+menu-


  • Category Archives CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS
  • 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.


  • Discovery Clallam Co SMP Update 2009-2017

    Discovery on the Clallam County SMP Update 2009-2017

    My DISCOVERY on the 2017 DCD SMP Update Draft  IS NOT IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, It is the cumulative documents I have uncovered  and DISCOVERED over an eight year period of time. And includes recent public information requests.

    My first public meeting on the SMP Update, Jan 26, 2011 went something like this.

    Hello Country Bumpkins,  my name is Margaret Clancy, this is Jim Kramer, we are from ESA Adolfson, and we’re here to help you.

    UNFORTUNATELY, none of THE 2017 BOCC were in office in 2011, and the ones that were  in office BOCC did not attend that meeting.

    Lois, Sue and Prosecuting Attorney Mark Nichols did attend that Jan 26, 2011  meeting.

    Feb 1, 2011 my PDN published opinion “If the Clallam County SMP Update is anything like the one in Port Townsend, anybody that lives within 150 feet of a mud puddle should be concerned”

    ESA Adolfson Margaret Clancy did the SMP Update for Jefferson County.

    That was my published opinion in Feb 1, 2011  and I’m sticking with it Nov 4, 2017

    City Slickers should never underestimate the intelligence and tenacity of  Clallam County  Country Bumpkins et al.

    I researched ESA Adolfson Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer, online,  prior to the Jan 26, 2011 meeting

    My trail of DISCOVERY on Nov 5, 2017, extends back to Dec 5, of 2009 and is documented.

    My DISCOVERY on the 2017 DCD SMP Update Draft  IS NOT IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, It is the cumulative documents I have uncovered  and DISCOVERED over an eight year period of time. And includes recent public information requests.

    Attachments:
    Hewett_doc_pdf.pdf

    Attachments:
    signed_ESA_full_contract-22_pgs.pdf
    SMA_Grant_Agr_G1000062.pdf

    The Clallam County 2017 SMP Update has reached a critical point, the Planning Dept under the direction of elected DCD Director Mary Ellen Winborn, in collaboration with Ecology’s local coordinator DOE Michelle McConnel, ESA paid Facilitator Margaret Clancy and Steve Gray have approved “THEIR” 2017 SMP  Update Draft.

    The SMP Update Draft is now being examined by our ELECTED Board of Commissioners, Bill Peach (R), Randy Johnson (I) and Mark Ozias (D).

    ———————————————————————————————

    October 21, 2017 A Concerned member of the planning commission sent me the following

    Re: The DCD 2017 SMP Draft Update

    —– Original Message —–

    Fromxxxx

    To: pearl hewett

    Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2017 5:12 PM

    I made as many changes as I could to the SMP, insisting that “grandfathering” stay in (it kept disappearing), not developing in tsunami zones be completely removed,  and a hundred other things.  Couldn’t make any progress on buffers, setbacks, and floodplain.  After 7 years it was time to move it off our table and let the county commissioners weigh in.  Bill Peach and I have had many conversations about SMP.

    It’s good to hear from you Pearl

    ———————————————————————————-

    Re: The DCD 2017 SMP Draft Update

    April 12, 2011 DISCOVERY on Nov 2, 2017

    April 12, 2011 The Adolfson woman told the group they are going to completely rewrite our SMP and we won’t even recognize it when they are done?

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 7:57 AM

    Subject: Re: Clallam County Shoreline Master Program

    I did go to the Public Meeting at the Senior Center last night (April 11, 2011) 5:30 to 8:30. It was where people where broken into groups based on their interest.

    Private property owner’s on the Elwha are being washed out and very concerned.

    Lakes were not on Adolfson’s /Jim Kramer’s agenda, but due to popular demand, Lake Sutherland people finally got a chance to be heard. 

    I sat in on their lake meeting. It was run by an Adolfson woman and documented by Jim from the Planning Dept. They came to a consensus regarding the 35 foot setback, repairing existing structures and public access.

    They want clarification and specific requirements on the revised SMP.

    The Adolfson woman told the group they are going to completely rewrite our SMP and we won’t even recognize it when they are done?

    FYI

    Pearl

    —————————————————————————

    Re: Nov 5, 2017 for my DISCOVERY on the DCD 2017 SMP Draft Update

    As a responsible member of the so called SMP Update Advisory Committee, to verify that the 2017 SMP UPDATE DRAFT  has indeed, been completely rewritten by ESA Adolfson, and we (I)  won’t even recognize it when they are done.

    I am requesting a paper copy of the DCD 2017 SMP Update Draft.

    —– 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

    To DCD Director Mary Ellen Winbourn

     I am requesting a paper copy of the DCD 2017 SMP Update Draft.

    I can pick it up at the court house when it’s ready.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    RE: SMP Update Advisory Committee

    (360) 417-9452

    235 W 5th St

    Port Angeles WA 98362

    ———————————————————————

    I requested a paper copy of the 2012 SMP Draft Update, received it and read the whole thing.

    —————————————————————-

    DISCOVERY April 17, 2011

    ESA ADOLFSON WA STATE SMP COOKIE CUTTERS

    SMP COOKIE CUTTING April 17, 2011

     Interestingly enough the name Kramer and co. (Adolfson?) was mentioned.

    ESA Margaret Clancy and Kramer  did Jefferson County and Port Townsend? SMP

    Someone said that Jefferson County just let a cookie cutter SMP be done?

     April 17, 2011

    THE TIP OF THE ESA ADOLFSON COOKIE CUTTING IN WA STATE SMP UPDATES

     IF YOU LOOK ON LINE FOR ESA ADOLFSON CONSULTANTS MARGARET CLANCY AND JIM KRAMER YOU WON’T FIND THEM UNDER COOKIE CUTTERS,

    HOWEVER YOU WILL FIND THEM  ASSOCIATED WITH  24 COOKIE CUTTING SMP UPDATES IN WA STATE.  

     CITY OF TACOMA, CLALLAM COUNTY, CITY OF SAMMISH, KENMORE, ISSAQUAH, WOODWAY, PIERCE COUNTY, MASON COUNTY, ISLAND COUNTY,CITY OF SHORELINE, WHATCOM COUNTY, VANCOUVER, TUKWILLA, DUVALL, CLARK COUNTY, LACEY, GIG HARBOR, MULKITO, RENTON, JEFFERSON COUNTY, CITY OF RIDGEFIELD, EATONVILLE, PUYALLUP, CITY OF UNIVERSITY PLACE AND THE CITY OF LOWELL IN OREGON. 

    WHATCOM COUNTY WA PLANNERS AND ESA ADOLFSON PAID  CONSULTANTS/ FACILITATORS  MADE UP THEIR OWN RULES ON THE WHATCOM COUNTY SMP UPDATE? AND THEIR COMMISSIONERS LEGISLATED THOSE RULES INTO LAW?

    AND THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED …..

    THE CASE IS LUHRS V. WHATCOM COUNTY,  A 10 YEAR LEGAL BATTLE, , WITH WHATCOM COUNTY TAXPAYERS PAYING TO FIGHT AGAINST A SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNER  LEGAL RIGHT, WA STATE LAW ( RCW 90.58.100 ) THAT SPECIFICALLY GIVES COASTAL LANDOWNERS THE RIGHT TO PROTECT THEIR HOMES FROM EROSION.

    WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN CLALLAM COUNTY NOW THAT THE  DCD PLANNERS AND ESA ADOLFSON  FACITITATORS MADE UP THEIR OWN RULES ON CLALLAM COUNTY 2017 SMP UPDATE?

    ——-

    DISCOVERY  Jefferson County – Michelle McConnell leaves for Ecology

    Posted on March 30, 2014 by Al B.

    AFTER EIGHT YEARS TOGETHER ON THE JEFFERSON COUNTY SMP UPDATE, ESA MARGARET CLANCY AND DOE MICHELLE McCONNELL ARE TOGETHER AGAIN, ANOTHER EXTREMELY HARD JOB, SHEPHERDING THE CLALLAM COUNTY PLANNING DEPT THRU THE CLALLAM COUNTY 2017 SMP UPDATE DRAFT.

    Michelle McConnell, who has been a stalwart at the Jefferson County Dept. of Community Development for many years, has chosen to leave and work for the Department of Ecology.

    Michelle has had the extremely hard job of shepherding the Shoreline Master Program through over the last 8 years.

    She has always been a steady hand and been a sea of calm in the midst of turbulent public meetings over the SMP. We will miss her guidance on these issues. No word on a replacement yet. Best of luck to Michelle in future endeavors.

    I’m pleased to announce I have accepted a new job and will be leaving DCD the week of April 7, 2014  my new position will be as a Shoreline Planner with WA Department of Ecology.

    —————————————————————————

    DISCOVERY  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.

    ——————————————————————-

    MY DISCOVERY on the DCD SMP Draft Update

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Jim Kramer

    Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 12:35 PM

    Subject: Re: Taking of Private Property for Public Access

    Jim,

    Eight months ago, I knew nothing about the DOE, EPA, MAB, the UN, ICLEI, HB 1478, Agenda 21, Dept. of the Interior, Water Rights, Federal Reserved water rights, SMP, WAC’s, RCW’s, Unresponsive Elected Officials, ESA Adolfson, World Historic Site, DNR, WFDW, WRIA’s 18,19,20, Wetlands, endangered species, wetland habitats, three RCW’s that protect private property owners, noxious weeds, shall I go on?

    Did you know that of 1700 acres of land on three Dungeness River reaches are over 700 acres are wetland habitat?

    Eight months ago, I had no voice.

    Read my Dad’s “Conspiracy Exposed” and the “Rest of the story.” Goggle “George C. Rains Sr.”

    My documented comments on the internet are well received and distributed.

    What will happen in eight months?  Do you read the SMP Public Comments?

    I’ll just keep sending my SMP Public Comments around and who knows?

    Pearl

    ————————————————————————————

    Hmmm… What will happen in THE NEXT EIGHT YEARS?  Do you read the SMP Public Comments? I’ll just keep sending my SMP Public Comments around and who knows?

    EIGHT YEARS  ago, I had no voice.

    Jan 29, 2013 my website/blog behindmyback.org went online

    WHAT HAPPENED IN THE LAST  EIGHT YEARS? 

    DISCOVERY AND MORE DISCOVERY AND MORE….

    Behind My Back | SMP Update-Six Years of Frustration

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/08/19/smpupdate-six-years-of-frustration

    SMP UPDATE – SIX YEARS OF FRUSTRATION I submit this as a Clallam County SMP Update Public Comment August 18, 2014 Pearl Rains Hewett Member of the Clallam County SMP …

    SMP Update Eight Years of Frustration

    Posted on November 2, 2017 5:40 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    SMP UPDATE – EIGHT YEARS OF FRUSTRATION I submit this as a Clallam County 2017 SMP Update Public Comment Nov 2, 2017  Pearl Rains Hewett, previous member of the 2011 so called Clallam County Advisory Committee, still a Concerned Citizen of Clallam County WA…

    ————————————————————

    What will happen in eight months? 

    November 03, 2017 8:02 AM

    Subject: Educate the BOCC

    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 have a meeting with my elected Commissioner Randy Johnson Nov 8, 2017

    Does the BOCC have enough to make a good decision about the 2017 SMP Update?  Oct 30th, 2017 was their first worksession to figure it out.  The presentation by the DCD staff is posted to the SMP website and the worksession video can be viewed at the BOCC web page.

    Great question, Will the BOCC have enough to make a good decision about the 2017 SMP Update based on presentations provided by the DCD staff? 

     I THINK NOT!

    It is my intention to provide the BOCC with enough document information on the DCD 2017 SMP Update Draft to make an informed decision for, and in the best of  all citizens of Clallam County.

    What was I doing on October 30, 2017 Re: the DCD 2017 SMP Update Draft?

    A Public Records Request  ESA  full contract – 22 pgs.pdf

    What am I doing on Nov 3, 2017?

    Sending these documents to the  BOCC 

    And, meeting with Commissioner Mark Ozias, Re: the DCD 2017 SMP Update Draft.

    —————————————————————

    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….

    The nine unpaid volunteer members of the Clallam County Planning Commission V the paid Professionals,  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

     


  • Update: Interest in the Elwha Project Lands

    OCT 27, 2017  Future interest by the WA State in Elwha Project Lands?

    AUG 10, 2012 PAST INTEREST IN ELWHA PROJECT LANDS

     1992 THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS

    THE FEDERAL LAW  IS…. THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS WERE SET ASIDE, “ACCORDING” TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS IN 1992.

    AFTER THE BIG DAM REMOVAL.. THE FEDS ELECTED, BUREAUCRATS AND THE TRIBES RAN INTO A LEGAL CONUNDRUM.

