Klamath Adjudication

Foul Proceedings

The Klamath Falls Basin Adjudication process in Klamath Falls Oregon has been bringing out water thieves of every kind, the state having let attorneys into the mix which simply twist water laws without respect for Justice or regarding the Historical use within the Klamath River Basin. Sadly, it is turning the Klamath Basin Adjudication process into a sick joke placing Interpreted Law above written Law and Justice, and Court Procedure above Fact.

To assist Klamath Falls water users and help those within the KlamathRiver Basin that are having to fight against attorneys on their own, thissite is presented to inform and educate on how to locate land and recordsto establish your water rights claim:  

>>> Click Here for Help on Searching Land Patents and Land Entry Files for Establishing Your Klamath Falls Adjudication Water Rights See also quick questions and answers in center column>>>. Center column shows the state's attempts to assume undelegated powersover Vested Water Rights.

 Attack on Klamath BasinWater Rights
 

The federal government, state government, local water boards, crooked corporations and socialist environmental groups are taking methodical steps to take and take control of your ranch water.

In an unprecedented violation against ranchers, farmers and property owners, these groups have financed a wave of attorneys to use procedure to take away your land value, water rights and indeed your land.


John Locke:         


Samuel Adams - Rights of the Colonists





Corruption

The Electric Corporations are laying down false claims;

This on water historically shown they have not used by USGS water gages; Simply to take water away from rightful users to increase the water through their own turbines;


State Corruption of OregonWater Laws

See 2nd and third column at right:

State attempts to take water rights through the Klamath Adjudication process.


Theft

The irrigation districts are attempting to create a situation of skimming rights off of each irrigator using thewords "fair use", to get more water to sell to others at a higher rate orto sell out to the government or to corporations.

Proving they are as much a crook as the others.

They as the others have contested others rights not knowing anything about many of the people or rights they contested, nor had any interest or use of the water they contested; simply to make people prove their rights.


Manipulation

The Klamath Indian Tribes are doing the same for a quick resale of the water to corporations, government and irrigation districts in the future and as a future trading pawn.


Coercion

Environmentalists are attempting to get the government "classify" "good" farm land possessing valuable vested water rights as "marginal" farm land, so toget the people to sell their land and water rights at cut rate as willingsellers to the federal government so to get control of the landand water and keep it out of the hands of the citizens.

Using Taxpayer money though "right offs" and Tax exemption status being paid by the farmers and ranchers, against the ranchers.



A Better Way

***   A better way would be instead to simplyremove zoning restrictions that have been keeping the farmer fromselling his land at market determined parcel sizes so thatthe farmer can benefit from his land and water rights; and in turn morepeople can acquire and benefit from the land and water rights.

Something that the County should do.

-------------------

Ever wonder who will benefit most by having more water stay in the Klamath River?

The Electric Companies by far; Environmental special interests organizations a close second profiting by the turmoil.

Who else is financing all these attorneys and pushing the contestments?

Where else is the money to pay these high profile attorneys coming from?

A Stacked Deck

-------------------

By forcing you, an irrigator, farmer and rancher into:

1.) fighting through procedures and attorney and legal terminology you have very little knowledge about and where interpretation of the law has been corrupted to be greater than the original intent, you will either have to take your chances fighting through the stacked deck or

2.) hire an attorney for 350.oo +  an hour.


Planned Outcome

The two outcomes for Farmers and Ranchers in the Klamath Basin water struggle are obvious:

1.) The first choice, you stand to loose a good portion of the water you now use.

2.) The second choice you may keep some of your water, but may, in time, loose your ranch or farm trying to pay the attorney bills.

Farmers, Attorneys, Judges and State Administration
 

The idea that this legal procedure is friendly to those who are not attorneys is a farce. If you do not know procedure, the attorneys will railroad you with their tactics and the judge will not assist you unless you ask, and at that, only if you ask or know what or how to ask, and then the help is bare minimum, allowing important areas to slip by during the hearing and thus allowing the attorneys to conceal information that will make your case.

The conditions are such to set thestage for a water war buffered only by a State Water Resources Department that can only see numbers, and have not even researched their own archives to bring out records of the past, relying on your own ability to do research over a one hundred year period of time.

The judges, though required to know water law, have no understanding of vested rights that are under common law and will remain so after the adjudication.

An adjudication that must respect and protect vested water rights andonly determine beneficial use.

The Water Resources Department has not been given the power to redefine the vested right, only to determine use.


Attempt of the State to Assume Undelegated Powers

But the State of Oregon Water Resources Department is now part of the problem:

And if you made a mistake 12 years ago not knowing the weight of your words at that time, every word you did not understand, record or map you did not really look over in context with the past, these will be used against you.

Not only by the contestants, but by the State Attorneys.

Did not know you actually had riparian rights?

Sorry!

If you did not claim them, the state will attempt to say that you lost them, even if you have been using the water for riparian uses since before 1909 and need them to water your cattle along the banks of your stream.

This is NOT How the original Law was written,

BUT the state is using the "FEE" loophole to TWISTthe meaning and take away your water rights that you actually have.

The Original Oregon Law states clearly that if the water has been used, your right will not be voided or set aside!

The State "Interprets" the law incorrectly; and indeed that is how they present their ability to subvert the plain language of the law.

They say that the fees they have asked are "not unconstitutional";

But the fees or time for which to pay them do not precede the "purpose" for the Adjudication;

And that purpose is clearly written in Oregon Law: The Purpose of the Adjudication is to "Protect ValidVested Water Rights".






Who Will Profit

So who will profit?

Pacific Power and Light (now Scottish Power), irrigation districts and their bureaucracies, so they can lay more claim on your water, so they can further develop and make money on water that was meant to continue development of your farm and ranch;

As I continue this site, having been through the procedure of contesting and now being contested by people who simply wish to take that which they do not own nor in the past used, I will present actual case files that will show how these government attorneys, corporate attorneys manipulate the courts steal water, how courts stack the deck and state attorney turn a deaf ear.

Many of these files can be Reviewed online at http://www.ferc.gov, Klamath Project case Docket # 2082 on Fall Creek Power House Claims, Fall Creek a tributary to the Klamath River, on the Oregon California boarder, regarding Spring Creek water and USGS gage reports.



Find Your Water Right Records

Some Helpful Notes:

Look for patents in your County Records by searching back to the original owner - BUT DO NOT STOP THERE ! 

