Disturbing News: Park Police arm themselves against US citizens

Chuck Murcko chuck@topsail.org
Wed, 1 Aug 2001 03:38:40 -0400


Do you know if the Klamath people exercised their right of appeal under 
the ESA?

Problem is that the WND editorial doesn't mention any of that. 8^)

I did find this:

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/104cong/esa/standing.htm

"People living in one of the following states are being deprived of 
their due process rights in the name of protecting endangered species!


     California,   Oregon,   Washington,   Idaho,   Montana,
         Nevada,   Arizona,   Alaska,   Hawaii,   Guam,


These citizens are being denied the right to seek judicial review of 
agency decisions under the Endangered Species Act! Citizens living in 
other states have this basic due process right. This is a terrible 
inequity, but the Clinton Administration is responsible for this 
situation and is doing nothing to fix the problem.

All of these states are under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit 
Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit has ruled in a case called Bennett 
v. Plenert, 63 F. Ed 915 (1995), that only environmentalists may obtain 
judicial review of unlawful actions by the Secretary of the Interior 
under the Endangered Species Act. What this means is that if the 
Secretary illegally lists a species as endangered and your constituents 
want to challenge that decision in court, they cannot sue in the state 
where the species is listed. If the Secretary issues a recovery plan or 
designates critical habitat that forces millions of acres of private 
property to be set aside for endangered species, the private property 
owners have no right to complain in court in those states.

In Bennett v. Plenert, the court ruled that if your motive for filing 
suit for judicial review of an unlawful agency action is economic, 
social, or recreational you have no standing to sue. The court has ruled 
that only those individuals who are seeking to increase protections for 
endangered species are within the "zone of interest" of the ESA. This 
means every person who wants the court to review an unlawful Secretarial 
order, must pass this "zone of interest" test.
The case has been appealed to the Supreme Court but the Clinton 
Administration has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the plaintiffs 
from the case without rendering a decision on whether the Ninth Circuit 
"Zone of Interest" test is correct or not. If the Supreme Court does 
what the Clinton Administration wants them to do, citizens will have to 
pass the Ninth Circuit "zone of interest" test before they have the 
right to appeal to the courts for help if the Secretary violates their 
rights, regardless of the merits of their case. This "zone of interest" 
test could become the law of the land, if the Supreme Court upholds the 
Ninth Circuit. It is also used in the Tenth and Eleventh Circuits in 
some form. However, citizens in the rest of the United States do not 
currently have to pass this unfair test to have their rights protected 
by the courts. It goes without saying that this is unfair.

While the Clinton Administration closes the door of the courthouse to 
average citizens, they have been paying taxpayer funds to 
environmentalists to sue the federal government and other private 
citizens to make enforcement of the Endangered Species Act even more 
stringent and restrictive.





_________________________               _____________________________
Don Young                               Helen Chenoweth
Chairman                                Member of Congress
Committee on Resources                  1st  District, Idaho
"

On Wednesday, August 1, 2001, at 02:49 AM, Andrew Robinson wrote:

> Reply to both forks of this thread:
>
> Firstly, the folks down by the Klamath. I've been following this on the
> local news here in Washington. Terribly story - you should see the 
> farmland,
> it's like a desert. Literally - dust. Goes to illustrate that difficult
> dichotomy between environmental policy and man's natural imperative to 
> use
> nature to his own advantage. Or abuse it, depending on whether you want 
> to
> take a purely naturist view of evolution and man's rightful place in 
> nature
> or a philosophically enlightened view of it.
>
> As for the armed Park Police - well, what would you expect? Here's a 
> bunch
> of probably really riled up farmers who have already forced their way 
> to the
> spigots and turned on the water themselves in violation of federal 
> orders.
> They *could* get violent. The federal government, probably wrongly, 
> decided
> not to allow that water through. Period. End of discussion, really, 
> since
> this isn't a direct democracy, but a republic, and people don't get to
> personally make decisions like that. Government agencies do, which are 
> then
> backed up by the executive branch and, often, armed forces. Which makes
> sense when you remember that the state is often defined as the sole 
> actor in
> civil society that has a monopoly on the use of force. They're perfectly
> within their rights to shoot people who break the rules. They just 
> don't,
> usually, because this is, after all, a republic and not an authoritarian
> dictatorship. Just remember - the threat of force is as important to
> government as our precious Bill of Rights or Declaration of 
> Independence, or
> voting, or anything else. So damn right they're ready to shoot you. What
> would we expect them to do? Stand there and say, "Please, Mr. Farmers, 
> don't
> push past us and turn on the water! Please?"
>
Chuck Murcko
Topsail Group
http://www.topsail.org/