    AUG 10, 2012 THE AGENCY THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE WAS AWARE THE TRIBE WANTS THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS

    THE CONUNDRUM WAS SPECIFICALLY, WHO WERE THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS IN CLALLAM COUNTRY WA  LEGALLY, SET ASIDE FOR BY CONGRESS IN THE 1992 ELWHA ACT?

    WHY SHOULD  OUR FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES BE BOTHERED WITH  LEGISLATIVE ACTION BY RULE OF LAW?

    WHEN THE LEGAL ISSUES ON THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS COULD BE RESOLVED BY BUREAUCRATIC RULE BY RED TAPE?

    THERE WERE SEVERAL UNDISCLOSED LEGAL ISSUES WHEN THE ELECTED FEDS, NPS BUREAUCRATS AND THE TRIBES, WANTED TO JUST RUN IN AND GRAB THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS PUBLIC LAND……

     ——————————————————————————–

     SO, THE SOLUTION  TO THE LEGAL CONUNDRUM ON AUG 10, 2012 WAS THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (BUREAUCRATS) INTENDS TO LAUNCH A PUBLIC (DUE) PROCESS TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS

    ——————————————————————————–

    OCT 27, 2017  SO?  WDFW (BUREAUCRATS) released its findings (so far) to the Fish Commission  (BUREAUCRATS) SO WE ARE WAITING FOR WA STATE TO CONSIDER THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS

    ———————————————————–

    THE WAITING GAME INDEED,  WAITING FOR THE  LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS

    THE ELWHA RIVER ACT 1992, 2011 SMP, 2012 NPS, 2013 DOE SMP,  2017 WDFW AND THE FISH COMMISSON.

    NO WORRIES…. The Waiting Game is a common practice of government and bureaucrats, just wait until citizens give up or forget….

    INDEED, THE  LONG WAITING  FOR THE BUREAUCRATS TO RULE OCT 27, 2017  .

    ———————————————————————-

    AUG 10, 2012 THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE INTENDS TO LAUNCH A PUBLIC PROCESS TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE LAND,

    BUT AT THE MOMENT HAS NO FUNDING TO PAY FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OR ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT STATEMENT,

    NOTED  BY TODD SUESS, AUGUST 10, 2012 ACTING SUPERINTENDENT FOR OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK.

    THE AGENCY IS AWARE THE TRIBE WANTS THE LAND, BUT CAN’T JUST TURN IT OVER. “WE NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC PROCESS,” SUESS SAID.

    —————————————————————————

    We citizens should be used to it “The Waiting Game”  is common practice for the tired, overwhelmed Citizens of Clallam County  

    WELL, I GUESS WE WILL JUST HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS….TO  THE WA STATE  ELWHA PROJECT LANDS DURING THIS PUBLIC PROCESS BY BUREAUCRATS

    TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE CLALLAM COUNTY WA PUBLIC LAND BY WA STATE BUREAUCRATS

    ————————————————————————

    BUT NOT ON MY WATCH  SEPT 30, 2013

    Behind My Back | The NPS Waiting Game

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/09/30/the-nps-waiting-game/

    A common practice of government waiting…… waiting until NPS willful neglect allows, nature to ravage the roads, the trail, the access, NPS WAITING FOR the .. the snow to collapse the resorts, lodges, cabins, NPS just WAITING… until  those with living memory of a place die off, just WAITING… wait until the people cool off or wait until people forget, out of sight out of mind….

    My SMP Update comment on WA State DOE SMP Priority of public access to public land
    and as referenced in the WA State Public Trust Doctrine
    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Elwha River public lands (between US 101 and SR 112)
    Clallam County Public Land
    NORM’S RESORT NPS Public Land
    ———————————————————————————

    NORM’S RESORT  who’s Norm? what’s he got to do with it?

    The Norm’s privately owned resort, in 1979, provided “we the people” free public access with a long dirt trail for free walking beside the ELWHA RIVER and the use of the ELWHA RIVER FOR A FREE FISHING SPOTS AND IT DIDN’T STOP THERE, IT PROVIDED A STORE, CABINS, RENTAL BOATS.

    What happened to NORM’S RESORT free facilities?

    NORM’S RESORT was demolished by the federal government.

    NORM’S RESORT PRIVATE ELWHA RIVER property is now OUR PUBLIC LAND controlled by the NPS AND there is EVEN more Clallam County PUBLIC LAND on the Elwha River between US 101 and SR 112 that IS UP FOR GRABS.

    There is a county road for the main purpose of access to this area and a WDFW boat launch high and dry….

    2013- IT HAS EVEN BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THE CLALLAM COUNTY’S PUBLIC LAND BE GIVEN TO THE TRIBES?

    As a Community we should insist that the public Elwha River property (between US 101 and SR 112 public land) –

    BE GIVEN FIRST PRIORTY FOR PUBLIC ACCESS AND PUBLIC USE.

    ——————————————————————————-

    In accordance with the DOE and the requirements for PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLIC LAND as stated in THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE.

    ————————————————————————————-

    APRIL 4, 2017 (I did this)

    ·  Behind My Back | The Elwha River Limbo Land

    www.behindmyback.org/2017/04/04/6477

    Posted on April 4, 2017 6:46 am by Pearl Rains Hewett

    The Elwha River Limbo Land SOME 1,100 ACRES OF LAND WITH AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE? ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED AUGUST 10, 2012 By Lynda V. Mapes Seattle Times staff reporter WHAT …

    ————————————————————————-

    MY Category Archives  A CITIZEN EXPRESSING INTEREST

    ·  Behind My Back | A CITIZEN EXPRESSING INTEREST

    www.behindmyback.org/category/a-citizen-expressing-interest The Elwha River Limbo Land. SOME 1,100 ACRES OF LAND WITH AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE? ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED AUGUST 10, 2012 By Lynda V. Mapes Seattle Times staff reporter

    WHAT WILL BECOME OF “THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS”?

     THAT USED TO BE UNDER THE ELWHA DAM AND LAKE ALDWELL?

    THEY WERE TO BE SET ASIDE FOR USE, AS, BY ELIGIBLE PARTY’S?

    THAT IS THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS WERE SET ASIDE, “ACCORDING” TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS IN 1992.

    WERE THEY FACTUALLY?  SPECIFICALLY? SET ASIDE BY CONGRESS IN THE 1992 ELWHA ACT??

    WHY IS CLALLAM COUNTY WA NOT LISTED AS AN ELIGIBLE PARTY FOR A CLALLAM COUNTY RECREATIONAL AREA?

    WHEN CONGRESS AUTHORIZED REMOVAL OF THE DAM SOUTHWEST OF PORT ANGELES IN 1992, THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS WERE TO BE SET ASIDE EITHER FOR USE AS

    1. A STATE PARK,
    2. A NATIONAL PARK OR
    3. A NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, OR
    4. BE TRANSFERRED TO THE LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE.

    SO FAR, THE TRIBE IS THE ONLY ELIGIBLE PARTY THAT HAS A PLAN AND A DESIRE FOR THE LAND.

    AUGUST 10, 2012 THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE INTENDS TO LAUNCH A PUBLIC PROCESS TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE LAND, BUT AT THE MOMENT HAS NO FUNDING TO PAY FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OR ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT STATEMENT, NOTED TODD SUESS, ACTING SUPERINTENDENT FOR OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK.

    THE AGENCY IS AWARE THE TRIBE WANTS THE LAND, BUT CAN’T JUST TURN IT OVER. “WE NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC PROCESS,” SUESS SAID.

     ———————————————————————–

    WHAT WILL BECOME OF “THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS”? THAT USED TO BE UNDER THE ELWHA DAM AND LAKE ALDWELL?

     WELL, I GUESS WE WILL JUST HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS….

    TO  THE WA STATE  ELWHA RIVER PROJECT LANDS DURING THIS  PUBLIC PROCESS BY BUREAUCRATS  TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF OUR CLALLAM COUNTY PUBLIC LAND BY WA STATE BUREAUCRATS

    ——————————————————-

    The bottom line

    Oct 29, 2017 WHAT AM I GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

    CROSS MY FINGERS?

    NOPE,  THE USUAL…

    ————————————————————————-

    —– Original Message —–

    From: xxx

    To: Pearl Hewett

    Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 3:14 PM

    Subject: Future interest by the State in Elwha Project Lands

    Future interest by the State in Elwha Project Lands, WDFW released its findings (so far) to the Fish Commission.  Listen in at:

    https://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2017101082

    watch – TVW, Washington States' Public Affairs Network

    www.tvw.org

     

    and making it easy for you, time stamp starts at 1:50:17 and goes through to 1:52:12.  Less than two minutes of one’s life and one shale know as much as I do.

    Without getting hopes up, opinion is there’s a bit of hope WDFW is seriously going to address this, at least make recommendations for the State to consider.


  • It’s Who They Are That Concerns Me

    THEY ARE THE GOVERNMENT’S BUREAUCRATS THAT INSTILLED FEAR IN THEIR OWN CITIZENS.

    THE PROGRESSIVE BUREAUCRATS, in WA DC, in Clallam County, WA State, Dept. of Ecology (DOE) and their globalist entourage etal. Paid, environmentalists’ Facilitators, including the United Nations Agenda.

    When the fearful citizens came forward  on Jan 26, 2011

    I said something.

    “When American citizen fear what their own government  is going to do to them, that is unacceptable to me.”

    At this point in time, Oct 17, 2017 why bother with the FEAR the Clallam County SMP Update caused, and became a matter of public record on Jan 26, 2011?

    ——————————————————————

    UPDATE JUNE 19, 2017

    IT’S  WHO THEY ARE THAT CONCERNS ALL OF US

    I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM A CONCERNED (FEARFUL) CLALLAM COUNTY CITIZEN LAST NIGHT….

    “PEARL, HAVE YOU READ THE NEW SMP UPDATE DRAFT?

    DO YOU KNOW HOW STEVE GREY AND (ESA CONSULTANT) MARGARET CLANCY HAVE CHANGED IT?

    DO YOU KNOW WHAT’S IN IT?”

    THE CONCERNED CITIZEN SAID,

    “PEARL, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT THIS?”

    SO I DID THIS ABOUT THAT

      Behind My Back | June 20, 2017 Clallam County SMP Update

    www.behindmyback.org/2017/06/20/6755

    My public comment Vested Clallam County Citizens have been fearful of how the SMP Update will affect their private property use since Jan 26, 2011. INDEED, THIS IS …

    ————————————————————————-

     WHAT HAVE I BEEN DOING ABOUT THAT? 2011-2017

    OVER 170 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE SMP UPDATE

    This is post # 1005 on my blog/website

      Behind My Back

    www.behindmyback.org

    Informing U.S. Citizens of how various government agencies are violating the Constitution, taking away private property rights, and infringing on American liberties …

    ——————————————————————–          

    THE PROGRESSIVE BUREAUCRATS REPUTATION PRECEDES THEM.

    ———————————————————————

    Progressive Economics: The Rise Of Bureaucracy In America – Forbes

    https://www.forbes.com/…/progressive-economics-two-americas-bureaucratic-arrogati…

    Oct 27, 2015 – Unelected bureaucrats promulgate more than ten times as many of the rules that Americans must obey as do our elected representatives.

    Regulation’s Stranglehold On Millennials’ Futures – Forbes

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/…/05/…/regulations-stranglehold-on-millennials-futures/

    May 25, 2015 – Americans are moving from obeying laws passed by elected bodies to REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY UNELECTED BUREAUCRATS. These pages of …

    ————————————————————————–

    At this point in time, Oct 17, 2017  

    WHAT AM I GOING TO DO ABOUT THAT CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE.

    Make this post # 1005 on my blog/website

    And make another SMP Update Public Comment.

    AT THIS POINT IN TIME, Oct 17, 2017  

    WHY BOTHER WITH THAT CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE.

    BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN AN INTEREST PARTY SINCE JAN 26, 2011

    —– Original Message —–

    From: zSMP

    Sent: FRIDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2017 8:57 AM

    SUBJECT: PROPOSED CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (SMP)

    INTERESTED PARTIES,

    You are receiving this notice because you are on the County’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update email notification list. The County Planning Commission recommended to the Clallam County Board of Commissioners a Draft SMP (September 2017) to update and replace: (1) the existing 1976 SMP (last amended 1992); and (2) procedures for administration (e.g., permit process) of the SMP in Chapter 35.01, Shoreline Management, of the Clallam County Code (CCC).

    PUBLIC HEARING:  A public hearing on the recommended SMP before the Clallam County Board of Commissioners is scheduled for December 12, 2017 at 10:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as possible in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room of the Clallam County Courthouse, 223 East 4th Street, Room 160, Port Angeles, Washington. All persons wishing to comment are welcome to either submit their written comments before the hearing is commenced or present written and/or oral comments in person during the public hearing. Written comments should be sent to the Clallam County Board of Commissioners, 223 East 4th Street, Suite 4, Port Angeles, WA 98362-3015, or emailed to:  SMP@co.clallam.wa.us

    REGIONAL PUBLIC FORUMS:  Prior to the public hearing, the County Dept. of Community Development will host 4 public forums to provide information on the SMP:

    Thursday, November 2, 2017 at 6:00 p.m.

