DIAMOND BAR CATTLE COMPANY--LETTER TO NM ATTORNEY GENERAL

February 6, 2004

Patricia A. Madrid, New Mexico Attorney General
P.O. Drawer 1508, Santa Fe, NM 87504-1508

Dear Ms. Madrid:

It is our understanding that your office provided an Opinion to the New Mexico Livestock Board relative to the situation where the Forest Service, acting on an Order of the Federal District Court, is planning to impound our cattle. As we understand, the Opinion stated that the Livestock Board was required to honor the Court Order. Since your office did not contact us, we have to assume your Office based the Opinion on the Court’s statement that our cattle were trespassing on “national forest system lands,” and should be removed.

The Court, by invoking rules of the Court, did not address or dispute the fact that we have a legally and lawfully filed deeded fee interest (based on res judicata under N.M. law) in the lands within our ranches that prove that our cattle are not ranging on national forest system lands.

Our situation hinges on three principles of law; the sovereignty of the State of New Mexico, the limits on federal jurisdiction, and the oath of office of state officials.
This matter concerns private property rights that are within the bounds of State sovereignty, over which the Federal District Court has no jurisdiction. Any dispute over these rights must be handled in a State court of proper jurisdiction, as stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Garland v. Wynn, 61 US 6, 20 How 6, 15 L. Ed 801, “The Courts of a state must determine the validity of title to land within the state, even if the title emanates from the United States or if the controversy involves the construction of federal statutes.”

With respect to jurisdiction over national forest system lands, there is no evidence in the New Mexico legislative proceedings to show that exclusive legislative jurisdiction was ever ceded by the New Mexico Legislature in accordance with Article 1, § 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution of the United States of America (see NMSA 1978, 19-2-2 through 19-2-11) Therefore, federal jurisdiction over these lands falls within the category of proprietary jurisdiction, wherein the U.S. functions as any other land owner within the state, and must abide by State law and depend on local law enforcement to serve warrants, court orders and arrests. In Woodruff v. Mining Co., 18 Fed. 772, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, “the only interest of the United States in the public lands was that of a proprietor, like that of any proprietor…”

The federal government, under this limited jurisdiction, cannot compel the New Mexico Livestock Board or the County Sheriffs “to enact or administer federal regulatory programs,” (N.Y. v. U.S. 120 L.Ed.2d 158) nor can the federal government or District Court, authorize federal agency personnel or contractors to violate State law (i.e., New Mexico Livestock Code).

The predecessors of your office worked long and hard to win the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. New Mexico 435 U.S. 696, 98 S.Ct. 3012 (1978), which stated that cattle grazing was not a purpose for which the Gila River Forest Reserve was withdrawn, and that the stock water was to be allocated to the individual stockwaterer under State law. In order for all New Mexico public officials to uphold their Oath of Office, they must protect private property rights. Those who do not do so are subject to being held accountable for violating their Oath.

We hand delivered a packet to you last Wednesday with more details in this matter.

Sincerely submitted,
___________________________________
Kit Laney

Cc: N.M. Livestock Board Members