Land And Water U.S.A.

Saturday, March 16, 2019


Print fill out and send Demand to Remove References  
Chuck Sylvester's signed and sent letter.
Demand to Remove Reference of Private Property Rights from SB19-181

Attention: Colorado State Senator Stephen Fenberg and Colorado State Representative K.C. Becker
Please consider this my formal demand you remove references of my Private Property Rights from SB19-181 and honor the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.Executive Order 12630 Governmental Actions and interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights reaffirms the protection of property rights. No law has extinguished these rights.
I, the undersigned, am the Owner of Private Property Rights (PPR) which may include deeded land, grazing allotments, certain permits, improvements, trademarks, agreements, animals, water shares, rights of way, easements, cattle trailways, gas oil and mineral, water/forage and other beneficial uses deemed legal, titled structures, airspace, business and residence located in the county(s) of _______________in the state of ___________..
It has been brought to my attention that legislation known as SB19-181 includes Owner’s PPR, and property not owned by me but are conjoining, in my community, county, and state, to the extent SB19-181 will harm PPR and my community, county and state’s economic stability.
SB19-181 Sponsors Colorado State Senator Stephen Fenberg and Colorado State Representative K.C. Becker failed to: a) Seek written consent or permission from Owner to include PPR. b) Review their actions carefully to prevent unnecessary takings. c) Include provision for Just Compensation. Therefore, Owner considers SB19-181 Sponsors as engaging in “takings without just compensation.”
SB19-181 has already harmed Owner by disturbing, violating and encumbering rightful usage, creating a financial burden, jeopardizing income and placing a cloud on PPR.
As Owner whose Private Property Rights are being harmed by SB19-181, please consider this my formal demand Sponsors remove any and all references of my PPR from SB19-181.
In keeping with State and Federal Constitutional rights to acquire, possess and protect my PPR, I, the undersigned as Owner, hereby require that upon receipt of my demand, Sponsors make public their record of immediate removal of any and all references of my Private Property Rights from SB19-181.
I, as Private Property Rights Owner, reserve the right to seek remedy appropriate and provided by law and may include malfeasance, should Sponsors fail to immediately remove my PPR from SB19-181 and honor the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Attachment: EXECUTIVE ORDER 12630 of March 15, 1988