    Sekiu Community Center, 42 Rice St., Sekiu WA

    Monday, November 6, 2017 at 6:00 p.m.

    Rainforest Arts Center, 35 N. Forks Ave., Forks WA

    Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m.

    Clallam County Courthouse, 223 E. 4th St., Port Angeles WA

    Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 6:00 p.m.

    John Wayne Marina, 2577 W. Sequim Bay Rd., Sequim WA

    SUMMARY:  The SMP addresses compliance with the state Shoreline Management Act (SMA), RCW 90.58, and state SMP Update Guidelines (WAC 173-26).  It includes goals and policies, regulations for new development and uses, and administrative procedures (e.g., permit process).

    AREAS SUBJECT TO SMP:  The SMP applies to all marine waters, reaches of rivers and streams where the mean annual flow is more than 20 cubic feet per second, and lakes and reservoirs 20 acres or greater in size that are under the jurisdiction of Clallam County and to lands adjacent to these water bodies (together with lands underlying them) extending landward 200 feet in all directions from the ordinary high water mark; floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward 200 feet from such floodways; and associated wetlands and river deltas.  To consolidate regulations, the proposed SMP also includes the full extent of the mapped 100-year floodplain and land necessary for buffers to protect critical areas as defined in RCW 36.70A that are overlapping or otherwise coincident with the shoreline jurisdiction as allowed pursuant to RCW 90.58.030(2)(d)(i,ii). The City of Forks is also considering the SMP for rivers inside the city limits. Maps showing the approximate lateral extent of the shoreline jurisdiction and proposed shoreline environmental designations are found in Exhibit A-Shoreline Maps of the proposed SMP.

    SMP DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION: The Draft SMP—Planning Commission Recommendation (September 2017) is available for review at the Department of Community Development in the Clallam County Courthouse and on the County‘s SMP Update web page at:  http://www.clallam.net/LandUse/SMP.html

    The existing 1976 SMP (last amended 1992) and related administrative procedures in Chapter 35.01 CCC, Shoreline Management; supporting SMP Update documents including, but not limited to Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Reports, Shoreline Restoration Plan, Cumulative Impacts Analysis and No Net Loss Report, and Consistency Review Report; and other information are also available at the Department and on the County SMP Update website.  For questions, contact the Department at 360-417-2420.

    Steve Gray, Planning Manager

    Clallam County Department of Community Development

    ————————————————————-

    The bottom line…

    AT THIS POINT IN TIME, Oct 17, 2017  

    WHY BOTHER WITH THAT CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE.

    BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN AN INTEREST PARTY SINCE JAN 26, 2011

    AND, IT’S  WHO THEY ARE THAT CONCERNS ALL OF US

    To be continued….


  • Who is Responsible for DACA’s Dreamers?

    Parents are responsible for their own children.

    I am responsible for mine and you are responsible for yours. period

    Another chapter in the book of Revelations By Pearl Revere

    WHO KNEW? GO FIGURE?

    WHY AREN’T ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT PARENTS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN DACA CHILDREN?

    To make a long story short (documentation below)

    JUNE 15, 2012 PRESIDENT- OBAMA  SAID DACA IS SPECIFICALLY FOR CERTAIN YOUNG PEOPLE SOMETIMES CALLED “DREAMERS.”

    AT LEAST SIX STATES—CALIFORNIA, MINNESOTA, NEW MEXICO, OREGON, TEXAS AND WASHINGTON—CURRENTLY ALLOW UNDOCUMENTED STUDENTS TO RECEIVE STATE FINANCIAL AID.  

    WHY ARE COERCED TAXPAYERS IN WASHINGTON STATE RESPONSIBLE FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS CHILDREN’S?

    ————————————————————————————

    WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING DACA’S DREAMERS A FINANCIAL NIGHTMARE FOR HARD WORKING, TAXPAYING AMERICAN CITIZENS?

    ANOTHER TRICKLEDOWN UNFUNDED MANDATE CAUSED BY OBAMA (D)  ADMINISTRATION OF  TOP DOWN GOVERNMENT?

    SEPT 6, 2017 WHAT IS DACA?

    I am looking for a PDF or website that has the actual text of the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) order that President Obama issued in 2012. Is there a PDF out there for it?

    DACA was not legislation or an executive order; IT TECHNICALLY comes from a memo issued by then Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano on June 15th 2012.

    IT IS NOT CALLED DACA IN THE MEMO THOUGH (WHICH IS WHY IT’S NOT AS EASY TO GOOGLE FOR).

    June 15, 2012, DHS Janet Napolitano’s memo and Obama’s announcement the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

    ———————————————————–

    WHO KNEW? GO FIGURE?

    Obama’s DREAMERS, DACA recipients are not children or orphans, they are called individuals, THEY ARE ALLOWED TO LIVE, WORK AND STUDY IN THE U.S.A.

    In the U.S.A, the land of law and order, there are 11 million illegal’s (the majority are law abiding) immigrants, there are 800 hundred thousand illegal foreign  mostly young adults, (the majority are law abiding)

    BUT, UNDER DACA  THEY ARE NOT CHILDREN  THE USCIS PROCESS SHALL ALSO BE AVAILABLE TO INDIVIDUALS SUBJECT TO A FINAL ORDER OF REMOVAL REGARDLESS OF THEIR AGE.

    ————————————————————————————

     JUNE 15TH 2012 Read Obama’s new DHS Policy full remarks

    snippets….

    THE PRESIDENT- OBAMA:  Good afternoon, everybody.  This morning, Secretary Napolitano announced new actions my administration will take to mend our nation’s immigration policy, to make it more fair, more efficient, and more just — SPECIFICALLY FOR CERTAIN YOUNG PEOPLE SOMETIMES CALLED “DREAMERS.”

    THE FOREIGNER  DREAMERS  ACT?

    THE PRESIDENT- OBAMA:  Now, both parties wrote this legislation.  And a year and a half ago, Democrats passed the DREAM ACT in the House, but Republicans walked away from it.  It got 55 votes in the Senate, but Republicans blocked it.

    The DACA went into effect in August, within the 60 day DHS memo new policy requirement..

    THE PRESIDENT- OBAMA:  Over the next few months, eligible INDIVIDUALS who do not present a risk to national security or public safety will be able to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for WORK authorization.

    JUNE 15TH 2012 Obama ignored two important questions.

    THE AMERICAN DREAMERS?

    Q    — foreigners over American workers.

    THE PRESIDENT:  Excuse me, sir.  It’s not time for questions, sir.

    Q    What about American workers who are unemployed while you import foreigners?

    END

    ————————————————————————

    SEPT 5, 2017, EXCUSE ME, OBAMAIT IS TIME FOR QUESTIONS, SIR.

    ————————————————————————————

    WHAT IS DACA?

    DACA: AG Sessions said Obama-era immigration plan ending | AL.com

    www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/09/what_is_daca_ag_jeff_sessions.html

    1 day ago – What is DACA?  Friday, September 1, 2017. AG Jeff Sessions making Tuesday announcement on ‘Dreamers:’ Watch live, live updates. Updated on September 5, 2017

    The program that allowed as many as 800,000 undocumented immigrants to remain in the U.S. will soon end, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Tuesday.

    “The program known as DACA that was effectuated under the Obama administration is being rescinded,” Sessions said.

    Sessions said Congress will be given six months to address the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals- or DACA – program. The policy was put in place by former President Barack Obama in 2012 and allows certain undocumented immigrants who were brought into the U.S. as children to receive for work permits and deferments from deportation.

    “DACA was effectuated by the previous administration through executive action, without proper statutory authority and with no established end-date, after Congress’ repeated rejection of proposed legislation that would have accomplished a similar result,” Sessions wrote in a letter explaining the decision. “Such an open-ended circumvention of immigration laws was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the Executive Branch.”

    DACA covers those who were brought to the U.S. before age 16 and who were under age 31 as of June 15, 2012, among other criteria.

    NBC News is reporting the Trump administration will stop considering new applications for legal status dated after Tuesday but will allow any DACA recipients with a permit set to expire before March 5, 2018 to apply for a two-year renewal.

    Under the plan announced by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Trump administration will stop considering new applications for legal status dated after Tuesday, but will allow any DACA recipients with a permit set to expire before March 5, 2018, the opportunity to apply for a two-year renewal

    As many as 800,000 people – known as “Dreamers” – have applied for DACA status, according to the Justice Department. Mexico is the most common country of origin, followed by El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. Over half of all Dreamers live in California and Texas.

    Nationwide, more than 1.9 million people are eligible for DACA status.

    President Trump has signaled he wants to end the program but vowed any changes to DACA would be made “with heart.” Early reports said Trump plans to end the program but will allow a six-month delay to give Congress time to address the status of those already covered under DACA.

    Sessions announcement came on the same day as a deadline imposed by several Republican-led states threatening to challenge the plan in court if it was not rescinded.

    ———————————————————————-

    BREAKING: Texas AG Paxton is joined by 9 other state AGs & 1 gov in urging Trump administration to end #DACA. If not, they say they’ll sue.

    12:58 PM – Jun 29, 2017

    ——————————————————————————-

    TECHNICALLY THIS IS  DACA                               

    MEMO, JUNE 15TH 2012  FROM:  JANET NAPOLITANO SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY

    Secretary U.S. Department of Homeland Security

    Washington, DC 20528

    Homeland Security

    June 15, 2012

    MEMORANDUM

    FOR: David V. Aguilar

    Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection

    Alejandro Mayorkas Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration

    Services

    John Morton Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

    FROM: Janet Napolitano Secretary of Homeland security

    SUBJECT: Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to

    Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children

    By this memorandum, I am setting forth how, in the exercise of

    our prosecutorial discretion, the Department of Homeland Security

    (DHS) should enforce the Nation’s immigration laws against certain

    young people who were brought to this country as children and know

    only this country as home.

    As a general matter, these individuals lacked the intent to violate the law

    and our ongoing review of pending removal cases is already offering administrative closure to many of them.

    However, additional measures are necessary to ensure that our enforcement resources are not expended on these low priority cases but are instead appropriately focused on people who meet our enforcement priorities.

    The following criteria should be satisfied before an individual is considered

    for an exercise of prosecutorial discretion pursuant to this memorandum:

    • came to the United States under the age of sixteen;
    • has continuously resided in the United States for a least five years

    preceding the date of this memorandum and is present in the United

    States on the date of this memorandum;

    • is currently in school, has graduated from high school, has obtained

    a general education development certificate, or is an honorably discharged

    veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States;

    • has not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor

    offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise poses a threat to

    national security or public safety; and

    • is not above the age of thirty.

    Our Nation’ s immigration laws must be enforced in a strong and sensible

    manner. They are not designed to be blindly enforced without consideration

    given to the individual circumstances of each case. Nor are they designed

    to remove productive young people to countries where they may not have

    lived or even speak the language.

    Indeed, many of these young people have already contributed to our country

    in significant ways. Prosecutorial discretion, which is used in so many other

    areas, is especially justified here. As part of this exercise of prosecutorial

    discretion, the above criteria are to be considered whether or not an individual

    is already in removal proceedings or subject to a final order of removal.

    No individual should receive deferred action under this memorandum unless

    they first pass a background check and requests for relief pursuant to this

    memorandum are to be decided on a case by case basis.

    DHS cannot provide any assurance that relief will be granted in all

    cases.

    1. With respect to individuals who are encountered by U.S. Immigration

    and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

    , or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS):

    • With respect to individuals who meet the above criteria, ICE and CBP

    should immediately exercise their discretion, on an individual basis, in

    order to prevent low priority individuals from being placed into removal

    proceedings or removed from the United States.

    • USCIS is instructed to implement this memorandum consistent with

    its existing guidance regarding the issuance of notices to appear.

    1. With respect to individuals who are in removal proceedings but

    not yet subject to a final order of removal, and who meet the above

    criteria:

    • ICE should exercise prosecutorial discretion, on an individual basis

    , for individuals who meet the above criteria by deferring action for a period

    of two years, subject to renewal, in order to prevent low priority individuals

    from being removed from the United States.

    • ICE is instructed to use its Office of the Public Advocate to permit

    individuals who believe they meet the above criteria to identify themselves

    through a clear and efficient process.

    • ICE is directed to begin implementing this process within 60 days of

    the date of this memorandum.

    • ICE is also instructed to immediately begin the process of deferring

    action against individuals who meet the above criteria whose cases

    have already been identified through the ongoing review of pending

    cases before the Executive Office for Immigration Review.

