+menu-


  • Category Archives CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS
  • WA State Human Environment

    The Human Environment In WA State

    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.

    Presumed by,  WA State Attorney Generals  office, to be Constitutional?

    THESE “STATE  EMPLOYEES” MAY ENTER UPON YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY, “ANY LAND”  IN WA STATE, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION  WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE AND WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT.

    ————————————————————————————–

    THIS IS THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT under WA State Law RCW 77.12.154 .

    The Government has taken the position that they can do whatever they want, where ever they want and whenever they want, without Constitutional due process of law.

    ——————————————————————————————–

    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.

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

    DISBELIEF AND DENIAL  IS THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT IN WA STATE.

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

    They can’t do that on my “PRIVATE PROPERTY”  I have Constitutional Rights. the government can’t do that without my permission, without probable cause and 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 trespass violations on Lake Sutherland private property.

    THESE “STATE  EMPLOYEES” DID ENTER UPON MY PRIVATE PROPERTY, “MY LAND”  IN CLALLAM COUNTY, WA STATE, WITHOUT ANY DUE PROCESS OF LAW, WITHOUT MY PERMISSION  WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE AND WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRENT.

    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.,without due process of law, without permission, without probable cause and without a search warrant.

    ————————————————————————-

    THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT IN WA STATE?

    Indeed, The government has  been TRESPASSING  on private land and they are going to keep TRESPASSING on private land, and keep TRESPASSING on private land 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 CONSTITUTIONAL 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

    —————————————————————————————

    UNDER RCW 77.12.154  THIS IS THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT IN WA STATE.

    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?

    —————————————————————————————-

    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 Lake Sutherland, Clallam County, in WA State.

    Read the full text, complete chronological documentation of government trespass here.

    Presumed to be Constitutional?

    Posted on by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    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…


  • Part (2) Who’s Planning Our Future?

    Part (2) Who’s Planning Our Future?

    WHO’S  CONTROLLING OUR  WATER?

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)

    ——————————————————————————-

    DO YOU HAVE VESTED WATER RIGHTS?

    ARE YOU VESTED  IN THE WATER FUTURES MARKET?

    CONCERNED?

    READ THIS UPDATE ON WHAT’S HAPPENING WITH THE FUTURE OF OUR WATER

    What’s happening in WA DC… Read the updates APR 28, 2015  from Congress, get the facts, GET informed and contact your federal ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES.

    This expansion of federal regulatory power will have serious consequences for the Nation’s economy, threaten jobs, invite costly litigation, and significantly restrict the ability of landowners to make decisions about their property and the rights of state and local governments to plan for their own development.

     Twice, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed this federal-state partnership when it told the Agencies that there are limits to federal jurisdiction under the CWA, and that they had gone too far in asserting their authority.

     ——————————————————————————————–

    H.R. 1732—Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015 …

    https://rules.house.gov/bill/…/hr1

    United States House of Representatives

    Apr 28, 2015 – H.R. 1732Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015 … Rules Committee Hearing H.R. 1732, H.J.Res. 43, and Conference Report to …

    ——————————————————————————————

    H.R.1732 – Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015 114th Congress (2015-2016) | Get alerts

    A SUMMARY IS IN PROGRESS

    ———————————————————————————————-

    H.R.5078 – Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014 113th Congress (2013-2014)

    Major Recorded Votes:

    09/09/2014 : Passed House

    ————————————————————————————–

    Fact Sheet: H.R. 1732, “The Regulatory Integrity Protection …

    www.nlc.org/…/Regulatory/WOTUS%20Fact%…

    National League of Cities

    Page 1 of 2. Fact Sheet: H.R. 1732, “The Regulatory Integrity Protection Act”. Background Information. • In April 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency ..

    ————————————————————————————–

    Fact Sheet: H.R. 1732

    “The Regulatory Integrity Protection Act”

    Background Information

    · In April 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) proposed a rule that would redefine “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Agencies assert this rule merely “clarifies” the scope of federal CWA jurisdiction over waters in the United States. In reality, however, this rule goes beyond merely clarifying the scope of federal jurisdiction under CWA programs; it  increases the scope of the CWA’s jurisdiction over more waters, and undermines the role of the states as partners and co-regulators of the Nation’s waters.

    · The federal-state partnership Congress intended to establish under the CWA has been successful for the past four decades because of the recognition that not all waters need to be subject to federal jurisdiction and that states should have the primary responsibility of regulating waters within their individual boundaries.

    · Twice, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed this federal-state partnership when it told the Agencies that there are limits to federal jurisdiction under the CWA, and that they had gone too far in asserting their authority.

    · Nevertheless, the Agencies have proposed the rule that would redefine the scope of waters subject to federal jurisdiction under the CWA.

    · Substantial flaws in the process to develop the rule have plagued the rulemaking from the beginning. The sequence and timing of the actions that the federal Agencies have taken to develop this rule undermine the credibility of the rule and the process to develop it. Among other things, state and local governments and the regulated community all have expressed concern that the Agencies have failed to consult with them in the development of the rule.

    · There is concern that the Agencies’ push to unilaterally broaden the scope of the CWA threatens to undermine the federal-state partnership and erode state authority by granting sweeping new federal jurisdiction to waters never intended for federal regulation under the CWA.

    · This expansion of federal regulatory power will have serious consequences for the Nation’s economy, threaten jobs, invite costly litigation, and significantly restrict the ability of landowners to make decisions about their property and the rights of state and local governments to plan for their own development.

     

    Summary

    .· When developing the new proposed rule the Agencies must take into consideration all of the comments received on the rule, the economic analysis of the rule, and the connectivity study which was used as the basis for the rule. They must also

    solicit recommendations from and consult with state and local officials, stakeholders, and other interested parties on how to define “Waters of the United States” and prepare a new regulatory proposal that is consistent with Supreme Court rulings, the feedback from the public comments and recommendations from the state and local officials, stakeholders, and others.

    · The bill requires that the Agencies engage in outreach to stakeholders, including holding a federalism consultation with the states and local governments. The Agencies are instructed to seek to reach consensus with the states and local governments on defining “Waters of the United States,” maintain the Federal–

    State partnership in implementing the Clean Water Act, and take into consideration state and local input regarding geography, hydrology, and legal frameworks.

    · The bill requires that the Agencies engage in outreach to stakeholders, including holding a federalism consultation with the states and local governments. The Agencies are instructed to seek to reach consensus with the states and local governments on defining “Waters of the United States,” maintain the Federal–

    State partnership in implementing the Clean Water Act, and take into consideration state and local input regarding geography, hydrology, and legal frameworks.

    · The Agencies are also to consult with and solicit recommendations from stakeholders that represent a broad range of perspectives who could be impacted either directly or indirectly by the new rule. The Agencies are to promote transparency in these processes by making all of the communications, records and documents available to the public, and prepare a report that responds to the comments received and provides a detailed explanation of how the Agencies have used the comments and stakeholder processes in the new rule.

    #####

    ————————————————————————————————-

    history snippet

    Congress (2013-2014) H.R. 5078 addresses what is yet another example of a disturbing pattern of an imperial presidency that seeks to use brute force and executive action while ignoring Congress.

    The bill also requires the EPA and the Corps to engage in a federalism consultation with the states and local governments by

    Jointly consulting with relevant state and local officials to formulate recommendations for a consensus regulatory proposal that would identify the scope of waters to be covered under the Clean Water Act, and those waters to be reserved for the states to determine how to regulate.  The proposal would need to be consistent with the applicable rulings of the United States Supreme Court.

    ———————————————————————————–

    H.R.1732 – 114th Congress (2015-2016): Regulatory …

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1732

    Apr 13, 2015 – Summary of H.R.1732 – 114th Congress (2015-2016): Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015.

    H.R.1732 – Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015114th Congress (2015-2016) | Get alerts

    Bill

    Sponsor:

    Rep. Shuster, Bill [R-PA-9] (Introduced 04/13/2015)

    Committees:

    House – Transportation and Infrastructure

    Committee Reports:

    H. Rept. 114-93

    Latest Action:

    04/29/2015 Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 231 Reported to House. Resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 1732, the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 11, and H.J. Res. 43.

    Tracker:

    Summary: H.R.1732 — 114th Congress (2015-2016)

    All Bill Information

    A SUMMARY IS IN PROGRESS.

    ———————————————————————————————

    Now, through a new rule proposed in April, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION has sought to bypass the legislative process and achieve the same expansionist agenda through agency guidance and the executive branch’s regulatory process

    ———————————————————————————————

     H.R.5078 – Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014 113th Congress (2013-2014)

    Sponsor:

    Rep. Southerland, Steve II [R-FL-2] (Introduced 07/11/2014)

    Committees:

    House – Transportation and Infrastructure

    Committee Reports:

    House Report 113-568; House Report 113-568,Part 2

    Latest Action:

    09/11/2014 Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 559.

    Major Recorded Votes:

    09/09/2014 : Passed House

    Summary: H.R.5078 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)

    There are 3 summaries for this bill.

    Bill summaries are authored by CRS.

    Shown Here:
    Passed House without amendment (09/09/2014)

    (This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House reported version is repeated here.)

    Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014 – Prohibits the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from:

    • developing, finalizing, adopting, implementing, applying, administering, or enforcing the proposed rule entitled, “Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’ Under the Clean Water Act,” issued on April 21, 2014, or the proposed guidance entitled, “Guidance on Identifying Waters Protected By the Clean Water Act,” dated February 17, 2012; or
    • using the proposed rule or proposed guidance, any successor document, or any substantially similar proposed rule or guidance as the basis for any rulemaking or decision regarding the scope or enforcement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act).

    Requires the Army Corps and the EPA to withdraw the interpretive rule entitled, “Notice of Availability Regarding the Exemption from Permitting Under Section 404(f)(1)(A) of the Clean Water Act to Certain Agricultural Conservation Practices,” issued on April 21, 2014.

    Requires the Army Corps and the EPA to: (1) consult with relevant state and local officials to develop recommendations for a regulatory proposal that would identify the scope of waters covered under the Clean Water Act and the scope of waters not covered; (2) provide for the public review and comment of a draft report that includes a recommendation only if consensus has been reached with regard to the recommendation among the Army Corps, the EPA, and state and local officials; (3) publish a final report; and (4) report to Congress on the recommendation

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5078

    ——————————————————————————————————————

    History , Washington, DC, Jul 11, 2014

    Legislation to Prevent Federal Overreach in Regulation of Nation’s Waters Introduced by Committee Leaders

    http://transportation.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=387572

    Bill to be Considered at Committee Markup Next Week

    Washington, DC, Jul 11, 2014 | Jim Billimoria, Justin Harclerode (202) 225-9446

    Bipartisan legislation to uphold the federal-state partnership to regulate the Nation’s waters and prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers from implementing a rule that broadens the scope of the Clean Water Act and expands the federal government’s regulatory power was introduced in the House today by Transportation and Infrastructure Committee leaders.

     

    The Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act (H.R. 5078) is sponsored by U.S. Rep. Steve Southerland, and is cosponsored by Transportation Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA), Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Bob Gibbs (R-OH), and a bipartisan group of additional Members of the House.  A Committee markup scheduled for 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, July 16, 2014 will include H.R. 5078.

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

    Shuster & Gibbs Statement on Regulatory Integrity Protection Act

    VETO THREAT

    Washington, DC, Apr 30 | Jim Billimoria, Justin Harclerode (202) 225-9446

    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA) and Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Bob Gibbs (R-OH) released the following joint statement in response to the Administration’s veto threat of H.R. 1732, the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act, a bill that stops the Administration’s flawed Waters of the United States (WOTUS) proposed rule that would give the federal government unprecedented authority to regulate virtually any place that water flows in the United States:

    “The Administration’s proposed rule is opposed by at least 32 states.  The rule is opposed by the Nation’s large cities, smaller cities, counties, towns, and townships.  The rule is opposed by the majority of the regulated community – our farmers, homebuilders, businesses, manufacturers, and many others.  More than one million comments have been filed on this proposed rule, with approximately 70% of the substantive comments requesting the rule be withdrawn or significantly modified.  It’s important for the House to stand up for and recognize the concerns and rights of state and local governments, business owners and farmers, and landowners and private citizens.  The Administration’s veto threat is just the latest example of its determination to seize more power, federalize all waters, and regulate land use around the country.”

    H.R. 1732 requires the EPA and the Corps of Engineers to restart the rulemaking process, this time consulting with state and local governments and other stakeholders and taking into account their concerns.  The House may vote on the bill as soon as tomorrow.

     

    The bottom line

    What’s happening in WA DC… Read the updates APR 28, 2015  from Congress, get the facts, GET informed and contact your federal ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES.

     


  • SMP Public Comment #161

    SMP Public Comment #161

    To Clallam County Planning Commission

    And, Commissioners’ McEntire,  Chapman and Peach

    Concerning fatal errors in due process, not posting SMP public comments

    Omitting SMP public comments and a failure to provide  complete and accurate

    summaries of  SMP Public Meetings during the entire SMP process of

    the Nov. 2014 proposed SMP Update Draft

     

    Failure to notify interested parties (WRIA 20 shoreline property owners  and members of the advisory committee on SMP meetings)

    Failure of CLALLAM COUNTY government to provide  critical early and continuous public participation in to the SMP Update

    The purpose and intent of nearly a year of inactivity on SMP public meetings and  participation on the SMP Update? A cooling off period, if  we ignore them for a year maybe they will just go away?

    ———————————————————————–

    FAILURE  TO POST AND RESPOND TO SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Jo Anne Estes

    To: Merrill, Hannah ; Gray, Steve

    Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 12:07 PM

    Subject: WHAT IS NO NET LOSS WORKGROUP?

    —————————————————————————-

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #440 posted 10/4/13

    Failure to provide public outreach  and participation to WRIA 20  throughout the process.