Also Look for the patents online on the Bureauof Land Management (BLM) web site GLO Records at: http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/PatentSearch/Default.asp? or (http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/) by entering Section, Township and Range of your properties legal description and or name ifyou have it of the patentee under their search.

Write down the numbers given there to help the Archives find your Land Entry Files for that patent ....... 

THEN: Call  202-501-5395  for operator or Mary Francis ext. 327 or write The Washington DC Archives:

OLD MILITARY AND CIVIL RECORDS (NWCTB-LAND),
TEXTUAL ARCHIVES SERVICES DIVISION,
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION,
700 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW,
WASHINGTON, DC 20408-0001 

and have them send you the forms for getting copies of the "LAND ENTRY FILES" for those patents, you will need one form for each patent you want the files to.
 

*** NOTE!!!!!! >>>> If will need the records CERTIFIED as a "True and Correct Copy" : Make sure to tell them! -As this is a different form and they will not change the request over the phone. If you send in the wrong form and then request for the information to be certified, they will destroy the old form with your credit card information - without telling you - and send you the new form; and the process will start all over again loosing much time!!!

SAVE the Reference Number in the top left hand corner of the form - you will need this number to trace each of your requests from the archives.

You will then have to mail the white portion of the form with requestto pay for the search by credit card or by billing you to:

TEXTUAL ARCHIVES SERVICES DIVISION,
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION,
700 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW,
WASHINGTON, DC 20408-0001

A Postcard will be sent to you witha MASTERNUMBER theywill use to keep tract of the progress of your order -NOTE: this number will differ fromthe number in the upper hand side of your form.

For Inquires on your requested forms after they have been sent CALL: 301-837-2000

This will arrive at the TRUST FUND section of the archives that will process the order and send the request back to the Archives research section who will do the search. Trust Fund Phone is 202-501-5170.

The Archives Search will bedone by the office of George Shanner (sp) 202-501-5385  Ext. 260

 

Allow 60 - 90 days, so start early; If your case is already underway ask for an extension in time to receive these records or if the time for records is past; the hearing inSalem has already taken place; or the case has been sent to the Water RightsAdjudicator: Still Send them asking for the Adjudicator or hearingpanel or both to "ask that the record be reopened" to accept these records and to take "Judicial Notice" of these records.

These files will tell the improvements done by the patentees to receive the patent, do not be discouraged if a ditch is not mentioned - if there are crops or clover and other that required irrigation to grow - This means they were irrigating and all that wasneeded to deliver the water  was present.

 Stay tuned 1/1/2004. RT

The Klamath Basin Adjudication, Klamath Falls Water Rights Adjudication and Federal Energy Commission Re Licensing report.

The time has come to reduce the Federal Government and its burden on this free country, find out how.

----------------

Counter by Rapid Axcess

 

STATE OF OREGON ATTEMPTS TO TAKE WATER USING THE ADJUDICATION AS THE MEANS

 

To understand HOW, the state plans to do this, here is some history and Law that you may not know of; that is valid today  and pertinent to all VESTED WATER RIGHTS.

Vested rights,  remain under the LAWS, and possess the POWERSof their WATER RIGHT at the date the right was FIRST APPROPRIATED.

Oregon Supreme Court Ruling:

" Reports of Cases, Volume Decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon", Volume 114, March 24,1925 to June 1925, Page #116:

"....Water and Water Courses - Title to Land Obtained "SUBJECT" to "LAWS PREVAILING".

(#26): "Those obtaining title to land take "SAME" subject to "LAWS THEN PREVAILING" "RELATING TO THE APPROPRIATION" OF "WATER" "

So the statement that the state owns all the water in Oregon, is not quite correct; Unless you wish to accept "Ex Post Defacto" laws in either civil or criminal cases;


Black and Pomeroy Treatiseon the Law of Water Rights 1893 offers relevant and VALID Common Law that spans a large amount of historywhich includes references to Oregon cases as well;

Black and Pomeroy Treatise on the Law of  Water Rights 1893 establishes clearly that a Vestedwater right after it has been beneficially used can be used for ANY TYPEOF USE:

SEE PAGES 116 to 119:  

§68 Appropriator may change place or manner of use.

Actual Excerpts:

"RIGHT to Exclusive Use of Water" " ..... The general doctrine is SETTLED, by the unanimous consent of the authorities, that the prior appropriator is entitled to the exclusive use of the water, up to the amount embraced in his appropriation, either for the original purpose or for ANY OTHER PURPOSE or DIFFERENT PURPOSE, provided the amount is not increased, without diminution or material altercation in quantity or quality; and his use will, to that extent and for such purposes, be protected against all subsequent appropriators, both above and below on the same stream; and to this end he may obtain all proper remedies, legal and equitable. 1"

Cases Sited: 1 " Himes v. Johnson, 61 Cal. 259; Stein Canal Co. v. Kern Island I. C. Co., 53 Cal. 563; Reynolds v. Hosmer, 51 Cal 205; Gregory v. Nelson, 41 Cal. 278; Clark v. Willett, 35 Cal. 534; Davis v. Gale, 32 Cal. 23; McDonald v. Askew, 29 Cal. 200; Hill v. Smith, 27 Cal. 476; 32 Cal. 166; Rupley v. Welch, 23 Cal. 543; Pheonix W. Co. v. Fletcher, Id. 482; Natoma W. Co. v. McCoy, Id. 490; Butte, etc., Co v. Morgan,19 Cal. 609; Kid v. Laird, 15 Cal. 161; Kimball v. Gearhart, 12 Caql. 27; Ortman v. Dixon, 18 Cal. 33; Bear River, etc., Co v. New York M. Co., 8 Cal. 327; Ophir Silver M. Co. v. Carpenter, 4 Nev. 534; Barnes v. Sabron, 10 Nev.217; Strait v. Brown, 16 Nev. 317; Atchison v. Peterson, 20 Wall, 515. "

Black Pomeroy Treatise on Water Rights available from:

American Patriot Party:  http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc
Klare Taylor Publishers http://www.klaretaylorpublishers.com




This is not a state born privilege, but a VESTED TITLE IN THE RIGHT.
 

This is contrary to the States attempt to minimize the rights of the Vested water Right Holder in an attempt to draw vested rights into Post 1909 constrictions,and away from Common Law Doctorine Powers and Rights Vested of which continue to be valid in and of the right both today and in the future.

The cases sited would be used to determine cases in Oregon courts and across the west or anywhere Common Law is respected which is a "preexisting right in the people that exists whether it is written in a Constitution or not" See Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788.

