+menu-


  • Category Archives Get Off My Back
  • SMP Public Comment #162

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #162

    A FEDERAL  INTERFERENCE IN A LOCAL PROCESS?

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #584   022415 – DeptOfInterior

    DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR (DOI), the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the  maritime national wildlife refuge complex (NWRC)

    RED FLAG WARNING

    WHY ARE THESE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR (DOI)  the US Fish and Wildlife Service, WA  maritime national wildlife refuge complex (NWRC)

    INTERFERING IN OUR LOCAL CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE DUE PROCESS?

    INTERFERENCE  BY DEFINITION to come into opposition, as one thing with another, ESPECIALLY with the effect of hampering action or procedure involvement in the activities and concerns of other people when your involvement is not wanted.

    The Planning Commission extended the written comment period until Friday, February 27, 2015.

    This SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #584   022415 – DeptOfInterior shall be included in consideration by the Planning Commission.

    Any comments received after February 27 will still  be part of the record that will go to the Board of County Commissioners.

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

    bottom line

    How fortunate I am, to have my website behindmyback.org to post this SMP Public  comment #162  dated Feb. 28, 2015

    ————————————————————————————————

    Direct Quote

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #584   022415 – DeptOfInterior

    We the US Fish and Wildlife Service, WA  maritime national wildlife refuge complex (NWRC)

    snippet

    “UNLIKE MANY OTHER AREAS OF PUGET SOUND CLALLAM COUNTY HAS PRISTINE  AQUATIC  AREAS AND SHORELINES THAT ARE IN GREAT CONDITION OR HAVE BEEN RESTORED AND PROVIDE MANY BENEFITS TO THE PEOPLE AND THE WILDLIFE IN THE AREA

    RECOGNIZING THIS FACT, WE SUGGEST THAT THE SMP FOLLOW A HIGHER STANDARD  THAN IS REQUIRED BY THE WA STATE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT’S MIMIMUM PROTECTION REQUIREMENT”

    ——————————————————————————————–

    DO THE FED’S RECOGNIZE THE FACT that that they have PROFILED AND TARGETED ONLY THE 3300 VESTED PRIVATE SHORELINE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS IN CLALLAM COUNTY?

    THE FEDS  WANT A  HIGHER STANDARD FOR THE 3300 AFFECTED?  THAN IS REQUIRED BY WA STATE LAW? Ch. 90.58 RCW – Shoreline Management Act

    ————————————————————————–

    THE FEDERAL WE’S WHO WANT?

    I have been consistently protecting private property rights. Hence,  my #162 Public SMP comment, as a taxpaying American citizen, born in and a  resident of Clallam County and the trustee of 800 acres of PRIVATE pristine forest land that has been owned by and under the stewardship of our family for over 65 years. Indeed, I have been consistently protecting private property rights in Clallam County since Jan. 26,2011.

    ——————————————————————————————-

    DOES THE FEDERAL DOI RECOGNIZE THE FACT  that 89% of Clallam County land is public and tribal land?  that those OTHER 89% of property owners are  exempt from and not affected, by the SMP Update?

    WHAT FACTS ABOUT CLALLAM COUNTY DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE  DOI, RECOGNIZE?

    CLALLAM COUNTY HAS A TAX BASIS OF 11%

    DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT , THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

    (DOI) RECOGNIZES THE FACT? That Clallam County’s 3300 vested private shoreline private property owners have maintained, protected and kept their  private pristine  aquatic  areas and shorelines in great condition at their own expense forever?

    ————————————————————————————

    We  the Clallam County’s 3300 vested private shoreline private property owners RECOGNIZING THESE FACTS, including but not limited to all of the above….

    ———————————————————————–

    THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE IS A LOCAL PROCESS

    The primary RESPONSIBILITY for administering this regulatory program is assigned to LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENTS have done so through the mechanism of shoreline master programs, adopted under rules established by the Department of Ecology (DOE)

    ——————————————————————————–

    WHY ARE THESE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR the US Fish and Wildlife Service, WA  maritime national wildlife refuge complex (NWRC)

     INTERFERING IN OUR LOCAL CLALLAM COUNTY DUE PROCESS?

    With their SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #584   022415 – DeptOfInterior

    With all due respect, may I suggest that THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR the US Fish and Wildlife Service, WA  maritime national wildlife refuge complex (NWRC) ETC.

    take their big federal noses and stick them  into their own government federal public business, that being, the other 89% of public land and tribal land in Clallam County.

    ——————————————————————————————–

    And, an additional comment and suggestion for the DOI, by a Clallam County taxpaying citizen.  the federal government, the Department Of the Interior etc. HAS FAILED TO MANAGE THE CITIZENS PUBLIC TRUST TIMBER LAND, in the best interest of the people in Clallam County.

    INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, the tribes sued the federal government for failing to manage their tribal trust land and they won.

    Indian Trust Fund Mess – Salazar class-action lawsuit. The case is sometimes reported as the largest class-action lawsuit against the … 1 Early Federal Indian trust law; 2 Fruit of a failed policy;

    Vol. 37, No. 1 – Native American Rights Fund

    www.narf.org/pubs/nlr/nlr37-1.pdf

    Native American Rights Fund

    (and why are some tribes still) suing the govern- ment over … almost 56 million acres of trust land for tribes. Hundreds of … government’s management of tribal trust assets date back to …. hadn’t fixed what they’d done or failed to do in the past.”.

    —————————————————————————————

    The Planning Commission has extended the written comment period until Friday, February 27, 2015. To ensure consideration by the Planning Commission, comments should be received by February 27, 2015. 

    Any comments received after February 27 will still  be part of the record that will go to the Board of County Commissioners.

    bottom line

    How fortunate I am, to have my website behindmyback.org to post this SMP Public  #162 dated Feb. 28, 2015

     

     


  • Living in Law-Law Land?

    Living in Law- Law Land?

    LIVING IN WA STATE LAW-LAW,  LA-LA LAND?

    Definition of LA-LA LAND from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, a euphoric dreamlike mental state DETACHED FROM THE HARSHER REALITIES OF LIFE.

    ——————————————————————————————

    WHO’S? LEGISLATING IN WA STATE  LAW- LAW, LA-LA  LAND?

    WOW, 107 LEGISLATORS /LAWMAKERS HAVE INTRODUCED 2,200 LAWMAKING MEASURES?

    The Washington State Legislature is a bicameral body with 49 members in the Senate and 98 members in the House of Representatives.

    ——————————————–

    From: WashingtonVotes.org News <wavotes@wavotes.org>
    Date: Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 3:32 PM

    On this 33rd day of this year’s 105-day legislative session, lawmakers have introduced more than 2,200 measures

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

    WHO’S VOTING on more than 2,200 measures  IN LAW- LAW, LA-LA LAND?

    our  147 WA State elected representative (aka our 147 public servants)

    How many of the 147 legislators are  detached from the harsher realities of life, and legislating in a euphoric dreamlike mental state?

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

    These 147 legislators took an oath of office, to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION,

     NOT TO “HOLD US UP”  

    by legislating and dumping more taxes and 2200 more lawmaking measures  on the already beleaguered WA STATE AMERICAN TAXPAYING CITIZENS.

    —————————————————————————

    How Stupid do these WA STATE  LAW- LAW, LA-LA  legislators  think we are?

    Do they think, American Citizens ARE SO Stupid, WE LACK COMPREHENSION  AND WE ARE TOO DUMB TO FIGURE OUT WHAT’S GOING ON?

