMERICAN WORKERS et al, IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

     What has ARAMARK done  at Fairholme Store?

    What has ARAMARK done  at Log Cabin Resort?

    What has ARAMARK done at  Hurricane Ridge?

    THE TIP OF THE LOCAL WA STATE VISA (J-1) ARAMARK WORKERS ICEBERG.

    AUGUST 01, 2017 ARAMARK CORP. LAKE QUINAULT LODGE, BROUGHT IN 16 FOREIGN VISA WORKERS THIS YEAR FROM NIGERIA, INDIA, PAKISTAN, AND ROMANIA TO NAME A FEW. GUARANTEED EMPLOYMENT UNTIL OCTOBER.  WOW! 16 JOBS TAKEN FROM OUR DEPRESSED LOCAL COMMUNITY WHERE FEW ARE WORKING. 

    —————————————————————————

    AUG 10, 2017 I’M LOOKING FOR THE PART WHERE ACADEMIC AND CULTURAL EXCHANGE IN 1961, FOR FOREIGN STUDENTS, CHANGED TO  2017, AMERICAN JOBS BEING  GRABBED AND GIVEN TO VISA (J-1) WORKERS AND TAKEN AWAY FROM AMERICAN CITIZENS?

    ——————————————————————————-

    THIS IS AN ONLINE AD

    J-1 Visa Information – What is the J-1 Visa? – culturalvistas.org‎

    Adwww.culturalvistas.org/J1‎

    For students, trainees and teachers. Learn more about the J-1 non-immigrant visa

    What is the J-1 Visa?

    THE EXCHANGE VISITOR VISA (J-1) IS A NON-IMMIGRANT VISA ISSUED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE THAT PROVIDES COUNTLESS OPPORTUNITIES FOR INTERNATIONAL CANDIDATES LOOKING TO TRAVEL AND GAIN EXPERIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES.

    The multifaceted J-1 Exchange Visitor Program, managed by the State Department, enables foreign nationals to come to the United States to teach, study, conduct research, demonstrate special skills or receive on the job training for periods ranging from a few weeks to several (5) years.

    It was developed to expose individuals from around the world to the culture and institutions of the United States and to foster a better understanding between nations on a variety of issues through educational and cultural exchange programs.

    THERE ARE 15 CATEGORIES OF THE J-1 VISA, OF WHICH CULTURAL VISTAS IS A DESIGNATED PROGRAM SPONSOR FOR THREE: INTERN, TEACHER, AND TRAINEE EXCHANGES.

    CULTURAL VISTAS ALSO HOLDS SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS THROUGH WHICH IT SPONSORS INDIVIDUALS PARTICIPATING IN THE IAESTE program AND THE Work, English Study, Travel (WEST) program. MOREOVER, IN 2015, CULTURAL VISTAS WAS AMONG SELECT ORGANIZATIONS TO BE DESIGNATED AS A SPONSOR OF THE NEW U.S.-Mexico Internship Exchange Program.

    For more information on the Exchange Visitor Program, visit: j1visa.state.gov.

    ———————————————————————————–

    The Early Years | Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs

    https://eca.state.gov/fulbright/about-fulbright/history/early-years

    The FulbrightHays legislation was enacted by the 87th U.S. Congress on September 21, An early history of the Fulbright Program, excerpted from career senior …

    YEP, EXCERPTED FROM CAREER SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE ( SES) OFFICER DONALD B. COOK’S HISTORY OF THE PROGRAM,

    ——————————————————————————————

    [USC03] 22 USC Ch. 33: MUTUAL EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL …

    uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title22/chapter33&edition=prelim

    For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out below and Tables … L. 87–256 is also popularly known as the “FulbrightHays Act“.

    ————————————————————————–

    FEB 1, 2017 – REX TILLERSON WAS SWORN IN AS THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S SECRETARY OF STATE


  • Putting Down the Distracted Drivers Law?

    FACT: WA STATE DISTRACTED DRIVERS, HOLDING ELECTRONIC DEVICES, KILL AND INJURE PEOPLE, THE PUNISHMENT AND PENALTIES, BY LAW, SHOULD  BE THE SAME AS DUI LAWS.