    This is an SMP Public comment
    WA STATE RCW 42.56.030
    Pearl Rains Hewett

    SMP UPDATE EXCLUSION AND OMISSION

    WRIA 20 private property owners are PART OF CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE

    There were no private property owners representing WRIA 20 seated at the table for the Clallam County SMP Update Committee.
    Shall we question why the WRIA 20 private property owners were and are IN MANY CASES, being treated like SECOND CLASS CITIZENS and were not informed, not invited, not selected, not appointed, not allowed to actively participate in SMP  Public Meetings?
    Failure to make a special effort to reach the under-represented WRIA 20  throughout the process communities/stakeholders.

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

    AND,  Failure to  ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION

    Sent: Tuesday,  8:48 AM

    THEY want us to be upset and discouraged, Commissioner Mike Chapman suggested I should/could  QUIT.

    Ironically, Commissioner Mike Chapman suggested just weeks earlier, somewhat sarcastically, that if I did not like the way things were going I should participate by volunteering to be on the SMP Update Citizens Advisory Committee.

    Hmmm? May 10, 2011 Commissioner Mike Chapman suggests that  if I do not like the way things are  going

    I should/could  QUIT.

    Don’t let life discourage you; everyone who got where she is had to begin where she was.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

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

    FAILURE?

    Chapter 42.30 RCW

    OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT

    This is the Legislative declaration on RCW 42.30.010

    The legislature finds and declares that all public commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of this chapter that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.

    The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

    [1971 ex.s. c 250 § 1.]

    Notes:

         Reviser’s note: Throughout this chapter, the phrases “this act” and “this 1971 amendatory act” have been changed to “this chapter.” “This act” [1971 ex.s. c 250] consists of this chapter, the amendment to RCW 34.04.025, and the repeal of RCW 42.32.010 and 42.32.020.

     

    FAILURE ? As related to the Washington State Shoreline Management Act, RCW 90.58

    RCW 90.58.130

    Involvement of all persons and entities having interest means.

    To insure that all persons and entities having an interest in the guidelines and master programs developed under this chapter are provided with a full opportunity for involvement in both their development and implementation, the department and local governments shall:

    (1) Make reasonable efforts to inform the people of the state about the shoreline management program of this chapter and in the performance of the responsibilities provided in this chapter, shall not only invite but actively encourage participation by all persons and private groups and entities showing an interest in shoreline management programs of this chapter; and

    (2) Invite and encourage participation by all agencies of federal, state, and local government, including municipal and public corporations, having interests or responsibilities relating to the shorelines of the state. State and local agencies are directed to participate fully to insure that their interests are fully considered by the department and local governments.

    [1971 ex.s. c 286 § 13.]

    ——————————————————————

    Shoreline Master Program Update

    FAILURE?  THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    March 2010 Revised March 2011

    4.1 Phase I ‐ Public Participation Program

    Clallam County will incorporate public participation in all phases of the SMP process ,document public participation efforts (e.g., public meetings, community events)

    AND KEEP A RECORD OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED.

    —————————————————————————-

    FAILURE?

    UNPOSTED SMP COMMENTS

    Citizens Advisory Committee on the update of the SMP

     —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: sgray@co.clallam.wa.us

    Cc: earnest spees

    Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 2:07 PM

    Subject: Clallam County Shoreline Management Plan 1976 and Citizens Advisory Committee 2011

    Steve

    Re: Clallam County Shoreline Management Plan 1976

    I read the 1976 SMP

    My biggest concern would be Page 8 Section 8.

    Lake Sutherland Private property owners have every reason to be fearful.

    Is it history repeating itself? Like the National Park take over of all private property on Lake Crescent?

    I was just a girl when it happened, but I have living memory of the grief it caused.

     

    Citizens Advisory Committee 2011

    While the WA State law about participation does NOT specify private property owners.

    Our Family Trusts own 900 acres of land in Clallam County, we have paid tax on our private property for over 60 years.

    We have property in water sheds, including the Sol Duc River, Elwha River and Bagley Creek, legal water rights, hundreds of acres of designated Forest land, logging concerns, a gravel pit, property for development and a rock quarry.

    With 60 percent of Clallam County under Private ownership;

    I ask you?

    Has anyone (as as private property owner) EVER had a right to, or been entitled to, or had a position on the CCDCD Citizens Advisory Committee on the update of the SMP?

    Pearl Rains Hewett PR-Trustee

    George C. Rains Sr. Trust

    ————————————————————————–

    THIS IS POSTED #50 SMP PUBLIC COMMENT

    FAILURE? Omitting public comments and a failure to provide a complete and accurate

    summary of a Public Meeting

     —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: SMP@co.clallam.wa.us

    Cc: Gray, Steve

    Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 9:53 AM

    Subject: ESA Adolfson’s focus study groups

    I read the focus study groups report prepared by ESA Adolfson.

    It was not representative of the meeting I attended on Jan. 26, 2011.

    There was no mention of Lake Sutherland and the outpour of concern by the private property owners. State boats taking pictures of their docks and homes etc. The fear of what the update of the SMP would mean to their private property by making all of them non-conforming.

    I feel that the report was biased, it did not address the issues proportionately, that in their reporting they did misrepresent and not report private property owner’s spoken grievances.

    In ESA Adolfoson’s compliance attempt, they placed far more emphasis on the state take over of private property beach’s and the impute from agencies and business’s  then the concerns of the 60% of private property owners in Clallam County.

    I find it very disappointing  that our Clallam County Commissioners have allowed a totally self serving group of conservationists to publish biased findings and facts as the result of these public focus groups.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ————————————————————————————–

     UNPOSTED SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

     —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Gray, Steve

    Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 8:32 AM

    Subject: Fw: STATE DIRECTIVE BY WAC 173-26-191

    Steve,

    Jim Kramer asked for  a copy of this WAC.

    I would also like to add this as my comment on the Advisory meeting on 4/11/11.

    Has a direct link for advisory comments been established?

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Advisory Committee Member

    ———————————————————————————–

    FAILURE TO POST  SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Lear, Cathy

    Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2011 12:00 PM

    Subject: RCW’S FOR PROTECTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY

    Cathy and Margaret,

    After listening to the questions asked by concerned citizens at both public and the advisory SMP update meetings,

    I would like to submit, as my comments, the following RCW’S to educate, inform and clarify private property owners of their rights and protection under WA State law.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Advisory Committee Member

    PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY

    Protection of single family residences

    RCW 90.58.100

    (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.

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

     Unintentionally created “Wetlands”

    RCW 90.58.030

    Definitions and concepts.

    (h) “Wetlands” means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do 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 from nonwetland 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 may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands.

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

    LAKE SUTHERLAND

     

    RCW 90.24.010Petition to regulate flow — Order — Exceptions.

    Ten or more owners of real property abutting on a lake may petition the superior court of the county in which the lake is situated, for an order to provide for the regulation of the outflow of the lake in order to maintain a certain water level therein. If there are fewer than ten owners, a majority of the owners abutting on a lake may petition the superior court for such an order. The court, after notice to the department of fish and wildlife and a hearing, is authorized to make an order fixing the water level thereof and directing the department of ecology to regulate the outflow therefrom in accordance with the purposes described in the petition. This section shall not apply to any lake or reservoir used for the storage of water for irrigation or other beneficial purposes, or to lakes navigable from the sea.

    [1999 c 162 § 1; 1985 c 398 § 28; 1959 c 258 § 1; 1939 c 107 § 2; RRS § 7388-1.]

    Notes:

         Effective date — 1985 c 398: “Sections 28 through 30 of this act shall take effect January 1, 1986.” [1985 c 398 § 31.]Lake and beach management districts: Chapter 36.61 RCW.

     

     

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: earnest spees ; Jo Anne Estes

    Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 9:21 AM

    Subject: STATE DIRECTIVE BY WAC 173-26-191

    All,

    I find this unacceptable.

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

    We must question every addition into our revised Clallam County SMP that goes beyond State SMP requirement.

    FYI

    Pearl

    WAC 173-26-191

    Agency filings affecting this section

    Master program contents.

    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.

     ——————————————————————-

     FAILURE TO POST SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: earnest spees

    To: Sheila Roark Miller – DCD Director 2010 ; Steve Gray

    Cc: Karl Spees ; pearl hewett ; Kaj Ahlburg

    Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 11:28 AM

    Subject: Shoreline Advisory Committee Minutes.

     

    Please forward to:

    Margaret Clancy & Jim Kramer

    1.  We would like a copy of the minutes of the first Clallam County Shoreline Advisory Committee.  We need to know if our comments were recorded to our satisfaction or whether we need to resubmit them.

    2.  We were told that we would be given a website with your slides and material used in your presentation. Also a site to submit additional comments.

    It will be good to see the half million +dollars the County has paid ESA Adolfson for the public input and the representation of the Citizens of Clallam County to be well spent.

    Karl Spees – Representative of the CAPR

    Advisory Committee Member

    ———————————————————————-

    FAILURE TO POST SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Jo Anne Estes ; earnest spees

    Cc: Gray, Steve

    Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 7:39 AM

    Subject: Fw: Shoreline Advisory Committee Minutes.

    JoAnne,

    See below,

    I agree with Karl

    I have emailed comments to Cathy Lear and Margaret Clancy.

    I have questions. The consultants pie charts indicate 65% of Clallam County shorelines are private property?

    When less than 17.1% (or less) of the entire County is private property?

    We have no link to an Advisory Committee comment site.

    We have no link to a public comment site.

    I read the 25 page report of Jefferson County’s public comments on their SMP update, after the fact.

    I want to know what comments are being made about Clallam County’s SMP update and I want to know before the fact.

    Pearl

    Advisory Committee Member

    ————————————————————————————————

    As Members of the Clallam County Shoreline Advisory Committee.

    WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSE Sheila Roark Miller – DCD Director 2010 ; Steve Gray

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: earnest spees ; pat tenhulzen ; Jo Anne Estes

    Cc: marv chastain

    Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:35 AM

    Subject: All SMP public comments PRIVATE?

    All

    I am working on comments and recommendation to the SMP update.

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

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

     Were all of Jefferson County public comments held private until after the fact?

     How can we get a public web site so public comments are made PUBLIC?

     Perhaps we could use WA State Full Disclosure law?

    Pearl

    Advisory Committee Member

    ———————————————————————-

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

    SO…  I ended up sending this  SMP comments to Jim Jones??

    I had his email address

    UNPOSTED SMP COMMENT

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: jim jones

    Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 1:23 PM

    Subject: TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS

    1. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE

    Jim,

    Because you are in a position to influence the outcome of the SMP update and I am both on the Advisory Committee and a private property owner I feel compelled to inform you on issues of concern, not what is spoken at meetings, like last night, but as written comment.

    As Commissioner Doherty  mentioned last night, times are changing.

    I have spent the last three months on line researching, complying and analyzing, statistics, laws, Port Townsend’s SMP update, the 7th revised addition of the WRIA, trespass by WFDW, Pacific Legal foundation, Jefferson County 25 page public comments on their SMP update, noxious weed control and attending public meeting, just to mention a few.

    I felt that both Commissioner Doherty and Shelia we unprepared  for public comment last night.

    The trespass discussed by WDFW was on 4 parcels of Rains Sr. Trust Land.

    The fear of the people on Lake Sutherland was my comment at a Commissioners meeting.

    I found and have been circulating the Oregon taking of property value.

    I will  provide only documented information to you.

    I am passionate about private property and Constitutional rights.

    1. TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS

    Statistics taken from

    Clallam County future land use map

    79.2 % of Clallam County is PUBLIC LAND

    17.1% of Clallam County is PRIVATE PROPERTY

    3.7% other

    79.2%  (or more) of Clallam County is PUBLIC LAND and it’s SHORELINES

    are available for PUBLIC ACCESS.

    My public comment and recommendation  for the SMP update is that no additional private property be taken for PUBLIC SHORELINE  ACCESS.

     Any additional PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS on private property shall be strictly on a volunteer basis and not as a requirement for permits.

    Owning 79.2% of Clallam County, the Olympic National Park, National Forest Lands and the Dept of Natural Resources should be encouraged to provide PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    As Trustee of the George C. Rains Trust

    Private property owner

    Advisory Committee Member

    ————————————————————–

    AND…  I ended up sending this  SMP comments to Jim Jones??

    I had his email address

    ANOTHER UN-POSTED SMP COMMENT

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: jim jones

    Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 1:36 PM

    Subject: WA RCW’S THAT PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

    Jim,

    DCD Sheila Miller suggested that fear of the government may be dispelled by educating.

    Instead of educating fearful Lake Sutherland private property owners, why not help them?

    I researched and found three laws that  protect private property owner.

    3. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE

    Any WA State RCW’s that are beneficial to the rights and protection of private property owners should be included in the Clallam County SMP update.

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

    LAKE SUTHERLAND

    RCW 90.24.010

    Petition to regulate flow — Order — Exceptions.

    Ten or more owners of real property abutting on a lake may petition the superior court of the county in which the lake is situated, for an order to provide for the regulation of the outflow of the lake in order to maintain a certain water level therein. If there are fewer than ten owners, a majority of the owners abutting on a lake may petition the superior court for such an order. The court, after notice to the department of fish and wildlife and a hearing, is authorized to make an order fixing the water level thereof and directing the department of ecology to regulate the outflow therefrom in accordance with the purposes described in the petition. This section shall not apply to any lake or reservoir used for the storage of water for irrigation or other beneficial purposes, or to lakes navigable from the sea.

    [1999 c 162 § 1; 1985 c 398 § 28; 1959 c 258 § 1; 1939 c 107 § 2; RRS § 7388-1.]Notes:

         Effective date — 1985 c 398: “Sections 28 through 30 of this act shall take effect January 1, 1986.” [1985 c 398 § 31.]Lake and beach management districts: Chapter 36.61 RCW.  

    PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY

    Protection of single family residences

    RCW 90.58.100

     (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.

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

     Unintentionally created “Wetlands”

    RCW 90.58.030

    Definitions and concepts.