    Behind My Back | By Hook or By Crook

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/10/16/by-hook-or-by-crook/

    Oct 16, 2013 – Suggestion number one is that ‘by hook or by crook‘ derives from the custom in mediaeval England of ALLOWING PEASANTS TO TAKE FROM …

    ————————————————————————-

    Behind My Back | Fee Fie Foe Fum

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/10/26/feefiefoe-fum/

    Oct 26, 2013 – FEE, FEE? FIE, FIE? FOE, FOE? FUM? (By archaic definition and word origin) EVEN IN ARCHAIC … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feefiefoe-fum.

    ————————————————————————

    ONE EXAMPLE (from an email)

    To a WA State Representative,

    You went on air and essentially referred to taxpayers of this state as children who need you to make decisions for them; that even when those decisions were unpopular, they were still the right decision.

    Your ill-spoken comments are offensive.  How dare you insinuate that you know better than the hard-working people of this state, what they need.  How dare you insinuate these people are children who need your guidance on what is best.  How insulting, how offensive, how demeaning.  You are obviously on a power trip that serves not one taxpayer of this state well.

    —————————————————————————————-

    How Stupid do these WA STATE  LAW- LAW, LA-LA  legislators  think we are?

    Do they think, American Citizens ARE SO Stupid, WE LACK COMPREHENSION  AND WE ARE TOO DUMB TO FIGURE OUT WHAT’S GOING ON?

    How Stupid ARE THESE WA STATE  LAW- LAW, LA-LA  legislators?  

    Full Definition of STUPID

    from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

    slow of mind

    given to unintelligent decisions or acts

    acting in an unintelligent or careless manner

    lacking intelligence or reason

    dulled in feeling or sensation

    marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting

    lacking interest or point

    —————————————————————————

    How uninformed are the voters that voted for them, and elected them?

    HOW STUPID ARE THE WA STATE VOTERS THAT ELECTED THEM?

    —————————————————————————————-

    A full Synonym Discussion of STUPID

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stupid

    stupid, dull, dense, crass, dumb, mean lacking in power to absorb ideas or impressions stupid implies a slow-witted or dazed state of mind that may be either congenital or temporary <stupid students just keeping the seats warm> <stupid with drink>.dull, suggests a slow or sluggish mind such as results from disease, depression, or shock <monotonous work that leaves the mind dull>. dense implies a thickheaded imperviousness to ideas <too dense to take a hint>. crass suggests a grossness of mind precluding discrimination or delicacy <a crass, materialistic people>. dumb, applies to an exasperating obtuseness or LACK OF COMPREHENSION <TOO DUMB TO FIGURE OUT WHAT’S GOING ON>.

     


  • SMP PROTECTING YOUR HOME?

    SMP PROTECTING YOUR HOME?

    SEPT. 15, 2014   This is  YET ANOTHER  FOLLOW UP

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH RCW 90.58.10

    PROTECTION OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
    Clallam County Update SMP Comment
    Draft 3.18 Shoreline Stabilization
    Regulation as applied to RCW 90.58.100

    This is my 153rd  Public Comment on the Clallam County SMP Update

    Fighting “ECOLOGY”  for private property rights since Jan. 26, 2011

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    —————————————————————————-

    SMP PROTECTING YOUR HOME?

    APRIL 10, 2013 A FOLLOW UP COMMENT TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH RCW 90.58.10

    Posted on APRIL 10, 2013 12:49pm  by Pearl Rains Hewett comment

    Protection of single family residence
    Clallam County Update SMP Comment
    Draft 3.18 Shoreline Stabilization
    Regulation as applied to RCW 90.58.100

    The devil is in the details, first, I fought ESA Margaret Clancy for months, to have the words “EMINENT DANGER” removed from SMP 3.18, because it was in conflict with state law. (which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage)

    Since then, I have been fighting for months with ESA Margaret Clancy to have the words “PRIMARY STRUCTURE” removed, because it did not include “APPURTENANCE” and have asked repeatedly to have it replaced with, the legal wording and definition

    ——————————————————————————

    Pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW. “Single-family residence” means a detached dwelling designed for and occupied by one family including those structures and developments within a contiguous ownership which are a normal appurtenance.
    THIS IS THE WA STATE LAW RCW 90.58.100 protection of
    single family residences and appurtenant structures
    (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.

    THIS IS THE RCW 90.58 DEFINITION OF “Single-family residence”

    Pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW. “Single-family residence” means a detached dwelling designed for and occupied by one family including those structures and developments within a contiguous ownership which are a normal appurtenance.

    An “appurtenance” is necessarily connected to the use and enjoyment of a single-family residence and is located landward of the ordinary high water mark and the perimeter of a wetland. On a statewide basis, normal appurtenances include a garage; deck; driveway; utilities; fences; installation of a septic tank and drainfield and grading which does not exceed two hundred fifty cubic yards and which does not involve placement of fill in any wetland or waterward of the ordinary high water mark.

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

    If in fact 3.18.10 Regulation The ESA ADOLFSON AND CLALLAM COUNTY’S INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW RCW 90.58.100 IS LEGALLY FLAWED BY WORDING, DEFINITION AND THE INTENT OF RCW 90.58.100

    1. The words primary structure ARE NOT included in RCW 90.58.100.

    2. There is no definition of primary structure in the SMP Update

    3. RCW 90.58.100 specifically states the wording single family residences

    4. The intent of RCW 90.58.100 is PROTECTION

    5. HAS THE LEGAL INTENT OF RCW 90.58.100 BEEN MET OR COMPROMISED IN CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATED 3.18.10 Regulations – Application Requirements

    ———————————————————————–

    Shall Clallam County INTERPRETATION of “STANDARDS”
    UNDER 3.18.10 Regulation as applied to RCW 90.58.100 force private property owners to fight for over 10 years and create a financial hardship

    JUST to get the RCW 90.58.100 protection of their single family residence?

    ———————————————————————————————————
    An earlier SMP Comment
    Will Clallam County Elected Administrators place it’s private property owners in the same position as Vicki Luhrs?
    “For a decade, as the county has callously looked on, Victoria Luhrs’ property has been eroding at an alarming rate,” said PLF’s Hodges. “In some areas, up to 25
    feet of land has eroded, nearly a third of the land between her house and the bluff. After years of litigating against the county’s obstruction, Ms. Luhrs will finally be
    allowed to lay out the facts, in court, that support her urgent need for a rock revetment.”

    I met and spoke with Vicki Luhrs at the Pacific Legal Foundation meeting in June 2012.
    “In some areas, up to 25 feet of land has eroded, nearly a third of the land between her house and the bluff.
    ———————————————————————–

    Shall Clallam County INTERPRETATION of “STANDARDS”
    UNDER 3.18.10 Regulation as applied to RCW 90.58.100 force private property owners to fight for over 10 years and create a financial hardship

    JUST to get the RCW 90.58.100 protection of their single family residence?

     

    ———————————————————————–

    (full text)

    SMP PROTECTING YOUR HOME?