One must also realize that Oregon did not become a state until 1859, so this 1893 "second printing" of over 560 pages relates to actual major cases established existing states, back to and including English doctrine cases; which the courts from all states drew from to make their decisions; Including Oregon.

Even at the time this reprint was printed, the author noted changes that were "unprecedented" in powers states were taking as they moved toward 1901 changes in western water law.

I have presented some Oregon Law in a reply post below that relates to this issue;

To show the validity of Common Law still in effect to existing rightsto water, Oregon present this law:

ORS 539.010 "...(4) The RIGHT of any person to take and use water SHALL NOT be "impaired or effected" by "ANY Provisions" of the water right act (as defined in ORS 537.010) where appropriations were initiated prior to February 24, 1909, and such appropriators, their heirs, or assigns did in good faith, and in compliance with the "LAWS THEN EXISTING",  commence the construction of works for the application of the water so appropriated to a beneficial use, and thereafter prosecuted such work diligently and continuously to completion. However all such RIGHTS shall be adjudicated in the same manner as provided in this chapter."

See Also:

Lords Oregon Laws 1909, Chapter VI '6594, '6595, VESTED RIGHTS PRESERVED; The water being put to beneficial use, See 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 & 8. In (2) it presents actual application "...shall be DEEMED to CREATE in such a riparian proprietor a Vested Right...." In (7): "Have in good Faith and diligently prosecuted SHALL NOT BE SET ASIDE OR VOIDED." Crandell vs Woods 1 8 Cal. 132, (1857) "...One who locates upon public lands with the view of appropriating them to his own use become "ABSOLUTE OWNER THEREOF"...The conclusion therefor reached, that the rights of a prior grantee from the United States as "AGAINST ANY SUBSEQUENT APPROPRIATORS of WATER, must be REGARDED AS COMPLETE ANDPERFECT"

Cases: 1 Bybee v. Oregon & Co., 139 U.S. 663, Sup. Ct. Rep. 641; Vansickle v. Hanes, 2 the supreme court of Nevada decided...1 2 Sawy. 450; and see Union Mill & M. Co. v. Ferris, 2 Sawy, 176. 3 7 Nev.249. (see Black Pomeroy for others)


 

HOW THE STATE IS TAKING THE WATER:

The methods used by the state, is that the state is "affecting" Vested Water Rights (they are expressly prohibited doing) using Both PROCEDURAL and "POST" provisions of the water right act to attempt to take and take water and powers held by right holders in the adjudication by these means:

a.) use of a persons lack of knowledge of the powers and rights they in fact still possess in that they filled out their claim not knowing their rights and riparian rights 100 years in the past; and not telling them, expecting they or their attorney (who are ignorant of common law water rights) to know.

b.) attempting to impose POST 1909 "beneficial use" parameters; i.e. what the "state" has determined as beneficial use, which is an arbitrary water per acre amount not established by the soil; ...a common law requirement. Or by modern applications and not flood irrigation.

c.) to make the Right Holder "divide up his right" and pay for "particular" uses, and any other use considered a NEW USE under POST 1909 Law; when under Common Laws (THEN EXISTING) The POWER POSSESSED of a Right to Irrigate, once diverted for that use, could be USED FOR "ANY OTHER USE" such as mining or milling throughout the year without any application to the state.

d.) to make the Right Holder LOOSE rights he in fact STILL possesses, to use water at "DIFFERENT periods of TIME" during the year; IF he "states in his claim", (....unknowing the POWER of his right to use his right is YEAR ROUND for any purpose) he irrigated only 8 months, the State attempts to say he would "loose the right" to use that water the other 4 months for "other uses" (because he didn.t claim it or pay a SEPARATE FEE for a different use see (c.) above); and during "that 4 month period", the State is claiming to have the power to take that water, "remove (TAKE) the power of the right" and give the water to others who claim new rights; or Even more criminal, to give access to those that have earlier rights that overlap into that time period in the winter - Such as Non-consumptive uses, controlled by "POWER COMPANIES" "CITIES" and "UTILITIES";

Which under his POWERS of RIGHT under the LAWS THEN EXISTING, the APPROPRIATOR could use that water "any way he wished" during that time AS WELL, should he choose, so long as he did not purposely waste it or retain it without use just so that another couldn't; This is because the water "under TITLE"by the prior appropriator was held away from any acquisition by others unless it became naturally available, by abandonment or not used by the prior appropriator but not abandoned. i.e. used for any purpose he desired as it was (and still is) a RIGHTOF TITLE and USE.

--------

Black and Pomeroy Treaties on Water Rights 1893:


In Ortman v. Dixon it is HELD that a prior appropriator of water for "mill purposes" is "ENTITLED" to the "EXTENT OF HIS APPROPRIATION", and for those purposes to the EXCLUSION OF ANY SUBSEQUENT APPROPRIATION for the SAME AMOUNT >>> "OR" FOR "OTHER PURPOSES".



Page 22: "Should the appropriator be precluded from thereafter changing either its use or the place thereof? The reply must be in the NEGATIVE, for in "ALL CASES" the purpose of the appropriation is such that NO SUBSEQUENT appropriator can thereby be misled to his  injury. DISTINCT NOTICE is given in such cases, NOT ONLY that so much water is drawn from public supply, but that it's appropriation is such that it cannot be used a second time.  It is a notice that so much water is practically destroyed, - is eliminated fromexistence as water. A Subsequent locator has actual notice that this amount ofwater is >>> withdrawn  from >>>>>>>ALL PUBLIC CLAIM," is absorbed, and has become a VESTED RIGHT."

Page 119: "...In Kid v. Laird (15 Cal.161.) the doctrine on this subject was announced the doctrine on this subject was announced in the following "BROAD AND GENERAL MANNER": "A person entitled to divert a GIVEN QUANTITY  of the water of a stream may take the water at any point of the stream and may change the point of diversion at "HIS" pleasure, if the rights of others are not injured by such change. This RIGHT OF CHANGE  >>>does not depend upon the mode of acquiring the right to use the Water, >>>whether by an express grant or by prescription, >>>>>>>>>>OR by parol license or "presumed consent" of the proprietor   . The difference as to the "origin of the right" affects "the mode" of "determining its existence and it's extent", [i. e., the AMOUNT of water APPROPRIATED,] and >>>>>>>"NOT the MANNER of its EXERCISE and ENJOYMENT"."

