From New York Comes.......

........his confronting the Queensbury animal control officer with a rifle was not illegal because he does not believe the officer is legally holding office........

Man who aimed at deputy claims he broke no laws

BY DON LEHMAN

QUEENSBURY -- A constitutional law activist who was arrested after an armed standoff with police told a Warren County jury Wednesday he didn't break any laws during the incident.

Von S. Lindahl, 35, of 2297 Ridge Road, Queensbury, told the panel the law allows him to protect his property, and his confronting the Queensbury animal control officer with a rifle was not illegal because he does not believe the officer is legally holding office.

He said he did not see a Warren County sheriff's officer who had accompanied the animal control officer that day because of a blood sugar disorder that affects his vision, Lindahl said.

"All I was trying to do was rule my roost, my house," he said. "I was only upholding my Fourth Amendment rights."

Lindahl's comments came during his opening statement at his trial on a felony weapons charge and misdemeanor counts of menacing and obstructing governmental administration in connection with the Feb. 11 standoff at his home.

The sheriff's officer, Sgt. Michael Webster, pointed his pistol at Lindahl after Lindahl emerged from his home with an assault rifle that afternoon. Lindahl retreated into his home, put the gun down and allowed himself to be taken into custody without further incident.

Webster and the animal control officer, Joseph Lombardi, went to the home to check whether Lindahl's dog's were licensed. Lindahl has had a long-standing dispute with Queensbury officials about whether he is required to license his dogs, which he contends are "service animals" that assist him with medical issues.

Lindahl did not dispute the facts during his rambling, half-hour statement, instead telling the jury that he was within his constitutional rights to do what he did. He said Webster and Lombardi had an illegal search warrant for his home.

He said Lombardi and other town officials have been "harassing" him, and that Lombardi doesn't legally hold office because he doesn't live in Warren County.

Warren County Judge John Hall and Warren County First Assistant District Attorney Jason Carusone, who is prosecuting the case, interrupted Lindahl frequently as his conversation turned to the law, something Hall said only a judge could instruct the panel about.

Carusone told the jury that Lindahl came out of his home yelling and waved the rifle at both Webster and toward Lombardi's van. The gun had a full clip of ammunition, bullets that could pierce Webster's bullet-proof vest, he said.

"He's thinking, 'This is it. I could die. The animal control officer could die. This guy is mad and he's yelling,'" Carusone said of Webster.

Lindahl is being assisted by lawyer Adam Michellini, the fifth court-appointed lawyer to be assigned to the case since Lindahl's arrest. The trial is expected to wrap up this week.

Lindahl, who has incurred several criminal convictions in recent years during beefs with town and county officials, could face up to 7 years in prison if convicted of the felony weapons charge.

Source: http://www.poststar.com/newsbrief.asp?storyid=156701

 
 
 
STAY AWAKE

Recent news items have detailed how the Secretary of the Interior (and the US Fish and Wildlife Service) have “unveiled a new regulation Monday that expands the authority of States and Native American Tribes with Service-approved wolf management plans to manage gray wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains population.” Secretary Norton and Assistant Secretary Manson and USFWS Director Williams are to be thanked for this sensible gesture. To those that say it is merely an enticement to get the first two States (Montana and Idaho) to agree to abide by an FWS-approved Wolf Management Plan (a condition to get the aforementioned accommodation) I say, you are probably right. Getting Montana and Idaho on board with wolves (like Minnesota and Wisconsin and Michigan) will assure that ALL the other western States (where wolves will surely be in a decade or less) are powerless to stand alone against future Federal wolf demands.

I wish to use the Wolf as a typical product of the Endangered Species Act. The gray wolf was “listed” as Endangered under the Act while there were more than 70,000 of the same wolves in Canada and Alaska (the latter as you must know is a State of these United States that periodically has to “control’ wolves to maintain game populations and to protect property.) At the same time a Russian wildlife biologist told me, over lunch in Brussells, that there were “millions” of wolves in Russia from the Urals to the Pacific Ocean. In truth, this clearly indicates that ANYTHING can be “listed.”

The fact that wolves were purposely extirpated by State and Federal and private landowners from the West in the early part of the last century meant nothing.

The fact that wolves had come under the authority and jurisdiction of State governments since the ratification of the Constitution meant nothing.

The fact that Alaska (every bit as much of a State as Minnesota or North Carolina) had robust, (indeed too-robust) wolf populations meant nothing.

The fact that wolves were widespread worldwide from Europe clear around Russia to the Atlantic coast of North America meant nothing.

The fact that wolves killed livestock and watchdogs and hunting dogs and pet dogs meant nothing.