    Posted on April 10, 2013 12:49pm by Pearl Rains Hewett comment

    Protection of single family residence
    Clallam County Update SMP Comment
    Draft 3.18 Shoreline Stabilization
    Regulation as applied to RCW 90.58.100

    A FOLLOW UP COMMENT TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH RCW 90.58.10

    The devil is in the details, first, I fought ESA Margaret Clancy for months, to have the words “eminent danger” removed from SMP 3.18, because it was in conflict with state law. (which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage)

    Since then, I have been fighting for months with ESA Margaret Clancy to have the words primary structure removed, because it did not include appurtenance and have asked repeatedly to have it replaced with, the legal wording and definition

    Pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW. “Single-family residence” means a detached dwelling designed for and occupied by one family including those structures and developments within a contiguous ownership which are a normal appurtenance.
    ———————————————————————————————–

    April 10, 2013 on line SMP Draft

    ———————————————————————–
    3.18
    Shoreline Stabilization

    3.18.10
    Regulations – Application Requirements
    1.
    Geotechnical reports pursuant to this section that address the need to prevent potential damage to a primary structure shall address the necessity for shoreline stabilization by estimating time frames and rates of erosion and report on the urgency associated with the specific situation. As a general matter, hard armoring solutions shall not be authorized except when a report confirms that there is a significant possibility that such a structure will be damaged within three years as a result of shoreline erosion in the absence of such hard armoring measures, or where waiting until the need is that immediate, would foreclose the opportunity to use measures that avoid impacts on ecological functions. Thus, where the geotechnical report confirms a need to prevent potential damage to a primary structure, but the need is not as immediate as the three years, the report may still be used to justify more immediate authorization to protect against erosion using soft measures.

    2.
    To verify that the provisions of this section are fully addressed, the Administrator may require information to support a permit application for any type of shoreline stabilization. The Administrator shall consult with the appropriate state and federal natural resources agencies to determine the type and level of information that should be provided. Application information required pursuant to this section shall address the urgency and risks associated with the specific site characteristics and shall include:

    ———————————————————————–
    My comment
    I would like to see the SHALLS replaced with wording that would allow more discretion by Clallam County Planning Dept.
    ———————————————————————–

    a. A scaled site plan showing:
    (1) existing site topography,
    and

    (2) the location of existing
    and proposed shoreline stabilization structures, and any fill including dimensions indicating distances to the ordinary high water mark; and

    b.
    A description of the processes affecting the site and surrounding areas, including but not limited to tidal action and/or waves; slope instability or mass wasting; littoral drift; channel migration; and soil erosion, deposition, or accretion; and

    c.
    A description of alternatives to structural approaches, and a thorough discussion of the environmental impacts of each alternative; and

    d.
    A description of any proposed vegetation removal and a plan to revegetate the site following construction; and
    e.
    A hydraulic analysis prepared by a qualified hydrologist, professional engineer, geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist that describes anticipated effects of the project on water and wave elevations and velocities; and

    f. A biological resource inventory and analysis prepared by a qualified professional biologist that describes the anticipated effects of the project on fish and wildlife resources; and

    g.
    A description of opportunities for providing public access to and along the affected shoreline, as well as any proposed on. site recreational features, if applicable; and

    h.
    A description of any waste and debris disposal sites for materials generated during construction; and

    i. Any other information that may be required by the Administrator to demonstrate compliance with the review criteria referenced in this section.
    ———————————————————————–

    An earlier SMP Comment
    Will Clallam County Elected Administrators place it’s private property owners in the same position as Vicki Luhrs?
    “For a decade, as the county has callously looked on, Victoria Luhrs’ property has been eroding at an alarming rate,” said PLF’s Hodges. “In some areas, up to 25
    feet of land has eroded, nearly a third of the land between her house and the bluff. After years of litigating against the county’s obstruction, Ms. Luhrs will finally be
    allowed to lay out the facts, in court, that support her urgent need for a rock revetment.”

    I met and spoke with Vicki Luhrs at the Pacific Legal Foundation meeting in June 2012.
    “In some areas, up to 25 feet of land has eroded, nearly a third of the land between her house and the bluff.
    ———————————————————————–

    Shall Clallam County INTERPRETATION of “STANDARDS”
    UNDER 3.18.10 Regulation as applied to RCW 90.58.100 force private property owners to fight for over 10 years and create a financial hardship

    JUST to get the RCW 90.58.100 protection of their single family residence?

    If in fact 3.18.10 Regulation The ESA ADOLFSON AND CLALLAM COUNTY’S INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW RCW 90.58.100 IS LEGALLY FLAWED BY WORDING, DEFINITION AND THE INTENT OF RCW 90.58.100

    1. The words primary structure ARE NOT included in RCW 90.58.100.

    2. There is no definition of primary structure in the SMP Update

    3. RCW 90.58.100 specifically states the wording single family residences

    4. The intent of RCW 90.58.100 is PROTECTION

    5. HAS THE LEGAL INTENT OF RCW 90.58.100 BEEN MET OR COMPROMISED IN CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATED 3.18.10 Regulations – Application Requirements

    ———————————————————————–

    My last SMP Comment
    To assist ESA in the legal clarification, definition and correction of WA State RCW 90.58.100, I am providing the following documentation for the SMP Update.

    ———————————————————————–

    THIS IS THE RCW 90.58 DEFINITION OF “Single-family residence”

    Pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW. “Single-family residence” means a detached dwelling designed for and occupied by one family including those structures and developments within a contiguous ownership which are a normal appurtenance.

    An “appurtenance” is necessarily connected to the use and enjoyment of a single-family residence and is located landward of the ordinary high water mark and the perimeter of a wetland. On a statewide basis, normal appurtenances include a garage; deck; driveway; utilities; fences; installation of a septic tank and drainfield and grading which does not exceed two hundred fifty cubic yards and which does not involve placement of fill in any wetland or waterward of the ordinary high water mark.
    ———————————————————————–

    THIS IS THE WA STATE LAW RCW 90.58.100 protection of
    single family residences and appurtenant structures
    (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.

    This entry was posted in “Reasonable Man” understanding, Clallam County SMP, Private Property Rights, Public Access to Public land, The Written Law. Bookmark the permalink.

     


  • Endangered is the Name

    Federal Taking is the Game

    The Ways and Means of Federal Taking?

    The ways, using the endangered desert tortoise and as the means to end grazing land on the Bundy Ranch.

    OOP’S ….

    BUSTED: BUNDY RANCH SIEGE REALLY ABOUT HARRY REID BACKED SOLAR POWER STATIONS

    “In 2012, the BLM and the U.S. Department of Energy published the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States,” the report reads.

    “The Final Solar Programmatic ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT assessed the impact of utility-scale solar energy development on public lands in the six southwestern states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah.”

    http://freedomslighthouse.net/2014/04/12/update-on-bundy-ranch-standoff-in-nevada-bundy-believes-feds-seeking-to-put-ranchers-out-of-business-over-radical-environmental-agenda-video-report-41214/

    UPDATE APRIL 12, 2014

    https://www.google.com/#q=BUNDY+RANCH+UPDATE+STANDOFF+ENDS

    BUT REALLY… they, THE GOVERNMENT shall be back TO TAKE THE BUNDY RANCH IN ARIZONA.

    ——————————————————————————

    ENDANGERED IS THE NAME- FEDERAL TAKING IS THE GAME

     WA. STATE IS ON THEIR LIST

    WOW, SENATOR PATTY MURRAY HAS PROMISED THAT they, THE GOVERNMENT, shall be back to TAKE more PUBLIC LAND FOR WILDERNESS AND TO WILD MORE RIVERS IN THE OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK.

     

    ————————————————————

    BREAKING SEN. HARRY REID BEHIND BLM LAND GRAB OF BUNDY RANCH

    BLM attempted COVER-UP OF SEN. REID/Chinese gov’t takeover of ranch for solar farm

    http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/

    Kit Daniels
    Infowars.com
    April 11, 2014

    The Bureau of Land Management, whose director was Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.)former senior advisor , has purged documents from its web site stating that the agency wants Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle off of the land his family has worked for over 140 years in order to make way for solar panel power stations.