                   EXECUTIVE ORDER 12630 of March 15, 1988

(Published in the Federal Register Vol. 53, No. 53, Friday, March 18, 1988)
Governmental Actions and Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to ensure that government actions are undertaken on a well-reasoned basis with due regard for fiscal accountability, for the financial impact of the obligations imposed on the Federal government by the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and for the Constitution, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Purpose. (a) The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Government historically has used the formal exercise of the power of eminent domain, which provides orderly processes for paying just compensation, to acquire private property for public use. Recent Supreme Court decisions, however, in affirming the fundamental protection of private property rights provided by the Fifth Amendment and in assessing the nature of governmental actions that have an impact on constitutionally protected property rights, have also reaffirmed that governmental actions that do not formally invoke the condemnation power, including regulations, may result in a taking for which compensation is required.
(b) Responsible fiscal management and fundamental principles of good government require that government decision-makers evaluate carefully the effect of their administrative, regulatory, and legislative actions on constitutionally protected property rights. Executive departments and agencies should review their actions carefully to prevent unnecessary takings and should account in decision-making for those takings that are necessitated by statutory mandate.
(c) The purpose of this Order is to assist Federal departments and agencies in undertaking such reviews and in proposing, planning, and implementing actions with due regard for the constitutional protections provided by the Fifth Amendment and to reduce the risk of undue or inadvertent burdens on the public fisc resulting from lawful government action. In furtherance of the purpose of this Order, the Attorney General shall, consistent with the principals stated herein and in consultation with the Executive departments and agencies, promulgate Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings to which each Executive department or agency shall refer in making the evaluations required by this Order or in otherwise taking any action that is the subject of this Order. The Guidelines shall be promulgated no later than May 1, 1988, and shall be disseminated to all units of each Executive department and agency no later than July 1, 1988. The Attorney General shall, as necessary, update these guidelines to reflect fundamental changes in takings law occurring as a result of Supreme Court decisions.
Sec. 2. Definitions. For the purpose of this Order:
(a) "Policies that have takings implications" refers to Federal regulations, proposed Federal regulations, proposed Federal legislation, comments on proposed Federal legislation, or other Federal policy statements that, if implemented or enacted, could effect a taking, such as rules and regulations that propose or implement licensing, permitting, or other condition requirements or limitations on private property use, or that require dedications or exactions from owners of private property. "Policies that have takings implications" does not include:
1)Actions abolishing regulations, discontinuing governmental programs, or modifying regulations in a manner that lessens interference with the use of private property;
2)Actions taken with respect to properties held in trust by the United States or in preparation for or during treaty negotiations with foreign nations;
3) Law enforcement actions involving seizure for violations of law, of property for forfeiture or as evidence in criminal proceedings;
4) Studies or similar efforts or planning activities;
5)Communications between Federal agencies or departments and State or local land-use planning agencies regarding planned or proposed State or local actions regulating private property regardless of whether such communications are initiated by a Federal agency or department or are undertaken in response to an invitation by the State or local authority;
6)The placement of military facilities or military activities involving the use of Federal property alone; or
7)Any military or foreign affairs functions (including procurement functions thereunder) but not including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works program.
(b) Private property refers to all property protected by the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
(c) "Actions" refers to proposed Federal regulations, proposed Federal legislation, comments on proposed Federal legislation, applications of Federal regulations to specific property, or Federal government actions physically invading or occupying private property, or other policy statements or actions related to Federal regulation or direct physical invasion or occupancy, but does not include:
(1) Actions in which the power of eminent domain is formally exercised;
(2) Actions taken with respect to properties held in trust by the United States or in preparation for or during treaty negotiations with foreign nations;
(3) Law enforcement actions involving seizure for violations of law, of property for forfeiture or as evidence in criminal proceedings;
(4) Studies or similar efforts or planning activities;
(5) Communications between Federal agencies or departments and State or local land-use planning agencies regarding planned or proposed State or local actions regulating private property regardless of whether such communications are initiated by a Federal agency or department or are undertaken in response to an invitation by the State or local authority;
(6) The placement of military facilities or military activities involving the use of Federal property alone; or
(7) Any military or foreign affairs functions (including procurement functions thereunder,) but not including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works program.
Sec. 3. General Principles. In formulating or implementing policies that have takings implications, each Executive department and agency shall be guided by the following general principles:
(a) Governmental officials should be sensitive to, anticipate, and account for, the obligations imposed by the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment in planning and carrying out governmental actions so that they do not result in the imposition of unanticipated or undue additional burdens on the public fisc.
