The revealing story of a rancher
        and the national debt
        Special Report By David Morgan, The Asheville Tribune

        Case History: Hage v. United States
 

        After years of successfully ranching in California, Wayne & Jean Hage
        (she is now deceased) purchased a large cattle ranch in Nevada, Pine
        Creek Ranch, in the spring of 1978. The acreage involved is approximately
        752,000 acres. However, as it is mostly desert land, the land's ability to
        support cattle is far less than might be supposed from its size.

        Located in the high desert mountains of central Nevada, the remote
        operation seemed an unlikely place for a war that would rock the very
        foundation of federal land management agencies. Wayne purchased the
        operation from the well-respected Arcularius Brothers who sold the ranch
        because the regulatory pressure by the U.S. Forest Service had become
        unbearable. Since Wayne had always been able to work with the agency, he
        believed he could resolve problems that might occur. Wayne soon learned
        the only way he could satisfy the Forest Service was to allow them to
        confiscate his property.

        One of the first incidents that drew the line between Wayne and the Forest
        Service revolved around a critical spring that Wayne owned. Situated close
        to the Forest Service Ranger Station in Meadow Canyon, the district ranger
        decided they would pipe the water from the spring, through a newly installed
        $50,000 water purification facility, into their cabin. Wayne learned of this
        after the project was complete, and rightfully objected. He explained that if
        they needed his water, they could make appropriate arrangements. They
        refused to cooperate and would not acknowledge that he owned the water
        even though he held two court decrees affirming his water right. Wayne
        even held a field hearing where the state water engineer acknowledged
        Wayne's ownership and the Forest Service's illegal confiscation. But, still
        today, the Forest Service has maintained a fence around the spring so that
        cattle and wildlife cannot drink, and the water is still being piped into the
        ranger's cabin.

        Retaliation
                           Because Wayne questioned the Forest Service's
        actions, the Forest Service began an unbelievable retaliation campaign. In a
        105-day period they sent Wayne 40 certified letters and personally
        visited him 70 times, each time citing him in violation of a
        bureaucratic regulation. Wayne had to respond in writing and take
        corrective action to each one of their allegations, no matter how trivial. In
        fact, most, if not all, were wild goose chases or violations the Forest Service
        themselves had created.

        Some of these charges stated Wayne was not maintaining his drift fences.
        In order to comply with their rules, Wayne would check and mend if
        necessary the fences in question. One of these incidents involved sending a
        horse and rider to the top of Table Mountain to ride the 20-mile fence line.
        After doing this, the rider found only one problem. There was one staple
        missing. The Forest Service had dutifully marked it with a blue flag.

        Also, among these charges were 45 accounts of trespass where Wayne's
        cattle were allegedly found in the wrong location. For every one of these,
        Wayne would send a crew of riders to locate the cattle and attempt to
        comply with the regulations. Often, there were no cattle to be found, leaving
        Wayne to wonder if there ever were. Also, on several occasions there were
        eyewitnesses who watched the Forest Service employees move Wayne's
        cattle into trespass areas, and then immediately cite him for the violation.

        Over the next eight years he filed three administrative appeals, and won all
        three. They cost him over $150,000 in attorney and consultant fees, not to
        mention the countless hours, personal resources, and lost income also
        expended. Twice, his pickup was shot at while he was close by, a not
        so subtle warning. His wife and children were run off the road
        personally by the District Ranger.

        Even though he won every case, the agency would create new regulations
        that would wear Wayne down, force him to expend his time and resources
        fighting their new regulations, and eventually run him completely out of
        business. The final straw came when the Forest Service confiscated at
        gunpoint over 100 head of his cattle. Armed with semi-automatic weapons
        and bulletproof vests, 30 Forest Service riders confiscated his cattle in July
        of 1991.

        Although they had no legal justification for their actions, they took the cattle,
        handed Wayne a bill for their cost of gathering the cattle, transported the
        cattle to a sale yard which refused to auction the stolen cattle, and
        eventually the Forest Service held their own private sale and kept the
        proceeds.

        The confiscation did not go quite as planned, however. They needed to
        infuriate Wayne to the point that he would also come armed and give them
        the excuse to eliminate Wayne altogether. Wayne came armed, but with a
        35 millimeter camera. Just more evidence for the case he knew he would
        have to file.

        September 26, 1991, after being forced to sell every cow he owned in order
        to comply with federal regulations, Wayne filed a landmark takings case,
        Hage v. United States, for the regulatory and physical taking of his ranch.

        Criminal Desperation

        A year later, the same agency filed two felony charges against Wayne for
        clearing scrub brush from his legally owned right-of-way. Although the
        Forest Service knew he was not in violation and admitted this on the record
        later, they also knew filing criminal charges against him might force Wayne
        to drop his takings suit. After loosing the case at jury trial, Wayne prevailed
        before the Ninth Circuit, overturning the felony charges against him.

        (See a complete timeline by clicking here.)

        What's It All Really About?

        In a recent radio interview on WTZY (880AM) in Asheville, NC, Hage
        spoke about the true nature of the case. What he said was that basically all
        of this has to do with our national debt.