--------------------

Page 120: "Davis v. Gale ..."A person who has appropriated the water of a stream, and caused it to a particular place by a ditch, for a "specialuse", MAY AFTERWARDS CHANGE THE USE, AND THE PLACE AT WHICH HE USED IT, WITHOUT LOSING HIS PRIORITY as against onewho dug a ditch from the same stream before the change was made. ...APPROPRIATION and use of water for beneficial "PURPOSES" are the tests of right in such cases, and >>>"not" the place and CHARACTER OF THE PARTICULAR USE."
;

b.) Milling - Machinery - A common law right to use for any type ofmachinery,it is not limited, as post 1909 uses are and would have, because it was noteyet defined in laws at that time, domestic or commercial power turned bythe machinery granted in right;

c.) and Irrigation - Established field and riparian on ditches for stock ".

d.) Common law right to use of any or all such water under the vestedclaim amount for any other purposes during these times or any other.


Black Pomeroy Treatise on Law of Water Rights available from:

American Patriot Party:  http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc
Klare Taylor

Can you now see the Corruption?


OWRD and their legal counsel are corrupting the laws and taking advantage of Vested Water Right Holders using the procedure,  for the sole purpose of taking control of water they have absolutely NO right to..

So that the can place the water under powers taken by the state in 1909 and redistribute the water to others.



John Locke 222. The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property; and the end while they choose and authorize a legislative is that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the society, tolimit the power and moderate the dominion of every part and member of thesociety. For since it can never be supposed to be the will of the society that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one designsto secure by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselvesto legislators of their own making: whenever the legislators endeavourto take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce themto slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of warwith the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, andare left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence. Whensoever, therefore, the LEGISLATIVE shall transgress this fundamental rule of society, and eitherby ambition, fear, folly, or corruption, endeavour to "grasp themselves", or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people, by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and by theestablishment of a new legislative (such as they shall think fit), provide for their own safety and security, (APP Note: See this in the Declaration of Independence) which is the end for which they are in society.



Note: See this also in:

 Samuel Adams Statement within the Rights of the Colonists, 1772:  "If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up ANY essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation;the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave."





 

POWERS of VESTED RIGHTS

To illustrate where the state is attempting to assume powers it does not have, we will review the laws step by step to show where incorrect interpretations are being used to minimize protections established by 1909 statutes so to take undelegated powers over Common Law Vested Rights, Uses and Protections.

 

FIRST POINTS OF LAW:
 

1.) State is prohibited from placing Vested Rights under post 1909 statute.

Established by: Oregon Statute (ORS):

Cases cited:

ORS 539.010


(1) Actual application of water to beneficial use prior to February 24, 1909, by or under authority of any riparian proprietor or the predecessors in interest of the riparian proprietor, shall be DEEMEDto "create" in the riparian proprietor a VESTED RIGHT to the extent of the"ACTUAL APPLICATION" to beneficial use; provided, such use has not been abandoned for a continuous period of two years.


"...(4) The RIGHT of any person to take and use water SHALL NOT be "impaired or effected" by "ANY Provisions" of the water right act (as defined in ORS 537.010) where appropriations were initiated prior to February 24, 1909, and such appropriators, their heirs, or assigns did in good faith, and in compliance with the "LAWS THEN EXISTING",  commence the construction of works for the application of the water so appropriated to a beneficial use, and thereafter prosecuted such work diligently and continuously to completion. However all such RIGHTS shall be adjudicated in the samemanner as provided in this chapter."

(6) Where appropriations of water attempted before February 24, 1909, were undertaken in good faith, and the work of construction or improvement thereunder was in good faith commenced and diligently prosecuted, such appropriations shall not be set aside or voided in PROCEEDINGS under this chapter because of "ANY" irregularity or insufficiency of the notice by law, or in the manner of posting, >>>>>>>"RECORDING"> or publication thereof.



2.) Rights are established and protected by laws in place AT THE TIME OF THE CLAIM was FIRST made.

Established by Oregon Supreme Court Ruling:

 Reports of Cases, Volume Decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon, Volume 114, March 24,1925 to June 1925, Page #116:

"....Water and Water Courses - Title to Land Obtained Subject to LawsPrevailing.

(#26): "Those obtaining title to land take "SAME" subject to "LAWS THEN PREVAILING" "RELATING TO THE APPROPRIATION" OF "WATER" "



3.) State can only use the adjudication to establish acreage and that the water was beneficially used; The State however CANNOT DEFINE what is and what is not "beneficial use" using POST 1909 law.

Established by: OREGON STATUTES:
 

Cases cited:

ORS 539.010 "...(4) The RIGHT of any person to take and use water SHALL NOT be "impaired or effected" by "ANY Provisions" of the water right act (as defined in ORS 537.010) where appropriations were initiated prior to February 24, 1909, and such appropriators, their heirs, or assigns did in good faith, and in compliance with the "LAWS THEN EXISTING",  commence the construction of works for the application of the water so appropriated to a beneficial use, and thereafter prosecuted such work diligently and continuously to completion. However all such RIGHTS shall be adjudicated in the same manner as provided in this chapter."




4.) State cannot change or redefine the construct of the Right.

Comments: The state cannot take a right that has multiple uses defined in a single right, and then divide that right into three separate uses to make the right holder prove each use.

Why?

Vested rights once beneficially used under their doctrine can beused for ANY PURPOSE.

This is a established FACT.

Cases cited:

See Blacks Pomeroy on Water Rights Page 116 to 119. §69

SEE PAGES 116 to 119:  

§68 Appropriator may change place or manner of use.

Actual Excerpts:

"RIGHT to Exclusive Use of Water" " ..... The general doctrine is SETTLED, by the unanimous consent of the authorities, that the prior appropriator is entitled to the exclusive use of the water, up to the amount embraced in his "APPROPRIATION", either for the original purpose or for "ANY OTHER PURPOSE" or "DIFFERENT PURPOSE", provided the amount is not increased, without diminution or material altercation in quantity or quality; and his use will, to that extent and for such purposes, be protected against all subsequent appropriators, both above and below on the same stream; and to this end he may obtain all proper remedies, legal and equitable. 1"

