DANIEL MARTINEZ---USFS

For background on this issue, go here, here and here.


November 8, 2005

Elaine Zieroth Express Mail: EQ 196764084 US
Apache Sistgraves Supervisor
P.O. Box 640
Springerville, Arizona 86938

Don Butler
Arizona Dept. of Agriculture
1688 W. Adams St.
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
______________________________
Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal
Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent
______________________________

Dear Elaine Zieroth:

I received your extortion letter dated November 1, 2005 on November 2, 2005. You, the USFS and your agents the Binghams, have stolen my cattle and are holding my property. This is without my consent and without a Court Order. You are doing an unjust enrichment to yourselves because I haven’t had any Due Processes of Law. If you sell my property, my cattle, you will be selling stolen property.

There has been no determination of a Court of proper jurisdiction that has ruled that I am trespassing. I am on my private property. My cattle were on my private property prior to them being stolen and removed from my property. How can you get a notice of impound without a determination of trespass first? In order to do a lawful impound the USFS has to take me to Court and get a Court Order to give you authority to impound my cattle.

The law is clear on authority of public officers and employee’s of Federal and State government and the requirement that they have the delegated authority to act. Your CFR’S only apply to you, federal employee’s. I am not a Federal or State employee. The CFR’S do not give you any authority to act outside of your delegated authority. Please reference C.J.S., “officers,” Sec 190-199; C.J.S., “Public Admin.Law,” Sec 49-58; Am.Jur 2d, “Public Officers,” Sec 298-311; Am Jur 2d, “Admin. Law,” Sec 69-74 and 221-226. Related: 65 ALR 811, and 107 ALR 1483.

“No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives,” 106 U.S., at 220.

“Shall it be said….that the courts cannot give remedy when the citizen has been deprived of his property by force, his estate seized and converted to the use of the government without any lawful authority, without any process of law and without any compensation, because the president has ordered it and his officers are in possession? If such be the law of this county, it sanctions a tyranny which has no existence in the monarchies of Europe, nor in any other government which has a just claim to well-regulated liberty and the protection of personal rights.” 106 U.S. at 220, 221, United States v. Lee 106 U.S. 196 1 S. Ct. 240.

“ A regulation dies with the statute from which it gains its life” United States v Hawthorne, 31 F. Supp. 827, 829.

“The extent of authority of the people’s public agents is measured by the statute from which they derive their authority, not by their own acts and assumption of authority.” “Public officers have and can exercise only such powers as are conferred on them by law…” Sittler v Board of Control of Michigan College of Mining and technology. 333 Mich. 681, 53 N.W.2d 681 (1952).

The Organic Act of 1897 that set up the Forest Reserves as codified in 16 USC Sec 475 did not grant you the authority to be doing this criminal activity that you are doing.

You have gone to great lengths to create the illusion that my cattle are on Forest System Lands when in fact they are on my property. You are going to great lengths to protect that illusion, even doing so outside of any delegated authority and totally contrary to the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, the Arizona Constitution and Arizona statutes.

Under the Federal Torts Claims Act codified at 28 U.S.C. Sec 1346 under this law, the United States is liable for torts committed by its employees if committed within the scope of their employment. If the act in question was not committed in the scope of employment the employee is liable and the United States is not.

If your actions are outside of Agency policies and General Orders, Risk Management will not pay the damages, you will. This is Vicarious Liability. You and everyone employed will be personally liable to me for the damages. Criminal Activity has no immunities.

Immunity depends upon delegated authority. The following cases demonstrate that a government employee must have some specific delegated authority, based upon statutes, regulations or delegation orders, in order to be authorized to act. The absence of such authority, when challenged, therefore requires a holding that the employee’s acts were unauthorized and thus beyond the scope of his employment. Paly v United States 125 F. Supp. 789 (D.Md 1954), Jones v. F.B.I. 139 F Supp. 38, 42 (D.Md 1956), James v. United States, 467 F. 2d 832 (4th Cir 1972), White v. Hardy, 678 F.2d 485, 487 (4th Cir 1982), Hughes v United States, 662 F. 2d 219 (4th Cir. 1981), Mider v United States 322 F. 2d 193 (6th Cir. 1963), Bellis v. United States, 635 F. 2d 1144 (5th Cir. 1981), Turner v. United States 595 F. Supp. 708 (W.D. La 1984), Doggett v. United States 858 F. 2d 555 (9th Cir 1988), Lutz v. United States, 685 F.2d 1178 (9th Cir. 1982).

It was established long ago that whenever an officer exceeds his authority and wrongfully seizes or levies upon property, he is personally liable in tort for that act.

You are still on my property and I want you to pack up and leave and return my chattels. You have been warned about trespassing on my rights before. Now it is criminal. Everyone involved is personally liable to me for the damages. I STRONGLY RECOMMEND YOU PERSONALLY CONTACT RISK MANAGEMENT TO SEE IF THEY COVER CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.

I will pay any reasonable amount requested as long as you can show me where I have consented to you impounding my chattels, or a proper Warrant or Court Order or where you have the authority as per an act of Congress or a Federal Statutes that applies within the state of Arizona. If you cannot provide the above said documentation you are in fact extorting me and I ask that you show contrition for your criminal acts and return my chattels to my property.

Respectfully,

_________________________________
Daniel Gabino Martinez