    Deleted from BLM.gov but reposted for posterity by the Free Republic  , the BLM document entitled “Cattle Trespass Impacts” directly states that Bundy’s cattle “impacts” solar development, more specifically the construction of”utility-scale solar power generation facilities”   on “public lands.”

    “Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle,” the document states.

    Another BLM report entitled “Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone”(BLM Technical Note 444) reveals that Bundy’s land in question is within the “Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone and surrounding area” which is part of a broad U.S. Department of Energy program for “Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States” on land “managed” by BLM.

    “In 2012, the BLM and the U.S. Department of Energy published the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States,” the report reads.

    “The Final Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement assessed the impact of utility-scale solar energy development on public lands in the SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES OF ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, AND UTAH.”

     

    MAP  (on line) Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone and surrounding area (Click to enlarge.)

    “The Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments/Record of Decision (ROD) for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States implemented a comprehensive solar energy program for public lands in those states and incorporated land use allocations and programmatic and SEZ-specific design features into land use plans in the six-state study area.”

    Back in 2012, the New American reported that Harry Reid’s son, Rory Reid, was the chief representative for a Chinese energy firm planning to build a $5 billion solar plant on public land in Laughlin, Navada 

    And journalist Marcus Stern with Reuters also reported that Sen. Reid was heavily involved in the dealas well. 

    “[Reid] and his oldest son, Rory, are both involved in an effort by a Chinese energy giant, ENN Energy Group, to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel manufacturing plant in the southern Nevada desert,” he wrote. “Reid has been one of the project’s most prominent advocates, helping recruit the company during a 2011 trip to China and applying his political muscle on behalf of the project in Nevada.”

    “His son, a lawyer with a prominent Las Vegas firm that is representing ENN, helped it locate a 9,000-acre (3,600-hectare) desert site that it is buying well below appraised value from Clark County, where Rory Reid formerly chaired the county commission.”

    Although these reports are in plain view, the mainstream media has so far ignored this link.

    The BLM’s official reason for encircling the Bundy family with sniper teams and helicopters was to protect the endangered desert tortoise, which the agency has PREVIOUSLY BEEN KILLING IN MASS DUE TO “BUDGET CONSTRAINTS.”

    “A tortoise isn’t the reason why BLM is harassing a 67 year-old rancher; they want his land,” journalist Dana Loesch wrote.“The tortoise wasn’t of concern when [U.S. Senator] Harry Reid worked with BLM to literally change the boundaries of the tortoise’s habitat to accommodate the development of his top donor, Harvey Whittemore.”

    “Reid is accused of using the new BLM chief as a puppet to control Nevada land (already over 84% of which is owned by the federal government) and pay back special interests,” she added. “BLM has proven that they’ve a situational concern for the desert tortoise as they’ve had no problem waiving their rules concerning wind or solar power development. Clearly these developments have vastly affected a tortoise habitat more than a century-old, quasi-homesteading grazing area.”

    “If only Cliven Bundy were a big Reid donor.”

    Update: The Drudge Report , the #1 news aggregate site in the world, has now picked up this story. Unfortunately for the BLM, the documents they wanted to delete are now exposed for the world to see.

    Update #2: ENN Energy Group describes itself as a “privately-owned clean energy distributor in China.” However, as the People’s Republic of China is a single-party state governed by the Communist Party, all large companies in China, one way or the other, are either controlled or are heavily influenced by the Chinese government.

    BUSTED: BUNDY RANCH SIEGE REALLY ABOUT HARRY REID BACKED SOLAR POWER STATIONS

    http://appalachianareanews.com/busted-bundy-ranch-siege-really-about-harry-reid-backed-solar-power-stations/

    Revelations have emerged that documents have been purged from the Bureau of Land Management’s web site, BLM.gov, stating that the agency wants besieged Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle off land his family has worked on over 140 years to make way for solar panel power stations.

    A BLM document entitled “Cattle Trespass Impacts,” directly states that Bundy’s cattle “impacts” solar development, more specifically the construction of”utility-scale solar power generation facility” “on “public lands.”

    “Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle,” the document states.

    Another BLM report entitled “Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone”  reveals that Bundy’s land in question is within the “Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone and surrounding area” which is part of a broad U.S. Department of Energy program for “Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States” on land “managed” by BLM.

    “In 2012, the BLM and the U.S. Department of Energy published the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States,” the report reads. “The Final Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement assessed the impact of utility-scale solar energy development on public lands in the six southwestern states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah.”

    “The Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments/Record of Decision (ROD) for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States implemented a comprehensive solar energy program for public lands in those states and incorporated land use allocations and programmatic and SEZ-specific design features into land use plans in the six-state study area.”

    These discoveries come only weeks after The Bureau of Land Management cashed in with $1.27 million in oil and gas leases in Nevada reported by Shale Reporter.com:

    U.S. Bureau of Land Management geologist Lorenzo Trimble tells the Las Vegas Review-Journal the Elko County oil and gas leases sold Tuesday for $1.27 million to six different companies. The auction took place in Reno. The leases are near where Houston-based Noble Energy Inc. wants to drill for oil and natural gas on 40,000 acres of public and private land near the town of Wells. The Review-Journal reports the project would be the first in Nevada to use hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to extract oil and gas from shale deposits.

    In the wake of the Bundy Ranch controversy former senior advisor of Harry ReidNeil Kornze was just named Deputy Chief Director of the BLM Wednesday. Awkward time for the placement right?

    Well, not if you are Harry Reid. It is convenient for Reid that his senior adviser be named BLM director during the Budy Ranch showdown. Especially considering it appears that it was under Kornze’s authority that the aforementioned documents where scrubbed from the BLM website. Luckily the documents were reposted for posterity by the Free Republic keeping them from escaping down the memory hole.

    SO WHAT DOES HARRY REID HAVE TO DO WITH ALL THIS?

    Back in 2012, the New American reported that Harry Reid’s son, Rory Reid, was the chief representative for a Chinese energy firmPlanning to build a $5billion solar plant on public land in Laughlin, Nevada

    Journalist Marcus Stern with Reuters also reported that Sen. reid wa heavily involved in the deal.

    “Reid and his oldest son, Rory, are both involved in an effort by a Chinese energy giant, ENN Energy Group, to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel manufacturing plant in the southern Nevada desert,” he wrote. “Reid has been one of the project’s most prominent advocates, helping recruit the company during a 2011 trip to China and applying his political muscle on behalf of the project in Nevada.”

    “His son, a lawyer with a prominent Las Vegas firm that is representing ENN, helped it locate a 9,000-acre (3,600-hectare) desert site that it is buying well below appraised value from Clark County, where Rory Reid formerly chaired the county commission.”

    Ah, so all the pieces fall together.

    We can assume that Reid cares little about the Desert Tortoise the government itself is killing hundreds of right? Reid is simply using the BLM to change the boundaries of the tortoise’s habitat to accommodate his Chinese partnered solar development scheme.

    When reached for comment on Wednsaday before this bombshell information dropped, Harry Reid spokeswoman Kristen Orthman said: “Senator Reid hopes the trespassing cattle are rounded up safely so the issue can be resolved.” Yes, I bet he does indeed.