     (h) “Wetlands” means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do 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 from nonwetland 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 may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    AS Trustee of the George C. Rains Trust

    Private property owner

    Advisory Committee member

    —————————————————————————

    FAILURE TO INFORM INTERESTED PARTIES  SMP Advisory Committee members

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Jo Anne Estes

    Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 10:31 AM

    Subject: Public Meeting on SMP tomorrow

    Hello, everyone~

    As a fellow conservative and defender of property rights, I am calling on you with an urgent request to attend the Clallam County Commissioners meeting tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. when the Shoreline Master Program update will be discussed.  Meeting information can be found at

    http://www.clallam.net/board/assets/applets/monwork.pdf.  This agenda item is planned for 9:45 a.m.

    Any public comment you are willing to provide is greatly appreciated.  Make your voice heard!  Even if you do not wish to comment, plan to attend the meeting to get a first hand view of our county government.

    Thanks for your consideration.

    Jo Anne Estes

    An Advisory Committee member

    FAILURE TO INFORM INTERESTED PARTIES  SMP Advisory Committee members

    —– Original Message —–

    From: earnest spees

    To: Karl Spees

    Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 9:17 AM

    Subject: Public Meeting on SMP tomorrow!!!!!!!!

    Defenders of Property Rights (Article on A8 in today’s PDN)

    Tomorrow, Monday 2/28/11, there will be a meeting in the commissioners meeting room, Clallam County Courthouse, on the Shoreline Master Program, SMP, Update.

    The meeting is at 0900 (AM) and will allow public input.  Unfortunately this is when most people have jobs and will be working.

    They may be just probing, checking our body temperature, the strength of their opposition to the draconian new rules restricting and regulating use of our private property.  (This may be a classic battle of the  citizens, ‘we the people’ against the big government agenda.)

    Please attend and participate.

    Karl Spees – Pres CAPR 13

    An Advisory Committee member

    —————————————————————————

    FAILURE TO INFORM INTERESTED PARTIES  SMP Advisory Committee members

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: earnest spees

    Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 11:08 AM

    Subject: Re: Public Meeting on SMP tomorrow!!!!!!!!

    Yes, I will be there.

    How did you find out?

    They sure as hell didn’t let me know!

    imagine that?

    Pearl

    An Advisory Committee member

     ————————————————————–

    WE WERE INVITED TO BE ON THE Shoreline Advisory Committee?

    May 05, 2011 10:19 AM, Per Steve Gray we are “NOT” an Advisory Committee we just an “Important work group to provide input”.

    SO WE BECAME THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE Shoreline”Important work group to provide input” Committee.

    FAILURE? Omitting public comments and a failure to provide a complete and accurate

    summary of a Public Meeting

    —– Original Message —–

    Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 10:19 AM
    Subject: Responsible party
    —————————————–
    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
    Regarding the 30 members of  the invited Shoreline Advisory Committee.
    Per Steve Gray we are “NOT” an Advisory Committee we just an “Important work group to provide input”.
    ————————————————
    Am I confused? No, I am insulted.
    ——————————————-
    After reading Hannah’s documented, selectively summarized outcome of the first Advisory Committee meeting,
    ———————————————————–
    it is my personal opinion that we, as a committee are not there to give input, constructive comment, or recommendation,
    we are there to be indoctrinated on compliance, based on misleading pie charts and statistics compiled and presented by ESA Adolfson..
    ——————————————————————–
    Comment by Carol Johnson regarding forest management and a new regulation on the SMP compliance report, she questioned why? The forest Act regulates forestry.
    ———————————————————————
    Comment the  “Reading out loud” by Pearl Hewett of the follow WAC 173-26-191.
    ———————————————————————-

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

    Comment by Pearl Hewett, If regulation of private property is unconstitutional or illegal by WA State law Clallam County should NOT use it.


    Comment by Kaj Ahlburg, the WAC’s are more stringent then WA State law.

    The selective summary of the “Our Important work group to provide input” at the first meeting, did not mention any of these comments.
    I called Commissioner Mike Chapman.
    Who is responsible? The elected DCD Sheila Rourk Miller.
    Sheila went on vacation on April 26, 2011 the day after the 4C public meeting and will not be back in her office until Monday May 9, 2011.
    I called today and left a message, asking for a meeting with her.
    Pearl
    —————————————————————————-

    UNPOSTED SMP   PUBLIC COMMENTS on NO NET LOSS

     —– Original Message —–

    From: Jo Anne Estes

    To: Merrill, Hannah ; Gray, Steve

    Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 12:07 PM

    Subject: What is No Net Loss Workgroup?

    Hello Hannah and Steve:

    I saw this Notice on the Clallam County Website:

    Thursday:  August 18, 2011 – No Net Loss Work Group , Clallam County BOCC Room 160, 223 East Fourth Street, Port Angeles, 10a.m.-2:00 p.m.

    Is this something either of you are leading?  If not, please forward my email to the correct person. I could not make the meeting yesterday.

    Could you please forward me all copies of the meeting agendas and minutes to date for this group?  I would like to gather this as soon as possible so I can get up to speed.

    Do you know if the Shoreline Advisory Committee been tasked with participating with the No Net Loss workgroup?  If so, I do not recall getting notice.  Please add my email address to the distribution list for all minutes and agendas of the No Net Loss workgroup.

    Thanks very much.  Have a great weekend!

    Jo Anne Estes

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

    As Members of the Clallam County Shoreline Advisory Committee.

    WE WERE NOT RECEIVING ANY RESPONSES FROM

    Sheila Roark Miller – DCD Director 2010 ; Steve Gray

    SO,  I did respond to Jo Anne Estes (a member of the Shoreline Advisory Committee)

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Jo Anne Estes

    Cc: earnest spees

    Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 12:54 PM

    Subject: Re: What is No Net Loss Workgroup?

    Jo Anne,

    When people asked about the NO NET LOSS at the public SMP meeting after our Aug.committee meeting (only 16 people showed up) I asked about the no net loss committee? Who are they? They have had only 1 meeting?  Steve Grey admitted, they had only had one meeting. I fear they are from the appointed 9 in the Planning Dept.? Steve did not identify them.

    Your letter to the PDN was good. Unfortunately too many people have taken the “Wait and see what they do attitude”

    Then, they will start screaming and yelling, after the fact!

    You are correct when you say we, as private property owners, are not represented proportionally on the SMP update committee. In fact we are not represented PERIOD.  Remember the meeting we attended at the Audubon.

    I have emailed, questioned, complained, bitched, requested info, made comments, spoken out at public meetings, been ignored when I raised my hand at the John Wayne Marina Public Forum, sent many DOE, Clallam County maps with their statistics  documenting their errors and omissions

     (August 19, 2011)  AND have yet to received a single response from the Planning Dept, Sheila, Hannah and Steve Grey do not respond.

    The committee members comments are not put on line as we were told they would be?

    Are we just, the required by LAW invited?

     Does anything we do have any effect on the outcome?

     Are our comments even given to the Appointed 9?

    FYI

    ESA Adolfson completed a report on Puget Sound for the National Fish and Wildlife Federation in WA DC prior to our Jan 26, 2011 SMP meeting.

    Keep up the good work,

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Disappointed member of the Clallam County Invited SMP

    Update NOT Citizens Advisory Committee.

    ———————————————————————–

    The bottom line

    AND,  Failure to  ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION

    Sent: Tuesday,  8:48 AM 2011

    THEY want us to be upset and discouraged, Commissioner Mike Chapman suggested I should/could  QUIT.

    Ironically, Commissioner Mike Chapman suggested just weeks earlier, somewhat sarcastically, that if I did not like the way things were going I should participate by volunteering to be on the SMP Update Citizens Advisory Committee.

    Hmmm? May 10, 2011 Commissioner Mike Chapman suggests that  if I do not like the way things are  going

    I should/could  QUIT.

    Don’t let life discourage you; everyone who got where she is had to begin where she was.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

     


  • Confront? Question? Demand?

    Confront? Question? Demand?

    Why do  I  personally bother to attend and speak out at  Rep. Derek Kilmer’s Town Hall Meetings?

    Someone’s  GOT TO DO IT … speak  out publicly, in front of the local news media on THE FEDERAL UNMENTIONABLES.

    Someone’s  got to  confronted him with the evidence, ask the hard questions, compel him to face or consider something and  demand answers.

    As our elected rep. in WA DC Rep. Derek Kilmer is responsible to us.

    WHAT WILL  KILMER  DO IN RESPONSE TO

    THE FEDERAL UNMENTIONABLES?

    1. The ISIS terrorist attacks, 62% of Americans are VERY CONCERNED?

    2.  How Is he going to VOTE to prevent the Olympic Peninsula Electronic WAR GAMES. from destroying our entire coastline of public land? And, the entire coastline from Alaska to Mexico?

    3.   How Is he going to VOTE on the FINANCIAL immigration  Crisis? Dec 3, 2014 – Seventeen states filed a joint lawsuit in federal court Wednesday to try blocking President Barack Obama’s executive order on immigration.

    4.  How is he going to VOTE to reform the Obamacare debacle?

    5. Is he going to address the economic crisis created by SUE AND SETTLE?  (ESA)  taking of public and private land, in violation of the Administrate Procedure Act

    6. Is he going to demand JUSTICE from the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT?

    7.  Is he going to support the return of individual states Sovereignty, to the States, of the United States of America? So we can “MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS”

    8. Rep Kilmer put it in writing,  I’ll continue my fight during this Congress to put our government back in the hands of “We the People.”

    —————————————————————————————-

     OK, REP. KILMER, THIS IS WHAT WE THE PEOPLE WANT?

    WHAT REPRESENTATIVE FEEDBACK ARE WE GOING TO GET FROM YOU?

    We the People of the United States, in Order to RE-FORM a more perfect Union,

    MUST RE- ESTABLISH The  Constitution of  the United States of America.

    MUST RE-ESTABLISH JUSTICE,

    MUST INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY

    MUST PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE

    MUST PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE

    MUST RE-SECURE the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

    We do ordain and MUST INSIST ON  the RE-ESTABLISHMENT of the Constitution for the United States of America.

    ————————————————————————————

    Rep. Kilmer Newsletter, below,  states,  I’ll be holding six town hall meetings so I can hear directly from you elected Rep. Kilmer will be holding six town hall meetings so I can hear directly from you. I want to stress these town halls are open to the public, and I encourage everyone to attend.

    It’s time to bring sanity back?

    Despite the overall dysfunction?

    I’ll continue my fight during this Congress to put our government back in the hands of “We the People.”

    Make the government more transparent and responsive?

    ————————————————————

    I, personally, SHALL continue my fight to put our federal, state and local governments  accountable and back in the hands of “We the People.”

    Even if I have to go it alone, with my boots on the ground and making public comments  at public forums.

    And, on my website behindmyback.org  in cyberspace

     


  • We Need a New Public Notice Act

    WE NEED A NEW PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    CASES IN POINT FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL

    1. THE PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA ELECTRONIC WARFARE PROJECT.

    2. THE CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE UPDATE.

    3.The Pacific Coast Drone project

    4. The Navy residential training that terrorized Port Angeles WA

    5. The West End Broad Band meetings

    6. WA STATE PARKS BLUE RIBBON PANEL

    Best known as, what we don’t notify  American citizens about “CAN” hurt them,

    BUT… it will all be over before American people find out what the hell is going on, so no worries.

    American people won’t feel a thing until after the comment period has expired.

    Then American people can read all about it in the local newspaper, after it’s been passed, to find out what’s in it, what it is and what it was all about.

    —————————————————————————–

    WE NEED A NEW PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    WOW… READ ALL ABOUT IT

    MODEL CITY CHARTER LANGUAGE FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY BODIES

    Making Public Participation Legal – All-America City Award

    www.allamericacityaward.com/…/Making-PublicParticipationLegal_La…

    a ModeL sTaTe PubLic ParTiciPaTion acT: an aMendMenT To The sTaTe … that governs public participation. at the local, state, and federal levels, these laws ..

    —————————————————————————————–

    HERE AND NOW? IN THE REAL WORLD of “We the People”

    WHAT IS THE LOCAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND PARTICIPATION STRATEGY?

    IF YOU ARE HAVING A LOCAL, HUGE MULTI-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD GARAGE SALE, RUMMAGE SALE OR FLEA MARKET?

    AND YOU REALLY WANT THE PUBLIC TO COME?

    You advertise in advance. YOU POST BIG SIGNS WITH THE WHERE AND WHEN every couple of blocks with BIG ARROWS TO KEEP REMINDING AND  INVITING  THE PUBLIC.

    LOCALLY YOU SEE A BIG RUMMAGE SALE BANNER ACROSS FRONT STREET

    AND OUR RADIO STATION KONP GOES ON AND ON ABOUT LOCAL GARAGE SALES

    AND GUYS WEARING SANDWICH BOARDS, DOING THE HAPPY DANCE IN FRONT OF LES SCHWABS, FOR A FLEA MARKET.

    The BIG BANNER across front street even notified THE HOMELESS to come on down to the Vern Burton center and  sign up for local HOMELESS programs and benefits.

    —————————————————————–

    I have mentioned the Real World phenomena  of advertising at Planning Commission Meetings.

    A private (government) response was? “This is not the real world”

    —————————————————————————————-

    OH..BUT… IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE TO  ADVERTISE AND NOTIFY THE AFFECTED LOCAL’S?

    As FOX NEWS,  Judge Jeanine would say….REALLY?

    —————————————————————————

    After the of the Navy’s PUBLIC FORUM FIASCO in PA,  on Electronic Warfare on  the Olympic Peninsula.

    FIASCO? by definition,  a total failure, especially a humiliating or ludicrous one

    —————————————————————————

    MOVING FORWARD,  WHAT CAN”WE THE PEOPLE DO”?

    Expose them, every time there is a  fatal error in Due Process

    Remind them of WA State Law RCW 42.56.030

    THE PEOPLE, IN DELEGATING AUTHORITY, DO NOT GIVE THEIR PUBLIC SERVANTS THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE TO KNOW AND WHAT IS NOT GOOD FOR THEM TO KNOW. etc.