    DUI or DWI Punishments and Penalties | Nolo.com

    www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/dui-or-dwi-punishments-penalties-30321.html

    Jail Time. In all states, first-offense DUI or DWI is classified as a misdemeanor, and punishable by up to six months in jail. That jail time may be increased under certain circumstances. … MANY STATES ALSO REQUIRE MINIMUM JAIL SENTENCES OF AT LEAST SEVERAL DAYS ON A FIRST OFFENSE.

    MANY STATES also require minimum jail sentences of at least several days on a first offense. Subsequent offenses often result in jail sentences of several months to a year.

    For a DUI or DWI that’s been classified as a felony — either because the driver killed or injured someone or because it’s the driver’s third or fourth DUI — jail sentences of several years are not uncommon. Again, this depends on state law, the facts of the case, and the discretion of the judge at trial.

    FINES IN ADDITION TO JAIL SENTENCES, courts can and do impose high fines for DUI or DWI. These range from $500 to as much as $2,000.

    DRIVER’S LICENSE PROBLEMS A DUI or DWI offender stands a good chance of having his or her license suspended for a substantial period of time (either by court order or mandate of the state motor vehicles department). FOR EXAMPLE, MANY STATES suspend a first offender’s license for 90 days; a second offender’s license for one year; and a third offender’s license for three years.

    IN MANY STATES IF YOU COMMIT THE SAME CRIME , KILLING AND INJURING PEOPLE, YOU DO THE SAME  TIME

    —————————————————————————

    JULY 27, 2017

    HAS WA STATE NANNY GOVERNOR JAY INSLEE (D)  GONE TOO FAR WITH THE STRICTEST DRIVER  LAWS IN THE NATION?

    OR  HAVE HE AND WA STATE LEGISLATORS JUST WANDERED OFF INTO LAW LAW LAND?

    Nation’s Strictest Distracted Driver Law Bans Motorists From Even …

    www.newsweek.com/distracted-driver-law-washington-state-no-holding-phones-6413…

    3 days ago – Drivers in Washington state caught holding their phones, having a quick snack or applying makeup could face fines of up to $234 under a new …

    ———————————————————————–

    A “STEREOTYPICALLY LAUGHABLE EXAMPLE OF A LIBERAL NANNY STATE AT ITS WORST.  IN AN ATTEMPT TO REGULATE OR BAN DOZENS OF ITEMS AND BEHAVIORS FROM BIG GULPS TO CIGARETTES….

     WHILE DRIVING.

    —————————————————————————

    Nearly 30,000 sign petition against Washington’s new distracted …

    q13fox.com/2017/…/petition-started-against-washingtons-new-distracted-driving-law/

    22 hours ago – TACOMA — At least 28000 people have decided that a Washington state law against distracted driving takes enforcement too far. The News …

    INDEED, MICROMANAGER NANNY GOV. INSLEE (D) AND HIS WA STATE LEGISLATORS HAVE GONE TOO FAR. period

    ———————————————————————————

    California: The Ultimate Nanny State – The Federalist

    thefederalist.com/2016/05/05/california-is-an-authoritarian-hellhole/

    MAY 5, 2016 – In California a 15-year-old girl can abort a viable baby without telling her parents, but a 20-year-old can’t buy a pack of cigarettes.

    ——————————————————————————-

    CALIFORNIA NEEDS THE SUPREME COURT TO TELL IT THAT REGULATING….

    DC HAS ALREADY GOTTEN IN THE GAME.

     APR 7, 2017 – WASHINGTON (CNN) THE SENATE FRIDAY MORNING CONFIRMED NEIL GORSUCH, A 49-YEAR-OLD FEDERAL JUDGE WHO COULD HELP CEMENT A CONSERVATIVE …

    ——————————————————–

    The Michael Bloomberg Nanny State In New York: A Cautionary Tale

    www.forbes.com/…/the-michael-bloomberg-nanny-state-in-new-york-a-cautionary-tal…

    May 10, 2013 – Since New York City Mayor Bloomberg announced the 20-ounce soda ban last fall, the controversy has garnered national attention. But, this is just the latest example of his attempt to expand the “nanny state” that has become New York City.