The fact that wolves decimated and then kept permanently depressed big game populations that were, until recently spectacular examples of US ingenuity and largesse as well as primary funding sources for State fish and wildlife agencies meant nothing.

The fact that wolves attack people and have caused school bus stops to be closed and kids kept indoors during breaks meant nothing.

The fact that the Federal government seized and holds all wolf authority and the only change anticipated is a conditional return to States of authority dependent on continued Federal approval meant nothing.

The fact that there are wolves now established in 9 States (AK, MN, WI, MI, MT, ID, AZ, NM, NC) and getting established in (how many?) others (IL, IN, UT, OR, WA, CO, NV, NE, ND, ??) has meant nothing to Federal power and authority over wolves.

Remember this key point about EVERYTHING you are hearing recently about “delisting” and “approved Wolf Management Plans” and “turning over management authority to the States.” They are all done “BY” the Secretary of the Interior or the Director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service or even by the President. That’s what is meant by “Service-approved.” What they “GIVE” can be just as blithely taken away by their successor. The Constitution placed this authority at the State level because that is the most (compared to the Federal) responsive to citizen redress. In other words, States protect communities and citizens while the Federal government, like any other strong central government tends to tyranny and dictatorial increases for its own (as opposed our) good.

The next Director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service could easily be some animal rights radical from the Humane Society of the US or even PETA. The next Secretary of the Interior could very easily be an environmental extremist from the Wildlerness Society or the Sierra Club or even one of their “conservation partner wannabees” like Trout Unlimited or the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. The next President could get elected thanks in large part to New Jersey and Massachusetts. This latter would mean a political debt to the folks that banned traps, have strict gun control, and are famous for coyotes attacking children, beavers flooding homes and communities, and teaching school kids to keep all food in their hands to throw at the bears (as the kids run for their lives) that New Jerseyites refuse to manage.

The President and his Secretary of the Interior and the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks and the Director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service did not have this Endangered Species power 35 years ago and they SHOULD NOT have it now or in the future. (FYI There is a similar Endangered Species power “food chain” in Commerce for marine plants and animals.)

The danger that all of us (who have been harmed by the Endangered Species Act and those of us that see how this Act is perverting our very government) face is false complacency. As long as the Endangered Species Act remains unchanged and/or in place none of us are safe. Unless the Act is amended radically or even repealed, it holds evil and deadly future creations beyond anything we can even imagine. It can easily be a major factor in the end of this nation as we know it.


Today we are considering a new generation of superhighways (1/4 mile wide with car lanes and truck lanes and trains and utilities) to replace the interstates that have spurred our economy and lifestyles for 50 years; does anyone think such a project is conceivable with this Endangered Species authority hanging over our heads?

Every year State fish and wildlife agencies become more and more insolvent and irrelevant due to Federal power grabs and increasing dependence of federal funds. Who will protect natural resource managers and users from the voracious and rich anti-use and anti-management radicals?

Freedoms and rights that have existed in this nation for over two hundred years from animals as property and agriculture and ranching and logging and hunting and fishing and trapping and circuses and rodeos to pets and work animals and use of private property are increasingly vulnerable as court decisions expand Federal powers under the Act, bureaucrats profit from the Act, scientists and public land purchase of private property profit from the Act, posturing politicians profit from the Act, and radical organizations from animal rights radicals and environmental extremists work with anti-globalists and groups like the Ruckus Society to control, manipulate, and profit from the Act.

Don’t be duped by bureaucratic kindness. The Act is a time bomb ticking away and it cannot be “fixed” by putting a temporary Christmas wrapping on it. The reelection of the President has everyone talking “reform”. As Social Security and the tax code are mentioned let us start mentioning Endangered Species Act reform. The politicians will tackle this matter now (first year after a big reelection with one party controlling the House, Senate, and the White House) or never.

The bureaucrats are of two types. There are the long-term top managers appointed by the last Administration. They will work surreptitiously day and night with the extremists and radicals to undermine any reform. The few career Federal employees that do not think of Federal power and their careers before the good of the nation and its natural resources will try to help but they have not been promoted and will be oppressed by the truly corrupt layer of managers above them.

Likewise the appointees will be of two types. Most are tinkerers that enjoy the camaraderie of federal employees and try to soften any reforms that upset the employees. There are a few appointees that understand and will support reforms but they tend (like the career employees mentioned above) to be in lesser positions. That however, is not the current problem that faces us.