    ———————————————————————————-

    Use Clallam County Home Rule to create a more stringent  public notification and participation process by the county and for the residents of Clallam County, including COUNTY FUNDING for REAL WORLD  advertising.

    Great minds think alike

    HERE IS THE LOCAL SOLUTION

    Making Public Participation Legal – All-America City Award

    www.allamericacityaward.com/…/Making-PublicParticipationLegal_La…

    a ModeL sTaTe PubLic ParTiciPaTion acT: an aMendMenT To The sTaTe … that governs public participation. at the local, state, and federal levels, these laws ..

    Contents

    THREE MINUTES AT THE MICROPHONE

    HOW OUTDATED CITIZEN PARTICIPATION LAWS ARE CORRODING AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

    POLICY OPTIONS FOR STRENGTHENING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL

    A MODEL MUNICIPAL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ORDINANCE

    A MODEL STATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACT

    AN AMENDMENT TO THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

    ACT AND GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE ACT

    MODEL CITY CHARTER LANGUAGE FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY BODIES

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT:

    THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND CONTEXT FOR VOICE

    RESOURCES FOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

    ………………………………………………………………

    From the Deliberative Democracy Consortium:

    Tired of tense, unproductive public meetings? Want to embed better online and face-to-face processes in the way governments work? Making Public Participation Legal, a new publication of the National Civic League, includes a set of tools, including a model ordinance, set of policy options, and resource list, to help communities improve public participation. The publication is now available for free. Download here. 

    Most of the laws that govern public participation in the United States are over thirty years old. They do not match the expectations and capacities of citizens today, they predate the Internet, and they do not reflect the lessons learned in the last two decades about how citizens and governments can work together. Increasingly, public officials and staff are wondering whether the best practices in participation are in fact supported – or even allowed – by the law.

    Over the past year, the Working Group on Legal Frameworks for Public Participation has produced new tools, including a model local ordinance and model amendment to state legislation, in order to help create a more supportive, productive, and equitable environment for public participation. The Working Group has been coordinated by the Deliberative Democracy Consortium (DDC).

    Making Public Participation Legal is a publication of the National Civic League, with support from the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation. The Working Group also includes representatives of the American Bar AssociationInternational Municipal Lawyers AssociationNational League of CitiesPolicy Consensus InitiativeInternational Association for Public Participation, and International City/County Management Association, as well as leading practitioners and scholars of public participation.

    Communities that want to move forward with new public engagement processes and policies can also turn to an array of new resources being offered through ICMA’s Center for Management Strategies. CMS has assembled a team of leading engagement practitioners, research specialists, and subject matter experts who can help local governments develop and implement effective civic engagement programs.

    —————————————————————————

    WOW AND CLALLAM COUNTY HAS A HOME RULE CHARTER

    AND 15 NEW CHARTER MEMBERS

    AND THREE CONSERVATIVE COMMISSIONERS

    HOT DAMN… LET’S GO FOR IT..

     

     


  • The Enabling Act March 1933

    The Enabling Act March 1933

    ON 23 MARCH 1933, THE GERMAN REICHSTAG VOTED IN THE ENABLING ACT, ALLOWING ADOLF HITLER TO RIP UP THE CONSTITUTION.

    THE FORMAL TITLE FOR THE ENABLING ACT WAS

      THE ‘LAW TO REMEDY THE DISTRESS OF PEOPLE AND REICH’

    The Enabling Act was passed on March 23rd 1933. The act was to have huge consequences for the CITIZENS OF NAZI GERMANY

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

    A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge (complete text below)

    THOSE ENTRUSTED WITH POWER HAVE, IN TIME, AND BY SLOW OPERATIONS, PERVERTED IT INTO TYRANNY

    and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be,  TO ILLUMINATE, AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE, THE MINDS OF THE PEOPLE AT LARGE, AND MORE ESPECIALLY TO GIVE THEM KNOWLEDGE OF THOSE FACTS

    WHICH HISTORY EXHIBITETH, THAT, POSSESSED THEREBY OF THE EXPERIENCE OF OTHER AGES AND COUNTRIES, THEY MAY BE ENABLED TO KNOW AMBITION UNDER ALL ITS SHAPES, AND PROMPT TO EXERT THEIR NATURAL POWERS TO DEFEAT ITS PURPOSES

    ———————————————————————————————–

    The Enabling Act March 1933 – History Learning Site

    www.historylearningsite.co.uk › Modern World HistoryNazi Germany

    Mar 23, 1933 – The Enabling Act of March 1933 gave Adolf Hitler huge powers.

    THE ENABLING ACT ALLOWED HITLER TO RULE BY HIMSELF.

    ON 23 MARCH 1933, THE GERMAN REICHSTAG VOTED IN THE ENABLING ACT, ALLOWING ADOLF HITLER TO RIP UP THE CONSTITUTION

    German constitutional law stated that any change to the constitution (and the Enabling Act was seen as a change to it) had to have a vote at which 66% of the Reichstag Deputies had to be present. Of these the vote needed to be 66% or over – not the usual bare majority.

    ——————————————————————————————————————

    THE SUBJECT OF EDUCATION

    As part of his work in revising the laws of Virginia during the late 1770s and early 1780s, Thomas Jefferson put forth a bill that has become one of his most enduring WORKS ON THE SUBJECT OF EDUCATION: BILL 79

    TO ILLUMINATE, AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE, THE MINDS OF THE PEOPLE AT LARGE, AND MORE ESPECIALLY TO GIVE THEM KNOWLEDGE OF THOSE FACTS

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

     

    A BILL FOR THE MORE GENERAL DIFFUSION OF KNOWLEDGE

    THOMAS JEFFERSON (1779)

    SECTION I. Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights,

     and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy,

    yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms,

    THOSE ENTRUSTED WITH POWER HAVE, IN TIME, AND BY SLOW OPERATIONS, PERVERTED IT INTO TYRANNY;

    AND IT IS BELIEVED THAT THE MOST EFFECTUAL MEANS OF PREVENTING THIS WOULD BE,

     TO ILLUMINATE, AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE, THE MINDS OF THE PEOPLE AT LARGE, AND MORE ESPECIALLY TO GIVE THEM KNOWLEDGE OF THOSE FACTS,

     WHICH HISTORY EXHIBITETH, THAT, POSSESSED THEREBY OF THE EXPERIENCE OF OTHER AGES AND COUNTRIES, THEY MAY BE ENABLED TO KNOW AMBITION UNDER ALL ITS SHAPES, AND PROMPT TO EXERT THEIR NATURAL POWERS TO DEFEAT ITS PURPOSES

    And whereas it is generally true that the people will be happiest whose laws are best, and are best administered, and that laws will be wisely formed, and honestly administered, in proportion as those who form and administer them are wise and honest; whence it becomes expedient for promoting the publick happiness that those persons,

     WHOM NATURE HATH ENDOWED WITH GENIUS AND VIRTUE, SHOULD BE RENDERED BY LIBERAL EDUCATION WORTHY TO RECEIVE, AND ABLE TO GUARD THE SACRED DEPOSIT OF THE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS, and that they should be called to that charge without regard to wealth, birth or other accidental condition or circumstance; BUT THE INDIGENCE OF THE GREATER NUMBER DISABLING THEM FROM SO EDUCATING, AT THEIR OWN EXPENCE,

    THOSE OF THEIR CHILDREN WHOM NATURE HATH FITLY FORMED AND DISPOSED TO BECOME USEFUL INSTRUMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC, IT IS BETTER THAT SUCH SHOULD BE SOUGHT FOR AND EDUCATED AT THE COMMON EXPENCE OF ALL,

    THAN THAT THE HAPPINESS OF ALL SHOULD BE CONFIDED TO THE WEAK OR WICKED:

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

    THIS IS HOW WA STATE WORKS ON THE SUBJECT OF EDUCATION

    TO ILLUMINATE, AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE, THE MINDS OF THE PEOPLE AT LARGE, AND MORE ESPECIALLY TO GIVE THEM KNOWLEDGE OF THOSE FACTS

    Supreme Court finds Legislature in contempt on education …

    blogs.seattletimes.com/…/supreme-court-finds-legislatu…

    The Seattle Times

    Sep 11, 2014 – The Washington state Supreme Court is holding the Legislature IN CONTEMPT for not making enough progress toward fully funding public …

    ————————————————————————

    Read more on Public Education

    Behind My Back | The ENABLING ACT February 22, 1889

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/03/…/the-enablingact-february-22-1889/

    Mar 9, 2014 – Through the Enabling Act, a specific acreage of land was endowed and is held in trust for each identified beneficiary. Revenues generated from …

    ———————————————————————————————-

    A BILL FOR THE MORE GENERAL DIFFUSION OF KNOWLEDGE (continued)

    SECT. II. BE it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, that in every county within this commonwealth, there shall be chosen annually, by the electors qualified to vote for Delegates, three of the most honest and able men of their county, to be called the Aldermen of the county; and that the election of the said Aldermen shall be held at the same time and place, before the same persons, and notified and conducted in the same manner as by law is directed for the annual election of Delegates for the county.

    SECT. III. THE person before whom such election is holden shall certify to the court of the said county the names of the Aldermen chosen, in order that the same may be entered of record, and shall give notice of their election to the said Aldermen within a fortnight after such election.

    SECT. IV. THE said Aldermen on the first Monday in October, if it be fair, and if not, then on the next fair day, excluding Sunday, shall meet at the court-house of their county, and proceed to divide their said county into hundreds, bounding the same by water courses, mountains, or limits, to be run and marked, if they think necessary, by the county surveyor, and at the county expence, regulating the size of the said hundreds, according to the best of their discretion, so as that they may contain a convenient number of children to make up a school, and be of such convenient size that all the children within each hundred may daily attend the school to be established therein, distinguishing each hundred by a particular name; which division, with the names of the several hundreds, shall be returned to the court of the county and be entered of record, and shall remain unaltered until the increase or decrease of inhabitants shall render an alteration necessary, in the opinion of any succeeding Aldermen, and also in the opinion of the court of the county.

    SECT. V. THE electors aforesaid residing within every hundred shall meet on the third Monday in October after the first election of Aldermen, at such place, within their hundred, as the said ALDERMEN SHALL DIRECT, NOTICE THEREOF BEING PREVIOUSLY GIVEN TO THEM BY SUCH PERSON RESIDING WITHIN THE HUNDRED AS THE SAID ALDERMEN SHALL REQUIRE WHO IS HEREBY ENJOINED TO OBEY SUCH REQUISITION, ON PAIN OF BEING PUNISHED BY AMERCEMENT AND IMPRISONMENT. The electors being so assembled shall choose the most convenient place within their hundred for building a school-house. If two or more places, having a greater number of votes than any others, shall yet be equal between themselves, the Aldermen, or such of them as are not of the same hundred, on information thereof, shall decide between them. The said Aldermen shall forthwith proceed to have a school-house built at the said place, and shall see that the same be kept in repair, and, when necessary, that it be rebuilt; but whenever they shall think necessary that it be rebuilt, they shall give notice as before directed, to the electors of the hundred to meet at the said school-house, on such day as they shall appoint, to determine by vote, in the manner before directed, whether it shall be rebuilt at the same, or what other place in the hundred.

     

    SECT. VI. AT every of these SCHOOLS SHALL BE TAUGHT READING, WRITING, AND COMMON ARITHMETICK, and THE BOOKS WHICH SHALL BE USED THEREIN FOR INSTRUCTING THE CHILDREN TO READ SHALL BE SUCH AS WILL AT THE SAME TIME MAKE them acquainted with Graecian, Roman,

     ENGLISH, AND AMERICAN HISTORY.

     At these schools all the free children, male and female, resident within the respective hundred, shall be intitled to receive tuition gratis, for the term of three years, and as much longer, at their private expence, as their parents, guardians or friends, shall think proper.

     

    SECT. VII. OVER ten of these schools (or such other number nearest thereto, as the number of hundreds in the county will admit, without fractional divisions) an overseer shall be appointed annually by the Aldermen at their first meeting, eminent for his learning, integrity, and fidelity to the commonwealth, whose business and duty it shall be, from time to time, to appoint a teacher to each school, who shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth, and to remove him as he shall see cause; to visit every school once in every half year at the least, to examine the schollars; see that any general plan of reading and instruction recommended by the visiters of William and Mary College shall be observed; and to superintend the conduct of the teacher in every thing relative to his school.

     

    SECT. VIII. EVERY teacher shall receive a salary of by the year, which, with the expences of building and repairing the school houses, shall be provided in such manner as other county expences are by law directed to be provided and shall also have his diet, lodging, and washing found him, to be levied in like manner, save only that such levy shall be on the inhabitants of each hundred for the board of their own teacher only.