    1. With respect to the individuals who are not currently in removal

    proceedings and meet the above criteria, and pass a background check:

    • USCIS should establish a clear and efficient process for exercising

    prosecutorial discretion, on an individual basis, by deferring action

    against individuals who meet the above criteria and are at least 15

    years old, for a period of two years, subject to renewal, in order

    to prevent low priority individuals from being placed into removal

    proceedings or removed from the United States.

    • The USCIS process shall also be available to individuals subject

    to a final order of removal regardless of their age.

    • US CIS is directed to begin implementing this process within 60

    days of the date of this memorandum. For individuals who are granted deferred action by either ICE or USCIS, USCIS shall accept applications to determine

    whether these individuals qualify for work authorization during this period of deferred action.

    This memorandum confers no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship.

    Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights.

    It remains for the executive branch, however, to set forth policy for the exercise of discretion within the framework of the existing law.

    I have done so here.

    Janet Napolitano Secretary of Homeland security

    ———————————————————————————

    THIS IS AN INTERESTING $$$ SITUATION

    Undocumented Student Tuition: Overview

    www.ncsl.org/research/education/undocumented-student-tuition-overview.aspx

    Since 2001, 18 states—California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma*, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin—have passed legislation extending in-state tuition rates to undocumented students who meet specific requirements.

    to be continued…


  • Due Process for Distracted Drivers Law?

    Gov. Jay Inslee (D) DUE PROCESS BY PUBLIC NOTICE?

     WA State Distracted Drivers Law ADOPTED 04/19/2017 

     VETOED by Gov. Jay Inslee (D)  MAY 16, 2017

    Gov. Jay Inslee (D) accelerated the law’s effective date to July 23, 2017

    Vagueness is generally considered to be a DUE PROCESS issue, because a law that is too vague to understand does not provide adequate notice to people that a certain behavior is required or is unacceptable.

    The “void for vagueness” doctrine argues that a law cannot be enforced if it is so vague or confusing that the average person could not figure out what is being prohibited or what the penalties are for breaking that law.

    ————————————————————————

    It doesn’t take too much effort to imagine a distracted driver suing the state over a disputed ticket for failure of DUE PROCESS ON PUBLIC NOTICE et al.

    —————————————————————-

    A law can be unconstitutionally vague in one of two main ways.

    First, the law may be void for vagueness if it does not adequately explain or state what behavior the law is meant to affect.  If the average citizen cannot figure out from reading the law what he should or should not do, a court may find that the law violates due process. 

    Second, a law may be void for vagueness if it does not adequately explain the procedures that law enforcement officers or courts must follow when enforcing the law or handling cases that deal with certain legal issues. 

    Specifically, a law may be found to be unconstitutionally vague if it gives a judge no idea how to approach or handle a case based on that law.

    —————————————————–

    ADOPTED 04/19/2017  WA State Distracted Drivers Law

    MAY 16, 2017 Gov. Jay Inslee (D)  vetoed a compromise by the Legislature that would have postponed enforcement of the Driving Under the Influence of Electronics (DUIE) Act until 2019.

    Gov. Jay Inslee (D)  surprised even the supporters of a distracted-driving law Tuesday when he accelerated the new crackdown, IN A LETTER TO THE SENATE DATED MAY 16, 2017.

    Gov. Jay Inslee (D) vetoed the section that gave drivers until 2019 to acclimate to the changes and instead declared Sunday, July 23, 2017 as the law’s effective date.

    The final version passed Wednesday pushed the proposed start date from Jan. 1, 2018, to Jan. 1, 2019, because several members wanted extra time for the public to adjust, according to prime sponsor Rep. Jessyn Farrell, D-Seattle.

    Farrell justified the wait on Wednesday, saying colleagues in both parties sought more TIME FOR A SUSTAINED EDUCATION campaign, for the public to adapt, and for motorists to obtain built-in communication systems. The State Patrol is currently understaffed but is striving to boost recruitment, with help from proposed raises this legislative session.

    Understaffed was confirmed yesterday by Kyle at  WSP media center, yesterday.

    ——————————————–

    Gov. Jay Inslee (D)  His abysmal record on TIME FOR A SUSTAINED EDUCATION speaks for it’s self

    ———————————————————————

    Gov. Jay Inslee (D) IS PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR SIGNING THE VETO. period

    It doesn’t take too much effort to imagine a distracted driver suing WA State over a disputed ticket  for failure of DUE PROCESS ON PUBLIC NOTICE et al. 

     But why would Gov. Jay Inslee (D) worry about a WA State lawsuit?

    After all  Gov. Jay Inslee (D) has  his nationally spotlighted Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D) to defend his VETO.

    After all , A law can be unconstitutionally vague in one of two main ways.

    And after all, Vagueness is generally considered to be a DUE PROCESS issue.

    AND, PUBLIC NOTICE IS A DUE PROCESS ISSUE


  • 2012 SMP Issues Left on the Table

    June 9, 2017  My Updated Public Comment  CLALLAM COUNTY WA SMP

    Subject: SMP PUBLIC COMMENT JULY 14, 2012  ON THE SMP Advisory Committee

    THE PREVIOUS CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES

    July 10, 2012 the 19 SMP Issues left on the table by the Clallam County SMP (citizens?) Advisory Committee.

    Two thirds or more of the SMP (citizens?) Advisory Committee VOTED TO WALK  AWAY FROM THE TABLE,

    LEAVING 19 OR MORE PROPOSED SMP DRAFT ISSUES RELATED TO THE DOE SMP TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT ARGUMENT, SUGGESTIONS OR COMMENT?

    INDEED, THE INTENT OF A PARTY CAN BE DETERMINED BY EXAMINING THE UNDERSTANDING OF A REASONABLE PERSON, AFTER CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO ALL RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE NEGOTIATIONS, ANY PRACTICES THE PARTIES HAVE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THEMSELVES, USAGES AND ANY SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    ———————————————————–

    The 19 SMP Update unresolved issues left on the table, At the July 10, 2012 SMP Committee Advisory meeting, Against my suggestion that we needed an additional August meeting to complete our duty to the citizens and private property owners, as SMP advisors, prior to the final SMP draft proposal being written.

    If any of you read this complete July 14, 2012 comment? You understand fully, why I am critical of the two thirds majority of the Advisory Committee members that failed to complete their responsibility to the citizens and private property owners of Clallam County, prior to the 2017 final SMP Draft Proposal, being given to the Clallam County Planning Commission.

    July 10, 2012 The last remark Steve Gray made to me, nearly five years ago was “I just want to get this over with.” 

    ————————————————————

    SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    SMP Cumulative Impact on People

    Posted on November 18, 2014 10:35 am by Pearl Rains Hewett

    This is my Clallam County SMP Public comment and objection

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ———————————————————-

    SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    Clallam County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) – New Revised SMP Draft (June 2017)

    —– Original Message —–

    From: zSMP
    Sent: Friday, June 02, 2017 4:39 PM
    Subject: FW: Clallam County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) – New Revised SMP Draft (June 2017)

    Interested Parties,

    You are receiving this email because you are on the Clallam County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update email notification list.  The County Department of Community Development (DCD) has just released a Revised SMP Draft (June 2017). 

    An “INTERESTED PARTY SINCE JAN 26, 2011?” concerned, vested, voting, Clallam County private shoreline property owner and member of SMP Update (citizens) Advisory Committee.

    —– Original Message —–

    Saturday, July 14, 2012 3:13 PM

    THE REST OF THE STORY…….

    THE PREVIOUS CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    From: pearl hewett

    to  zSMP

    Cc: several

    Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 3:13 PM

    Subject: SMP COMMENT #292 ON THE SMP Advisory Committee

    This is my full comment on the SMP Advisory Committee

    Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee

    George C. Rains Estate

    Concerned Member SMP Advisory Committee

    At the July 10, 2012 SMP Committee Advisory meeting

    Two thirds or more of the SMP Advisory Committee

    VOTED TO WALK  AWAY FROM THE TABLE,

    against my suggestion that we needed an additional August meeting to complete our duty to the citizens and private property owners, as SMP advisors, prior to the final SMP draft proposal being written.

    The SMP Advisory Committee that  represent the 3300 Clallam County shoreline private property owners is approximately as follows.

    1/3 = 10 private interest groups

    1/3 = 10 paid government employees

    1/3 = 10 SMP Affected taxpaying private property owners (only 8 at this meeting)

    DOES THE MAKEUP OF THIS COMMITTEE EXPLAINS WHY?

    THEY VOTED TO WALK  AWAY FROM THE TABLE

    LEAVING 19 OR MORE PROPOSED SMP DRAFT ISSUES RELATED TO THE DOE SMP TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY without argument, suggestions or comment?

    (1) DISCUSSED AND QUESTIONED? The undecipherable table with the percentages, the 15% of whatever? It made no sense to me either? One vested citizen, could help with  his knowledge of what he thought it actually was/represented? It would be very helpful to members of the committee.

    The written text related to the undecipherable table below

    1. Minor new development Grading shall not exceed 500 cubic yards; and ii. Land disturbing activities shall not exceed 20,000 square feet, except that on parcels less than five (5) acres, land disturbing activities must not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the gross parcel size; and iii. The total cumulative footprint of all structures on a parcel must be less than 4,000 square feet; and iv. The total cumulative impervious surface area on the parcel must be less than ten (10) . All land disturbing activities must be located on slopes less than fifteen (15) percent; and vi. All land disturbing activities must comply with any critical area buffer and other protection standards established for parcels created by land division.

    ————————————————————————

    (2) DISCUSSED AND QUESTIONED? NOT ADDRESSED

    The limited number of trained specialists,  Engineer’s  comment was in reference to the county SMP  requiring specialists, to perform the mitigation tests. If a property owner could even find one to do the testing? The time delay and cost would be prohibitive.

    ——————————————————————-

    (3) PRESENTED NOT DISCUSSED

    SMP Excessive restrictions on all forms of developments. I am extremely concerned about the additional restrictive requirements written into the SMP update for major development. They are counter- productive to the economic recovery of Clallam County, they restrict the ability of business and citizens to create employment opportunities in both Clallam County and Port Angeles. Why are the Dept. of Community Development and the planning biting off their own feet? Why are they creating these obsessive restrictions on all developments?

    The way Steve was talking it, with all the added bells and whistles, it was to make any form of mitigation for anything totally infeasible, creating a like it or lump it, situation for all development by business or private shoreline property owners.

    ———————————————————————

    (4) PRESENTED- DISCUSSED but NOT ADDRESSED

    The cumulative effect of setbacks SHORELINE, WETLAND and HABITAT   one citizen did a good job when he pointed out an example of the enormous  loss of private property use with the setbacks on Lake Pleasant, in conjunction with the yet undetermined, Clallam County DOE designated WETLANDS.

    ———————————————————————–

     (5) PRESENTED NOT ADDRESSED

    More additional HABITAT setbacks

    IT WAS IMPRESSIVE HOW SMOOTHLY MARGARET AND STEVE JUST ADDED ON THE ADDITIONAL HABITAT SETBACKS, BUT DID NOT MENTION ENDANGERED SPECIES.

    1. Rare, endangered, threatened and sensitive species means plant and animal species identified and listed by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington Natural Heritage Program, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as being severely limited or threatened with extinction within their native ranges.
    2. Threatened species means a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future, as classified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Department of Natural Resources, Washington Natural Heritage Program, or the federal Endangered Species Act.

    ————————————————————————-

     

    (6)  COMMENT NOT ADDRESSED

    1. Recording means the filing of a document(s) for recordation with the County auditor.

    ————————————————————————————

    (7) NO DISCUSSION OR RESOLUTION (not required by law)

    1. Restoration means the reestablishment or upgrading of impaired ecological shoreline processes or functions. This may be accomplished through measures including, but not limited to, revegetation, removal of fill, removal of intrusive shoreline structures and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre-European settlement conditions.

    ————————————————————————————

    (8) DOE DESIGNATED WETLANDS NOT IDENTIFIED OR INCORPORATED

    Wetlands have no boundaries, adjoining wetlands could restrict the use of your property.

    1. Wetlands means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created for non-wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands created as mitigation and wetland modified for approved land use activities shall be considered as regulated wetlands.

    PROHIBITED EXCEPTION DISCUSSED AND RESOLVED BY RCW

    Provisions for protection SHALL be included in SMP up date.

    1. Revetment means a sloped wall constructed of rip-rap or other suitable material placed on stream banks or other shorelines to retard bank erosion and minimize lateral stream movement.
    2. Rip-rap means dense, hard, angular rock free from cracks or other defects conductive to weathering often used for bulkheads, revetments or similar slope/bank stabilization purposes.