    ———————————————————————–

    Meet Bloomberg | Nanny State

    https://www.meetbloomberg.com/nanny-state/

    Bloomberg’s 12 years as mayor of New York City have been referred to as a “stereotypically laughable example of a liberal nanny state at its worst.

    ———————————————————–

    What Has Bloomberg Tried To Regulate Or Ban In New York City?

    A BETTER QUESTION MIGHT BE WHAT HASN’T HE TRIED TO REGULATE OR BAN.

    HERE’S THE LIST OF SOME OF THE ITEMS ON HIS NANNY AGENDA: ALCOHOL, CALORIE COUNTS, carbon, CELL PHONES, CIGARETTES, contraceptives, composting, fingerprinting, gasoline, NOISE, POLITICS, PRIVACY, SECOND AMENDMENT, SODA, SODIUM, Styrofoam, taxis, tanning, traffic congestion and trans fats.

     BLOOMBERG’S 12 YEARS AS MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO AS A

    “STEREOTYPICALLY LAUGHABLE EXAMPLE OF A LIBERAL NANNY STATE AT ITS WORST. HE “UNLEASHED A TSUNAMI OF PUBLIC HEALTH INITIATIVES” IN AN ATTEMPT TO REGULATE OR BAN DOZENS OF ITEMS AND BEHAVIORS FROM BIG GULPS TO CIGARETTES, from composting to trans fats.

    HE DID THIS BECAUSE HE THINKS THERE ARE TIMES WHEN GOVERNMENT  “SHOULD INFRINGE ON YOUR FREEDOM.” 

    BLOOMBERG DOESN’T THINK YOU KNOW WHAT YOU WANT, OR WHAT IS BEST FOR YOU.

    HE HAS ACTUALLY SAID,“YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU CARE ABOUT.

    BECAUSE WHAT YOU CARE ABOUT CHANGES WITH WHAT’S GOING ON IN THE WORLD,

     AND YOU NEED SOMEBODY TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS FOR YOU.”

    And Bloomberg has spent his billions trying to be that somebody.

    Bloomberg’s ban on cell phones in schools simply showed how out-of-touch he was with today’s realities.

    ———————————————————————————

    The Complete List of Everything Banned by Mayor Michael Bloomberg

    gizmodo.com/the-complete-list-of-everything-banned-by-mayor-michael-1490476691

    DEC 31, 2013 – Michael Bloomberg leaves office tomorrow after 12 years as New York City’s mayor. No mayor in recent memory has added so much to a city. Or taken so much away. To remember him properly, here’s a list of everything Bloomberg banned during his time in office.

    —————————————————————————————-

    Is American freedom suffering  from being micromanaged  by  Nanny States,  government? THAT MAKE TOO MANY LAWS, about how people should live their lives, especially about, gun control, eating, smoking, or drinking, coffee, water, sugary water, energy drinks,  overprotective or interfering unduly with personal choices, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    Like, driving to work holding your morning cup of Starbucks? Or eating a McDonalds  egg McMuffin in your car?

    Jul 27, 2017 Absolutely no one likes to be micromanaged. It’s frustrating, demoralizing, and demotivating. Yet, some states can’t seem to help …

    Down Right insulting,  WA State’s Micromanaging Nanny’s,   PASSING A LAW, THAT CONNOTES ANYONE DRIVING IN WA STATE (including tourists) CAN’T CHEW GUM AND DRIVE AT THE SAME TIME……..

    Connotes by definition: imply or suggest (an idea or feeling) in addition to the literal or primary meaning.

    Micromanagement is Mismanagement.

    Micro-managers are bad news for business and bad news for employees.

    They dis-empower staff, stifle opportunity and innovation, and give rise to poor performance.

    MICROMANAGEMENT IS JUST PLAIN BAD MANAGEMENT.


  • WA State DOE Emergency Fee Rule?

    July 20, 2016 Public Records Emergency Rule WAC 173-03-9000E Calculation of actual costs of producing copies of public records declared to be unduly burdensome—Adoption of statutory fee schedule.

     SO? THE DOE?  SOMEBODY DECLARED AN EMERGENCY DOE RULE?

     WAC… WAC… WAC…

    WHY BOTHER WITH THE ACTUAL COST FOR PRODUCING COPIES OF PUBLIC RECORDS FOR THE PUBLIC?