     

    SECT. IX. AND in order that grammer schools may be rendered convenient to the youth in every part of the commonwealth, BE it farther enacted, that on the first Monday in November, after the first appointment of overseers for the hundred schools, if fair, and if not, then on the next fair day, excluding Sunday, after the hour of one in the afternoon, the said overseers appointed for the schools in the counties of Princess Ann, Norfolk, Nansemond and Isle-of-Wight, shall meet at Nansemond court house; those for the counties of Southampton, Sussex, Surry and Prince George, shall meet at Sussex court-house; those for the counties of Brunswick, Mecklenburg and Lunenburg, shall meet at Lunenburg court-house; those for the counties of Dinwiddie, Amelia and Chesterfield, shall meet at Chesterfield court-house; those for the counties of Powhatan, Cumberland, Goochland, Henrico and Hanover, shall meet at Henrico court-house; those for the counties of Prince Edward, Charlotte and Halifax, shall meet at Charlotte court-house; those for the counties of Henry, Pittsylvania and Bedford, shall meet at Pittsylvania court-house; those for the counties of Buckingham, Amherst, Albemarle and Fluvanna, shall meet at Albemarle court-house; those for the counties of Botetourt, Rockbridge, Montgomery, Washington and Kentucky, shall meet at Botetourt court-house; those for the counties of Augusta, Rockingham and Greenbrier, shall meet at Augusta court-house; those for the counties of Accomack and Northampton, shall meet at Accomack court-house; those for the counties of Elizabeth City, Warwick, York, Gloucester, James City, Charles City and New Kent, shall meet at James City court-house; those for the counties of Middlesex, Essex, King and Queen, King William and Caroline, shall meet at King and Queen court-house; those for the counties of Lancaster, Northumberland, Richmond and Westmoreland, shall meet at Richmond court-house; those for the counties of King George, Stafford, Spotsylvania, Prince William and Fairfax, shall meet at Spotsylvania court-house; those for the counties of Loudoun and Fauquier, shall meet at Loudoun court-house; those for the counties of Culpeper, Orange and Louisa, shall meet at Orange court-house; those for the counties of Shenandoah and Frederick, shall meet at Frederick court-house; those for the counties of Hampshire and Berkeley, shall meet at Berkeley court house; and those for the counties of Yohogania, Monongalia and Ohio, shall meet at Monongalia court-house; and shall fix on such place in some one of the counties in their district as shall be most proper for situating a grammar school-house, endeavouring that the situation be as central as may be to the inhabitants of the said counties, that it be furnished with good water, convenient to plentiful supplies of provision and fuel, and more than all things that it be healthy. And if a majority of the overseers present should not concur in their choice of any one place proposed, the method of determining shall be as follows: If two places only were proposed, and the votes be divided, they shall decide between them by fair and equal lot; if more than two places were proposed, the question shall be put on those two which on the first division had the greater number of votes; or if no two places had a greater number of votes than the others, as where the votes shall have been equal between one or both of them and some other or others, then it shall be decided by fair and equal lot (unless it can be agreed by a majority of votes) which of the places having equal numbers shall be thrown out of the competition, so that the question shall be put on the remaining two, and if on this ultimate question the votes shall be equally divided, it shall then be decided finally by lot.

     

    SECT. X. THE said overseers having determined the place at which the grammer school for their district shall be built, shall forthwith (unless they can otherwise agree with the proprietors of the circumjacent lands as to location and price) make application to the clerk of the county in which the said house is to be situated, who shall thereupon issue a writ, in the nature of a writ of ad quod damnum, directed to the sheriff of the said county commanding him to summon and impannel twelve fit persons to meet at the place, so destined for the grammer school-house, on a certain day, to be named in the said writ, not less than five, nor more than ten, days from the date thereof; and also to give notice of the same to the proprietors and tenants of the lands to be viewed, if they be to be found within the county, and if not, then to their agents therein if any they have. Which freeholders shall be charged by the said sheriff impartially, and to the best of their skill and judgement to view the lands round about the said place, and to locate and circumscribe, by certain metes and bounds, one hundred acres thereof, having regard therein principally to the benefit and convenience of the said school, but respecting in some measure also the convenience of the said proprietors, and to value and appraise the same in so many several respective interests and estates therein. And after such location and appraisement so made, the said sheriff shall forthwith return the same under the hands and seals of the said jurors, together with the writ, to the clerk’s office of the said county and the right and property of the said proprietors and tenants in the said lands so circumscribed shall be immediately devested and be transferred to the commonwealth for the use of the said grammar school, in full and absolute dominion, any want of consent or disability to consent in the said owners or tenants notwithstanding. But it shall not be lawful for the said overseers so to situate the said grammar school-house, nor to the said jurors so to locate the said lands, as to include the mansion-house of the proprietor of the lands, nor the offices, curtilage, or garden, thereunto immediately belonging.

     

    SECT. XI. THE said overseers shall forthwith proceed to have a house of brick or stone, for the said grammar school, with necessary offices, built on the said lands, which grammer school-house shall contain a room for the school, a hall to dine in, four rooms for a master and usher, and ten or twelve lodging rooms for the scholars.

     

    SECT. XII. TO each of the said grammar schools shall be allowed out of the public treasury, the sum of pounds, out of which shall be paid by the Treasurer, on warrant from the Auditors, to the proprietors or tenants of the lands located, the value of their several interests as fixed by the jury, and the balance thereof shall be delivered to the said overseers to defray the expence of the said buildings.

     

    SECT. XIII. IN these grammar schools shall be taught the Latin and Greek languages, English grammar, geography, and the higher part of numerical arithmetick, to wit, vulgar and decimal fractions, and the extraction of the square and cube roots.

     

    SECT. XIV. A visiter from each county constituting the district shall be appointed, by the overseers, for the county, in the month of October annually, either from their own body or from their county at large, which visiters or the greater part of them, meeting together at the said grammar school on the first Monday in November, if fair, and if not, then on the next fair day, excluding Sunday, shall have power to choose their own Rector, who shall call and preside at future meetings, to employ from time to time a master, and if necessary, an usher, for the said school, to remove them at their will, and to settle the price of tuition to be paid by the scholars. They shall also visit the school twice in every year at the least, either together or separately at their discretion, examine the scholars, and see that any general plan of instruction recommended by the visiters of William and Mary College shall be observed. The said masters and ushers, before they enter on the execution of their office, shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth.

     

    SECT. XV. A steward shall be employed, and removed at will by the master, on such wages as the visiters shall direct; which steward shall see to the procuring provisions, fuel, servants for cooking, waiting, house cleaning, washing, mending, and gardening on the most reasonable terms; the expence of which, together with the steward’s wages, shall be divided equally among all the scholars boarding either on the public or private expence. And the part of those who are on private expence, and also the price of their tuitions due to the master or usher, shall be paid quarterly by the respective scholars, their parents, or guardians, and shall be recoverable, if withheld, together with costs, on motion in any Court of Record, ten days notice thereof being previously given to the party, and a jury impannelled to try the issue joined, or enquire of the damages. The said steward shall also, under the direction of the visiters, see that the houses be kept in repair, and necessary enclosures be made and repaired, the accounts for which, shall, from time to time, be submitted to the Auditors, and on their warrant paid by the Treasurer.

     

    SECT. XVI. EVERY overseer of the hundred schools shall, in the month of September annually, after the most diligent and impartial examination and enquiry, appoint from among the boys who shall have been two years at the least at some one of the schools under his superintendance, and whose parents are too poor to give them farther education, some one of the best and most promising genius and disposition, to proceed to the grammar school of his district; which appointment shall be made in the court-house of the county, on the court day for that month, if fair, and if not, then on the next fair day, excluding Sunday, in the presence of the Aldermen, or two of them at the least, assembled on the bench for that purpose, the said overseer being previously sworn by them to make such appointment, without favor or affection, according to the best of his skill and judgment, and being interrogated by the said Aldermen, either on their own motion, or on suggestions from the parents, guardians, friends, or teachers of the children, competitors for such appointment; which teachers shall attend for the information of the Aldermen. On which interrogatories the said Aldermen, if they be not satisfied with the appointment proposed, shall have right to negative it; whereupon the said visiter may proceed to make a new appointment, and the said Aldermen again to interrogate and negative, and so toties quoties until an appointment be approved.

     

    SECT. XVII. EVERY boy so appointed shall be authorised to proceed to the grammar school of his district, there to be educated and boarded during such time as is hereafter limited; and his quota of the expences of the house together with a compensation to the master or usher for his tuition, at the rate of twenty dollars by the year, shall be paid by the Treasurer quarterly on warrant from the Auditors.

     

    SECT. XVIII. A visitation shall be held, for the purpose of probation, annually at the said grammar school on the last Monday in September, if fair, and if not, then on the next fair day, excluding Sunday, at which one third of the boys sent thither by appointment of the said overseers, and who shall have been there one year only, shall be discontinued as public foundationers, being those who, on the most diligent examination and enquiry, shall be thought to be of the least promising genius and disposition; and of those who shall have been there two years, all shall be discontinued, save one only the best in genius and disposition, who shall be at liberty to continue there four years longer on the public foundation, and shall thence forward be deemed a senior.

     

    SECT. XIX. THE visiters for the districts which, or any part of which, be southward and westward of James river, as known by that name, or by the names of Fluvanna and Jackson’s river, in every other year, to wit, at the probation meetings held in the years, distinguished in the Christian computation by odd numbers, and the visiters for all the other districts at their said meetings to be held in those years, distinguished by even numbers, after diligent examination and enquiry as before directed, shall chuse one among the said seniors, of the best learning and most hopeful genius and disposition, who shall be authorised by them to proceed to William and Mary College, there to be educated, boarded, and clothed, three years; the expence of which annually shall be paid by the Treasurer on warrant from the Auditors.

    The Bill was presented in the House of Delegates in 1778 and 1780, but was not passed; James Madison  presented the bill several more times to the state legislature while Jefferson was serving in Paris as Minister to France. A much-revised version was finally passed into law in 1796 as an “Act to Establish Public Schools.”

     

    ——————————————————————–

    Read more on the history of Public Education

    The Beginnings of Public Education

    in Virginia, 1776-1860

    Source: Jefferson, Thomas, 1743-1826. Public Papers, Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library. http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/texts/

     


  • WOW Wild Wilderness Warfare?

    WOW Wild Wilderness Warfare?

    PLUS….  Violations of Federal Law in the US Navy’s Procedures for Obtaining a
    Permit  to Conduct Electromagnetic Warfare Testing and Training in the Olympic National Forest?

    How in the world are Rep Kilmer and Senator Patty Murray going to pull this one off?

    ————————————————————————————-

    Dear elected public representatives and appointed administrative rulers, Federal, state, county and city (AKA Public Servants)

    This is the best OBJECTION, by Karen Sullivan, I have every read on the Olympic Peninsula Electronic Warfare Project

    Described to me by District Ranger Dean Millett as no big deal…

    “JUST A COUPLE OF ROADS FOR A COUPLE OF PICKUPS”

    PS – Just so you know, SHE is only one person, SIMPLY A CONCERNED CITIZEN who
    got a bee in her bonnet about this particular issue and decided to lend a
    hand. HER email volume has increased exponentially, with a lot of requests,
    and SHE cannot always answer every one, but SHE WILL  try. If we all lend our
    voices to Karen Sullivan  AND speak out, just think of the magnificent racket we can make!
    ————————————————————————————–

    Complete  text by Karen Sullivan  November 14, 2014

    Below is a clear proposal from a former employee who maps out why the
    proposed activity is not legal.  From the document:

    *Disclaimer: The author is not an attorney, but is a retired federal
    employee who worked under certain environmental laws and regulations, and
    who has a clear understanding of what a public process should be. *

    Dear Friends and Colleagues,

    Attached both as a PDF file and pasted into the body of this message,
    please find a summary of the ways in which I believe federal law has been
    violated by the Navy and the Forest Service, in the so-called public
    process and documentation associated with the Navy’s proposed
    electromagnetic warfare testing and training program for the Olympic
    National Forest.

    The reason for this lengthy document ( nearly 6000 words) is that neither unanimous public
    opposition nor the 2,000+ public comments submitted to the Forest Service
    so far have been found by the decision-maker, District Ranger Dean Millett,
    to be “substantive.”  Evidently, emotional pleas, descriptions of probable
    harm to small businesses and simple principled objections are discounted.
    Therefore, in order to rectify that lack as perceived by the Forest
    Service, I have attempted to give more substantive reasons why the Navy’s
    Environmental Assessment is defective and deficient and should be withdrawn
    or completely revised, and the Special Use Permit refused.

    I hope we can bring the total to 3,000 comments or more. Please feel free
    to use the information in here, share it and encourage more people to
    comment. You can comment more than once. Just go to:
    https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=42759
    and submit them.
    Best,
    Karen Sullivan

    PS – Just so you know, I’m only one person, simply a concerned citizen who
    got a bee in her bonnet about this particular issue and decided to lend a
    hand. My email volume has increased exponentially, with a lot of requests,
    and I cannot always answer every one, but I’ll try. If we all lend our
    voices to speak out, just think of the magnificent racket we can make!

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

    *Violations of Federal Law in the US Navy’s Procedures for Obtaining a
    Permit *
    *to Conduct Electromagnetic Warfare Testing and Training *
    *in the Olympic National Forest*
    *Contents:*
    *1. Summary*
    *2. Violations of Federal NEPA Law*
    *3. Violation of National Forest Management Act and Forest Plan *
    *4. Cumulative Impacts – Omissions in Documents*
    *5. Fraudulent Noise Measurements*
    *6. No Verification of Navy’s Claim of No Significant Impacts*
    *7. Some Unaddressed Public Concerns*
    *8. Conclusion*

    *Disclaimer: The author is not an attorney, but is a retired federal
    employee who worked under certain environmental laws and regulations, and
    who has a clear understanding of what a public process should be. *

    *Part 1*

    *Summary*
    The US Navy is proposing to take large swathes of Washington’s Olympic
    National Forest plus a large amount of airspace over Olympic National Park
    and the communities in the area, to run electronic warfare attack and
    detection testing and training, for 260 days per year, permanently, using
    at least 36 new supersonic attack jets and radiation emitters on the
    ground, in 15 locations. The Navy has refused to hold true public hearings
    in affected communities on the Olympic Peninsula, citing not enough money
    in their $11.5 million dollar budget. Each new jet costs between $68
    million and $77 million, depending on which figure is used, so the total
    equipment budget is approximately $2,785,500,000. No public notices were
    printed in any newspapers that directly serve the affected communities.