    ————————————————————————-

    (9) DISCUSSED UNDEFINED NO RESOLUTION [insert final date]

    3.1.1 Shoreline Environment Designations

    1. A shoreline environment designation has been assigned to each segment of the shoreline in accordance with this section. The designations are based on the following general factors:
    2. The ecological functions and processes that characterize the shoreline, together with the degree of human alteration as determined by the [insert final date] Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report and subsequent technical analyses; and

    ——————————————————————

    (10) NOT PRESENTED OR  DISCUSSED

     EXPENSE OF SPECIALISTS FOR APPROVAL

    1. c. Hazard Tree Removal: Removal of a hazard tree may be allowed in the buffer when trimming is not sufficient to address the hazard. Where the hazard is not immediately apparent to the Administrator, the hazard tree determination SHALL be made after Administrator review of a report prepared by a qualified arborist or forester.

    ——————————————————————–

    (11) NOT PRESENTED OR  DISCUSSED

    EXPENSE OF SPECIALISTS FOR APPROVAL

    1. Invasive Species Management: Removing invasive, non-native shoreline vegetation listed on the Clallam County Noxious Weed List may be allowed in the buffer when otherwise consistent with this Program. The disturbed areas must be promptly revegetated using species native to western Washington. The Administrator SHALL require a vegetation management plan prepared by a qualified ecologist, forester, arborist, or landscape architect prior to approving the invasive species removal. The vegetation management plan SHALL  identify and describe the location and extent of vegetation management. For properties within designated landslide or erosion hazard areas, the Administrator may require review of the vegetation management plan by an engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer to ensure that the vegetation management will not cause or exacerbate hazards associated with soil or slope instability. The location and size of the invasive species management area SHALL be clearly defined on the site plan

    ———————————————————————–

    (12) NOT DISCUSSED – ADDRESSED OR RESOLVED

    Taking of Value of view property by limited 20% KEYHOLE view corridor. If 50% of the value of your shoreline property is for the view? Losing 80% the view value will affect the true and real value of your property

    4.2.4 Regulations – Shoreline Buffers

    . 3. Buffer Condition: Shoreline buffers shall be maintained in a predominantly well vegetated and undisturbed condition to ensure that the buffer provides desired buffer functions including shade, habitat, organic inputs, large woody debris, slope stability, water storage, biofiltration, contaminant removal, and fine sediment control. Up to eighty percent (80%) of the buffer area shall be vegetated with native trees and shrubs. The remaining twenty percent (20%), or at least fifteen (15) linear feet of the water frontage, whichever is greater, may be retained as lawn for active use.

    1. Allowed Uses and Buffer Modifications: The Administrator may allow limited clearing, thinning, and/or pruning to accommodate specific shoreline buffer uses and modifications identified in this section. Such allowances shall not require compensatory mitigation provided that the amount and extent of the clearing, limbing, and/or pruning are the minimum necessary to accommodate the allowed use and all other requirements of the Program are met:

    —————————————————————————–

    (13) view corridor NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED limited and selective tree removal, pruning, and/or limbing in the buffer

    1. View Corridors: The Administrator may allow limited and selective tree removal, pruning, and/or limbing in the buffer to create a view of the shoreline when otherwise consistent with this Program. The removal, pruning, and/or limbing shall not require any ground-disturbing equipment and shall not materially alter soils or topography.

    ————————————————————————-

    (15) NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED

    EXPENSE OF SPECIALISTS FOR APPROVAL

    Administrator shall require a view clearance plan

    The Administrator shall require a view clearance plan prepared by a qualified ecologist, forester, arborist, or landscape architect prior to approving the view corridor. The view clearance plan shall identify and describe the location and extent of the proposed tree removal, pruning, and limbing and shall demonstrate compliance with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 Standards for Tree Care Operations (Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management – Standard Practices). For properties within designated landslide or erosion hazard areas, the Administrator may require review of the view clearance plan by an engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer to ensure that the proposed removal, pruning, and/or limbing will not cause or exacerbate hazards associated with soil or slope instability. The location and size of the view corridor shall be clearly defined on the site plan.

    1. Private Pathways: Private pathways which provide pedestrian access to the shoreline may be allowed within the buffer provided they are constructed of pervious material, are less than or equal to six (6) feet wide, and follow a route that minimizes erosion and gullying

    ——————————————————————————–

    (16)  NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED

    Taking of Private property for Public access

    The removal of any reference to  the taking of private property for Public access, Clallam County has the highest public access to public land in WA State. At the Private DOE meeting on June 6, 2012 Gordon White agreed that we have sufficient cause 51% to remove any taking of private property for public access.

    —————————————————————————–

    (17) DISCUSSED AND DISMISSED

    EPA. Precautionary setback are not legal

     As questioned by Rob McKenna, why are the DOE SMP setbacks more restrictive the EPA. Precautionary setback are not legal.

    ——————————————————————————–

     (18) LEGALITY OF 80% TAKING  NOT DISCUSSED NOT ADDRESSED

    ONE HUNDRED PERCENT (100%) NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY

    1. At least eighty percent (80%) of the buffer area between the structures and the shoreline and/or critical area is maintained in a naturally vegetated condition.

    What provisions have the DOE made to  stay within the LAW?

    “It is now undisputed that the county had no authority to deprive residents of the use of their own private property.”CAO’S 65 PERCENT” SEIZURE OF PROPERTY PLF Lauds Supreme Court for “Driving a Stake Through One of the Most Extreme Assaults on Property Rights in the U.S.”

    SEATTLE, WA; March 4, 2009: The Washington Supreme Court

    the CAO limited rural landowners with five acres or more to clearing only 35 percent of their property, forcing them to maintain the remaining 65 percent as native vegetation indefinitely. Rural landowners owning less than five acres were allowed to clear only 50 percent of their parcels. Affected landowners had to continue paying taxes on the portion of the property rendered useless by the CAO.

    —————————————————————————–

    (19) NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED

     THE PROVISIONS OF WAC173-26-191 ANYTHING THAT MAY BE  ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AT A STATE LEVEL,

     MAY ALSO BE  ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AT A COUNTY LEVEL AND SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE.

     

    WAC 173-26-191

    Agency filings affecting this section

    Master program contents.

    2 The results of shoreline planning are summarized in shoreline master program policies that establish broad shoreline management directives. The policies are the basis for regulations that govern use and development along the shoreline.

    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. THE POLICIES MAY BE PURSUED BY OTHER MEANS AS PROVIDED IN RCW 90.58.240.

    SOME DEVELOPMENT REQUIRES A SHORELINE PERMIT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.

     A LOCAL GOVERNMENT EVALUATES A PERMIT APPLICATION WITH RESPECT TO THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM POLICIES AND REGULATIONS AND APPROVES A PERMIT ONLY AFTER DETERMINING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT CONFORMS TO THEM. EXCEPT

    WHERE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN STATUTE, THE REGULATIONS APPLY TO ALL USES AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN SHORELINE JURISDICTION, WHETHER OR NOT A SHORELINE PERMIT IS REQUIRED, AND ARE IMPLEMENTED THROUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS ESTABLISHED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO RCW 90.58.050 and 90.58.140 AND ENFORCEMENT PURSUANT TO RCW

    90.58.210 through 90.58.230.

    ————————————————————-

    If any of you read this complete comment? You understand fully, why I am critical of the two thirds majority of the Advisory Committees that failed to complete their responsibility to the citizens and private property owners of Clallam County on July 10, 2012,  prior to the final SMP Draft Proposal.

    INDEED, THE INTENT OF A PARTY CAN BE DETERMINED BY EXAMINING THE UNDERSTANDING OF A REASONABLE PERSON, AFTER CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO ALL RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE NEGOTIATIONS, ANY PRACTICES THE PARTIES HAVE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THEMSELVES, USAGES AND ANY SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    IF THE PARTIES DON’T WANT YOU TO DO IT, THE PARTIES WILL MAKE IT AS DIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO FINANCIALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

    The County Department of Community Development (DCD) has just released a Revised SMP Draft (June 2017). 


  • Obama’s 10,000 Executive Commandments?

    Obama’s 10,000 Executive Commandments?

    Presidential Executive Orders and Executive Memoranda

    INTRODUCTION:

    FROM RULE OF LAW TO RULE BY…WHATEVER?

    ——————————————–

    IVE GOT A PEN AND I’VE GOT A PHONE.

    AND THAT’S ALL I NEED.

    BARACK OBAMA Jan 14, 2014

    ——————————————-

    THE PERTINENT QUESTION AS FAR AS REGULATORY BURDENS ARE CONCERNED IS WHAT THESE EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND MEMORANDA ARE USED FOR AND WHAT THEY DO…….

    Thank God, President Trump, and his  incoming  administration, has promised to restore checks and balances on administrative agencies and appoint federal officials with integrity who will protect the rights of all Americans—not just their preferred special interests.

     WOW.. the more I document and know… The more I must document and post what We the People, American Citizens don’t know……

     —————————————————————————————–

    Snippets from TEN THOUSAND COMMANDMENTS 2015  (a 91 page report)

    Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)

     An Annual Snapshot  of the Federal Regulatory State

    REGULATION: THE HIDDEN TAX

    Federal environmental, safety and health, and economic regulations affect

    the economy by hundreds of billions—perhaps trillions—of dollars annually,

    in addition to the official dollar outlays that dominate the federal policy

    debate.

    THE PRECISE REGULATORY COSTS CAN NEVER BE FULLY KNOWN because, unlike taxes, they are unbudgeted and often indirect. But scattered government and private data exist about the number of regulations issued, their costs and effects, and the agencies that issue them.

    The Weidenbaum Center at Washington University in St. Louis and the

    Regulatory Studies Center at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.,

    JOINTLY ESTIMATE

    THAT AGENCIES SPENT $59.5 BILLION (ON BUDGET) TO ADMINISTER AND POLICE THE REGULATORY ENTERPRISE.

    THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, WHICH WAS FORMERLY RANKED CONSISTENTLY IN THE TOP FIVE, IS NOW SIXTH,  BUT ADDING ITS 186 RULES BRINGS THE TOTAL FROM THE TOP SIX RULE MAKING AGENCIES TO 1,639 RULES, OR 48 PERCENT OF ALL FEDERAL RULES.

    ADDING THE $1.88 TRILLION IN OFF-BUDGET COMPLIANCE COSTS BRINGS THE TOTAL RECKONED REGULATORY ENTERPRISE TO ABOUT $1.94 TRILLION.

    The “Unconstitutionality Index,” the ratio of regulations issued by agencies to laws passed by Congress and signed by the president, was 16 for 2014 and 51 for 2013. The average for the decade has been 26. This disparity highlights the delegation of lawmaking power to unelected agency officials.

    Compiling some of that information can make the federal regulatory enterprise somewhat more comprehensible.

     THAT COMPILATION IS ONE PURPOSE OF TEN THOUSAND COMMANDMENTS

    ————————————————————————————-

    Presidential Executive Orders and Executive Memoranda

    Ten Thousand Commandments 2016 (an 89 page report)

    An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State

    Clyde Wayne Crews • May 3, 2016

    In January 2016, the Congressional Budget  Office (CBO) reported outlays for fiscal year (FY) 2015 of $3.687 trillion and projected spending for FY 2016 at $3.919 trillion. Discretionary, entitlement, and interest spending is projected to surpass $4 trillion in 2017 and to top $5 trillion by FY 2022.2High debt and deficits notwithstanding, $5 trillion in annual spending will soon be the new normal.

    Highlights of the 2016 edition include:

    • The federal regulatory cost reached $1.885 trillion in 2015.
    • FEDERAL REGULATION IS A HIDDEN TAX THAT AMOUNTS TO NEARLY $15,000 PER U.S. HOUSEHOLD EACH YEAR.
    • In 2015, 114 laws were enacted by Congress during the calendar year, while 3,410 rules were issued by agencies. Thus, 30 rules were issued for every law enacted last year.
    • Many Americans complain about taxes, but regulatory compliance costs exceed the $1.82 trillion that the IRS is expected to collect in both individual and corporate income taxes from 2015.
    • Some 60 federal departments, agencies, and commissions have 3,297 regulations in development at various stages in the pipeline.
    • The top five federal rulemaking agencies account for 41 percent of all federal regulations. These are the Departments of the Treasury, Commerce, Interior, Health and Human Services, and Transportation.
    • The 2015 Federal Register contains 80,260 pages, the third highest page count in its history. Of the seven all-time-highest Federal Register total page counts, six occurred under President Obama.
    • The George W. Bush administration averaged 62 major regulations annually over eight years, while the Obama administration has averaged 81 major regulations annually over seven years.