    HB 1595, passed in the 2017 legislative session

    Chapter 304, Laws of 2017, sc. 3, amending RCW 42.56.120,

    AND AN AGENCY MUST HAVE IN PLACE EITHER A STATEMENT FOLLOWING (PUBLIC?)  NOTICE AND PUBLIC HEARING THAT ESTABLISHES THE ACTUAL COSTS OF PRODUCING RECORDS….

    AND THAT WOULD BE UNDULY BURDENSOME FOR THE DOE?

    SO, THE DOE WILL ADOPT THE STATUTORY FEE SCHEDULE.

    —————————————————————————–

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Ballard, Laura (ECY)

    To: ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK@LISTSERV.WA.GOV

    Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 4:44 PM

    Subject: The following emergency rulemaking adoption was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser: Public Records Emergency Rule WAC 173-03-

    The following emergency rulemaking adoption was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser:

    July 20, 2016

    Public Records Emergency Rule WAC 173-03-9000E Calculation of actual costs of producing copies of public records declared to be unduly burdensome—Adoption of statutory fee schedule.

    For more information:

    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/laws-rules/wac17303/1614ov.html

    To join or leave ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK click here:

    http://listserv.wa.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A0=ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK

    Thank you for using WACTrack.

    Have a good day!

    ———————————————————————————-

    Representative Terry Nealey (R-Dayton) and Representative Joan McBride (D-Kirkland) introduced the bills.  They would update the 1972 Public Records Act, INCLUDING FEES contained in the original law

    HB 1595, passed in the 2017 legislative session

    HB 1595 BECAME LAW ON JULY 23, 2017

    Chapter 304, Laws of 2017, sc. 3, amending RCW 42.56.120,  

    THE PROVISION OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (PRA) THAT GOVERNS AGENCY CHARGES TO REQUESTERS FOR PROVIDING COPIES OF PUBLIC RECORDS.

    According to a 2016 report from the Washington State Auditor’s Office, the number of requests increased by 36% from 2011 to 2015, and last year, state and local governments spent more than $60 million to fulfill 285,000 requests – a portion of which were automated “bot” requests from computers. Only 1% of the costs were recovered by the original law’s fee structure.

    These amendments in HB 1595 were designed to modernize this provision to reflect changes in the way agencies PROVIDE copies of records to requesters.

    and an agency must have in place either a statement following notice and public hearing that establishes the ACTUAL COSTS of producing records,

     or a rule that declares the calculation of actual costs would be “unduly burdensome.” Otherwise, an agency would not be able to impose copy fees on PRA requestors.

    HB 1595  IS A NEW WA STATE LAW EFFECTIVE  JULY 23, 2017

    WITH FEES BASED ON ACTUAL COST?

    Representative Terry Nealey (R-Dayton)  said actual costs could also be based upon a SEATTLE CITY DETAILED COST STUDY.

    “The city of Seattle estimates it will spend as much as $3 million this year for PRA request fulfilment, including electronic requests, but expects less than $10,000 in cost recovery,”

    Representative Terry Nealey (R-Dayton) added. “Our legislation would enable an agency to study its actual costs of making and preparing for delivery electronic copies of documents for a requestor,

    AND THEN CHARGE A MODEST FEE BASED ON COPYING COSTS.

    WE THINK THIS WILL REDUCE VEXATIOUS REQUESTS WHILE PRESERVING ACCESS WITH AN UPDATED FEE SYSTEM.”

    ——————————————————————————–

    AND, THEN CHARGE A MODEST FEE BASED ON ACTUAL COST?

    ————————————————————————————–

     Behind My Back | Fee Fie Foe Fum

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/10/26/fee-fie-foe-fum/

    Oct 26, 2013 – “Feefifofum” is the first line of a historical quatrain famous for its use in the classic English fairy … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee-fie-foefum.

     ——————————————————————————–

    ECOLOGY is taking the latter approach, declaring by rule that it will be “unduly burdensome” to calculate actual costs, and has already filed a pre-proposal to begin the permanent rulemaking process.

    ECOLOGY will conduct this permanent rulemaking according to normal rulemaking procedures, but cannot complete it until some months after the requirements of HB 1595 take effect on July 23, 2017.