    *The issue boils down to:* Should the Forest Service issue a Special Use
    Permit to the Navy to use roads in the Olympic National Forest to run their
    electronic radiation-emitting truck-and-trailer combinations, which would
    entail numerous unannounced forest closures and other problems? In a
    Machivellian twist, Dean Millett, the Forest Service District Ranger who
    will be making the decision on whether or not to issue the permit, has been
    limited to a very narrow scope, considering only the impacts and effects
    from the truck-and-trailer rigs and nothing else. No jet noise, no jet
    emissions or fuel dumps, no hazards from air-based electronic attack
    weapons, no chronic radiation, no fire danger, or other concerns brought up
    by the public are being considered in issuing this permit. These other
    concerns have been labeled by Mr Millett as being “outside of his decision
    space.” Yet if he issues the permit for road use by the Navy’s emitters, it
    will trigger all of the other testing and training actions and their
    impacts, none of which were evaluated in the Navy’s Environmental
    Assessment of September 2014.  The Navy’s Environmental Impact Statement of
    2010 is unavailable for public comment because the Navy removed it from
    their web site.

    *A military program of electronic warfare on public land* qualifies as a
    major federal action and is thus subject to a public process under the
    National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, or NEPA. This process includes
    hearings in affected communities whenever there is environmental
    controversy. These hearings must be in accordance with NEPA guidelines,
    which safeguard the public’s right to be heard.  In addition, the
    scientific evidence to back up statements must be thorough, accurate, and
    available for public scrutiny. In this case, the public’s right to know and
    participate has been severely abridged and the Navy’s “science” and legal
    maneuverings for justifying all of these impacts to our communities are
    shakier than the San Andreas Fault.
    *If the permit is issued,* it will likely affect other National Forest
    lands as well, all of which have long been considered appropriate for
    “…military training when compatible with other uses and in conformity with
    applicable Forest Plans,” in a Memorandum of Understanding between the
    Department of Defense and the US Department of Agriculture. In the Ocala
    National Forest in Florida, for example, the Navy maintains a live bombing
    range located half a mile from one campground and two miles from another.
    This is probably not what Theodore Roosevelt had in mind when he moved the
    Forest Service from the Department of the Interior to the Department of
    Agriculture.

    District Ranger Millett is expected to sign the permit despite almost
    unanimous public opposition, *unless the Forest Service receives formally
    and in writing what he called “substantive” comments by the end of the
    comment period on November 28*, *2014*. Mr Millett declined to define
    “substantive” when asked at a public informational meeting. Therefore, it
    is the aim of this document to provide readers with the best examples of
    substantive comments possible, short of legal advice from an attorney.

    *Public comments can be sent* to: dmillett@fs.fed.us, gtwahl@fs.fed.us, and
    inputted directly online at:
    https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=42759

    *Part 2*

    *Violations of Federal NEPA Law*

    *1. Failure to notify the public:* The Navy has violated the National
    Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) by failing to adequately notify the
    public. One 8”X11” poster stuck on bulletin boards at a couple of post
    offices, combined with tiny notices placed in a few newspapers many miles
    away from those that directly serve affected communities, are a ludicrous
    excuse for notifying the entire population of the Olympic Peninsula.
    Congressman Derek Kilmer’s office sent the Navy a packet with contact
    information for all the local newspapers in affected communities, along
    with a request to prominently post public notices in those papers. Neither
    the Navy nor the Forest Service placed a single notice in any local papers
    serving Olympic Peninsula communities. This is a clear violation of the
    spirit and intent of NEPA as well, and a bad faith gesture to residents of
    the Olympic Peninsula.

    *Why did the Navy discard requests from a congressman and deliberately
    violate federal law in their public notification process?*

    *2.  Failure to record public comments: *Due to the high volume of
    complaints received, Rep. Kilmer asked the Navy to hold public meetings.
    Since then the Navy has made it repeatedly clear that were it not for
    Congressman Kilmer’s request for public meetings, there would be none on
    the Olympic Peninsula. Instead of holding hearings under NEPA, however, the
    Navy and Forest Service held “Informational Meetings.” The fact that none
    of the public’s comments were officially recorded at any of the meetings in
    Forks, Port Angeles and Pacific Beach has further upset people’s confidence
    in government and muddied the understanding of the NEPA process. Most are
    wondering why they aren’t getting a fair shake under normal NEPA procedure.
    CEQ regulations require that agencies “make diligent efforts to involve the
    public in preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures” (40 CFR
    1506.6(a)). “Informational meetings” fulfill neither NEPA requirements nor
    the public’s desire to comment, ask questions, and receive answers,
    especially when people are given one minute to speak and then interrupted
    frequently. The Navy has failed to conduct a proper NEPA process.

    *Why does the Navy refuse to hold hearings and record public comments?*

    * 3. Commenters are given no legal “standing:”* Since none of the hundreds
    of people who have attended the Navy’s informational meetings have had
    their comments recorded, none have any legal standing in the NEPA process,
    unless they submitted their comments again through other avenues that
    require knowing the email addresses of certain officials, or knowing where
    the Forest Service’s web-based NEPA page is. Had these been true public
    hearings, all of those people would now have legal standing, because many
    also held printed comments in their hands, ready to submit after they
    finished speaking. In the Port Angeles meeting, both the Navy and Forest
    Service dismissed the idea of recording comments despite being repeatedly
    challenged to by attendees. The public’s right to a full hearing is
    codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR, and in the State of
    Washington Revised Code, at RCW 42.30.

    *Why were commenters at public meetings given no legal standing in the NEPA
    process?*

    *4. What legal standing means:* Any grievances the public has about
    electromagnetic warfare testing and training MUST be addressed in public
    comments first, in order to have legal standing, which means we are giving
    the Forest Service and the Navy notice that we, the public, think these
    grievances should be addressed. If those grievances are not rectified, any
    legal actions on behalf of the public that follow would have more
    authority, because the Navy had been aware of the grievances yet chose not
    to address them. Without legal standing, those legal actions on behalf of
    the public would likely have less authority due to the implication of no
    notice of grievance being given in public comments. This is a denial of due
    process as stipulated in NEPA, and a distortion of the true amount of
    public concern. On page 1-8 of the Environmental Assessment, the Navy
    states, “No comments were received on the draft EA.” That is *exactly* the
    fear of people who attended those meetings, that their comments would not
    be acknowledged and that the absence of their comments will be reflected
    similarly by the Navy as it did in the EA, thus implying less public
    interest than there really is.

    *5. When hearings are required:* Public meetings or hearings “…are required
    when there may be substantial environmental controversy concerning the
    environmental effects of the proposed action, a substantial interest in
    holding the meeting, or a request for a meeting by another agency with
    jurisdiction over the action.” (40 CFR 1506.6 (c)).  Proper hearings under
    NEPA have not been held in affected communities, and the usual citizen’s
    right to register comments at public hearings has been denied. Therefore
    the Navy and the Forest Service have violated NEPA in this regard, too.

    *Why are the Navy and Forest Service discounting the extreme level of
    public sentiment that is being amply demonstrated in other ways besides
    formal written comments? *

    *6. Written comments are also being discounted:* Despite the level of
    public concern remaining extremely high, District Ranger Dean Millett was
    recorded on videotape during the meeting in Port Angeles saying that as of
    November 6, with regard to formal written public comments, the Forest
    Service had received “nothing substantive” that would stop him from signing
    the permit. He is looking exclusively for defects in the Environmental
    Assessment, and insists that public opinion doesn’t count if people simply
    express their objections. He also has said that 2,000 written comments are
    “not a lot” and have had no effect on him. The comment period has been
    extended twice, yet the public is still struggling to wade through the
    nearly 5,000 pages of scientific and technical documentation, much of which
    remains unavailable to them. By not allowing the public sufficient time to
    catch up with a process they entered late, through no fault of their own,
    and by not allowing them time to develop substantive comments, the Forest
    Service is compromising NEPA law.

    *What is the point of a public comment process if the Forest Service
    ignores public opinion?*

    *This is why the Forest Service needs to extend the comment period to the
    end of January, so that the public has enough time to understand the issues
    well enough to make “substantive” comments, and so that the holidays won’t
    interfere with that. *

    *7. Other agencies not consulted:*  Neither Olympic National Park nor the
    State DNR, whose lands will be affected by the mobile emitters, were
    consulted during the drafting of the Environmental Assessment. If they were
    consulted afterward, then where is the public record of those
    consultations? This is another failure on the part of the Navy in its NEPA
    procedure.  Also, neither DNR nor the Park Service were represented at any
    of the informational meetings. Why not?  Failure to consult with other
    affected agencies is a violation of federal law.

    *Part 3*

    *Violation of National Forest Management Act and Forest Plan*

    *8. Public interest is paramount: *By signing the permit, the Forest
    Service places itself in violation of its own Forest Management Plan, and
    the National Forest Management Act. No outside agency, including the
    Department of Defense, has the right to override the Forest Service’s own
    Forest Management Plans and conduct activities that place their priorities
    over those of the public. The Forest Service’s own regulations state that
    military use of public lands is not permissible if the military has other
    “suitable and available” lands for their Proposed Action, and Forest
    Service management policy states that when considering issuing such a
    permit, “…the interests and needs of the general public shall be given
    priority over those of the applicant.”  The Navy has not adequately
    demonstrated that it has not investigated the use of private or other
    lands, and its reasons for wanting to move the entire electronic warfare
    program from Mountain Home, Idaho to the Olympic National Forest are not
    enough: fuel savings and ease of scheduling for training are insufficient
    justification to override the overwhelming socioeconomic and environmental
    interests of the public.

    *Why are the needs and desires of the public not being given priority over
    the desires of the Navy?*

    *9. Special Use Permit screening checklist*:  Among its 14 requirements,
    the Forest Service’s own checklist for considering applications says, “Use
    will not pose a serious or substantial risk to public health or safety AND
    Use will not create an exclusive or perpetual right of use or occupancy AND
    Use will not unreasonably conflict or interfere with administrative use by
    the Forest Service, other scheduled or authorized existing uses on or
    adjacent to non-National Forest System lands.”

    (36CFR 251.54; FSH 2709.11 12.2 & 12.3; FSM 2703)

    *Part 4*

    *Cumulative Impacts – Omissions in Documents*

    *10. Documents still unavailable:* Though the Forest Service’s NEPA home
    page links to the Navy’s Environmental Assessment and its decision
    documents, neither it nor the Navy web pages contain links to the 2010 EIS,
    which was removed from public access by the Navy, or the previous EIS’s
    going back to 1989 that have been cited by the Navy in meetings, or the
    Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2010 Biological Opinion, which is not posted
    anywhere, or to the temporary permit that was issued by the Forest Service
    to the Navy three years ago, or to the Memorandum of Understanding that
    declared military training to be an “appropriate use” of national forest
    lands, or to supporting documents referenced in the Navy’s Environmental
    Assessment, such as Joint Publication 3-13.1, which describes the methods
    and intent of electronic attack weapons on the Growler jets that will be
    training in the Olympic National Forest.

    This is a violation of NEPA, which says such pertinent documents shall be
    made available to the public for scrutiny.  (18CFR 380.9).  Moreover, an
    explanation of the Forest Service’s own updated NEPA handbook says, “…NEPA
    procedures regulations [sic] are intended to let interested parties become
    more effectively engaged in the decision making process rather than merely
    as reviewer of proposals and final documents. Specifically, the regulations
    include an option for responsible officials to incrementally develop,
    modify, and document proposed actions and alternatives through an open and
    transparent process.”

    *If District Ranger Dean Millett is the responsible official who has the
    power to make the public review process more open and transparent, then why
    does he not do it?*

    *11. Navy dismisses entire categories of impacts:*  On page ES-2 of the
    Environmental Assessment the Navy states, “Cumulative impacts of the
    Proposed Action, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably
    foreseeable future impacts, were analyzed. Based on the analysis, cumulative
    impacts within the EW Range Study Area would not be significant.” On page
    4-1 the Navy says, “The cumulative impacts analysis in this EA focused on
    impacts that are “truly meaningful,” in accordance with CEQ guidance
    (Council on Environmental Quality 1997). The level of analysis for each
    resource was commensurate with the intensity of the impacts.” Also, “…this
    EA dismissed from further analysis the actions and environmental
    considerations that were considered not reasonably forseeable.” *The Navy
    is not allowed to dismiss environmental considerations* it considers not
    meaningful or foreseeable during a NEPA process; this is a violation of
    NEPA, which does not allow an agency such leeway. In November 2009, a
    federal court judge ruled that a faulty impacts analysis in a NEPA process
    may subject the government to financial liability later. In early 2010, the
    Obama administration announced plans to require analysis of the proposed
    action’s relation to climate change, along with impacts on land use,
    biological diversity, and air and water quality. While analysis of
    cumulative impacts has been the subject of disagreement among agencies, *the
    Navy has provided in its EA neither peer-reviewed citations nor detailed
    analysis on any of the following topics, all of which would be in the
    public’s interest:*

    a. Socioeconomic impacts to communities from increased jet noise and air
    pollution;

    b. Impacts to wilderness values in Olympic National Park;

    c. Cultural factors, including traditional uses of land;

    d. Analysis of multiple stressors on humans, endangered species, and other
    wildlife;

    e. Analysis of chronic radiation effects on humans, wildlife and habitats,
    including aquatic; (There was no mention in the EA of the U.S. Department
    of Interior’s February 7, 2014 critique of the FCC’s outdated dismissal of
    radiation concerns, see

    http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/us_doi_comments.pdf  )

    f. Evaluation of the protection of children, environmental justice, water,
    land use, and geology;

    g. Analyses on population effects on threatened bird species, particularly
    the cumulative effects of noise and electromagnetic radiation on the
    northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet, in whose critical habitat areas
    most of the Navy’s emitter sites will be located;

    h. Analysis of the effects of electromagnetic radiation and loud sounds on
    migrating shorebirds, geese, ducks, and other non-listed birds;

    Additionally, there were none of these:

    9. Cost analysis for jet fuel savings from not flying an extra 400 miles,
    versus effects on the environment.

    i. Analysis of other sites as alternatives to the Olympic MOA, including
    private lands.

    j. Analysis of the increased fire danger posed by jet and drone crashes,
    sparks from vehicle transmitters or operators’ cigarettes, or misdirected
    electromagnetic beams from either the transmitters or from jets, hitting
    tinder-dry vegetation;

    k. Analysis of the interaction and effects of climate change as a potential
    magnifier of impacts.