    View the fact sheet

    Ten Thousand Commandments 2016 Table of Contents

    Executive Summary
    Introduction
    Chapter 1: The Cost of Regulation and Intervention
    Chapter 2: Thousands of Pages and Rules in the Federal Register
    Chapter 3: Presidential Executive Orders and Executive Memoranda
    Chapter 4: 24,000 Public Notices Annually
    Chapter 5: Analysis of the Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations
    Chapter 6: GAO Database on Regulation
    Chapter 7: Regulation and the EPA
    Chapter 8: Regulation and the FCC
    Chapter 9: Liberate to Stimulate

    ———————————————————————————-

    2015  The Ten Thousand Commandments  a 91 page report

    TEN THOUSAND COMMANDMENTS ARCHIVES

    10KC 2015 (full study in PDF)

    10KC 2014 (full study in PDF)

    10KC 2013 (full study in PDF)

    10KC 2012 (full study in PDF)

    10KC 2011 (full study in PDF)

    10KC 2010 (full study in PDF)

    10KC 2009 (full study in PDF)

    ——————————————————————-

    Pardon my redundancy……

    An Annual Snapshot of  the Federal Regulatory State

    2015 Edition by Clyde Wayne Crews Jr.

    REGULATION: THE HIDDEN TAX

    Federal environmental, safety and health, and economic regulations affect

    the economy by hundreds of billions—perhaps trillions—of dollars annually,

    in addition to the official dollar outlays that dominate the federal policy

    debate.

     THE PRECISE REGULATORY COSTS CAN NEVER BE FULLY KNOWN because, unlike taxes, they are unbudgeted and often indirect. But scattered government and private data exist about the number of regulations issued, their costs and effects, and the agencies that issue them.

    Compiling some of that information can make the federal regulatory enterprise somewhat more comprehensible. THAT COMPILATION IS ONE PURPOSE OF TEN THOUSAND COMMANDMENTS, highlights of which follow:

    Based on the best available federal government data, past reports, and contemporary studies, this report highlights estimated regulatory compliance and economic costs of $1.88 trillion annually.

    In 2014, 224 laws were enacted by Congress during the calendar year, whereas 3,554 rules were issued by agencies. Thus, 16 rules were issued for every law enacted last year.

    The “Unconstitutionality Index,” the ratio of regulations issued by agencies to laws passed by Congress and signed by the president, was 16 for 2014 and 51 for 2013. The average for the decade has been 26. This disparity highlights the delegation of lawmaking power to unelected agency officials.

    If one assumed that all costs of federal regulation and intervention flowed all the way down to households, U.S. households would “pay” $14,976 annually on average in regulatory hidden tax. That payment amounts to 23 percent of the average income of $63,784 and 29 percent of the expenditure budget of $51,100. The “tax” exceeds every item in the budget except housing. More is “spent”on embedded regulation than on health care, food, transportation, entertainment, apparel and services, and savings. The estimated cost of regulation exceeds half the level of the federal spending itself, which was $3.5 trillion in 2014.

    Regulatory costs of $1.88 trillion amount to 11 percent of the U.S. GDP, which was estimated at $17.4 trillion in 2014 by the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis.

    When regulatory costs are combined with federal FY 2014 outlays of $3.5 trillion, the federal government’s share of the entire economy now reaches 30.6 percent.

    The costs of the regulatory “hidden tax” surpass federal income tax receipts. Regulatory compliance costs exceed 2014 total individual income tax revenues of $1.386 trillion.

    Regulatory compliance costs vastly exceed the 2014 estimated U.S. corporate income tax revenues of $333 billion and rival corporate pretax profits of $2.235 trillion.

    If it were a country, U.S. regulation would be the world’s tenth-largest economy, ranking behind Russia and ahead of India.

    U.S. regulatory costs exceed each of the GDPs of Australia and Canada, the highest income nations among the countries ranked most free in the annual Index of Economic Freedom and Economic Freedom of the World reports.

     

    The Weidenbaum Center at Washington University in St. Louis and the Regulatory Studies Center at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.,

    JOINTLY ESTIMATE THAT AGENCIES SPENT $59.5 BILLION (ON BUDGET) TO ADMINISTER AND POLICE THE REGULATORY ENTERPRISE. ADDING THE $1.88 TRILLION IN OFF-BUDGET COMPLIANCE COSTS BRINGS THE TOTAL RECKONED REGULATORY ENTERPRISE TO ABOUT $1.94 TRILLION.

    Among the six all-time-high Federal Register page counts, five have occurred under President Obama.

    The annual outflow of more than 3,500 final rules—sometimes far above that level—means that 90,836 rules have been issued since 1993.

    The Federal Register finished 2014 at 77,687 pages, the sixth-highest level in its history. Federal Register pages devoted specifically to final rules stand at 24,861 in 2014. The record high is 26,417 in 2013.

    The 2014 Federal Register contained 3,554 final rules and 2,383 proposed rules. Since the nation’s founding, more than 15,209 executive orders have been issued.

    PRESIDENT OBAMA ISSUED 215 BY THE END OF 2014.

    President George W. Bush’s administration averaged 62 major rules annually during his eight years in office; Obama’s six years so far have averaged 81.

    Whereas the federal government issues more than 3,500 rules annually, public notices in the Federal Register normally exceed 24,000 annually, with uncounted “guidance documents” and other materials among them. There were 23,970 notices in 2014, and there have been 501,899 since 1995.

    Sixty federal departments, agencies, and commissions have 3,415 regulations at various stages of implementation, according to the 2014 “Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions,” which lists federal regulatory actions at various stages of implementation.

    Of the 3,415 regulations in the pipeline, 200 are “economically significant” rules, which the federal government defines as having annual effects on the economy of $100 million or more. Assuming that those rule making effects are primarily regulatory implies roughly $20 billion yearly in future off-budget regulatory costs.

    Of the 3,415 regulations now in the works, 674 affect small businesses. Of those, 374 required a regulatory flexibility analysis; 300 were otherwise noted by agencies to affect small businesses.

    The five most active rule-producing agencies—the departments of the Treasury, Interior, Commerce, Transportation, and Health and Human Services—account for 1,453 rules, or 43 percent of all rules in the Unified Agenda pipeline.

    The Environmental Protection Agency, which was formerly ranked consistently in the top five, is now sixth, but adding its 186 rules brings the total from the top six rulemaking agencies to 1,639 rules, or 48 percent of all federal rules

    ——————————————————-

    I started here…

    Chapter 3 May 3, 2016

    Presidential Executive Orders and Executive Memoranda

    https://cei.org/…/Ten%20Thousand%20Commandments%202016%20-%20Chapter%…

    Crews: Ten Thousand Commandments 2016. 23. Presidential Executive Orders and. Executive Memoranda. President Obama famously pledged to use his “pen …

     

    Presidential Executive Orders and Executive Memoranda …

    https://cei.org/10KC/Chapter-3

    May 3, 2016 – [51] Executive orders, presidential memoranda, and other executive actions make up a … [61] In all, four of Obama’s executive orders directly address … Read Chapter 2 – THOUSANDS OF PAGES AND RULES IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER.

    The pertinent question as far as regulatory burdens are concerned is what these executive orders and memoranda are used for and what they do…….

    We live in an era in which the government— without actually passing a law—increasingly dictates parameters of various economic sectors, including health care, retirement, education, energy production, finance, land and resource management, funding of science and research, and manufacturing. Executive actions and decrees issued in a limited government context have different implications than do those issued in an era of activist government, rendering some of what transpires today without precedent………

    Counting rules and regulations, executive orders, memoranda, and other regulatory guidance gets us only so far. These actions need more scrutiny and oversight, because they have become powerful means of working around the constitutional system of legislation made by an elected body.[69]

    ———————————————————————————

    Are you concerned, with any of Obama Executive Orders and Memorandums

    IVE GOT A PEN AND I’VE GOT A PHONE.

    AND THAT’S ALL I NEED.

    BARACK OBAMA

    FROM RULE OF LAW TO RULE BY…WHATEVER?

    President Obama famously pledged to use his “pen and phone” to implement parts of his policy agenda without congressional approval.[51] Executive orders, presidential memoranda, and other executive actions make up a large component of that initiative.[52] This section examines those numbers, but a considerable amount of executive branch activity is not well measured and merits heightened attention, especially when an administration so explicitly emphasizes unilateral action.[53]

    Presidential memoranda since 1999— which presidential scholar Phillip Cooper has termed “executive orders by another name”—are also depicted in Figure 15.[55] Memoranda may or may not be published, depending on the administration’s own determination of “general applicability and legal effect,” making it “difficult to count presidential memoranda.”[56] Obama’s pace since 2009 tops that of George W. Bush, which is unsurprising given his administration’s openness about prioritizing executive action. Bush published 129 memoranda over his entire presidency, whereas Obama issued 219 during his first seven years that were published in the Federal Register

    ——————————————————————————————

    This kind of bullying and intimidation of Americans by a federal agency must be shut down. The incoming Trump administration has the opportunity to restore checks and balances on administrative agencies and appoint federal officials with integrity who will protect the rights of all Americans—not just their preferred special interests.

    Originally posted at The Daily Signal. 

    President-elect Donald Trump has a golden opportunity to restrain other overzealous regulators. One place to start is at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which governs private-sector labor relations. Originally built to act as an impartial agency that represents the public in labor disputes, the agency has become overly political and prone to playing favorites.

    How Trump Can Curb the Power of Unelected Regulators

    The Daily Signal Trey Kovacs December 9, 2016

    —————————————————————————————–

    From Rule of Law to Rule by…Whatever

    Presidential Memoranda | whitehouse.gov

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential…/presidentialmemoranda

    EXECUTIVE ORDERS · PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDA · PROCLAMATIONS · LEGISLATION · NOMINATIONS & … MEMORANDA. PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM on December 08, 2016 …

    Presidential Memoranda

    Presidential Memorandum on December 09, 2016

    Presidential Memoranda — Minnesota World’s Fair 2023

    Presidential Memorandum on December 09, 2016

    Message to the Senate — UN Convention on Transparency in Treaty-Based Investor-State Arbitration

    Presidential Memorandum on December 09, 2016

    Message to the Senate — Arms Trade Treaty

    Presidential Memorandum on December 08, 2016

    Presidential Determination and Waiver — Pursuant to Section 2249a of Title 10, United States Code, and Sections 40 and 40A of the Arms Export Control Act to Support U.S. Special Operations to Combat Terrorism in Syria

    Presidential Memorandum on December 08, 2016

    Message to Congress — Brazil Social Security Agreement

    Presidential Memorandum on December 05, 2016

    Presidential Memorandum — Steps for Increased Legal and Policy Transparency Concerning the United States Use of Military Force and Related National Security Operations

    Presidential Memorandum on December 05, 2016

    Letter from the President — Supplemental 6-month War Powers Letter

    Presidential Memorandum on December 02, 2016

    Presidential Determination — Pursuant to Section 570(a) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997

    Presidential Memorandum on December 01, 2016

    Presidential Determination — Suspension of Limitations under the Jerusalem Embassy Act

    Presidential Memorandum on November 16, 2016

    Presidential Memorandum — Eligibility of the Multinational Force and Observers to Receive Defense Articles and Defense Services


  • Violating Private Property Rights

    THERE’S NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRESPASS ON PRIVATE LANDS.

    Federal judge dismisses challenge to Wyoming trespassing law

    “The ends, no matter how critical or important to a public concern, do not justify the means, violating private property rights,” U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl wrote….

    By BEN NEARY Associated Press Updated Jul 7, 2016

    CHEYENNE — A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit from groups that challenged Wyoming laws prohibiting trespassing on private lands to collect data.

    Groups including the Western Watersheds Project, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the National Press Photographers Association sued Wyoming last year.

    The groups claimed state laws prohibiting trespassing to collect data were unconstitutional. The groups said the laws, which allowed both civil penalties and criminal prosecution, would block people from informing government regulators about such things as violations of water quality rules and illegal treatment of animals.

    U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl of Casper dismissed the groups’ lawsuit Wednesday, ruling there’s no constitutional right to trespass on private lands.

    “The ends, no matter how critical or important to a public concern, do not justify the means, violating private property rights,” Skavdahl wrote.

    Skavdahl last winter expressed concerns about earlier versions of the laws, which the Wyoming Legislature had passed early last year. The earlier versions sought to prohibit collection of data on “open lands,” a term Skavdahl said could be stretched to cover more than just private property.

    In response to Skavdahl’s criticism, the Wyoming Legislature earlier this year revised the laws to specify they only applied to trespassing to collect data on private lands.

    Gov. Matt Mead on Thursday said he was pleased with Skavdahl’s dismissal of the groups’ lawsuit.

    “There has been a lot of misinformation about the intent of this law,” Mead said. “The judge’s ruling affirms that the issue at the heart of the matter is preserving private property rights — a fundamental right in our country.”

    David Muraskin, a lawyer representing Western Watersheds and the National Press Photographers Association, said Thursday that his clients are disappointed with Skavdahl’s ruling and are considering whether to appeal.