    MEANWHILE AT THE BUNDY RANCH

    Between Saturday and Wednesday, government contracted wranglers have impounded a total of 352 cattle, federal officials said. Bundy says he owns 500 of the more than 900 cattle that federal officials are planning to confiscate for “illegal grazing.” Bundy told the newspaper that each head of his livestock is worth about $1,000.

    Since the roundups began, protesters have been confined to two areas to publicly declare their grievances, but the peaceful protests in recent days “have crossed into illegal activity, including blocking vehicles associated with the(roundup), impeding cattle movement, and making direct and overt threats to government employees,” the two federal agencies said in a statement.

    In the scuffle with protesters, a police dog was kicked, and officers protecting the civilian driver were threatened and assaulted, the two agencies’ statement said. “After multiple requests and ample verbal warnings, law enforcement officers deployed Tasers on a protestor,” the statement said.

    Even though federal authorities have decried the protestors actions as violent and inappropriate, the video evidence tells another story:

    The Las Vegas Review-Journal  reports that two militia members from Montana and one from Utah have arrived at Cliven Bundy’s ranch and are assisting in cattle reclamation efforts

    “We need to be the barrier between the oppressed and the tyrants,” Ryan Payne of the West Mountain Rangers told the Review-Journal. “Expect to see a band of soldiers.”

    Payne said that militias from New Hampshire, Texas and Florida are likely to join and stand with the Bundy family and stay at his ranch.

    “They all tell me they are in the process of mobilizing as we speak,” Payne told the Review-Journal, adding that hundreds of militia members are expected.

    As the weekend kicks off more protestors and militia members are expected to show up in support of the Bundy Ranch Waco style siege by the federal government that amounts to nothing more than theft and usurpation by political special interests wielding the guns of government.

    Clark County Commissioner Tom Collins has remarking that those planning to travel to Nevada to support Cliven Bundy in his standoff against the feds “better have funeral plans.”

    Stay tuned to Appalachian Area News for updates as they are made available.

    Contributed By Asa Johnson

    Editor, & Top Contributor of Appalachian Area News Network & Affiliates

     

     


  • Public Peace and Nuisance

    Lest we forget, the presence of Federal and State Agencies
    have been DISTURBING THE PUBLIC PEACE and become a
    PUBLIC NUISANCE to the private property owners in Clallam County.

    With the WA State DOE invasion of Clallam County for the DOE Dungeness
    Water Rule and DOE Shoreline Management Update, they are guilty of both.

    THIS COMMENT WAS SENT OVER A YEAR AGO.

    From: Pearl Hewett
    Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 12:35 PM
    To:Wessel, Ann (ECY);
    Subject: DOE Dungeness Water Rule and DOE Shoreline Management Update

    CLALLAM COUNTY CODE
    Title 15
    PUBLIC PEACE, SAFETY, MORALS

    15.02.120 PUBLIC NUISANCE
    Compliance with the terms and conditions of this chapter shall constitute minimum
    health, sanitation and safety provisions and material noncompliance with said terms and conditions shall constitute a public nuisance and be subject to all criminal, civil and equitable remedies as such.

    Chapter 15.30 PUBLIC DISTURBANCE
    Disturbing the PUBLIC PEACE in Clallam County
    Since Jan. 26, 2011 the Clallam County

    Commissioners and elected WA State
    Representatives have been aware that
    the presence of Federal and State Agencies
    have been DISTURBING THE PUBLIC PEACE and become a
    PUBLIC NUISANCE to the private property owners in Clallam County.

    With the WA State DOE invasion of Clallam County for the DOE Dungeness
    Water Rule and DOE Shoreline Management Update, they are guilty of both.

    DOE is DISTURBING THE PEACE
    and they have become a

    PUBLIC NUISANCE
    to the private property owners in Clallam County.

    To date, no action has been taken to protect us, by the following
    elected officials,
    WA State representatives, Rep. Van De Wege, Rep. Tharinger,
    or Senator Jim Hargrove.
    Or by our Clallam County elected officials, Mike Doherty, Mike Chapman or Sheriff
    Benedict.

    We the People of Clallam County have documented grievances against.
    WA State DOE Dungeness Water Rule and SMP taking of property value

    Olympic National Park as Inholder and (Wild Olympics)

    WA State Dept of Fish and Wildlife unconstitutional trespass and search

    Our unresponsive elected officials.

    Can Clallam County Home Rule Charter help us?

    Washington statutes allow counties to adopt, by public vote, a “Home Rule Charter.” Adopting a charter allows counties to adopt a “constitution” that can change their form of government and/or create requirements for the operation of government beyond
    those required in the State constitution.

    Pearl Rains Hewett
    ONP Inholder
    Private property owner Lake Sutherland
    Marine and Freshwater shoreline owner

    (read on if you are interested)

    The testimony of the Lake Sutherland home owners at the Jan. 26, 2011 SMP Forum
    with regard to the surveillance of their private property by unidentified white boats,
    aircraft and the unconstitutional trespass of the WA State Dept of Fish and Wildlife
    certainly disturbed their peace.

    The denial of entry by Olympic National Park employees, to the Rains Family
    Inholder property at the Elwha, PDN “Access Denied”,certainly disturbed the peace of that family.

    The unconstitutional trespass and search of private property by the
    WA State Dept of Fish and Wildlife on Lake Sutherland was reported to Commissioner Mike Chapman, the Sheriff of Clallam County and at a Commissioners meeting.

    The WA State Dept of Fish and Wildlife employees did knowingly, without probable
    cause, without permission of the property owner and without a search warrant trespass
    and search all private property around Lake Sutherland.

    The DOE Dungeness Water Rule taking of water rights and metering of well is
    vigorously opposed by private property owners of Clallam County.

    The designation of the Wild Olympics and Wild and Scenic Rivers is vigorously opposed by private property owners of Clallam County.

    The DOE SMP taking of use and value of private property is vigorously opposed by
    private property owners of Clallam County.

    All of the Violations and TAKINGS are from Privates Property Owners


  • Public Use a Priority?

    THE City of EVERETT has had their priorities STRAIGHT for PUBLIC USE OF PUBLIC LAND FOR over 80 years.

    SERVING THE PEOPLE OF EVERETT IS THEIR PRIORITY.
    Giving the public Free On Demand PUBLIC USE OF PUBLIC LAND

    Forest Park is the largest park in the City of Everett and is one of the oldest. Its forested area was planted by WPA crews in the 1930s.

    LIVE – WORK – PLAY

    Forest Park in Everett A FREE CITY PARK
    How does the City of Everett do it financially?
    Why does the City of Everett do it?
    Four little words at the VERY top of their web page
    1. LIVE (in Everett)
    2. WORK (in Everett)
    3. PLAY (in Everett)
    4. CITY HALL

    BY MAKING THE PEOPLE OF EVERETT THEIR TOP PRIORITY.

    BY MAKING THE FREE PUBLIC USE OF PUBLIC LAND A PRIORITY

    WHAT A CONCEPT… PEOPLE LIVE, WORK AND PLAY IN EVERETT.

    Aug. 24,2013 It was an amazing place to have a family reunion and spend the day. The kids who PLAYED at the park were from 74 years old down to a two year old toddler.
    ———————————————————–
    Now shall we examine the PRIORITIES OF PUBLIC USE OF PUBLIC LAND DESIGNATED BY THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AND WA STATE PARKS.