    *Why did the Navy not do its homework?*

    *Did the Forest Service assess each segment of the Olympic National Forest
    to be used by the Navy with an initial focus on identifying and evaluating
    the wide variety of impacts and potential risks to resources?  Were these
    risks rated as high, medium or low? Did the Forest Service assess impacts
    from jet emissions, jet and drone crashes, possible fires caused by said
    activities, along with other impacts, including but not limited to:  Loss
    of National Forest public revenue, loss of use by the public, the scope and
    number of acres needed for use by the Navy, the scope of the habit in that
    area, etc.  If there is potential damage, how will Navy restore these
    areas?  *

    *Were the above factors, if investigated by the U.S. Forest Service,
    reviewed by the Forest Botany and Wildlife Team? During their review, did
    they specifically consider the influence of electronic and electromagnetic
    affects to species such as fragmentation, disturbance, and potential loss
    of habitat quality?*

    *Part 5*

    *Fraudulent Noise Measurements*

    *12. Jet noise not accurately measured for assessing impacts:*  At a
    meeting with residents in Coupeville on the topic of jet noise, a Navy
    representative described the process of sound measurement as that of
    placing a GE engine on a test platform on the ground, turning it on and
    recording its noise. That data is fed into noise mapping software that
    considers land contour data. The processed data was then averaged with
    quiet time over the length of a year to produce a “Day-Night Average,” as
    is done at commercial airports by the FAA. No live jet takeoffs or landings
    were measured in establishing the Day-Night Average, according to the Navy
    official, nor was the frequent use of afterburners ever factored into those
    sound levels, nor was the significant extra noise from extended flaps,
    landing gear and speed brakes included.

    The Navy developed a decibel average of 65, which is under the limit for
    hearing damage but over the limit, according to the Navy’s own figures, for
    residential development. 65 decibels does not, however, account for the
    times when the decibel level *inside* some residential homes is above 100,
    which is more than enough to cause hearing loss, or the fact that at some
    homes at Admiral’s Cove the decibel level has been measured by an
    independent sound professional, at 134.2.  Growler jets are louder than the
    Prowlers they are replacing, and the Navy has promised that the minimum
    altitude they will be flying over land is 1200 feet. That has been
    frequently contradicted by hikers on mountainous forest trails, who have
    reported seeing jets fly past beneath them. According to the Navy’s own
    figures, a Growler jet flying at 1000 feet produces a “Single Event Level”
    of 113 decibels, which is enough to damage hearing and cause medical
    problems in people subjected to it. In the Roosevelt-Okanogan Military
    Training Area the Navy is authorized to fly at 300 feet above ground level.
    It is not clear what would prevent them from authorizing that lower
    altitude in the Olympic National Forest.

    A recent study called Community Aircraft Noise: A Public Health Issue
    identified serious health effects in Coupeville, WA, caused by chronic and
    acute noise episodes:
    http://citizensofebeysreserve.com/Files/Community%20Aircraft%20Noise_A%20Public%20Health%20Issue.pdf

    *With regard to jet noise and emissions,* the “Citizens of Ebey’s Reserve”
    on Whidbey Island have created a web page which includes this Links and
    Files section, full of valuable information:
    http://citizensofebeysreserve.com/LinksAndFiles.html

    *As a result of the Navy’s apparent underestimation of sound levels* caused
    by jets, the effects of loud noise on threatened and endangered species in
    the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Biological Opinion for the Navy, which was
    begun in 2009 and issued in 2010, may be based on inaccurate or misleading
    information from the Navy. If this is indeed the case, that the Fish and
    Wildlife Service was given inaccurate or misleading information on which to
    base its evaluation of biological impacts, then the Biological Opinion
    should be considered invalid and formal consultation re-initiated under
    Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, using actual sound measurements
    from real jets. Providing deliberately misleading information to a federal
    agency is also considered a form of fraud or false statement under US Code,
    Chapter 47. There may be other applicable laws that were violated.

    *What is the real level of sound produced by Navy jets, and why was this
    information not incorporated into impact studies, and shouldn’t the Navy be
    required to change its measurement system to the full spectrum of noise
    generated by actual aircraft?*

    *Part 6*

    *No Verification of Navy’s Claim of No Significant Impacts*

    *13. The Forest Service conducted no independent research:* At the Port
    Angeles meeting, District Ranger Dean Millett acknowledged and is recorded
    on videotape saying that *the Forest Service did not conduct any
    independent investigation to verify the Navy’s claims of no significant
    impacts*. This violates the Forest Service’s own policies as well as the
    law. For example, the Environmental Assessment dismisses potential impacts
    on everything that does not fall into its category of “observable
    wildlife.” It inaccurately states that amphibians and reptiles only exist
    around marshes and meadows. On page 3.2-6 it says, “The proposed activities
    do not occur on marshes or in meadows; therefore, it is highly unlikely
    that amphibians or reptiles would occur in the project area.”

    A similar statement dismisses the possibility of amphibians or reptiles
    occurring on “disturbed areas” such as roadside pull-outs where mobile
    transmitters would operate.  The Forest Service is presumably aware that
    the Olympic National Forest is designated a temperate rainforest, which
    means it is damp and wet during much of the year, and is prime habitat for
    amphibians such as frogs, newts, and salamanders throughout, which can be
    quite far from “marshes and meadows.” Furthermore, both amphibians and
    reptiles (e.g., snakes and lizards) often frequent cleared or “disturbed”
    areas. Dismissing amphibians and reptiles from consideration is misleading
    and unlawful, because amphibians are especially sensitive to
    electromagnetic radiation, particularly in their larval stages. Along with
    omissions of important analyses and data previously discussed, such blatant
    misstatements of fact *preclude informed public comment*, raise serious
    questions about the integrity of the preparers, and renders the entire
    Environmental Assessment and the permit that is intended to be based on it,
    suspect. *The US Forest Service has a duty to conduct its own independent
    scientific review* of the impacts of activities that it allows or condones.
    An agency cannot simply adopt the conclusions of another agency.

    *If the Forest Service questions the Navy’s data, then why has it not done
    its own independent investigations?  And if it does not question the Navy’s
    data, why not?*

    *14. The Courts have spoken:*  The above comments amply demonstrate the
    need for the Forest Service to conduct its own scientific review.  In Save
    Our Ecosystems V. P Clark E Merrell, http://openjurist.org/747/f2d/1240 the
    Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said, “The Forest Service must do research
    if no adequate data exists.” In Foundation for North American Wild Sheep V.
    US Department of Agriculture, the Ninth Circuit Court said, “the very
    purpose of NEPA’s requirement that an EIS be prepared for all actions that
    may significantly affect the environment is to obviate the need for such
    speculation by insuring that available data is gathered and analyzed prior
    to the implementation of the proposed action.” 681 F.2d at 1179. In Warm
    Springs Dam Task Force V. Gribble, the Court held that an agency cured the
    defect in its EIS by commissioning a study about the effects of a newly
    discovered fault system on that dam. 621 F.2d at 1025-26.

    *15. Other courts have imposed similar requirements on agencies*. See,
    e.g., Rankin v. Coleman, 394 F.Supp. 647, 658 (highway project enjoined for
    inadequate EIS on effects and alternatives; alternatives must be
    “affirmatively studied”), mod. 401 F.Supp. 664 (E.D.N.C.1975); Montgomery
    v. Ellis, 364 F.Supp. 517, 528 (N.D.Ala.1973) (“NEPA requires each agency
    to undertake research needed adequately to expose environmental harms and,
    hence, to appraise available alternatives”) (project enjoined pending
    preparation of an adequate EIS); Brooks v. Volpe, 350 F.Supp. 269, 279
    (“NEPA requires each agency to indicate the research needed to adequately
    expose environmental harms”), supplemented, 350 F.Supp. 287
    (W.D.Wash.1972), aff’d, *487 F.2d 1344*
    <http://openjurist.org/487/f2d/1344> (9th
    Cir.1973); Environmental Defense Fund v. Hardin, 325 F.Supp. 1401, 1403
    (D.D.C.1971) (interpreting section 102(2)(A) as making “the completion of
    an adequate research program a prerequisite to agency action …. The Act
    envisions that program formulation will be directed by research results
    rather than that research programs will be designed to substantiate
    programs already decided upon”) If the information relevant to adverse
    impacts is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and is not
    known, and the overall costs of obtaining it are not exorbitant, the
    agency *shall
    *include the information in the environmental impact statement.

    *Part 7*

    *Some Unaddressed Public Concerns*

    *16. Chronic radiation effects not addressed:* In Section 2.1.1.4, the
    claim that the noise and RF radiation from mobile emitters will not impact
    what the Environmental Assessment calls Biological Resources is entirely
    based on the premise that the mobile emitters are moving around the forest,
    so exposure at any one site is limited. This despite the fact that 3 mobile
    units will be in operation from 8 – 16 hours per day, 260 days per year,
    among 15 different sites on the Olympic Peninsula. According to the EA,
    each mobile emitter site will average 11.15 training events per day, which
    also includes electronic detection and attack weapons from jets. This works
    out to an average of 468 hours of electromagnetic radiation per site per
    year, or 195, 24-hour days per decade. The Department of the Interior has
    criticized the FCC’s standards for cellphone radiation to be outmoded and
    no longer applicable as they do not adequately protect wildlife:
    http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/us_doi_comments.pdf

    *Where is the peer-reviewed research to back up the Navy’s claim of no
    significant impacts?*

    *17. Potential loss of human lives:*  Page 2-7 of the environmental
    assessment says the following: “The activities of the Proposed Action
    center on two divisions of EW, known as electronic warfare support (ES) and
    electronic attack (EA).” Then it goes on to provide this short explanation:
    “Sailors aboard Navy ships, submarines, and aircraft conduct ES and EA
    training as they search for, intercept, identify, and locate or localize
    sources of intentional and unintentional radiated electromagnetic energy
    for the purpose of immediate threat recognition, targeting, planning, and
    conduct of future operations. “(EA 2-7)  This sounds pretty benign.

    The environmental assessment references Joint Publication 3-13.1,
    Electronic Warfare, 08 February 2012 as a source document, and if you look
    at this publication the short explanation above is, verbatim, the
    definition of electronic support but  the environmental assessment leaves
    out any explanation of electronic attack (EA). Joint Publication 3-13.1
    defines Electronic Attack as follow: “EA refers to the division of EW
    involving the use of EM energy, DE (directed energy), or antiradiation
    weapons to attack personnel, facilities, or equipment with the intent of
    degrading, neutralizing, or destroying enemy combat capability…”

    Directed energy is defined as:  “An umbrella term covering technologies
    that relate to the production of a beam of concentrated electromagnetic
    energy or atomic or subatomic particles. ” (GL6) “Examples include lasers,
    electro-optical (EO), infrared (IR), and radio frequency (RF) weapons such
    as high-power microwave (HPM) or those employing an EMP.  (I-4)  Now it’s
    getting serious. Additionally, Joint Publication 3-13-1 also speaks to
    unintended consequences of EW:  “Unintended Consequences. EW planners must
    coordinate EW efforts … to minimize unintended consequences, collateral
    damage, and collateral effects. Friendly EA could potentially deny
    essential services to a local population that, in turn, could result in
    loss of life and/or political ramifications.”  (III-5)

    The Environmental Assessment, which only deals with the ground operations
    (the emitters), is addressing just a part of the impact and is totally
    silent on what may be the bigger concern, which is impact caused by the
    aircraft, ships and submarines engaging in EW training, and particularly
    electronic attack training.

    *What types of electronic attack will be practiced, and what are the
    potential impacts, intended or otherwise, on the local population and the
    environment?*

    *How can a Special Use Permit include the use of Electronic Attack weapons
    if they weren’t even discussed in the Environmental Assessment? *

    *Part 8*

    *Conclusion*

    The U.S. Navy is demonstrably unable to perceive or assess impacts in our
    forests, and is evidently unwilling to assess or disclose impacts to
    humans, wildlife and habitats from a variety of sources that concern the
    public. Because none of these direct, indirect and cumulative impacts have
    been analyzed, and because there have been so many violations of NEPA
    procedure, and because case law has shown again and again that one agency
    cannot rely exclusively on the data from another agency, this Special Use
    Permit should not be issued. For the above reasons, the Navy’s self-serving
    Environmental Assessment should be withdrawn and an honest, independent
    assessment of impacts should be made by the Forest Service, in a valid
    Environmental Impact Statement that places no applicant’s priority above
    the interests of the public, and that allows the public to have a say in
    the management of its public lands.

    It is ironic in the extreme that the Navy forces other agencies to consider
    vast amounts of area when evaluating impacts, such as to endangered species
    in the entire northwestern region of Washington, or on a training range
    that stretches from California to Alaska, yet it forces public commenters
    to restrict themselves to one item on their menu of impacts when foisting a
    program of such potentially immense consequence upon the public.

    As of December 2014, the Navy will also be expanding its sonar and
    explosive activity (http://tinyurl.com/PDN-Sonobuoy2) into waters off
    Indian Island near Port Townsend, in the Strait of Juan De Fuca, and in the
    2,408 square mile Olympic Coast Marine Sanctuary, where the Navy says it is
    exempt from prohibitions. It has, however, said that bombing exercises will
    take place outside the Sanctuary. At the same time, the Navy is developing
    plans for two Carrier Strike Groups to train in the Gulf of Alaska just
    south of Prince William Sound and east of Kodiak Island, using new
    extremely loud weapons systems and sinking two ships per year, in exercises
    that the Navy admits will kill or injure 182,000 whales, dolphins,
    porpoises, sea lions, seals, sea otters and other marine mammals in one
    five-year period. This is less than the original prediction of 425,000
    marine mammals, but still so astonishing it makes one wonder what parts of
    our biologically rich coasts will not become war zones with high casualty
    counts, if the Navy gets its way.

    s/  Karen Sullivan, November 14, 2014


  • Against the Law to try to Protect One’s Health?