(b) Actions undertaken by governmental officials that result in a physical invasion that substantially affect its value or use, may constitute a taking of property. Further, governmental action may amount to a taking even though the action results in less than a complete deprivation of all use of value, or all separate and distinct interests in the same private property and even if action constituting a taking is temporary in nature.
(c) Governmental officials whose actions are taken specifically for purposes of protecting public health and safety are ordinarily given broader latitude in courts before their actions are considered to be takings. However, the mere assertion of a public health and safety purpose in insufficient to avoid a taking. Actions to which this Order applies asserted to be for the protection of public health and safety, therefore, should be undertaken only in response to real and substantial threats to public health and safety designed to advance significantly the health and safety purpose, and be no greater than necessary to achieve the health and safety purpose.
(d) While normal governmental processes do not ordinarily effect takings, undue delays in decision-making during which private property use if interfered with carry a risk of being held to be a takings. Additionally, a delay in processing may increase significantly the size of compensation due if a taking is later found to have occurred.
(e) The Just Compensation Clause is self-actuating, requiring that compensation be paid whenever governmental action results in a taking of private property regardless of whether the underlying authority for the action contemplated a taking or authorized the payment of compensation. Accordingly, governmental actions that may have a significant impact on the use or value of private property should be scrutinized to avoid undue or unplanned burdens on the public fisc.
Sec. 4 Department and Agency Action. In addition to the fundamental principles set forth in Section 3, Executive departments and agencies shall adhere, to the extent permitted by law, to the following criterias when implementing policies that have takings implications:
(a) When an Executive department or agency requires a private party to obtain a permit in order to undertake a specific use of, or action with respect to, private property, any conditions imposed on the granting of a permit shall:
(1) Serve the same purpose that would have been served by a prohibition of the use or action; and
(2)Substantially advance that purpose.
(b) When a proposed action would place a restriction on a use of private property, the restriction imposed on the use shall not be disproportionate to the extent to which the use contributes to the overall problem that the restriction is imposed to redress;
(c) When a proposed action involves a permitting process or any other decision-making process that will interfere with, or otherwise prohibit, the use of private property pending the completion of the process, the duration of the process shall be kept to the minimum necessary;
(d) Before undertaking any proposed action regulating private property use for the protection of public health or safety, the Executive department or agency involved shall, in internal deliberative documents and any submissions to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget that are required:
1)Identify clearly, with as much specificity as possible, the public health or safety risk created by the private property use that is the subject of the proposed action;
2)Establish that such proposed action substantially advances the purpose of protecting public health and safety against the specifically identified risk;
3)Establish to the extent possible that the restrictions imposed on the private property are not disproportionate to the antoinette to which the use contributes to the overall risk; and
4)Estimate to the extent possible, the potential cost to the government in the event that a court later determines that the action constituted a taking. In instances in which there is an immediate threat to health and safety that constitutes an emergency requiring immediate response, this analysis may be done upon completion of the emergency action.
5)Executive Department and Agency Implementation.
a)The head of each Executive department and agency shall designate an official to be responsible for ensuring compliance with this Order with respect to the actions of that department or agency.
b) Executive departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, identify the takings implications of proposed regulatory actions and address the merits of those actions in light of the identified takings implications, if any, in all required submissions made to the Office of Management and Budget. Significant takings implications should also be identified and discussed in notices of proposed rule-making and messages transmitting legislative proposals to the Congress, stating the departments' and agencies' conclusions on the takings issue.
c)Executive departments and agencies shall identify each existing Federal rule and regulation against which a takings award has been made or against which a takings claim is pending including the amount of each claim or award. A "takings" award has been made or a "takings" claim pending if the award was made, or the pending claim brought, pursuant to the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment. An itemized compilation of all such awards made in Fiscal Years 1985, 1986, and 1987 and all such pending claims shall be submitted to the Director, Office of Management and Budget, on or before May 16, 1988.
(d) Each Executive department and agency shall submit annually to the Director, Office of Management and Budget, and to the Attorney General an itemized compilation of all awards of just compensation earned against the United States for takings, including awards of interest as well as monies paid pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. 4601.
(e)(1) The Director, Office of Management and Budget, and the Attorney General shall each, to the extent permitted by law, take action to ensure that the policies of the Executive departments and agencies are consistent with the principles, criteria, and requirements stated in Sections 1 through 5 of this Order, and the Office of Management and Budget shall take action to ensure that all takings awards levied against agencies are properly accounted for in agency budget submissions.
(2) In addition to guidelines required by Section 1 of this Order, the Attorney General shall, in consultation with each Executive department and agency to which this Order applies, promulgate such supplemental guidelines as may be appropriate to the specific obligations of that department or agency.
Sec. 6. Judicial Review. This Order is intended only to improve internal management of the Executive branch and is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person. 
Ronald Reagan