We need to support Federal politicians that will draft and vote for real reforms. State politicians need to tell their Federal cousins that they need to restore States rights in this area. Passing a reformed ESA will give the appointees with grit in the Departments the backing they need. Bureaucrats then need to be told what to do (next year?) with regulations and policies and partnerships and US positions to the UN by appointees. At most they have two years before the next presidential elections heat up and everything is diverted to that race for power.

So don’t be lulled to sleep by the nice lady in the Interior Department or the kindly bureaucrats cutting ribbons. Either we get real reforms now or maybe never. It is up to all of us to protect our liberties and get back those we lost or face a future where our children will never know what we had.

Jim Beers
5 January 2005

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.

This article and other recent articles by Jim Beers can be found at
http://www.allianceforamerica.org/bb/viewforum.php?f=91

Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak. Contact:
JimBeers7@earthlink.net
 
Source: http://www.allianceforamerica.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=2589&sid=58f4be25e638443796d4c5a0b7b22044
 
 
 
 
 
From The Center For Consumer Freedom Comes.........
 
 
 
ActivistCash - The Reverse Directory

Our award-winning ActivistCash.com website profiles food cops bent on controlling our diets and ironically inhumane animal rights activists. Normally we track who funds the activists, but for a little change of pace we decided to take a look at which political candidates and groups received cash from the craziest food scolds.

Using the always-handy OpenSecrets.org, here's a small glimpse of the not-so-surprising activist-to-politician donations:

 
 
Senate panel OKs Johanns
as next agriculture secretary
Nebraska governor appears headed
to easy confirmation by full Senate
WASHINGTON - A majority of the members of the Senate Agriculture Committee on Thursday approved the nomination of Nebraska Gov. Mike Johanns as U.S. agriculture secretary, virtually guaranteeing the full Senate will confirm him.
<snip>
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6795276/

......Commissioner John Brenden assailed fellow members for caving in to "blackmail" from groups opposed to the hunting of Yellowstone bison, some of whom had threatened to organize a boycott of Montana if the shooting occurred........

Surely That Doesn't Sound Like Something The HSUS Or PETA Would Do?
THE GOVERNER OF WYOMING IS TRYING TO STOP THE HUNTING OF FREE ROAMING BUFFALO IN YELLOWSTONE PARK STATES FEARS PUBLIC  OUTCRY.  COULD THIS BE THE WORK OF THE AR???
Courtesy: H. W.
 
Commission May Cancel Montana Bison Hunt
 
By BOB ANEZ, Associated Press Writer

HELENA, Mont. - Montana's first hunt in more than a decade of bison that leave Yellowstone National Park was effectively put on hold Thursday by appointees of a new governor who says he fears a "public relations nightmare" if the hunt proceeds.

The Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission postponed a drawing for 10 bison licenses that had been scheduled for Friday, and planned a Monday meeting to decide whether the monthlong hunt, set to begin Jan. 15, should be canceled.

Three of the 'yes' votes in the 4-1 decision came from commissioners who had been appointed hours earlier by Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer.

The governor, a rancher and farmer, said Wednesday he wanted the hunt canceled because it could create negative publicity for the state while doing virtually nothing to curb the Yellowstone herd, which has more than doubled to 4,000 in the last six years. A total of just 10 bison could be taken in the planned hunt.

Montana's hunts of bison leaving Yellowstone were canceled in 1991 after a barrage of protests from animal rights activists and other opponents.

The revival of hunting, authorized by the 2003 Legislature, was approved by the wildlife commission last month. Montana ranchers fear the migrating bison will transmit brucellosis, a disease that causes cows to abort.

More than 8,000 people have paid $3 apiece to apply for the 10 licenses, which would cost $75 for Montanans and $750 for out-of-staters.

Commissioner John Brenden assailed fellow members for caving in to "blackmail" from groups opposed to the hunting of Yellowstone bison, some of whom had threatened to organize a boycott of Montana if the shooting occurred.

"I don't think that it would look good for the new governor, who touted his experiences of hunting and fishing in the press, to cave in to some fringe groups," said Brenden, a Republican. "We will be hurt in the minds and eyes of a lot of Montana and out-of-state sportsmen."

Schweitzer said he acceded to no one and just wants to prevent bad publicity for Montana. He said he wants bison to be hunted like other wildlife, after they have a greater range established on which to roam in Montana, and that could come as early as 2006.

"There's going to be a hunt next year," Schweitzer said. "I just don't want a black-eye hunt. I don't think we should have the equivalent of shooting refrigerators."

Only one of the three new appointees expressed opposition to the hunt Thursday, but Schweitzer had said Wednesday he could stop the hunt by appointing people to the commission who share his view.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050107/ap_on_re_us/bison_hunt_5