    First by defining the word PUBLIC

    1. OPEN TO ALL, OPEN TO EVERYONE, and typically frequented by large numbers of PEOPLE, PUBLIC SPACES

    2. For community use, provided for the use of a community

    3. Concerning ALL THE PEOPLE, relating to or concerning the PEOPLE AT LARGE OR ALL MEMBERS OF A COMMUNITY

    4. Belonging to community, BELONGING TO THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE and ADMINISTERED THROUGH ITS REPRESENTATIVES IN GOVERNMENT
    ————————————————————-
    THESE REPRESENTATIVES AND APPOINTED ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS – someone who holds a government position (either by election or appointment)

    I submit the following WA STATE LAW
    RCW 42.56.030 (full text below)
    Construction.
    THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE DO NOT YIELD THEIR SOVEREIGNTY TO THE AGENCIES THAT SERVE THEM.

    The PEOPLE insist on remaining informed so that they may
    maintain CONTROL over the instruments that they have created.
    TO ASSURE THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST WILL BE FULLY PROTECTED
    ————————————————————
    A Comment from a seated Clallam County Commissioner during a Campaign debate. “If we don’t want you to do it, we will make it as difficult as possible”
    —————————————————————
    The PRIORITIES OF PUBLIC USE OF PUBLIC LAND AS DESIGNATED BY THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AND WA STATE PARKS?

    ROLE REVERSAL INDEED? THE PUBLIC SERVANTS WANT TOTAL CONTROL THE PUBLIC?

    INDEED? THE PUBLIC SERVANTS WANT TO KEEP THE PUBLIC OUT AND OFF OF PUBLIC LAND.
    —————————————————————
    “If we don’t want you to do it, we will make it as difficult as possible”
    ————————————————————-
    HOW WILL THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN RCW 42.56.030 BE FULLY PROTECTED BY KEEPING THE PUBLIC OUT AND KEEPING THE PUBLIC OFF OF PUBLIC LAND?

    THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN RCW 42.56.030 IS ABOUT PEOPLE, THE PEOPLE WILL BE FULLY PROTECTED, NOT WILD BIRDS AND ANIMALS.

    LOCK THE GATES
    DESTROY THE ROADS
    CLOSE THE TRAILS
    PRICE THE PUBLIC OUT the more they charge, the less will come
    CREATE QUOTAS, ONP has 922,000 thousand acres of public land, now restricted to the use OF how few?
    —————————————————————
    ROLE REVERSAL INDEED?
    THESE PUBLIC SERVANTS ARE CONTROLLING THE PEOPLE?

    “If we don’t want you to do it, we will make it as difficult as possible”

    IT IS TIME FOR THE PEOPLE TO REGAIN CONTROL OF THE PUBLIC SERVANTS

    “WE THE PEOPLE DON’T WANT UNRESPONSIVE ARROGANT PUBLIC SERVANTS IN CONTROL, SO WE WILL MAKE IT AS DIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE FOR YOU”

    LET’S START BY VOTING THEM OUT.

    continue reading if you are up for the challenge.
    ——————————————————

    please visit my website behindmyback.org

    ONP Willful Taking of Public Land
    Posted on February 16, 2013 8:10 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment
    HOW DO I SEE THE OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK?
    WILD OLYMPICS? AND WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS?
    Feb 16, 2013
    As a TAKING violation, of the use of Public Land, from 313,914,040 Vested American Citizens.
    ————————————————
    Pay per View Or Free On Demand
    Posted on February 14, 2013 10:29 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment
    PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLIC LAND? PAY PER VIEW? OR FREE ON DEMAND?
    This is my comment on public access to public land, the WILD Olympics – Wilderness Scoping Plan and to all Federal State Agencies, elected officials, and appointed government agencies including the ONP and the US fish and wildlife service.
    Expand your entertainment options exponentially with direct FREE use and access to public land ON DEMAND.
    —————————————————–

    WA State Park Appropriations
    Posted on April 21, 2013 1:13 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment
    Public access and appropriations for WA State Parks
    Washington Wildlife Recreation Program (WWRP)

    Governor Inlsee – $46.6 million (plus $8.3 million in WWRP Grants)
    House – $56.9 million (plus $7.9 million in WWRP Grants)
    Senate – $50.7 million (plus $3.3 million in WWRP Grants)
    Commission October Request – $67.8 million (plus $11.5 million in WWRPGrants)

    The Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program provides funding for a broad range of land protection and outdoor recreation, including park acquisition and development, habitat conservation, farmland preservation, and construction of outdoor recreation facilities.

    I find the title and description of the , WWRP program DISTURBING? It this WA park broad range of land protection, acquisition, development habitat, conservation program designed to provide outdoor recreation facilities for WILDLIFE?
    ——————————————————-

    Clallam County $$$ Prospectus
    Posted on May 19, 2013 11:15 am by Pearl Rains Hewett
    THE “MYTH” OF CLALLAM COUNTY INCREASED TOURISM
    WA State Park Question?
    Posted on April 21, 2013 2:20 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett
    Who is this “WE” who still wants? STATE PARKS APPROPRIATIONS?
    ————————————————————
    I submit the following WA STATE LAW
    RCW 42.56.030
    Construction.
    THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE DO NOT YIELD THEIR SOVEREIGNTY TO THE AGENCIES THAT 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 maintain CONTROL over the instruments that they have created.
    This chapter shall be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed to promote this public policy and TO ASSURE THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST WILL BE FULLY PROTECTED. In the event of conflict between the provisions of this
    chapter and any other act, the provisions of this chapter shall govern.
    ———————————————————
    THESE EVERETT REPRESENTATIVES ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS – someone who holds a government position (either by election or appointment)

    THESE EVERETT PUBLIC SERVANTS HAVE HAD THEIR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT
    FOR OVER 80 YEARS SERVING THE PEOPLE OF EVERETT IS THEIR PRIORITY.
    LIVE – WORK – PLAY

    Forest Park in Everett A FREE CITY PARK
    www.everettwa.org/default.aspx?ID=534‎
    Forest Park. This 197-acre wooded park is Everett’s oldest and largest park. It is home to the Parks and Recreation Department administration offices, recreation … Swim Center, playground, picnic shelter, wooded trails and Animal Farm. The Rotary Centennial Water Playground opened at Forest Park in July 2007.
    Amenities
    • Playground
    • Trails
    • Tennis
    • Basketball
    • Picnic shelter
    • Restrooms
    • Street hockey
    • Water playground
    • Swim center
    • Horseshoes
    • Animal Farm (open during summer only)


  • Expectation Of Privacy

    I WORE MY SELF OUT THE OTHER DAY…..

    Wow, I am under constant surveillance by NSA….
    The average person is photographed by hidden camera 6 times a day…

    I needed cash, gas, an oil change and groceries..

    First stop… cash machine…. OH NO! They took my picture? They know who I am? they know where I am? …They know what time I was here? They know how much money I have in all of my bank accounts, my checking, my savings, my IRA and my Stock? AND, they know the balance on my credit card account…

    Second stop for gas…OH NO …They took my picture? They know who I am. Now they have my license plate number, They know where I am? …They know what time I was here? They know my car uses low grade gas….

    As I drive from Port Angeles to Sequim…I go through stop lights, OH NO …Did they take my picture? again?… Do they have my license plate number? They know where I am? …They know what time I was here..

    I think about my morning at home…OH NO! Who did I talk to on the PHONE? OMG… my daughter is home canning veggies from her garden…OMG… she mentioned that she bought a pressure cooker???

    OMG…Have we been red flagged by NSA? Now NSA judicially approved “HOP”…. legal surveillance …. can happen….