    Federal judge dismisses challenge to Wyoming trespassing law

    trib.com/…/federaljudgedismisseschallenge-to-wyomingtrespa

    Casper Star‑Tribune 2 days ago – CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) — A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging Wyoming laws that prohibit trespassing on private lands to

    ———————————————————————

    FEB 18, 2013

    WDFW Constitutional Trespass?

    WDFW TRESPASS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY

    ———————————————————

    OCT 21, 2014

    Behind My Back | Presumed to be Constitutional?

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/10/21/presumed-to-be-constitutional/

    Oct 21, 2014 – This is the PRESUMED law of the LAND in WA STATE. Goggle it for … This is PRESUMED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL BY THE AG. You live in …

    Presumed to be Constitutional?

    This is WA State Law RCW 77.12.154

    These “STATE  EMPLOYEES” may enter upon “ANY LAND” or waters and remain there while performing their duties without liability for trespass.

    ——————————————————————————————-

    The US Government has taken the position that they can do anything that they want, where ever they want whenever they want. Remember the Olympic Peninsula Electronic Warfare Project? And, they got away with it until “We the People” demanded Due Process.

    ——————————————————————————————–

    Who Knew? About this is WA State Law RCW 77.12.154

    It took me two months, with the help of an attorney,  to find this  WA State Law, it was buried under the  “Right of entry”  Aircraft operated by department.

    —————————————————————————————————-

    When I told people about the law, they wouldn’t believe me. They said

    They can’t do that on my “PRIVATE PROPERTY” without my permission, without probable cause, without a search warrant.

     —————————————————————————————–

     You want to bet the government can’t do it on your private property?

    I have the documentation of hundreds of these incidences.

    In fact it is documented that FROM APRIL 21, 2010   TO FEB. 5, 2011 WDFW did knowingly trespass on every piece of private property AROUND LAKE SUTHERLAND, And on every piece of private property from Lake Sutherland down and on both sides of Indian Creek to the Elwha River.

     Indeed, They have been doing it and they are going to keep doing it, and keep doing  it until “We the People” demanded Constitutional Due Process.

    “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

     ——————————————————————————————-

    This is the PRESUMED law of the LAND in WA STATE.
    Goggle it for yourself…
    CHAPTER 77.12 RCW POWERS AND DUTIES

     THE 2011 Response from WA State Attorney General’s office
    ANY RCW, LAW PASSED BY WA STATE LEGISLATORS IS PRESUMED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL

    —————————————————————————————

    THINK ABOUT THIS?

    When They Came In WA. State

    This is  PRESUMED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL BY THE AG

    You live in an isolated area…. on 20 acres of private property…you are home alone…. you are a senior citizen… your husband is gone….you look out your kitchen window…… there is a strange man walking around in your back yard…. he has walked several blocks into your private property, on your private road…
    With your husband gone…. what should you do?

    IT HAPPENED TO MY (removed for privacy)   WHAT DID SHE DO?

    SHE OWNS A GUN…

    She went outside and confronted the TRESPASSER. “This is private property” “What are you doing here?”

    The strangers response (he did not identify himself) was “I just wanted to see where this stream came from.”

    She told him, “This is private property” and asked him to get off of her land.

    So if you see some unknown guy, anytime, anywhere, A TOTAL stranger wandering around and trespassing IN YOUR BACKYARD, on your private property?

    Without your permission, without probable cause and without a search warrant?

    WHAT WILL YOU DO?

    ———————————————————————————————–

    THIS IS PRESUMED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL?

    WA STATE EMPLOYEES? that do not wear a uniform? do not identify themselves? use your private road for access,  go sniffing  around in their official capacity, inspecting your 20 acres of private property, and  invading your privacy  in your own  back yard?

    This is the PRESUMED law of the land in WA STATE? AND AMERICA?

    —————————————————————————————-

    PRESUMED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL?

    RCW 77.12.154
    Right of entry
    — Aircraft operated by department.
    The director, fish and wildlife officers, ex officio fish and wildlife officers, and department employees may enter upon ANY LAND or waters and remain there while performing their duties without liability for trespass.

    It is lawful for aircraft operated by the department to land and take off from the beaches or waters of the state.
    [1998 c 190 § 71; 1983 1st ex.s. c 46 § 19; 1955 c 12 § 75.08.160. Prior: 1949 c 112 § 13; Rem. Supp. 1949 § 5780-212. Formerly RCW 75.08.160.]
    —————————————————————————————-
    WA State law RCW77.12.154
    WDFW employees may enter upon ANY LAND or waters and remain there while performing their duties without liability for trespass.

    —————————————————————————

    THE 2011 Response from WA State Attorney General’s office
    ANY RCW LAW PASSED BY WA STATE LEGISLATORS IS PRESUMED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL

    ————————————————————————————————————-

    And, When THEY Came  to Clallam County In WA State.

    This is the documented chronological order of the CLALLAM COUNTY TRESPASS

    PART (1)  FROM APRIL 21, 2010   TO FEB. 5, 2011 AND WHAT I DID

    DOCUMENT… DOCUMENT… DOCUMENT…

    In fact documented, in 2010, WDFW did trespass on every piece of property AROUND LAKE SUTHERLAND, And on every piece of private property from Lake Sutherland down and on both sides of Indian Creek to the Elwha River
    ——————————————————————————

    Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 6:38 PM
    Subject: UPDATE ON CRIMINAL TRESPASS CHARGES

    I have the following as evidence of, under Washington State RCW criminal trespass by the Dept. of fisheries and the Dept. of Transportation,

    1. A phone call on 4/21/10 from John Marrs at Lake Sutherland, asking me about the two trespassers on the Rains Sr. Trust land.
    When they were asked, who they were, they identified themselves as DFW employees. (My journals have been kept since 1999 and are admissible in court).

    2. A copy of my email date 4/21/10 to Penny Warren at the DFW regarding the trespassers.

    3. Penny Warrens DFW return e-mail to me regarding the trespassers on Rains Sr. Trust land dated 4/21/10, indicating that they were DFW employees, under contract by the DOT. She gave me the phone number for Dave Collins.

    4. A documented phone message left for Dave Collins WSDOT on 4/21/10 requesting that he call me.(my journals)

    5. A documented phone call from on 4/23/10 from Dave Collins WSDOT admitting that, (My journals) THE WSDOT WAS INSPECTING THE CULVERTS ON HIGHWAY 101 FOR FISH PASSAGE

    —————————————————————————

    10/20/14 Added for clarification

     RCW 77.12.755

    Ranked inventory of fish passage barriers.

    In coordination with the department of natural resources and lead entity groups, the department

    MUST ESTABLISH A RANKED INVENTORY OF FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS ON LAND OWNED BY SMALL FOREST LANDOWNERS

    based on the principle of fixing the worst first within a watershed consistent with the fish passage priorities of the forest and fish report.

    THE DEPARTMENT SHALL FIRST GATHER AND SYNTHESIZE ALL AVAILABLE EXISTING INFORMATION ABOUT THE LOCATIONS AND IMPACTS OF FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS IN WASHINGTON.

    This information must include, but not be limited to, the most recently available limiting factors analysis conducted pursuant to RCW 77.85.060(2), the stock status information contained in the department of fish and wildlife salmonid stock inventory (SASSI), the salmon and steelhead habitat inventory and assessment project (SSHIAP), and any comparable science-based assessment when available.

    The inventory of fish passage barriers must be kept current and at a minimum be updated by the beginning of each calendar year.

    ———————————————————————————————–

    My comment UNDER THE INTERAGENCY CONTRACT BETWEEN WSDOT AND WDFW, WDFW WAS CONTRACTED TO REPEAT THESE TRESPASSES EVERY YEAR FOR 10 YEARS.

    —————————————————————————————————–

    NOTHING IN THIS SECTION GRANTS THE DEPARTMENT OR OTHERS ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF ENTRY ONTO PRIVATE PROPERTY.

    [2003 c 311 § 10.]

    Notes:Findings — Effective date — 2003 c 311: See notes following RCW

    Active Interagency Agreements – Washington Department of …

    wdfw.wa.gov/…/contracts/i

    Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

    Jun 1, 2014 – 14-1109. 2014 WDFW-Quileute MOU Forage Fish … 10-1040.

    Anadromous Fish Agreement & Habitat Conservation Plan …

    Beaver Creek Intake Passage & Screening Construction …..

    Data Sharing Agreement Between DOL & DFW ….. MOA w/WSDOT

    on Hydraulic Projects, Fish Passage, CED Program.  

    Continuing, the call on 4/23/10 from Dave Collins WSDOT admitting that,

    yes, they were DFW employees,
    yes, they were doing the mapping under contract to the DOT,
    yes, they were mapping our unnamed stream/tributary into Lake Sutherland.
    yes, they had put a biodegradable white tape in our stream,
    yes, they had taken water samples….

    When I asked Dave Collins WSDOT why as Trustee of the Rains Sr. Trust I had not been contacted for permission?

    Why DFW was not required to notify and get permission like Skagit County?

    His response was, “Well, we can’t just contact/notify every little land owner”.

    I informed him that on 4/21/10 DFW was trespassing on 291 acres of Rains Sr. Trust land.

    Read the full text on behind my back.org.

    ———————————————————————

    The bottom line…

    THERE’S NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRESPASS ON PRIVATE LANDS.

    “The ends, no matter how critical or important to a public concern, do not justify the means, violating private property rights,” U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl wrote….

    By BEN NEARY Associated Press Updated Jul 7, 2016


  • Gun Control Circumvents Due Process of Law

    The latest result caused by the U.S. Government’s increased pressure on  a private business,  to circumvent  and deny American citizens their constitutional right to due process on gun control laws.

    Circumvent  by definition, overcome (a problem or difficulty), typically in a clever and surreptitious way, deceive, outwit and. find a way around (an obstacle).

    JAN 30, 2016 Facebook bans private gun sales

    New Mark Zuckerberg’s New Facebook policy bans talk of private gun sales, applies to Instagram.

    MARK ZUCKERBERG, FACEBOOK’S CHIEF EXECUTIVE,  IN RESPONSE TO President Obama and state attorneys general increased pressure on Facebook to tighten restrictions on firearms because of the proliferation of posts that offer guns for sale, often without background checks

    JAN 29, 2016 Facebook Moves to Ban Private Gun Sales on Its Site and Instagram

    New York Times‎ – 17 hours ago

    Facebook is banning private sales of guns on its flagship social network and its Instagram …

    WHAT IS MARK ZUCKERBERG ANTI-GUN “GLOBAL” FACEBOOK  NEW MANAGEMENT POLICY?

    HOW BIG IS IT? WHAT IS IT? WHAT IS IT LEADING UP TO?

    WHAT IS, MARK’S PRIVATE WEBSITES GLOBAL POLICY AGENDA? 

    HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE INVOLVED? WHY NOW?

    HOW DOES FACEBOOK’S NEW POLICY WORK?

    HOW DOES IT EFFECT AMERICAN CITIZENS SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW? HOW INVASIVE? HOW THREATENING?

    ———————————————————–

    Monika Bickert, head of FACEBOOK’S GLOBAL POLICY MANAGEMENT, said in a statement on Friday evening.“Over the last two years, more and more people have been using Facebook to discover products and to buy and sell things to one another. We are continuing to develop, test, and launch new products to make this experience even better for people and are updating our regulated goods policies to reflect this evolution,”

    ——————————————————————————-

    HOW BIG IS IT? HOW BIG IS GLOBAL?

    —————————————————————

    WHAT IS IT?

    WHAT IS, MARK’S PRIVATE WEBSITES GLOBAL POLICY AGENDA? 

    WHAT IS IT LEADING UP TO? THE LONG RANGE PLAN?

    Complete Disarmament Public Law 87-297

    This law was signed for the United States in 1961. John F. Kennedy signed it and every president since has worked to enact its provisions. (The government knows you will not approve which is why they want to take away your firearms.)  (This is Title 22 USC section 2551)

    BEFORE STAGE I CLOSES, ALL CITIZEN OWNED GUNS ARE TO BE BANNED.

    ——————————————————————–

    HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE INVOLVED?

    Facebook users must register before using the social network

    HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE ACTIVE ON FACE BOOK?

    More than one BILLION people are active on FACEBOOK

    JAN 30, 2016 1.6 BILLION PEOPLE  ARE ACTIVE ON FACEBOOK

    HOW MANY PEOPLE USE INSTAGRAM?

    Instagram Hits 300 Million Monthly Users

    Just nine months after hitting 200 million users, Instagram now says 300 million people use its photo app every month, with 70% of them coming from outside the US. That makes Instagram officially bigger than Twitter, which had 284 million active users as of six weeks ago.Dec 10, 2014
    WHY NOW?
    Jan 5, 2016 Emotional Obama calls for ‘SENSE OF EMERGENCY” to fight gun violence

    Obama executive action: New gun control orders …

    www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/…/obama-executive-action-guncontrol/
    CNN

    Jan 5, 2016 – Emotional Obama calls for ‘sense of urgency’ to fight gun violence ….. control advocate Gabby Giffords, who was seriously injured in a 2011 mass shooting, … that we can take to help reduce gun violence and save more lives.

