(WASHINGTON, DC) Monday the U.S. Supreme Court denied
the Hage family's petition for certiorari in their Constitutional Fifth Amendment
takings case, Estate of E. Wayne and Jean Hage v. U.S. The Hage's
appealed a narrowly worded reversal by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals to
determine if a permit was required to conduct routine maintenance on a vested
1866 Mining Act right-of-way.
The 22 year-old case involved the Hage's seeking just compensation for the
government's temporary taking of their historic vested water rights,
rights-of-ways, and range improvements on their central Nevada Pine Creek
Ranch. The last procedural step for the Hage's involves the case being
remanded back to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for a hearing and final order
consistent with the Federal Circuit ruling bringing this multi-generation saga
to a close.
Wayne N. Hage, son of late property rights advocate and author, E. Wayne Hage,
commented from the family's ranch. "We of course are disappointed
the Court failed to settle a dispute so central to the road and water way
infrastructure of the West. However, the question before the Supreme
Court involved only a very small part of the eight published decisions issued
by Judge Loren Smith and its impact on our ranching operation is minimal."
Hage summarized by saying, "All of Judge Smith's property findings and
most of the original $2.8 million judgment remain intact. Also important
to ranchers is that the Federal Circuit found that we must be guaranteed access
to our vested stock water rights."
In a related case, on May 24 Chief Judge Robert C. Jones of the Federal
District Court of Nevada issued a historic 104-page ruling in the related case,
U.S. v. Hage. Two agencies of the federal government were found to
have entered into a "literal, intentional conspiracy to deprive the Hages
not only of their permits but also their vested water rights. This
behavior shocks the conscience of the Court and provides a sufficient bases for
a finding of irreparable harm" to support permanent injunctive relief.
The Jones ruling follows a 21-day trial in Reno, NV in the Spring of 2012
wherein attorney Mark Pollot represented the estate, and Hage, unable to afford
an attorney represented himself pro se.
Pollot, who is the lead attorney for both cases, remarked, "I am unaware
of any case in recent history where federal agency employees have been found by
a court to have engaged in a conspiracy. In light of the recent
revelations about the IRS, Justice Department, Health and Human Services and
the State Department, the Jones ruling is truly timely. Unfortunately,
the only reason the FS and BLM find themselves in this position is because they
repeatedly ignored the rulings from Judge Smith, for what Judge Jones
determined to be 'vindictive' reasons."
Judge Jones specifically noted in that the Department of Justice, representing
the BLM and USFS, brought the most recent case, filed in 2007, because they
were "unsatisfied with the outcome" in the ongoing related takings
case in the Court of Federal Claims.
Fallout from the District Court's interpretation of BLM and USFS actions is
surfacing. Agency officials were found to be in contempt of court by
Judge Jones for witness intimidation and referred to the U.S. attorney for
possible criminal prosecution. In August 2012 in a three-day show cause
hearing for contempt of court agency brass turned up in Reno to defend the
agency personnel charged with contempt. FS Regional Director Harv
Forsgeren was found by the court to be "prevaricating" and FS State
Director Jeannie Higgins was deemed not entirely truthful. Both took
unscheduled retirements shortly after the hearing. BLM Manager Tom Seley,
specifically found to be in contempt and owning monetary compensation to the
Hage's, retired May 31.
No comments:
Post a Comment