    Now NSA can legally go after the phone records of everyone I called, and NSA can legally go after the phone records of everyone they call and NSA can legally go after the phone records of everyone they call…

    OK… so now I’m on a surveillance ROLL….

    Back to my morning at home…OH NO!

    OMG…. I received and sent emails….how many? to whom (to individuals in AT LEAST 6 counties in WA State and members of my entire family)

    And I posted 2 comments on my website…

    OMG…. did anyone mention GOD? The Constitution? GAY? BROWN BAG? Citizen? Progressive? tea party?
    Have we ALL been red flagged by NSA /and or the IRS?

    Now NSA judicially approved “HOP”…. legal surveillance program …. can happen…. AND NSA AND THE IRS CAN GO AFTER?????

    Now shall we will ALL have our records, phone calls and emails stored in the NSA X KEY STORE

    Alligator …. Swamp…. I must focus… oil change, groceries….

    Oh no… surveillance camera change oil They took my picture?… AGAIN,
    They know who I am, AGAIN,they have my license plate number, AGAIN,They know where I am? …AND NOW They know what time I got here? They know my car… I signed my name… AND, now they have my signature…

    Surveillance cameras are everywhere in the store…. they follow my every movement and step for 45 minutes…

    I pay for my groceries, now NSA and Obamacare AND WA State have documented and recorded evidence on my receipt…everything I eat,
    am I practicing a HEALTH life style?
    Did I buy any tobacco products?

    I EXIT the gauntlet of privacy intrusive all inclusive surveillance.

    I am exhausted, I just want to go home where I can Have some REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY.

    MY HOME PHONE IS RINGING AS I WALKED IN…..


  • WA State Death Tax

    WA STATE HOUSE BILL 2064 THE NEW RETROACTIVE DEATH TAX

    I am using my Constitutional right to free speech and the understanding of a reasonable man as I read, research and report on this quagmire of WA State legal mumbo jumbo.

    Rep. Steve Tharinger in his MERCENARY CAPACITY, motivated solely by a desire for money (under the guidance/request from the WA State Dept Of Revenue?)

    Playing it forward, to our children, like the NATIONAL DEBT

    Sending us back to our CPA for how much more RETROACTIVE DEATH tax we may owe?

    HAS ELECTED Rep. Steve Tharinger burdened us with A RETROACTIVE second generation, financial overlapping of federal and State government death tax on WA State families?

    —————————————————————

    RETROACTIVELY TO MAY 17, 2005

    DEDUCTIONS ARE NOT ALLOWED

    PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE IS PERSONALLY LIABLE

    ——————————————————————

    WA STATE DEATH TAX???

    ON TOP OF THE FEDERAL DEATH TAX???

    WHAT A CONCEPT???

    Dad died in 2008 the FEDERAL DEATH TAX was 50% of everything over one million dollars.

    So we had to sell (THE TREE FARM) three pieces of property that had been in our family for over 60 years.

    Now 5 years later? The FEDERAL DEATH TAX is still only partially paid to the IRS.

    In 6 years? The Estate may finally be able to finish paying off the FEDERAL DEATH TAX.

    And, to add insult to injury the IRS charged a rate of apx. 7% interest on top of the 50% ESTATE taking.

    ——————————————————————–

    So now May 29, 2013, as DAD’S PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, after spending over five years trying to pay off the 2008 FEDERAL DEATH TAX, I am faced with the following, RETROACTIVE, back to 2005, WA STATE DEATH TAX?

    We have

    HB 2064 THE WA State NEW DEATH TAX RETROACTIVELY TO MAY 17, 2005

    IRS FEDERAL DEATH TAX DEDUCTIONS ARE NOT ALLOWED

    And as Dad’s personal representative I am to be held personally liable?

    ——————————————————————

    Snippets from HB 2064 (Read the full text online)

    “transfer” as used in the federal ESTATE tax code is construed broadly 6 and extends the “SHIFTING FROM ONE TO ANOTHER of any power or 7 privilege incidental to the ownership or enjoyment of property” that 8 occurs at death.

    Fernandez v. Wiener
    , 326 U.S. 340, 352 (1945)

    ——————————————————————

    Ascurative clarifying, and remedial, the legislature intends 29 for this act to apply both prospectively and RETROACTIVELY to ESTATES 30 of decedents DYING ON OR AFTER MAY 17, 2005

    ——————————————————————

    Amounts deducted for federal income tax purposes under section 29 642(g)of the internal revenue code of 1986((,shall))ARE NOT((be))30 ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIONS in computing the amount of tax due under this 31 chapter.

    ——————————————————————–

    (1)(a)Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, any 16 PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE who distributes any property without first 17 paying, securing another’s payment of, or furnishing security for 18 payment of the taxes due under this chapter IS PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR 19 THE TAXES due to the extent of the value of any property that may come 20 or may have come into the possession of the personal representative.21 Security for payment of the taxes due under this chapter ((shall)) must 22 be in an amount equal to or greater than the value of all property that 23 is or has come into the possession of the PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, as 24 of the time the security is furnished.

    ———————————————————————

    REMEMBER THESE NAMES THE NEXT TIME YOU VOTE

    This is a list of the (8) members on the Finance committee

    that VOTED in support of HB 2064.

    REP. STEVE THARINGER 360-786-7904

    Rep. Reuven Carlyle 360 786 7814

    Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon 360 786 7952

    Rep. Drew Hansen 360 786 7842

    Rep. Kristine Lytton 360 786 7800

    Rep. Gerry Pollet 360 786 7886

    Rep. Chris Reykdal 360 786 7940

    Rep. Larry Springer 360 786 7822

    OUTRAGEOUS ELECTED MERCENARY GREED

    Pearl Rains Hewett


  • SMP LAW and Your Protection

    This is my SMP Comment on
    RCW 90.58.100 THIS IS THE LAW
    For protection of single-family residences
    Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee
    George C. Rains Sr. Estate
    Member SMP Update Committee
    ———————————————————————————————–
    90.58.100 – Washington State Legislature – Access Washington
    apps.leg.wa.gov › RCWs › Title 90 › Chapter 90.58
    (1) The master programs provided for in this chapter, when adopted or approved by the department shall constitute use regulations for the various shorelines of …

    THIS IS THE LAW RCW 90.58.100 for protection of single-family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss.
    (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.

    THIS IS THE RCW 90.58 DEFINITION OF “Single-family residence” and “appurtenance”
    Pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW. “Single-family residence” means a detached dwelling designed for and occupied by one family including those structures and developments within a contiguous ownership which are a normal appurtenance.
    An “appurtenance” is necessarily connected to the use and enjoyment of a single-family residence and is located landward of the ordinary high water mark and the perimeter of a wetland. On a statewide basis, normal appurtenances include a garage; deck; driveway; utilities; fences; installation of a septic tank and drainfield and grading which does not exceed two hundred fifty cubic yards and which does not involve placement of fill in any wetland or waterward of the ordinary high water mark.
    ————————————————————————————–
    Specifically, by law Provisions for Protection of “Single-family residence” and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion.

    Additionally, this documentation is to aid ESA in CORRECTIONS TO THE SMP Update, by using legal terminology, definition and clarifying the intent of the LAW.

