Page One

Winter 2010The Litigatoris published quarterly byMountain States Legal Foundation, a nonprofit, public interest law firmdedicated to individual liberty, the rightto own and use property, limited and ethical government, and the free enterprise system.

MOUNTAINSTATESLEGALFOUNDATION

Executive Offices:2596 South Lewis WayLakewood, Colorado 80227

303-292-2021Fax 303-292-1980www.mountainstateslegal.org

TheLitigatorThe 500,000-acre ANF in Elk, Forest,

McKean, and Warren Counties is com-prised of land purchased by the ForestService in the 1920s; however, becausethe Forest Service bought only the sur-face, most (93%) of the OGM rights thereare privately owned. Under currentPennsylvania law, owners of OGM rightsmay enter upon anothers surface toaccess their property and to remove it,

but they must exercisetheir rights with dueregard for the surfaceowners interests. Thatthe United States owns thesurface of the ANF doesnot change the law, whichwas recognized in 1980 by

a Pennsylvania federal district court andin 2009 by the Pennsylvania SupremeCourt. Finally, Forest Service policy,manuals, and regulations, as well as fed-eral law, provide likewise. This meansthat any proposed use of OGM rights inthe ANF does not trigger NEPAthe lawused by environmental groups andactivist judges to stop major federalactions that they oppose. Under NEPA,whatever gets studied gets studied todeath!

In early 2009, development of OGMrights in the ANF ended when theObama Administration rushed to settle asweetheart lawsuit by environmentalgroups. The groups alleged that NEPAapplied to the use of privately ownedOGM rights in the ANF and that no onecould use his rights until and unless theForest Service had complied with NEPA.Attorney General Eric Holder agreed to:apply NEPA to OGM rights; adopt amoratorium on any use of those rights toprepare for applying NEPA; and, awardthe groups $20,000 in attorneys fees. The

Over $100 Million in Projects To Go Forward

TEAM OBAMA AND ENVIROS DEFEATEDIn mid-December 2009, MSLF cele-

brated a ruling by a Pennsylvania federaldistrict court that barred the U.S. ForestService from implementing a settlementagreement entered into by U.S. AttorneyGeneral Eric Holder with environmentalgroups, prohibited the agency from con-ducting studies on the use of privatelyowned oil, gas, and mineral (OGM)rights beneath the Allegheny NationalForest (ANF), and lifteda moratorium by theagency on oil and gasdrilling in the ANF. Theruling, which followedthe June 2009 filing of alawsuit, three days ofhearings in late Augustin Erie, Pennsylvania, and post-hearingbriefing, vindicates Minard Run OilCompany, the nations oldest family-owned oil company, and the Pennsyl-vania Oil and Gas Association (POGAM),which brought the suit and are represent-ed by MSLF. MSLF argued that the U.S.Forest Services agreement, following a2008 lawsuit by the groups, to doNational Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) studies is illegal. The federal district court agreed.

MSLFs victory in obtaining a prelim-inary injunction strikes down an attemptby the Obama Administration to curtaildevelopment of Marcellus Shale, slapsaside a frivolous lawsuit by environmen-tal groupsfor which the ObamaAdministration awarded them $20,000under the Equal Access to Justice Act(EAJA)and sharply limits the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act to the intent ofCongress. Most importantly, the decisionallows over $100 million in planned eco-nomic activity and the jobs that go withthem to go forward.

impact on the region was devastating.Employees were laid off, projects werestopped, companies faced bankruptcy,and school district funds were eroded.Oil was not produced and sent to therefineries, which also faced layoffs.

In its pre-Christmas ruling, the dis-trict court held that the SettlementAgreement was illegal; had causedirreparable harm, including significantfinancial losses, the possibility that com-panies may be forced out of business,and the loss of enjoyment or possessionof land; yielded equities that favored oiland gas operators; and, was contrary tothe public interest of preventing unrea-sonable interference with private proper-ty rights. Thereupon, the court enjoinedimplementation of the SettlementAgreement including preparation of aNEPA document, enforcement of thedrilling ban, and processing of all pro-posed use of privately owned OGMrights in any manner other than thatauthorized by the federal court in 1980.

PENNSYLVANIA

Page TwoTheLitigator

PENDLEYS VIEWIn 2009, the Supreme Court heard

arguments in Free Enterprise Fund v.Public Company Accounting OversightBoard (PCAOB), which asks whether thePCAOB, established in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, complies with the U.S.Constitution. One judge from the U.S.Court of Appeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit called it "the mostimportant separation-of-powers caseregarding the president's appointmentand removal powers to reach the courtsin the last 20 years."

In 2006, the Free Enterprise Fund, anonprofit group that champions limitedgovernment, sued arguing that thePCAOB violates the ConstitutionsSeparation of Powers Doctrine andthe Appointments Clause. In 2007,the District of Columbia federal districtcourt upheld the Acts constitutionality.In 2008, the District of Columbia Circuit,by a 2-1 margin, agreed and then reject-ed petitions for rehearing and rehearingen banc by 2-1 and 5-4, respectively. In2009, however, the Supreme Courtagreed to hear the matter.