    ECOLOGY finds that it is in the general welfare and the public interest, and benefits requesters and the agency, to adopt the emergency rule in order to preserve AND UPDATE FEES in accordance with the legislatively adopted schedule.

    Without further action, this would create a period of months during which no statement or rule would be available to the public regarding PRA costs or the methods of calculating them, creating confusion and uncertainty regarding Ecology’s fee structure and ITS ABILITY TO CHARGE FEES.

    Because this appears to be contrary to the intent of HB 1595 and the PRA,

    ECOLOGY intends to adopt its declaration initially by emergency rule, to avoid confusion and to remain in compliance with the PRA, as amended.

    This declaration will allow Ecology to utilize the statutory default fee schedule created by the Legislature in the 2017 amendments starting on July 23, 2017, the date the legislation goes into effect, and to be in full compliance with the PRA, as amended.

    ————————————————————————————–

    ECOLOGY WILL CONDUCT THIS PERMANENT RULEMAKING ACCORDING TO NORMAL RULEMAKING PROCEDURES, BUT CANNOT COMPLETE IT UNTIL SOME MONTHS AFTER THE REQUIREMENTS OF HB 1595 TAKE EFFECT ON JULY 23, 2017.

     ECOLOGY has already filed a pre-proposal to begin the permanent rulemaking process.

    A STATEMENT FOLLOWING (PUBLIC?)  NOTICE AND PUBLIC HEARING THAT ESTABLISHES THE ACTUAL COSTS OF PRODUCING RECORDS….

    ——————————————————-

    To join or leave ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK click here:

    http://listserv.wa.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A0=ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK

    Thank you for using WACTrack.

    Have a good day!

    ——————————————————————

    Has anyone received a definitive legal  answer to this question?

    Behind My Back | WA DOE $50 Comment Recording Fee?

    www.behindmyback.org/2017/07/12/6854/

    Jul 12, 2017 – Protests must be accompanied by a $50 recording fee payable to the Department of …. www.behindmyback.org/2013/10/26/fee-fie-foe-fum/.


  • This is Not an EPA Matter?

    This is Not an EPA Matter?

    SO? IS THIS JUST AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM  LOOKING FOR A RESPONSIBLE PARTY?

    Documented for the record

    May 15, 2017 3:00 PM, I called and spoke with Bobbie at the Seattle office of the EPA 1-800-424-4372

    I warned EPA Bobbie of the eminent danger of a environmental disaster that will be caused when a house located the end of NE Buchanan Dr, in Clallam County WA, falls over the cliff onto our Rains Sr. Trust shoreline property and directly into the Straits of Juan De Fuca,  designated  waters of statewide significance.

    EPA Bobbie said, it was a unique problem, took my name and phone number and promised to return my call within an hour.

    EPA Bobbie returned my call, she called this number 1-360-4450, and said someone (no name) would call me.

    EPA Bobbie said, a direct quote  “THIS IS NOT AN EPA MATTER”  and that she had spent an hour of her time trying to help ME.

    I called the number, (no name) Jordan is  an employee of Jefferson County. Obviously, we agreed she CAN NOT help me with a Clallam County WA, ENVIRONMENTAL MATTER.

    IS THIS JUST AN EPA MATTER  LOOKING FOR AN EPA RESPONSIBLE PARTY SOLUTION?

    The solution is easy, tear down the house before it falls over the cliff.

    This is not a trick question….

     If nobody, takes action, when the house falls into Straits of Juan De Fuca  and an environmental disaster becomes a reality, who will be the responsible party?

    Will Clallam County Commissioners, the DCD,  be held responsible? Will Clallam County hard working citizens foot the bill to clean up the environmental mess?

     Will cleaning up the crushed pieces of the house after it falls over the 200 ft  cliff be an EPA  water cleanup recovery in the Straits of Juan De Fuca? (paid for by Clallam County WA taxpayers?)

    ———————————————————————

    Documented for the record

    The EPA has been put on notice and warned about this ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM, as have, WA DC Rep Kilmer, WA State Reps in Olympia, Clallam County Commissioners and the director of DCD, and as usual to my email list.

     note:  this email warning has been sent to my WA State Rep Derek Kilmer via his “email me”