    Residents of Oregon Shooting Town Tell Obama: ‘Go Home’

    www.newsmax.com/…shootingobama/2015/…/69555…
    Newsmax Media

    Oct 9, 2015 – Gun-rights activists gathered in Oregon on Friday to protest … at Obama’s plans to use the visit to call for stronger restrictions on firearms.

    ———————————————————————-
    HOW DOES FACEBOOK’S NEW POLICY WORK? HOW DOES IT EFFECT AMERICAN CITIZENS SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW? HOW INVASIVE? HOW THREATENING?
    Although Facebook was not directly involved in gun sales…
    MARK ZUCKERBERG’S Facebook new gun policy?
    My question to my federal and state representatives.
    DO YOU SUPPORT THE LAW OF THE LAND AND  DUE PROCESS OF LAW?
    ————————————————-

    Facebook said it would rely on its vast network of users to report any violations of the new rules,

    —————————————————————–

    My question to my federal and state representatives.

    SO WHEN ANY GLOBAL FACEBOOK USER  REPORTS YOU AS A VIOLATOR OF THE NEW RULES?

    THEN? A FACEBOOK STAFF MEMBER  READS YOUR POSTS AND, JUDGES YOU AND DECIDES IF YOU HAVE VIOLATED THE NEW RULE?

    ———————————————————————-

    and would remove any post that violated the policy.

    —————————————————————

    My question to my federal and state representatives.

    WHEN? AFTER? YOU HAVE BEEN JUDGED AND FOUND GUILTY OF VIOLATING THE NEW RULE BY A FACEBOOK STAFF MEMBER?

    ————————————————————————–

    Beyond that, the company said it could ban users or severely limit the ways they post on Facebook,

    ——————————————————–

    My question to my federal and state representatives.

    WHEN? AFTER? A FACEBOOK STAFF MEMBER, READS YOUR ENTIRE? FACEBOOK  HISTORY? AND THEY  JUDGE YOU AGAIN ON YOUR PAST VIOLATION?

    ——————————————————————-

    depending on the type and severity of past violations.

    ———————————————————————–

    My question to my federal and state representatives.

    WHEN? AFTER? YOU HAVE BEEN REPORTED AS A VIOLATOR BY ANYONE OF THE 1.6 BILLION PEOPLE ACTIVE ON FACEBOOK AND  BEEN JUDGED AND FOUND GUILTY OF ALL OF THE ABOVE  BY A FACEBOOK STAFF MEMBER?

    THEN? IF FACEBOOK COMPANY BELIEVES?

    ————————————————————–

    If the company believed someone’s life was in danger,

    Facebook would work with law enforcement on the situation.

    —————————————————————

    My question to my federal and state representatives.

    WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING?

    IN ORDER TO WORK WITH, GET LAW ENFORCEMENT INVOLVED, AN OFFICIAL REPORT BY THE SOMEBODY AT THE FACEBOOK COMPANY. WOULD BE FILED AGAINST YOU, AS A VIOLATOR,  GUN DANGER TO SOCIETY OR TO YOURSELF.

    ———————————————————————

     THE LAW OF THE LAND AND  DUE PROCESS OF LAW

    The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”

    The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a due process clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the due process clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.

    —————————————————————–

    Behind My Back | Olympia WA Has Gone Anti-Gun Crazy

    www.behindmyback.org/2016/01/…/olympiawahasgoneantiguncraz

    Jan 18, 2016 – It’s the first week of the new 2016 legislative session in Olympia WA and the antigun politicians have wasted no time in sending out a series of …

    WA STATE HB 1857 Concerning extreme risk protective orders.This doozy allows any family member or law enforcement with a grudge

    IF THIS PROPOSED 1857 BILL IS PASSED, IT SHALL ALLOW ANYONE TO SAY YOU ARE A DANGER

    or made a threat (verbal) in the last six months and you lose your gun rights. No proof needed and no other action because if you were a threat, shouldn’t something more be done?

    —————————————————————–

    Facebook will also rely on user reports of private gun sales that occur between members via Facebook Messenger, the company’s private messaging service.

    Facebook does not scan the content of those messages.

    ————————————————————————————–

    My bottom line question

    My question to my ELECTED federal and state representatives.
    DO YOU ABIDE BY  THE LAW OF THE LAND AND CONSTITUTIONAL  DUE PROCESS OF LAW ON GUN CONTROL IN YOUR LEGISLATION?

    ———————————————————————

    Facebook Moves to Ban Private Gun Sales on Its Site and Instagram

    JAN 29, 2016 New York Times‎ – 17 hours ago

    full text

    Facebook is banning private sales of guns on its flagship social network and its Instagram photo-sharing service, a move meant to clamp down on unlicensed gun transactions.

    Facebook already prohibits people from offering marijuana, pharmaceuticals and illegal drugs for sale, and the company said on Friday that it was updating its policy to include guns. The ban applies to private, person-to-person sales of guns. Licensed gun dealers and gun clubs can still maintain Facebook pages and post on Instagram.

    Although Facebook was not directly involved in gun sales, it has served as a forum for gun sales to be negotiated, without people having to undergo background checks. The social network, with 1.6 billion monthly visitors, had become one of the world’s largest marketplaces for guns and was increasingly evolving into an e-commerce site where it could facilitate transactions of goods.

    Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive. In response to President Obama’s recent call to curb unlicensed gun sales, some sellers said they would turn to sites like Facebook. Credit Josh Edelson/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

    Facebook said it would rely on its vast network of users to report any violations of the new rules, and would remove any post that violated the policy. Beyond that, the company said it could ban users or severely limit the ways they post on Facebook, depending on the type and severity of past violations. If the company believed someone’s life was in danger, Facebook would work with law enforcement on the situation.

    Facebook will also rely on user reports of private gun sales that occur between members via Facebook Messenger, the company’s private messaging service. Facebook does not scan the content of those messages.

    “Over the last two years, more and more people have been using Facebook to discover products and to buy and sell things to one another,” Monika Bickert, Facebook’s head of product policy, said in a statement. “We are continuing to develop, test and launch new products to make this experience even better for people and are updating our regulated goods policies to reflect this evolution.”

    New York’s attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, who has pressed for restrictions on illegal gun sales on Facebook and other sites, praised the company’s move.

    “Today’s announcement is another positive step toward our shared goal of stopping illegal online gun sales once and for all,” he said in a statement on Friday.

    Facebook plays host to scores of online groups that cater to gun enthusiasts, with members posting pictures and details about an individual gun, or a gun they might be looking to buy. Many of the groups are private, meaning that Facebook users may need to be approved by an administrator before they can see or write posts.

    Unlike professional gun sellers, hobbyists who sell or trade a few guns a year are not typically required to be licensed by the federal government. Some, like Scott Schmoke of Florida, say that Facebook helps them sell just a handful of weapons a year. Mr. Schmoke said in an interview this month that he always insisted on meeting potential buyers face-to-face, to feel them out.

    “I go to a secure location, and I say, ‘Can I see your driver’s license? Do you have a concealed-weapons permit?’ ” Mr. Schmoke said. If he gets a bad feeling, he does not sell, he said.

    But as an unlicensed seller, Mr. Schmoke is under no obligation to perform any kind of background check. Federal authorities have expressed worries that the Internet has fueled the sale of guns to felons and others who might normally be blocked from buying firearms.

    Facebook has taken some steps to regulate gun sales over the years. In 2014, it said it would limit gun sales on its site and on Instagram, including by shielding minors from Facebook pages that advertised guns for sale.

    But since then, Facebook has been inching toward facilitating e-commerce transactions. In December, the company introduced a project that directs users to local businesses and services that are well-reviewed on Facebook. Facebook can also store users’ credit card information. And in recent months, Facebook made it possible to send peer-to-peer payments through Messenger.

    Facebook’s progression toward on-site payments underscored the need to update the company’s content policy, a Facebook spokeswoman said.

    The company has also been pushed by gun safety groups including Everytown for Gun Safety, an umbrella group that united the efforts of two separate organizations of mayors and mothers to promote gun safety. Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, one of those two advocacy groups, said she met with senior Facebook officials repeatedly over the last two years.

    Everytown for Gun Safety presented Facebook with research connecting unlicensed gun sales on the site to gun violence. For example, Ms. Watts said, in December 2014, an Ohio man, Brian Harleman, shot and wounded his ex-girlfriend and killed her 10-year-old daughter before killing himself. Although prohibited from buying firearms because of a felony conviction, he was able to buy the weapon in an unlicensed sale on Facebook.

    “We were saying, ‘Please stop the unfettered access to guns on Facebook,’ ” Ms. Watts, a mother of five in Colorado, said in an interview.

    Because of Facebook’s tremendous influence, she said, its decision to ban person-to-person sales of guns will have ripple effects on gun policy nationwide.

    “What they’re doing is sending such an incredibly strong, sentinel signal to the world that America is working in the right direction on guns,” she said. “For them to take a stand and do the right thing gives cover to other businesses to do the right thing.”

    Rachel Abrams contributed reporting.

    A version of this article appears in print on January 30, 2016, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Joining the Gun Debate, Facebook Bans Private Firearm Sales . Order Reprints| Today’s Paper|Subscribe

    —————————————————————–

    JAN 30, 2016 Facebook bans private gun sales

    www.usatoday.com/…/facebook…on-gun-sales/79543652/

    MARK ZUCKERBERG, FACEBOOK’S CHIEF EXECUTIVE. IN RESPONSE TO President Obama and state attorneys general increased pressure on Facebook to tighten restrictions on firearms because of the proliferation of posts that offer guns for sale, often without background checks

    MARK ZUCKERBERG COMPANY…

    Facebook bans private gun sales – USA Today
    Facebook IS MARK ZUCKERBERG PRIVATE WEBSITE, IS BANNING PRIVATE SALES OF GUNS ON ITS FLAGSHIP SOCIAL NETWORK AND ITS Instagram PHOTO-SHARING SERVICE, A MOVE MEANT TO CLAMP DOWN ON UNLICENSED GUN TRANSACTIONS.

    —————————————————————-

    JAN 29 4:00 PM EST FACEBOOK INC. MARK ZUCKERBERG’S NET WORTH CLIMBED TO $47.6 BILLION AS OF 4PM ET, WHEN FACEBOOK STOCK CLOSED AT $109.11 A SHARE

    MARK ZUCKERBERG as the sixth richest man in the world he,  did not fight back to protect American gun rights with his personal worth at $47.6 BILLION.

    ——————————————————————————

    BACKED BY BILLIONAIRE’S?

    President Barack Obama and state attorneys general, as well as gun control activist groups Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America and Mayors Against Illegal Guns – backed by billionaire and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberghad been urging the world’s top social media website to crack down on private gun sales, USA Today reported.

    BACKED BY A BILLIONAIRE? UNDER GOVERNMENT PRESSURE? MARK ZUCKERBERG SOLD US OUT

    JAN 30, 2016 MARK ZUCKERBERG ‘S Facebook bans private gun sales

    ——————————————————————————-

    Facebook plays host to scores of online groups that cater to gun enthusiasts, with members posting pictures and details about an individual gun, or a gun they might be looking to buy. Many of the groups are private…..

    WHAT CAN YOU DO AS AN AMERICAN gun enthusiast?

    PEOPLE PRESSURE FIRST…

    UNFRIEND MARK ZUCKERMAN ON YOUR FACEBOOK PAGE .

    How do I unfriend or remove a friend? | Facebook Help Center

    https://www.facebook.com/help/172936839431357
    Facebook
    Note: If you choose to unfriend someone, you’ll be removed from that person’s friends list as well. … How do I suggest a friend to someone? … How do I remove or cancel a friend request I sent to someone?

    ——————————————————————–

    As a gun enthusiast SUGGEST A FRIEND TO THE NATIONAL RIFLEMEN ASSOCIATION (NRA)

    ————————————————————————————-

    If I unfriend someone, will they be notified? | Facebook Help

    https://www.facebook.com/help/110698549016637
    Facebook
    No, but you’ll be removed as a friend from their friend list as well.

    —————————————————————————————-

    As a gun enthusiast WANT TO NOTIFY MARK ZUCKERBERG ABOUT HIS NEW POLICY ON HIS PRIVATE WEBSITE?

    SELL ALL OF YOUR FACEBOOK STOCK.

    ——————————————

    My bottom line question

    My question to my ELECTED federal and state representatives.
    DO YOU ABIDE BY  THE LAW OF THE LAND AND CONSTITUTIONAL  DUE PROCESS OF LAW ON GUN CONTROL IN YOUR LEGISLATION?