March 15, 1988

Wednesday, February 13, 2019


Government (-driven) shutdowns have human consequences
Too many government regulators burden and shut down private sector businesses and jobs
Paul Driessen
Many observers praised President Trump’s 2019 State of the Union speech. Some said it was his best ever and even as one of the best SOTU speeches in history. It celebrated the nation’s progress, extolled its opportunities and sought bipartisan unity. A CBS poll found that 30% of Democrats, 82% of Independents and 97% of Republicans gave the speech positive reviews.
As has become customary, the President invited several guests to join him in the House gallery, including two elderly Jews: Herman Zeitchik, who landed on Utah Beach on June 6, 1944, and Joshua Kaufman, whom Corporal Zeitchik helped liberate from the Dachau concentration camp in April 1945.
Members of Congress also invited guests. Congressman Gerry Connolly (D-VA), invited an Environmental Protection Agency scientist who had been featured in a local newspaper article about Virginia leaders and organizations that tried to help federal workers during the recent shutdown.
Families like this “are committed to public service and just want to serve their country. They shouldn’t be held hostage by the President during a government shutdown,” Mr. Connolly said. “We all recognize the importance of border security, but I’m disappointed to see the suffering of federal employees and their families being used for political gain,” the EPA employee added. 
These are understandable sentiments. Government shutdowns certainly have human consequences.
However, even though Mr. Trump “took ownership” of the recent 35-day federal shutdown, to suggest that intransigent Democrats had no responsibility for it or the consequences is disingenuous to the core. So is any suggestion that Dems and fed workers weren’t using the suffering for their own political gain.
In the same vein, community efforts to help federal workers and families were certainly commendable. But federal employees quickly receive back pay for their missed paychecks. Yet I saw no stories about similar efforts to assist families of outside contractors who were also laid off – or private sector businesses and employees affected during the shutdown – none of whom will ever get any back pay.
Moreover, Team Trump took many steps to minimize fallout from the shutdown. By contrast, many Obama agencies did all they could to maximize the fallout, pain and economic dislocations during the 16-day 2013 government shutdown. To cite just one of many examples, the Obama National Park Service closed its access road to Virginia’s privately owned Claude Moore Colonial Farm Park amid the farm’s normally busiest month, costing it tens of thousands in revenues and leaving employees to suffer.
Many citizens also take issue with assertions that federal employees are committed to public service. Our military men and women and their families certainly are. They leave their families behind for months on end, repeatedly put their lives on the line, and too often die or return with life-altering injuries.
By contrast, most other federal employees have comfortable, low-stress, high-pay jobs. Nearly 92,000 of them make more than the governor in states where they work, the watchdog group points out. Too many of them use their positions to devise, impose, enforce and justify heavy-handed policies and regulations that burden or even shut down private sector businesses, kill jobs, and hammer families and communities – to drive Deep State agendas, often for limited or no benefits.
Those government shutdowns and human consequences receive little “mainstream media” attention. They were especially egregious and far-reaching during the Obama years, and yet generated few or no efforts by VA-MD-DC area leaders and communities to help workers and families whose jobs were impacted or eliminated and lives upended by ill-conceived, incompetent or even deliberate Deep State actions.
Winnipeg, Canada’s Frontier Centre for Public Policy regularly quotes Lao Tzu, who said: “Govern a great nation as you would cook a small fish. Do not overdo it.” Sadly, urged onward by liberal activists and politicians, today’s U.S. government is cooking the American fish into inedible leather.
Candidate Obama promised to “bankrupt” coal mining and coal-fired electricity generating companies, and thus the families, businesses and communities that depended on them. His EPA made good on that promise, by issuing a pseudo-scientific finding that the plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide we exhale somehow “endangers” human health and the future of our planet – then using that finding and equally dubious particulate (soot) rules to justify regulations that eliminated numerous jobs. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton also promised to “put a lot of coal workers and coal companies out of business.”
Tens of thousands of jobs were eliminated in Kentucky, West Virginia and other coal-reliant states, because of the Obama EPA’s war on coal and a switch to natural gas that was driven by that war, abundant and inexpensive gas produced by fracking, and attacks on utility companies financed by Michael Bloomberg and others. Retraining programs helped a few Appalachian miners find new work raising bees and making candles, lip balm and other wax products, for much lower wages.
New “renewable” energy jobs were also created, though generally not in areas where coal jobs were lost. And the number of jobs required to generate expensive, intermittent electricity from wind and solar facilities – versus cheap, reliable power from coal and gas – is simply unsustainable. In fact, producing the same amount of electricity requires one coal worker, two natural gas workers … 12 wind industry employees or 79 solar workers. Major environmental impacts from wind and solar are also ignored.
These same Obama era policies and external factors combined to threaten the demise of the Kayenta Coal Mine and Navajo Generating Station in that impoverished, high-unemployment area. Some 750 people, mostly Native Americans, work there when the facilities are operating at full tilt. The tribe also receives lease rental payments, royalties and revenues from selling the electricity. The Navajo and Hopi tribes are now trying to keep the operations going on their own, because closure is “unacceptable.”
EPA officials were also in charge of the bungled operation that unleashed a toxic flashflood from Colorado’s Gold King Mine in 2015. EPA and its media allies quickly whitewashed the disaster.
In a dress rehearsal for Bob Mueller’s jackbooted arrest of Roger Stone, 30 heavily armed SWAT team agents from Homeland Security and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stormed into the Gibson Guitars factory in 2011, held employees at gunpoint, intimidated and interrogated them, hauled off $500,000 worth of wood and guitars – and warned the company not to touch any guitars that were left behind.
All that for the “crime” of allegedly not having proper paperwork for an exotic endangered wood. Both incidents involved more armed federal agents than were sent to take out Osama Bin Laden!
And who can forget the Russia/Ukraine-instigated FISA warrants? Or the IRS targeting, harassing, stonewalling and effectively silencing conservative political groups that might have made reelection slightly more difficult for President Obama and congressional Democrats?
Not surprisingly, not an iota of accountability was ever exacted on any perpetrators of any of these or multiple other “public service” misdeeds or abuses of power.
Far too often, it seems that federal government employees and their congressional, media and activist allies don’t really care very much about people who live beyond the boundaries of that 39,000-acre plat of land along the Potomac River. That’s what sets Donald Trump apart from Washington politicians, and why he was elected. Unfortunately, many state and local officials are guilty of similar offenses.
Too many government workers across the board seek to control virtually every aspect of our lives: from our energy, lives and living standards … to the cars we can drive and straws we can use with our beverages.
It’s nice that Gerry Connolly cares deeply about Deep State workers whose votes keep him in office. But it would be better if all elected officials and unelected government employees cared more about the American workers, families, businesses and communities that their policies, laws, regulations and enforcement actions too often affect so negatively, too often for so little benefit. Lao Tzu would agree.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and Some author of books and articles on energy, climate, environmental and human rights issues. 