    —————————————————————————-

    I will enlarge no more on the evidence, but submit it to you, gentlemen—Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence: nor is the law less stable than the fact.
    1770 John Adams
    ——————————————————————–
    RCW 90.58.100 (Full Text)
    Programs as constituting use regulations — Duties when preparing programs and amendments thereto — Program contents.
    (1) The master programs provided for in this chapter, when adopted or approved by the department shall constitute use regulations for the various shorelines of the state. In preparing the master programs, and any amendments thereto, the department and local governments shall to the extent feasible:

    (a) Utilize a systematic interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts;

    (b) Consult with and obtain the comments of any federal, state, regional, or local agency having any special expertise with respect to any environmental impact;

    (c) Consider all plans, studies, surveys, inventories, and systems of classification made or being made by federal, state, regional, or local agencies, by private individuals, or by organizations dealing with pertinent shorelines of the state;

    (d) Conduct or support such further research, studies, surveys, and interviews as are deemed necessary;

    (e) Utilize all available information regarding hydrology, geography, topography, ecology, economics, and other pertinent data;

    (f) Employ, when feasible, all appropriate, modern scientific data processing and computer techniques to store, index, analyze, and manage the information gathered.

    (2) The master programs shall include, when appropriate, the following:

    (a) An economic development element for the location and design of industries, projects of statewide significance, transportation facilities, port facilities, tourist facilities, commerce and other developments that are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state;

    (b) A public access element making provision for public access to publicly owned areas;

    (c) A recreational element for the preservation and enlargement of recreational opportunities, including but not limited to parks, tidelands, beaches, and recreational areas;

    (d) A circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the shoreline use element;

    (e) A use element which considers the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the use on shorelines and adjacent land areas for housing, business, industry, transportation, agriculture, natural resources, recreation, education, public buildings and grounds, and other categories of public and private uses of the land;

    (f) A conservation element for the preservation of natural resources, including but not limited to scenic vistas, aesthetics, and vital estuarine areas for fisheries and wildlife protection;

    (g) An historic, cultural, scientific, and educational element for the protection and restoration of buildings, sites, and areas having historic, cultural, scientific, or educational values;

    (h) An element that gives consideration to the statewide interest in the prevention and minimization of flood damages; and

    (i) Any other element deemed appropriate or necessary to effectuate the policy of this chapter.

    (3) The master programs shall include such map or maps, descriptive text, diagrams and charts, or other descriptive material as are necessary to provide for ease of understanding.

    (4) Master programs will reflect that state-owned shorelines
    of the state are particularly adapted to providing wilderness beaches, ecological study areas, and other recreational activities for the public and will give appropriate special consideration to same.

    (5) Each master program shall contain provisions to allow for the varying of the application of use regulations of the program, including provisions for permits for conditional uses and variances, to insure that strict implementation of a program will not create unnecessary hardships or thwart the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. Any such varying shall be allowed only if extraordinary circumstances are shown and the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. The concept of this subsection shall be incorporated in the rules adopted by the department relating to the establishment of a permit system as provided in RCW 90.58.140(3).

    (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.
    [2009 c 421 § 9; 1997 c 369 § 7; 1995 c 347 § 307; 1992 c 105 § 2; 1991 c 322 § 32; 1971 ex.s. c 286 § 10.]
    Notes:
    Effective date — 2009 c 421: See note following RCW 43.157.005.
    Finding — Severability — Part headings and table of contents not law — 1995 c 347: See notes following RCW 36.70A.470.
    Findings — Intent — 1991 c 322: See note following RCW 86.12.200.
    Project of statewide significance — Defined: RCW 43.157.010.

    Pearl Rains Hewett


  • SMP Law and Public Access

    This is my SMP Comment on
    RCW 90.58.100 THIS IS THE LAW
    Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee
    George C. Rains Sr. Estate
    Member SMP Update Committee
    ———————————————————————————————–
    90.58.100 – Washington State Legislature – Access Washington
    apps.leg.wa.gov › RCWs › Title 90 › Chapter 90.58
    (1) The master programs provided for in this chapter, when adopted or approved by the department shall constitute use regulations for the various shorelines of …
    (2) The master programs shall include, when appropriate, the following:
    (b) A public access element making provision for public access to publicly owned areas
    ————————————————————–
    Specifically, by law Provisions for Public Access to Public Land.
    I will enlarge no more on the evidence, but submit it to you, gentlemen—Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence: nor is the law less stable than the fact.
    1770 John Adams
    ——————————————————————–
    RCW 90.58.100 (Full Text)
    Programs as constituting use regulations — Duties when preparing programs and amendments thereto — Program contents.
    (1) The master programs provided for in this chapter, when adopted or approved by the department shall constitute use regulations for the various shorelines of the state. In preparing the master programs, and any amendments thereto, the department and local governments shall to the extent feasible:

    (a) Utilize a systematic interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts;

    (b) Consult with and obtain the comments of any federal, state, regional, or local agency having any special expertise with respect to any environmental impact;

    (c) Consider all plans, studies, surveys, inventories, and systems of classification made or being made by federal, state, regional, or local agencies, by private individuals, or by organizations dealing with pertinent shorelines of the state;

    (d) Conduct or support such further research, studies, surveys, and interviews as are deemed necessary;

    (e) Utilize all available information regarding hydrology, geography, topography, ecology, economics, and other pertinent data;

    (f) Employ, when feasible, all appropriate, modern scientific data processing and computer techniques to store, index, analyze, and manage the information gathered.

    (2) The master programs shall include, when appropriate, the following:

    (a) An economic development element for the location and design of industries, projects of statewide significance, transportation facilities, port facilities, tourist facilities, commerce and other developments that are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state;

    (b) A public access element making provision for public access to publicly owned areas;

    (c) A recreational element for the preservation and enlargement of recreational opportunities, including but not limited to parks, tidelands, beaches, and recreational areas;

    (d) A circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the shoreline use element;

    (e) A use element which considers the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the use on shorelines and adjacent land areas for housing, business, industry, transportation, agriculture, natural resources, recreation, education, public buildings and grounds, and other categories of public and private uses of the land;

    (f) A conservation element for the preservation of natural resources, including but not limited to scenic vistas, aesthetics, and vital estuarine areas for fisheries and wildlife protection;

    (g) An historic, cultural, scientific, and educational element for the protection and restoration of buildings, sites, and areas having historic, cultural, scientific, or educational values;

    (h) An element that gives consideration to the statewide interest in the prevention and minimization of flood damages; and

    (i) Any other element deemed appropriate or necessary to effectuate the policy of this chapter.

    (3) The master programs shall include such map or maps, descriptive text, diagrams and charts, or other descriptive material as are necessary to provide for ease of understanding.

    (4) Master programs will reflect that state-owned shorelines
    of the state are particularly adapted to providing wilderness beaches, ecological study areas, and other recreational activities for the public and will give appropriate special consideration to same.

    (5) Each master program shall contain provisions to allow for the varying of the application of use regulations of the program, including provisions for permits for conditional uses and variances, to insure that strict implementation of a program will not create unnecessary hardships or thwart the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. Any such varying shall be allowed only if extraordinary circumstances are shown and the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. The concept of this subsection shall be incorporated in the rules adopted by the department relating to the establishment of a permit system as provided in RCW 90.58.140(3).

    (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.
    [2009 c 421 § 9; 1997 c 369 § 7; 1995 c 347 § 307; 1992 c 105 § 2; 1991 c 322 § 32; 1971 ex.s. c 286 § 10.]
    Notes:
    Effective date — 2009 c 421: See note following RCW 43.157.005.
    Finding — Severability — Part headings and table of contents not law — 1995 c 347: See notes following RCW 36.70A.470.
    Findings — Intent — 1991 c 322: See note following RCW 86.12.200.
    Project of statewide significance — Defined: RCW 43.157.010.