Cases Sited: 1 " Himes v. Johnson, 61 Cal. 259; Stein Canal Co. v. Kern Island I. C. Co., 53 Cal. 563; Reynolds v. Hosmer, 51 Cal 205; Gregory v. Nelson, 41 Cal. 278; Clark v. Willett, 35 Cal. 534; Davis v. Gale, 32 Cal. 23; McDonald v. Askew, 29 Cal. 200; Hill v. Smith, 27 Cal. 476; 32 Cal. 166; Rupley v. Welch, 23 Cal. 543; Pheonix W. Co. v. Fletcher, Id. 482; Natoma W. Co. v. McCoy, Id. 490; Butte, etc., Co v. Morgan,19 Cal. 609; Kid v. Laird, 15 Cal. 161; Kimball v. Gearhart, 12 Caql. 27; Ortman v. Dixon, 18 Cal. 33; Bear River, etc., Co v. New York M. Co., 8 Cal. 327; Ophir Silver M. Co. v. Carpenter, 4 Nev. 534; Barnes v. Sabron, 10 Nev.217; Strait v. Brown, 16 Nev. 317; Atchison v. Peterson, 20 Wall, 515. "

In Ortman v. Dixon it is HELD that a prior appropriator of water for "mill purposes" is "ENTITLED" to the "EXTENT OF HIS APPROPRIATION", and for those purposes to the EXCLUSION OF ANY SUBSEQUENT APPROPRIATIONfor the SAME AMOUNT >>>"OR" FOR "OTHER PURPOSES".



Blacks Pomeroy on Water Rights: §69 Page 118-123:

 "Appropriator" may change the place and manner of use.

Page 118: "Whenever a prior appropriation has been made for a certainkind of purpose or use, the appropriator MAY, as against other parties whose rights have accrued subsequently to his own, change the place of his use for the same purpose, if ...not increased beyond that of his original appropriation; and it seems that he MAY, as against such parties, change the NATURE OF THE PURPOSE OR USE to which the water was applied, provided the amount ...is not increased..... These conclusions seem to be established by the decisions. In Woolman v. Garringer (1 Mont. 535.) it was held that a prior appropriator for minning purposes at a certain place, may extend hisditch, and use his water, to the extent of his original appropriation,at "any" other place, for the same "or other" purposes".



Page 119: "...In Kid v. Laird (15 Cal.161.) the doctrine on this subject was announced the doctrine on this subject was announced in the following "BROAD AND GENERAL MANNER": "A person entitled to divert a GIVEN QUANTITY  of the water of a stream may take the water at any point of the stream and may change the point of diversion at "his" pleasure, if the rights of others are not injured by such change. This RIGHT OF CHANGE  >>>does notdepend upon the mode of acquiring the right to use the Water, >>>whether by an express grant or by prescription, >>>>>>>>>>OR by parol license or "presumed consent" of the proprietor   . The difference as to the "origin of the right" affects "the mode" of "determining its existence and it's extent", [i. e., the AMOUNT of water APPROPRIATED,] and >>>>>>>"NOT the MANNER of its EXERCISE and ENJOYMENT"."


--------------------

Page 120: "Davis v. Gale ..."A person who has appropriated the water of a stream, and caused it to a particular place by a ditch, for a "specialuse", MAY AFTERWARDS CHANGE THE USE, AND THE PLACE AT WHICH HE USED IT, WITHOUT LOSING HIS PRIORITY as against onewho dug a ditch from the same stream before the change was made. ...APPROPRIATION and use of water for beneficial "PURPOSES" are the tests of right in such cases, and >>>"not" the place and CHARACTER OF THE PARTICULAR USE."
;


Page 22: "Should the appropriator be precluded from thereafter changing either its use or the place thereof? The reply must be in the NEGATIVE, for in "ALL CASES" the purpose of the appropriation is such that NO SUBSEQUENT appropriator can thereby be misled to his  injury. DISTINCT NOTICE is given in such cases, NOT ONLY that "so much" water is drawn from public supply, but that it's appropriation is such that it cannot be used a second time.  It is a notice that so much water is practically destroyed, - is eliminated from existence as water. A Subsequent locator has actual notice that this amount of water is >>> withdrawn from >>>>>>> "ALL PUBLIC CLAIM"," is absorbed, and has become a VESTED RIGHT."

 

NOTE:
 

The change of irrigation in partor full or temporary uses to milling or mining would entitle the user to uses that would be "YEAR ROUND"

The state ATTEMPTS and without any authority, to limit "portions of the year" through either irrigation periods or statements by the vested right holder in the recent (1990's) "recording his claim";

Or to "divide a Right" that has INFINITE uses to that ONE Right,  for "Domestic, Milling and Irrigation" or other; This is a general use claim for the benefit of the right holder and Domestic, Milling and irrigation are a year round use and a power of the right when ever they (we)find a need, it is a right of title.

The attempt by the state to remove this right of INFINITE uses, is arrogating a state powerwhich has been expressly prohibited and a power NOT GRANTED THE STATE; anattempt so as to redefine the powers possessed of a vested right which isdetermined by DITCH and ORIGINAL APPROPRIATION and "NOT" PERIOD OF USE duringthe year.





5.) POSSESSION of the right for these uses after diverting for oneor more of them establishes the right of use for all purposes of the original claim for, but not limited to:

a.) "Domestic - Year round and established - includes Livestock, household, orchard, machinery and many other uses under common law; Not simply as riparian, but as part and power of the right that was granted in TITLE to use:

Black and Pomeroy Treaties on Water Rights 1893:

Page 22: "Should the appropriator be precluded from thereafter changing either its use or the place thereof? The reply must be in the NEGATIVE, for in "ALL CASES" the purpose of the appropriation is such that NO SUBSEQUENT appropriator can thereby be misled to his  injury. DISTINCT NOTICE is given in such cases, NOT ONLY that so much water is drawn from public supply, but that it's appropriation is such that it cannot be used a second time.  It is a notice that so much water is practically destroyed, - is eliminated fromexistence as water. A Subsequent locator has actual notice that this amount ofwater is >>> withdrawn  from >>>>>>>ALL PUBLIC CLAIM," is absorbed, and has become a VESTED RIGHT."

Page 119: "...In Kid v. Laird (15 Cal.161.) the doctrine on this subject was announced the doctrine on this subject was announced in the following "BROAD AND GENERAL MANNER": "A person entitled to divert a GIVEN QUANTITY  of the water of a stream may take the water at any point of the stream and may change the point of diversion at "HIS" pleasure, if the rights of others are not injured by such change. This RIGHT OF CHANGE  >>>does not depend upon the mode of acquiring the right to use the Water, >>>whether by an express grant or by prescription, >>>>>>>>>>OR by parole license or "presumed consent" of the proprietor   . The difference as to the "origin of the right" affects "the mode" of"determining its existence and it's extent", [i. e., the AMOUNT ofwater APPROPRIATED,] and >>>>>>>"NOT the MANNER of its EXERCISE and ENJOYMENT"."