        Excerpts from WTZY interview:

        "During the Civil War we accumulated $2.8 billion worth of debt which the
        North owed mainly to the House of Erlinger in London and the House of
        Rothchild in Paris, who had financed both sides in the War. We couldn't pay
        the debt, so for the first time in our nation's history they decided to
        collateralize that debt with the mineral estate of the Western lands and
        Alaska. During the late 1800's we were able to internalize that debt to
        where we owed it to ourselves.

        In the 1960's the general teaching of Economics 101 was that we shouldn't
        worry too much about our national debt as we owed it to ourselves, and
        hence it wouldn't have to be paid off. Besides all that gold, silver, gas, oil
        and other mineral rights out west more than adequately collateralize it.

        But during the initiation of the Great Society and the Vietnam War we
        began once again to borrow from overseas, as we didn't want to tax
        ourselves enough to pay for what was needed. We began to "externalize"
        our debt, a fatal mistake. Well, when we began to externalize our debt
        heavily, Charles deGaulle of France said, "I don't think you fellows can
        redeem your dollar debt with gold." We said, "Oh, yes we can!" So he said
        that he would rather have gold and began to raid our Treasury. When Nixon
        became President, he was faced with this mess and had to close the gold
        window; we were running out of gold. We, in effect, were running out of
        collateral.

        What Nixon did next, and what stunned a lot of folks, was to set up the
        Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and we began to pass massive
        environmental laws. And for what real purpose? All of them have had one
        effect collectively, whether at the Federal, state or local level. The one
        thing they all do is that they effect the transfer of private property
        out of the hands of private individuals and place that property into
        the hands of government. Now what is that all about?

        Well, when we ran out of gold and, in order to keep the foreign interests
        from cashing in their bonds and notes and imploding and destroying the US
        economy, we had to show them that the resources of the US adequately
        collateralized their debt. In order for it to be properly colleralized, we had to
        show them that US citizens and US interests would not be developing,
        drilling and mining those resources. The effect of this was to
        disenfranchise American citizens of access to their resources for the
        purpose of making their resources available to the international
        financial interests that hold the debt of the US. Indeed, at the present
        time, about 40% of all our debt is held by and owed to foreign interests.

        Look at the mines. Where I live, in Nevada, we have major mines all around
        us. At one time they were all owned by US citizens. But now the only mines
        here that operate are those held by those countries that own the debt of the
        U.S. If you or I discovered a major gold deposit, neither our kids nor we
        would ever live long enough to mine one shovelfull of it. All the rules,
        regulations, and laws would drive us under. We would have to sell out for
        nothing to the government or to a foreign entity, who would find their ability
        to mine it would be rather easy. (Editor's note: The recent seizure by
        President Clinton of over $1 trillion dollars worth of high grade coal
        in Utah to establish a "park" was settled by the US government paying
        the owners merely $14 million dollars for research and development
        costs of the coal. See story on Page 28 of The Asheville Tribune, print
        edition.)

        Another little known but important fact that should be remembered is that
        treasury bills and debts held by foreign interests are secured while those
        held by US citizens are not.

        Little by little, our entire form of government is being reversed. A
        fundamental tenant of economics is that all wealth comes from the
        land; every bit of wealth originates in the land. The cornerstone of a
        truly free society is the ownership of private property by the people.
        In such a society the people own the means of production. In a totalitarian
        society, the opposite takes place. There, the government owns the land, the
        wealth, and the means of production. They, in effect, rent the land to the
        people.

        And what this means is that in a free society where the people own the
        land, the government has to come to the people for its operating budget - for
        tax dollars in order to operate. The government has to listen to what the
        people have to say. That is the essence of a free society.

        In a totalitarian society where the government owns the resources, they
        don't have to go to the people for funds to operate.

 

        Our government today owns over 40% of the resource base of the U.S.
        (Shaded areas of map above.) The corporate U.S. government has
        come to have its own assets and is having to listen less and less to
        its citizens. And it is attempting to get more and more property under the
        guise of environmentalism. If you really want to find out who is really behind
        all this, follow the money of who is behind and invests heavily in the
        environmental entities. It is big money, and comes from powerful interest
        groups from all around the world. A couple of excellent books I would
        advise you to read are Trashing the Economy and Undue Influence by Ron
        Arnold if you really want to find out who the real powers are. They can
        both be obtained from Stewards of the Range in Idaho; their phone number
        is 208-336-5922.

        Now, as I have said, that if laws protecting private property can be
        weakened, the value of the property declines. As government regulations
        increase, the productive capacity of private property decreases and the
        value of the property itself is reduced. Government ownership of and
        regulation of the lands and resources of a nation have never in
        history provided for a free society, nor for a productive one. (Editor's
        note: Even today in Russia, after the recent "democratic" revolution,
        the government owns all of the land. The Russian citizens cannot own
        land in Russia.) Taking productive resources and lands away from citizens
        under the guise of "protecting" the environment is simply a method by which
        the government steals power for itself.

        Karl Marx considered the elimination of private property key to the
        establishment of a socialist government. There was good reason behind this
        premise. If people had no value left in their property that value must be in
        the hands of government. The terms property rights and property control are
        synonymous. Property rights are the ability of the individual to
        exercise control over his property. It is only through the right to
        control the use of property that the individual can make the property
        produce value or wealth. If regulation or law transfers control over one's
        property to the government, then the ability of the property to produce
        wealth is also transferred to the government. Marx was right. The
        elimination of private property is essential if socialism or
        communism is to supplant a free society."

Back