Thursday, January 24, 2019

DOI Owes Charles Sylvester $843,534,82

Feral Horses   Photo by Roni Bell 
As of September 2014, the Department of Interior owed Charles W. Sylvester $843,534,82 - - 

Secretary Sally Jewell
U.S. Department of Interior
1849 C. St. NW
Washington, D.C. 20240
July 31, 2015

Dear Secretary Jewell,

Regards: Fraudulent Property Accounting Complaint

Please consider this my formal complaint regarding the engagement of Fraudulent Property Accounting on Federal Land in Wyoming by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) under the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI).
Reason for my complaint:
BLM has gone outside the lawful scope of their assigned administrative duties, choosing instead to engage in *Fraudulent Accounting of *Settled Property on Federal Land (in Wyoming). This has burdened me with a financial loss, which, by law, is considered as a Takings due Just Compensation.
In 1993, an Interim Agreement was made between the DOI (BLM) and Wyoming Granite Mountain Open (GMO) No. 1636 Allotment Owners (AO – and also known as Stockholders and Permittees).
The Lander BLM agent explained to GMO Stockholders that an agreement was necessary for conservation and range rest. He said that unless we signed the agreement, we wouldn’t get any “improvements” – i.e. cooperation from BLM.
We, the stockholders, believed him. We believed the agreement was as stated, “interim – i.e. temporary,” and that BLM would honor their commitment to improvements, so we agreed to voluntarily give up 45% AUM’s., leaving 55% of AUM’s based on 1993 numbers…NOT the highest historic levels.
GMO Allotment Owners have run considerably less than their highest historic number over the past 30 or so years; since 1993, they’ve run likely a quarter (maybe an eighth) less.

Knowing the Grazing Fee each Allotment Owner pays goes into a Range Management Fund from which Allotment Owner may draw upon when needed for range Improvement on their specific Allotment, I assumed BLM would simply match that which was already mine.
Though I honored my part of the agreement, I noticed within a few years that the BLM did not honor theirs. They chose instead to increase the feral horse herds far beyond the management levels of 160 (minimum) and 250 (maximum) with roundups every 3 years. Feral horse numbers have not been maintained at levels less than 250 over the past 22 years.
On a 2006 range tour, Roy Packard (then in charge of the Feral horse program), bragged there were probably 800 horses; BLM employees reported up to 1,100 at one time on the GMO.
So began the Allotment Owners request the “temporary” agreement be terminated. In a February 22, 2012 letter, BLM agent Richard Vandervoet finally did terminate the Interim Agreement.
My Water and Range rights had vested in the late 1800’s. These rights to forage and water have never been waived, extinguished or voluntarily abandoned.
Said forage and water constitute my private property; private property BLM’s excess feral horses stole.
On settled Federal Land, BLM is administrative only. BLM has never been given authority to manage the private businesses of Allotment Owners.
BLM’s refusal to recognize my *Vested Property Rights on Federal land has directly contributed to harming my business by leaving me a financial loss.
Under historic statues, State and U.S. Constitutions, these government generated losses are wholly recognized as takings compensable to Allotment Owners.
It appears that because BLM does not recognize settled property on Federal Land, they are engaging in Fraudulent Property Accounting.
Secretary Jewell, I want you to fix the problem of BLM’s engagement in Fraudulent Property Accounting.
Here are some recommendations that will help fix this problem:
1) Identify all settled and or adjudicated (or both) property on Federal Land.
2) Order BLM agents to recognize these property owners and thereon not engage in managing their private business.
3) Order BLM agents to not knowingly deny property owners use of their property.
4) Unless deputized by the County Sheriff, remind BLM agents they have no law enforcement authority.
5) Order BLM agents to stop engaging in actions outside their authority; actions that include threatening, harassing and coercing Allotment Owners.
6) Either give property owners equal Department of Justice (DOJ) protections as enjoyed by BLM agents, or strip BLM agents DOJ protections and mandate they seek and pay for their own attorney fees as do property owners. This Equal Standing would eliminate agents going rogue, and hold them accountable for their individually executed actions.
7) Educate public on which property is settled and which is not, so they don’t unknowingly trespass or interfere with Allotment Owners business.
8) Order Endangered Species Act (ESA) to never deny Allotment Owners their right to “do business as usual.”
9) If ESA designates a living thing “endangered” status, and substantiates “need” to use Allotment Owners property, mandate ESA honor “just compensation” for “takings” - with payment in full and in advance of commencement of takings.
10) Mandate that any entity that generates a meeting that involves Allotment Owners property, be prepared to compensate Allotment Owner whatever costs Allotment Owner accrues attending meeting.
11) Acknowledge bills submitted for financial losses accrued by property owners due to BLM agents denied use of property.
12) Justly compensate in full each property owner injured by BLM takings.