Page 120: "Davis v. Gale ..."A person who has appropriated the water of a stream, and caused it to a particular place by a ditch, for a "special use", MAY AFTERWARDS CHANGE THE USE, AND THE PLACE AT WHICH HE USED IT, WITHOUT LOSING HIS PRIORITY as against onewho dug a ditch from the same stream before the change was made. ...APPROPRIATION and use of water for beneficial "PURPOSES" are the tests of right in such cases, and >>>"not" the place and CHARACTER OF THE PARTICULAR USE."

Black Pomeroy Treatise on Water Rights available from:

American Patriot Party:  http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc
Klare Taylor Publishers http://www.klaretaylorpublishers.com


b.) Milling - Machinery - A common law right to use for any type of machinery, it is not limited, as post 1909 uses are and would have, because it was note yet defined in laws at that time, domestic or commercial power turned by the machinery granted in right;



c.) Irrigation and Livestock - Established field and riparian on ditches for stock ".



d.) ANY OTHER PURPOSE: Common law right to use of any or all such water under the vested claim amount for any other purposes during these times or ANY OTHER.



 

6.) State cannot change or redefine Rights created under Common Law Doctrine;

Protections continue to be possessed bythe Vested right(s) having been established under it.


Article 25 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man provides in part that "[n]o person may be deprived of his liberty except in the cases and according to the procedures established by pre-existing law." The right to be tried in accordance to "pre-existing law" is reiterated in article 26.

Absolute Rights of the Colonists 1772 by Samuel Adams:

In Full: http://www.AMERICANPATRIOTPARTY.CC (Suggested ReadingDocuments)

"Samuel Adams 1772: "...Thirdly, The supreme power (legislative) cannot Justly take from any man, ANY PART of his property without his consent,in person "OR" BY HIS "REPRESENTATIVE".--

These are some of the "FIRST PRINCIPLES" of natural law & Justice, and the great Barriers of "ALL FREE STATES", and of the British Constitution in particular. It is utterly irreconcileable to these principles, and to many other fundamental maxims of the common law, common sense and reason, that a British house of commons, should have a right, at pleasure, to "give and grant" the "property" of the Colonists...."

 

7.) The State CANNOT charge a fee after dividing a right in such a way, then omit uses of the water to any claim for failure to pay such fee IN SUBMITTING THEIR CLAIM for each of the state defined and divided uses, that the right holder  "ALREADY" possesses in their ONE rightthat can be used for "ALL PURPOSES" and at "ANY TIME OF THE YEAR".

The state cannot simply claim it has a ruling that it is "Not Unconstitutional " to ask a fee, then attempt to throw out valid vested rights from lack of receiving such a fee when the whole purpose of the Adjudication is to protect valid vested water rights.

This is an obvious "evincing of a design" to wrest valid rights away from valid Vested Right Holders.

8.) ORS states no deficiency of recording or posting shall endanger a valid vested right.

A Claim is a RECORDING;

NOTE:  The adjudication is the THIRD TIME THE STATE HAS REQUIRED WATER RIGHT HOLDERS TO "RECORD" THEIR CLAIM:

a.) at the time of claim;
b.) in 1899 and
c.) at the time of the adjudication;

The state cannot discard the first two, divide the third claim and then say that the Claimant has lost rights because he did not "claim" them inhis "claim form" 100 years after the first 2 claims were made.

ORS 539.010 :

(6) Where appropriations of water attempted before February 24, 1909,were undertaken in good faith, and the work of construction or improvementthereunder was in good faith commenced and diligently prosecuted, such "appropriations" "SHALL NOT" be set aside or voided in "proceedings" under this chapter because of any irregularity or insufficiency of the notice by law, or in the manner of posting, >>>>>>>"RECORDING"> or publication thereof.


ORS 539.010


(1) Actual application of water to beneficial use prior to February 24, 1909, by or under authority of any riparian proprietor or the predecessors in interest of the riparian proprietor, shall be >>>>>>>>>>>>>DEEMEDto "create" in the riparian proprietor a VESTED RIGHT to the extent of the"ACTUAL APPLICATION" to beneficial use; provided, such use has not been abandoned for a continuousperiod of two years.


"...(4) The RIGHT of any person to take and use water SHALL NOT be "impaired or effected" by "ANY Provisions" of the water right act (as defined in ORS 537.010) where appropriations were initiated prior to February 24, 1909, and such appropriators, their heirs, or assigns did in good faith, and in compliance with the "LAWS THEN EXISTING",  commence the construction of works for the application of the water so appropriated to a beneficial use, and thereafter prosecuted such work diligently and continuously to completion. However all such RIGHTS shall be adjudicated in the samemanner as provided in this chapter."
 

QUICK QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1.) Question:

Note: This question omits actual willing abandonment.

"Can a vested right be lost" to simple nonuse, such as a farm setting dormant until another family member or new buyer begins to use the vested water right again or a company stops using the water;

Individual Corporation   NO YES     After 1 or 2 Years

Common law establishes that a "individuals" right is not lost whether he uses the water or not, and that junior claims to the water remain junior.

 

It simply allows the junior right to use the water when the senior right holder's use is satisfied or during the period it is not used.

Blacks  Pomeroy on water rights page 116 -119 §69 site these determiners:

Corporations Non Use:

Exclusive Rights of Individual Vested Right Holders:

Abandonment:


2.) Question:

Can the state arbitrarily determine beneficial water amounts to acreages?

ANSWER: NO.

Soils are different everywhere. And each location has different demands.

Delivery systems are different. Flood and sprinkler are different in cost, labor, upkeep, maintenance efficiency and delivery.



3.) Question:

Can acreage be determined by the state universally and in all cases by a Section or Aerial Map?

ANSWER: NO

Terrain is different. - a 45° + hillside can have 1/3 or more acreage in which to claim use or beneficial use upon.

This actual surface area will not be seen on a section map or on a aerial photograph.

A actual ground survey that shows actual terrain footage must be established. This is the Determiner.

Otherwise, over 1/3 of an irrigated pasture could be lost by insufficient water amounts being established.



4.) Question:

 Can aerial maps be used to determine acreage?

ANSWER: NO.

This is an attorney trick.

Usually backed by so called "professional" aerial examiners and computer programed gimmicks overlaying line on the aerial with computer generated acreage.

Sometimes the thickness of the computer line itself removes many acres from the total.

The height of the airplane from the ground is often attempted to assure the person that it is an accurate measurement, which it can never be.