    Against the Law to try to Protect One’s Health?

    ON THE BASIS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS IF THE FACILITIES MEET FCC STANDARDS FOR EMISSIONS?

    ————————————————————————————

    The Telecommunications Act of 1996?

    and its consequences?

    The Act denigrates health concerns by assuming that FCC standards for electromagnetic emissions will protect the public health.

    Denigrates by definition, to speak damagingly of; criticize in a derogatory manner; sully; defame: to denigrate. to treat? or represent? as lacking in value? or importance? belittle; disparage: PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERNS?

    —————————————————————————

    read the full document http://rense.com/general81/emfs.htm 

    Dr. Robert O. Becker, M.D.

    At present, in the so-called “democratic” USA, the “Telecommunications Act of 1996” ­ an undemocratic and unconstitutional US law on the books ­

    Prohibits communities to legally object to the erection of cell phone towers on the basis of health or environmental concerns.

    This hence MAKES IT AGAINST THE LAW TO TRY TO PROTECT ONE’S HEALTH OR THE HEALTH OF THE ENVIRONMENT BECAUSE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS HAVE FOUND IT MORE IMPORTANT TO PROTECT THE MOBILE-PHONE INDUSTRY’S PROFITS. 

    The Act also specifically prohibits states and local governments from regulating the placement and construction of communications facilities, like antennas and towers,

    ON THE BASIS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS IF THE FACILITIES MEET FCC STANDARDS FOR EMISSIONS.

    The Act pays lip service to the importance of local zoning regulation, sufficient to encourage litigation, but without any genuine recognition of the importance of a homeowner’s property values, peace of mind, and, particularly, health concerns.

    THE ACT DENIGRATES HEALTH CONCERNS by assuming that FCC standards for electromagnetic emissions will protect the public health. That assumption [was] premature, given the large amount of ongoing scientific research on the subject and the lack of clear conclusions.

    The Congressional Conference Report indicates that the Act preempts state and local regulation of the environmental effects of electromagnetic emissions when it has requirements beyond those of FCC rules.

    This preemption discourages states from doing their own research on the health effects of these emissions because they cannot rely on the results in formulating regulations. That result does a disservice to the public.

    THE FCC, IN PROMULGATING ITS RULES SETTING A SPECIFIC ABSORPTION RATE LIMIT FOR ELECTROMAGNETIC EMISSIONS AT FOUR WATTS PER KILOGRAM,

    Noted that  research in this area related to human health and safety is ongoing and that changes to recommended exposure limits are possible in the future.

    With that admitted uncertainty, it is unreasonable to limit what states and local governments may do to protect their residents. (Martin)

    This extremely undemocratic law is outright morally wrong ­ and moreover is not only a clear violation of the right of every American to protect themselves, but also a clear violation of laws meant to protect our precious animals: (1) the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, (2) the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and (3) the Endangered Species Act. Hence, on these grounds, it should be immediately and unconditionally rescinded. The evidence collected at this point that this technology is extremely harmful to both human and animal life on this planet is completely and utterly overwhelming ­ and this is in spite of the mobile-phone industry’s attempt to control the government and to manipulate both the science and the media. To protect life on this planet ­ regardless of any economic concerns ­ these towers must be taken down now!

    read the full document http://rense.com/general81/emfs.htm

    Are Microwaves Killing The  Insects, Frogs, And Birds? And Are We Next?
    3-20-8

    A vivid lesson in……

     WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PUBLIC POLICY IS MADE LARGELY WITHOUT EITHER INFORMING OR CONSULTING THE PUBLIC?


  • Presumed to be Constitutional?

    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
    (the Rains Sr. Trust owns the water rights on that stream)

    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.

    During that phone conversation, I asked him if, when and where other mappings of Rains Sr. Trust shorelines, rivers, creeks and streams had been done.
    I asked him specifically about, the Dungeness River, Seiberts Creek, Bagley Creek and the Indian Valley Stream. His answer was, yes they had all been mapped by the DFW.

    During our phone conversation on 4/23/10 I requested copies of the results for the unnamed stream a tributary of Lake Sutherland that DFW trespassed on and the unnamed stream a tributary of Indian Creek (the Rains Sr. Trust owns water rights on that stream)

    Dave Collins WSDOT said he would send me copies of the reports when they had the results.

    6. A copy of my email to Penny Warren DWF on 2/02/11 and her response.
    WHY AFTER NEARLY A YEAR I HAD NOT RECEIVED THE REPORTS FROM DAVE COLLINS?

    7. A copy of Penny Warren’s email’s dated 2/03/11
    Indicating that Dave Collins WSDOT, had the reports for Lake Sutherland and Indian Valley and would send them to me on 2/03/11.

    8. I received the DWF 1 1/2 inch report on 02/05/11. The report covers all tributaries to the Elwha River starting at Lake Sutherland.
    On Monday or Tuesday I will get an overlay transparency for the 2 self-incriminating maps provided by Dave Collins WSDOT to show how many criminal trespasses occurred by DFW and DOT on Rains Sr. and Stratton Trust land in 2010.

    I forgot to mention streams or water on the Bolster and Longfellow’s property, but fortunately for me, both properties are on the DFW maps.

    The Stratton Trust owns 1/2 of Bolster, 1/4 of Indian Valley and 1/4 of Longfellow property. and should be involved in the criminal complaint, filing of charges and putting pressure on Clallam County Commissioners and Prosecuting Attorney Deb Kelly to enforce State law.

    ———————————————————————————————–

    The age of innocence…. In the beginning…

    APRIL 21, 2010    The  American Citizens were fearful of the trespassers, and they raised the alarm.

    Phone calls were made…  Blame was placed on the adjacent land owner. “What are you doing?”

    “Why are you throwing things in my only source of drinking water?”

    My response, “Those  trespasser  are trespassing on our private property. I don’t have a clue who they are.”

    When the trespasser were questioned they said they were from the state.

    I called a state employee,  and asked “Who are these state employees that are trespassing  on our private property?”

    She did not know. She called me back two hours later, and identified the trespassers. Indeed they were state employees, knowingly trespassing on private property, without the owner’s permission, without probable cause and without a search warrant.

    On  APRIL 21, 2010   my investigation and documentation started…

    TO BE CONTINUED…

    Oct. 21, 2014 Pay Attention to Thomas Jefferson

     “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.”

     ———————————————————————–

     Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

     

    “Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.”


  • Are You Voting In 2014?

    Are You Voting In 2014?

    Was that a “YES?”

    NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE VOTING

    Ask yourself the following questions

    1. Have you fought, worked or agreed with the candidate on a local issue?

    2. Have you gone to candidates meet and greets? debates? etc.?

    3. Listened to candidates speak?

    4. Questioned the candidates during and after?

    5. Have you asked them about and discussed the problems in your area?

    6. Where their answers Credible? Specific? Generalized? Evasive? Misleading?

    7. Have you asked them how they can help?

    8. Are they local? Qualified? Experienced? Informed? Knowledgeable?

    9. Have you researched their voting record?

    10. Do you know the sources of their campaign funding?

    Too often the MOST SERIOUS problems we face in OUR County ARE NOT CREATED IN OUR COUNTY, OR by our County elected and appointed representatives.

    THE MOST SERIOUS PROBLEMS WE ALL FACE ARE CREATED BY FEDERAL ACTS  AND STATE MANDATED WAC AND RCW TRICKLE DOWN.

    ———————————————————————————-

    If it is of interest to you? Many of YOUR LOCAL issues and MINE may be similar.

    For my website I do  in-depth investigation and  research.

    I have done research from the top (WA DC) to the bottom (my county)

    I am voting in 2014 like American Lives depend on it.

    —————————————————————————

    THE WHO’S, WHAT’S, WHEN, WHERE AND WHY’S

    I have four campaign poster in my front yard.

    —————————————————————–

    MY  VOTE IS FOR SHEILA ROARK MILLER.

    For director of Clallam County Department of Community Development.

    Sheila Roark Miller appointed me to be on the Clallam County SMP Citizens Advisory Committee for the Shoreline Management Plan Update (she enabled me)

    WHY VOTE  FOR SHEILA ROARK MILLER?

    IN SPITE OF ECOLOGY’S 500 POUND GORILLA  TIPPING THE SCALE AND CREATING  THEIR  APPOINTED IMBALANCE OF STEWARDSHIP ON CLALLAM COUNTY’S SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN (SMP) UPDATE AND THE DUNGENESS WATER RULE.

    She has been working for BALANCED STEWARDSHIP  on the SMP Update through the entire process with ECOLOGY. AND, on the mitigation for water rights in the Dungeness Water Rule area since the beginning.

    Sheila is absolutely the most qualified and experienced.

    ————————————————————————————-

    MY VOTE IS FOR JUDGE PORTER.

    A man that cares enough about the community, to go door to door and talk with us individually about our local concerns and solutions. we spent nearly a half an hour talking on my front porch. He know the names of our local kids and families that have suffered because of the drug problems in Clallam County.

    The problem of  “No funding” that contributes to the catch and release of criminals back into our neighborhood to become repeat offender. “No funding” would include the lack of compensation for the victims of crime.

    He established the pay or appear program and increased gross revenue for the county by $800,000 dollars a year. He provides incentive programs for GED.

    —————————————————————————————————————————

    MY VOTE IS FOR MARK NICHOLS FOR PROSECUTOR

    A man that cares enough about the community, to go door to door and talk with us individually about our local concerns and solutions. we spent nearly a half an hour talking on my front porch. He know the names of our local kids and families that have suffered because of the drug problems in Clallam County.

    The failure to resolve drug problems in the entire State of Washington have become an American family tragedy

    Mark is the most experienced and qualified for the HOME RULE CHARTER.

    He was involved in the last election of the freeholders eight years ago  and has been the legal advisor for the Clallam County Home Rule Charter fifteen elected freeholders. HOW IMPORTANT IS  IT? The Charter is a county constitution designed to give the control of county affairs to the people of the county rather than requiring legislation from Olympia. In addition to the election  of our public officials, specific powers reserved to the people are initiative, referendum, mini-initiative and recall

     Mark is also the Hearing Examiner for Clallam County.

    He really “HEARS” from a lot of people in our community!

    Incidentally, I did attend the meet and greet for Mark at the Sheriff Benedict’s home.

    The Sheriff Benedict, Deb Kelly and I talked about our local kids and families that have suffered because of the drug problems in Clallam County. We spoke of the failure to resolve drug problems in our county that have become local family tragedies.

    MARK NICHOLS has been endorsed by Sheriff Benedict.

    ———————————————————————————————

    MY VOTE IS FOR SHERIFF BENEDICT (even if he is running unopposed)

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

    Last but certainly NOT LEAST

    MY VOTE IS FOR BILL PEACH

    COUNTY COMMISSIONER FOR DISTRICT 3, THE WEST END, WRIA 20.

    A qualified Local Representative like “Bill Peach” is LONG OVERDUE

    For as long as I have been involved with Clallam County issues, the West End, District 3,  has been treated like an ILLEGITIMATE  part of our county.

    ILLEGITIMATE  by definition  not authorized by the law; not in accordance with accepted standards or rules.

    ————————————————————————————-

    WHY DOES DISTRICT THREE THE WEST END NEED A LOCAL COMMISSIONER LIKE BILL PEACH?

    ————————————————————

    BECAUSE OF THE  EXCLUSION AND OMISSION OF DISTRICT 3, THE WEST END, WRIA 20. IN THE DUE PROCESS.

    —————————————————————-

    EXCLUSION AND/OR OMISSION from the SMP Update

    There were no private property owners representing WRIA 20 seated at the table for the Clallam County SMP Update Committee.

    WRIA 20 private property owners are PART OF CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE

    —————————————————————————————————————

    EXCLUSION AND/OR OMISSION THE DRONES

    Clallam County THE PDN reports to we the people (after the fact)

    Behind My Back | Drones Why the Secrecy?
    www.behindmyback.org/2013/06/22/drones-why-the-secrecy/‎
    Jun 22, 2013 – THE DRONES WERE NO SECRET TO THE LOCAL TRIBES. WHY WAS THERE ADVANCE OUT REACH to the INDIAN TRIBES?

    ——————————————————————————–

    EXCLUSION AND/OR OMISSION Broadband
    The Rest of The Story
    Posted on September 16, 2013 3:19 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment
    Broadband Access and More
    Clallam County THE PDN reports to we the people (after the fact)

    ———————————————————————————–

    EXCLUSION AND/OR OMISSION OF WE THE PEOPLE

    Behind My Back | “Why Bother With Us?”
    www.behindmyback.org/2013/09/17/why-bother-with-us/‎
    Sep 16, 2013 – “WE THE PEOPLE” ARE JUST AMERICAN CITIZENS, VOTERS, TAXPAYERS,VESTED PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS, SMALL BUSINESS …

    —————————————————————————————————————

    AND THE LATEST EXCLUSION AND/ OR OMISSION OF WE THE PEOPLE

    IN THE  PUBLIC NOTIFICATION PROCESS

     THE ELECTRONIC WARFARE PROJECT FOR USFS OLYMPIC PENINSULA

    www.behindmyback.org  Sep 29, 2014 – Electronic Warfare PROJECT for USFS Olympic Peninsula land? EVASIVE AT THE VERY LEAST. IF THIS “PROJECT” IS NOT A COVER -UP?

    ——————————————————————————————————

    MY VOTE IS FOR BILL PEACH COUNTY COMMISSIONER FOR DISTRICT 3, THE WEST END.

    A qualified “LOCAL  CITIZEN” Representative COMMISSIONER like “Bill Peach” is LONG, LONG, LONG, OVERDUE …….

    BILL PEACH  has the courage to tell you what you may not want to hear: OUR COUNTY HAS A PROBLEM WITH UNEMPLOYMENT, HOMELESSNESS AND DRUGS. HE  RECOGNIZE THIS REALITY AND SUPPORT THE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO CHANGE IT, INCLUDING COUNTY GOVERNMENT.