Here’s my financial loss breakout accrued for years 1993 through 2013.
Secretary Ken Salazar received the 2013 bill, and Secretary Sally Jewell received the 2014 updated bill. To date, no word from either and the bill remains unpaid.
Using assigned number of 2,108 AUM’s, subtract the 45% cut, equals 948 AUM’s. Feral horse AUM’s have been figured at approximately 79 head over 12 months at an annual basis. To house feral horses, government pays private property owners in the range of $1.50 to $1.75 per head per day. Forgiving the Federal Government $0.50 to $0.75 I’ll use $1.00 per head per day - or $30.00 per month. Take $30.00 times 12 months times 20 years’ time 79 head of feral horses equals $568,800 total, less $25,596 the BLM fees I would have paid, leaves a balance of $543,204. Bill Summary 2013: Granite Mountain Open Allotment Owner Charles W. Sylvester
2108 AUM’s Granite Mountain Open Allotment -45% Volunteer give up = 948.6 12 Months of year
79 Horses per year @ $1.00 per 30 day month (Compared to $1.50 - $1.75 BLM per day BLM pays sanctuaries.) = $30.00
$2,370.00 X’s 12 Months in year = $28,440 Total per year
X’s 20 Years of excess feral horses =’s $568,800 Total
- $25,596 Less BLM for my bill
= $543,204 Total owed to Charles Sylvester
Bill Summary update 2014: GMO Allotment Owner Charles W. Sylvester
2108 AUM’s Granite Mountain Open Allotment
-45% AUM cut =’s 948.6 AUM’s between January 1993 through December 2012.
79 head feral horses X’s $1.50 =’s $118.50 per day X’s 365 days =’s $43,225.25 $43, 225.25 per year X’s 20 years =’s $865,050.00 less $25,596.00 I would have paid on BLM fees =’s $839,454.00.
5% interest on DOI’s unpaid balance of $543, 204.00 =’s $4,080.82.
$839,454.00 + $4,080.82 =’s
$843,534.82 due Charles W. Sylvester by DOI as of September 2014

It is my understanding that additional Allotment Owners will be filing their own independent Fraudulent Property Accounting complaints and bills for Just Compensation.
I expect your immediate attention to addressing my Fraudulent Property Accounting complaint and payment of my bill.
Taking the steps I recommended will truly reestablish justice for many injured Allotment Owners, and return our rights to do business and enjoy our property without fear.
Please contact me anytime! H# (970) 284-6874 C# (970) 430-0110.
Thank you,
Charles W. Sylvester
Cc: DOJ, Senator’s Barrasso and Enzi, Governor Mead, Congressman Lummis and interested parties
  • Vested Property Rights: Allotment Owner owns (aka has settled and or is adjudicated and therefore gains Equitable Title - Vested Property Right): Beneficial use of water, trailways (easements), improvements and forage. These rights have never been extinguished.
  • Settled – aka appropriated. Federal only manages federal land which has not been settled (unappropriated). On settled land, federal owns the naked land (and whatever may be specified such as and including mineral).