Unless Actual MEETS and BOUNDS are established from Actual Survey Points, no measurement is accurate and no such measurement should ever be accepted by any so called "professional";

Which he would not be if he attempted to sell such an obserdity.



5.) Question:

Can a Vested water right be used for any purpose?

ANSWER: YES.

This is without question a VESTED RIGHT.

Blacks Pomeroy on Water Rights establishes clearly that a Vested water right after it has been beneficially used can be used for any use!

SEE PAGES 116 to 119:  

§68 Appropriator may change place or manner of use.

Actual Excerpts:

"RIGHT to Exclusive Use of Water" " ..... The general doctrine is SETTLED, by the unanimous consent of the authorities, that the prior appropriator is entitled to the exclusive use of the water, up to the amount embraced in his appropriation, either for theoriginal purpose or for ANY OTHER PURPOSE or DIFFERENT PURPOSE, provided theamount is not increased, without diminution or material altercation in quantityor quality; and his use will, to that extent and for such purposes, be protectedagainst all subsequent appropriators, both above and below on the same stream;and to this end he may obtain all proper remedies, legal and equitable. 1"

Cases Sited: 1 " Himes v. Johnson, 61 Cal. 259; Stein Canal Co. v. Kern Island I. C. Co., 53 Cal. 563; Reynolds v. Hosmer, 51 Cal 205; Gregory v. Nelson, 41 Cal. 278; Clark v. Willett, 35 Cal. 534; Davis v. Gale, 32 Cal. 23; McDonald v. Askew, 29 Cal. 200; Hill v. Smith, 27 Cal. 476; 32 Cal. 166; Rupley v. Welch, 23 Cal. 543; Pheonix W. Co. v. Fletcher, Id. 482; Natoma W. Co. v. McCoy, Id. 490; Butte, etc., Co v. Morgan,19 Cal. 609; Kid v. Laird, 15 Cal. 161; Kimball v. Gearhart, 12 Caql. 27; Ortman v. Dixon, 18 Cal. 33; Bear River, etc., Co v. New York M. Co., 8 Cal. 327; Ophir Silver M. Co. v. Carpenter, 4 Nev. 534; Barnes v. Sabron, 10 Nev. 217; Strait v. Brown, 16 Nev. 317; Atchison v. Peterson, 20 Wall, 515. "

Black Pomeroy Treatise on Water Rights available from:

American Patriot Party:  http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

Klare Taylor Publishers http://www.klaretaylorpublishers.com


This is not a state born privilege, but a VESTED RIGHT.

 

This is contrary to the States attemptto minimize the rights of the Vested water Right Holder in an attempt todraw vested rights into Post 1909 constrictions, and away from common lawpowers and rights Vested of which continue to be valid in the righttoday and in the future.


6.) Question:

With regard to power, can this be used for power?

Answer: YES.

It was established that power companies are NOT CLAIMANTS with regard to operating power generation plants prior to 1909.

This places electrical use under Common Law doctrine of running any type of motoring or milling  device.

Common law again allows other uses with only few restrictions such asnot taking the water away from the basin of origin or changing a nonconsumptive use to a consumptive use which would lessen quantity or quality of water to subsiquient users.

Consumptive to nonconsumptive by an individual does not establish abandonment of consumptive unless there is a removal of all construct of the consumptive; Often a non consumptive use can be employed along with the consumptive to provide greater benefit and efficiency to the vested right holder and is a right, not a state born privilege.

Vested rights are not under post 1909 rules and the state is expressly prohibited from forcing them to be.

States have without authorization in law, attempted to put all parties under 1909 regulations when those rights are securely under .

















 

John Locke
on
Civil Government

 

John Locke 212. Besides this overturning from without, governments are dissolved from within:

First. When the legislative is altered, civil society being a state of peace amongst those who are of it, from whom the state of war is excluded by the umpirage which they have provided in their legislative for the ending all differences that may arise amongst any of them; it is in their legislative that the members of a commonwealth are united and combined together into onecoherent living body. This is the soul that gives form, life, and unity tothe commonwealth; from hence the several members have their mutual influence, sympathy, and connection; and therefore when the legislative is broken, or dissolved, dissolution and death follows. For the essence and union of the society consisting in having one will, the legislative, when once established by the majority, has the declaring and, as it were, keeping of that will. The constitution of the legislative is the first and fundamental act of society, whereby provision is made for the continuation of their union under the direction of persons and bonds of laws, made by persons authorized thereunto, by the consent and appointment of the people, without which no one man, or number of men, amongst them can have authority of making laws that shall be binding to the rest. When any one, or more, shall take upon them to make laws whom the people have not appointed so to do, they make laws without authority, which the people are not therefore bound to obey; by which means they come again to be out of subjection, and may constitute to themselves a new legislative, as they think best, being in full liberty to resist the force of those who, without authority, would impose anything upon them. Every one is at the disposure of his own will, when those who had, by the "delegation" of the society,the declaring of the public will, are excluded from it, and others usurpthe place who have no such authority or delegation.

John Locke 213. This being usually brought about by such in the commonwealth, who misuse the power they have, it is hard to consider it aright, and know at whose door to lay it, without knowing the form of government in which it happens. Let us suppose, then, the legislative placed in the concurrence of three distinct persons: -- First, a single hereditary person having the constant, supreme, executive power, and with it the power of convoking and dissolving the other two within certain periods of time. Secondly, an assembly of hereditary nobility. Thirdly, an assembly of representatives chosen, pro tempore, by the people. Such a form of government supposed,it is evident:

John Locke 214. First, that when such a single person or prince sets up his own arbitrary will in place of the laws which are the will of the society declared by the legislative, then the legislative is changed. For that being, in effect, the legislative whose rules and laws are put in execution, and required to be obeyed, when other laws are set up, and other rules pretended and enforced than what the legislative, constituted by the society, have enacted, it is plain that the legislative is changed. Whoever introduces new laws, not being thereunto authorized, bythe fundamental appointment of the society, or subverts the old, disowns andoverturns the power by which they were made, and so sets up a new legislative.

John Locke 215. Secondly, when the prince hinders the legislative from assembling in its due time, or from acting freely, pursuant to those ends for which it was constituted, the legislative is altered. For it is not a certain number of men -- no, nor their meeting, unless they have also freedom of debating and leisure of perfecting whatis for the good of the society, wherein the legislative consists; when these are taken away, or altered, so as to deprive the society of the due exercise of their power, the legislative is truly altered. For it is not names that constitute governments, but the use and exercise of those powers that were intended to accompany them; so that he who takes away the freedom, or hinders the acting of the legislative in its due seasons, in effect takes away the legislative, and puts an end to the government.

John Locke 216. Thirdly, when, by the arbitrary power of the prince, the electors or ways of election are altered without the consent and contrary to the common interest of the people, there also the legislative is altered. For if others than those whom the society hath authorized thereunto do choose, or in another way than what the society hath prescribed, those chosen are not the legislative appointed by the people.

John Locke 217. Fourthly, the delivery also of the people into the subjection of a foreign power, either by the prince or by the legislative, is certainly a change of the legislative, and so a dissolution of the government. For the end why people entered into society being to be preserved one entire, free, independent society to be governed by its own laws, this is lost whenever they are given up into the power of another.

John Locke 218. Why, in such a constitution as this, the dissolution of the government in these cases is to be imputed to the prince is evident, because he, having the force, treasure, and offices of the State to employ, and often persuading himself or being flattered by others, that, as supreme magistrate, he is incapable of control; he alone is in a condition to make great advances towards such changes under pretense of lawful authority, and has it in his hands to terrify or suppress opposers as factious, seditious, and enemies to the government; whereas no other part of the legislative, or people, is capable by themselves to attempt any alteration of the legislative without open and visible rebellion, apt enough to betaken notice of, which, when it prevails, produces effects very little different from foreign conquest. Besides, the prince, in such a form of government, having the power of dissolving the other parts of the legislative, and thereby rendering them private persons, they can never, in opposition to him, orwithout his concurrence, alter the legislative by a law, his consent beingnecessary to give any of their decrees that sanction. But yet so far as theother parts of the legislative any way contribute to any attempt upon thegovernment, and do either promote, or not, what lies in them, hinder suchdesigns, they are guilty, and partake in this, which is certainly the greatest crime men can be guilty of one towards another.

John Locke 219. There is one way more whereby such a government may be dissolved, and that is: When he who has the supreme executive power neglects and abandons that charge, so that the laws already made can no longer be put in execution; this is demonstratively to reduce all to anarchy, and so effectively to dissolve the government. For laws not being made for themselves, but to be, by their execution, the bonds of the society to keep every part of the body politic in its due place and function. When that totally ceases, the government visibly ceases, and the people become a confused multitude without order or connection. Where there is no longer the administration ofjustice for the securing of men's rights, nor any remaining power within thecommunity to direct the force, or provide for the necessities of the public,there certainly is no government left. Where the laws cannot be executed itis all one as if there were no laws, and a government without laws is, Isuppose, a mystery in politics inconceivable to human capacity, and inconsistent with human society.

John Locke 220. In these, and the likecases, when the government is dissolved, the people are at liberty to providefor themselves by erecting a new legislative differing from the other bythe change of persons, or form, or both, as they shall find it most for their safety and good. For the society can never, by the fault of another, lose the native and original right it has to preserve itself, which can only be done by a settled legislative and a fair and impartial execution of the laws made by it. But the state of mankind is not so miserable that they are not capable of using this remedy till it be too late to look for any. To tell people they may provide for themselves by erecting a new legislative, when, by oppression, artifice, or being delivered over to a foreign power, their old one is gone, is only to tell them they may expect relief when it is too late, and the evil is past cure. This is, in effect, no more than to bid themfirst be slaves, and then to take care of their liberty, and, when their chainsare on, tell them they may act like free men. This, if barely so, is rathermockery than relief, and men can never be secure from tyranny if there beno means to escape it till they are perfectly under it; and, therefore, itis that they have not only a right to get out of it, but to prevent it.

John Locke 221. There is, therefore, secondly, another way whereby governments are dissolved, and that is, when the legislative, or the prince, either of them act contrary to their trust.

For the legislative acts against the trust reposed in them whenthey endeavour to invade the property of the subject, and to makethemselves, or any part of the community, masters or arbitrary disposersof the lives, liberties, or fortunes of the people.

John Locke 222. The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property; and the end while they choose and authorize a legislative is that there may be laws made,and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the society,to limit the power and moderate the dominion of every part and member ofthe society. For since it can never be supposed to be the will of the societythat the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every onedesigns to secure by entering into society, and for which the people submittedthemselves to legislators of their own making: whenever the legislators endeavourto take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them toslavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war withthe people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and areleft to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against forceand violence. Whensoever, therefore, the legislative shall transgress thisfundamental rule of society, and either by ambition, fear, folly, or corruption,

(APP Note: See this in Samuel Adams Statement within the Rights of the Colonists, 1772:  "If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.")

endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people, by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a rightto resume their original liberty, and by the establishment of a new legislative (such as they shall think fit), provide for their own safety and security, (APP Note: See this in the Declaration of Independence) which is the end for which they are in society. What I have said here concerning the legislative in general holds true also concerning the supreme executor, who having a double trust put in him, both to have a part in the legislative and the supreme execution of the law, acts against both, when he goes about to set up his own arbitrary will as the law of the society. He acts also contrary to his trust when he employs the force, treasure, and offices of the society to corrupt the representatives and gain them to his purposes, when he openly pre-engages the electors, and prescribes, to their choice, such whom he has, by solicitation, threats, promises, or otherwise, won tohis "designs", and employs them to bring in such who have promised beforehand what to vote and what to enact. Thus to regulate candidates and electors, and new model the ways of election, what is it but to cut up the government by the roots, and poison the very fountain of public security? For the people having reserved to themselves the choice of their representatives as the fence to their properties, could do it for no other end but that they might always be freely chosen, and so chosen, freely act and advise as the necessity of the commonwealth and the public good should, upon examination and mature debate, be judged to require. This, those who give their votes before they hear the debate, and have weighed the reasons on all sides, are not capable of doing. To prepare such an assembly as this, and endeavour to set up the declared abettors of his own will, for the true representatives of the people, and the law-makers of the society, is certainly as great a breach of trust, and as perfect a declaration of a "design"

(APP Note: See this in the Declaration of Independence and compare 223-226:

 (" ... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a "design" to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government  and to provide new guards for their future security.)

to subvert the government, as is possible to be met with. To which, if one shall add rewards and punishments visibly employed to the same end, and all the arts of perverted law made use of to take off and destroy all that stand in the way of such a >>"design"  , and will not comply and consent to betray the liberties of their country, it will be past doubt what is doing. What power they ought to have in the society who thus employ it contrary to the trust that along with it in its first institution, is easy to determine; and one cannot but see that he who has once attempted any such thing as this cannot any longer be trusted.