Despite the Constitutions specifici-ty, over the decades Congress blurredclear lines by creating executive entitiesthat report, not to the President, but tothe multi-headed monster that isCongress, hence to no one. In a series ofcases beginning in 1886, extendingthrough 1935, and culminating in 1988(in a ruling Justice Scalia called an openinvitation for Congress to experiment),the Court authorized the administrativestate. A1926 ruling, in which the Courtgot it right, via careful analyses of theConstitutions text and the Founderstheory, was brushed aside.

In Free Enterprise Fund, the Courtshould rule that independent agen-ciesbodies of persons wielding execu-tive power, over which the Presidentexercises little, if any control or supervi-sionare anathema to the Constitution. With so much mischief in Washington,D.C., there has never been a moreimportant time to do so!

WEB PAGE POLLVisitors to MSLFs web site at www.mountainstateslegal.org responded to the

following question: A New Jersey family that owns a home inside an area man-aged by the National Park Service was sued after the agency claimed its driveway.Is that right? One hundred percent (100%) said, No. The Park Service neverclaimed nor maintained the road; it is trying to get the familys land without payingfor it!" Zero percent (0%) said, Yes. Given the size of the federal deficit, the ParkService can not pay for just compensation. It must seize the land.

Vote on the new question at MSLFs web site today!Remember, the best way to keep abreast of MSLFs precedent-setting, national-

ly-significant litigation is to check MSLFs highly acclaimed web site. MSLFs website is updated at least every week and often daily. In particular, check for updateson MSLFs Legal Cases and Press Releases.

SOUTHWEST CATTLEMEN FIGHT ENVIROSTwo large agricultural groups

whose members ability to earn liveli-hoods and use their private propertywill be affected adversely by designa-tion of a species of prairie dog as eligi-ble for listing under the federalEndangered Species Act (ESA) arefighting an attempt by an environmen-tal group to reverse aU.S. Fish and WildlifeService (FWS) deci-sion. The ArizonaCattle GrowersAssociation and theNew Mexico CattleGrowers Associationfiled a friend of thecourt brief with theArizona federal dis-trict court arguing thatthe FWSs decision notto list the Gunnison prairie dog inArizona and New Mexico is factuallyand legally correct. The environmentalgroup argues that the decision is basedupon a flawed March 2007 interpreta-tion, by the U.S. Department of theInterior Solicitor, of the phrase in the

ESA, significant portion of [a species]range.

On February 5, 2008, the FWSissued a 12-month finding regardingthe petition to list the Gunnison prairiedog as a threatened or endangeredspecies in which the agency found thatthe species was not endangered or

threatened in all ofits range. It alsofound that thespecies in centraland south-centralColorado and north-central New Mexicowarrants listing, butthat listing is pre-cluded by higherpriority actions.Thus, the FWSfound that listing is

not warranted in the species prairierange and is warranted, but precluded,in its montane range.

In March 2009, WildEarthGuardians sued, arguing that the 2007opinion, on which the FWS relied,incorrectly interprets the ESA.

DOUBLE YOUR MSLF GIFT! TELL THE BOSSDid you know that you might be

able to double your gift for free?Thousands of companies match theiremployees charitable contributions.Matching gifts play a key role in help-ing MSLF fight its court battles. Pleaseask if your employer has a matching

gift program. Contact your humanresources or personnel department tosee if your company will match yourgift to MSLF. Then, each time you mailyour gift, please include a matchinggift form from your employer. MSLFwill do the rest!

Page Three TheLitigator

Two Colorado gun-owner groupshave filed a friend of the court brief withthe Supreme Court of the United Statesurging the Court to hold that the SecondAmendment right to keep and beararms applies against the States via theFourteenth Amendment. Rocky MountainGun Owners (RMGO) and theNational Association for GunRights (NAGR), both incor-porated in Colorado,argue that earlier hold-ings by the SupremeCourt that the SecondAmendment applies only against thefederal government were overturned bythe Supreme Courts 2008 ruling againstWashington, D.C. RMGO, Coloradoslargest state-based gun lobby, is dedicat-ed solely to protecting the natural rightto keep and bear arms by way of grass-roots and professional lobbying; NAGRassists state-based gun-rights organiza-tions by providing information and lob-bying support nationally and inWashington, D.C. In their amicus curiaebrief, the groups argue that westernersbelieve the Second Amendment hasalways applied to the States.

The Second Amendment to the U.S.Constitution provides, Awell regulatedMilitia, being necessary to the security of a

free State, the right of the people to keepand bear Arms, shall not be infringed. In2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, theSupreme Court held that the SecondAmendment protects the individuals rightto keep and bear arms for self-defense bystriking down a Washington, D.C., law

because the law banned handgunpossession and required other

firearms to be kept lockedand unloaded. (MSLFfiled a friend of the Courtbrief in that case on behalfof the would-be gun own-

ers.) Although the Supreme Court ruledthat the Second Amendment protects theindividuals right to keep and bear armsfor self-defense, it also has ruled that theSecond Amendment applies only to thefederal government and is not incorporat-ed against the States by way of theFourteenth Amendment; however, Hellercasts grave doubt on the continuing validi-ty of the Courts 19th-century rulings.

Recently, the U.S. Courts of Appealsfor the Second and Seventh Circuitsrefused to use Heller to apply the SecondAmendment to States. In April 2009,would-be gun owners in Chicago soughtSupreme Court review of the SeventhCircuits refusal, which was granted inSeptember 2009.

COLLEGES MAY NOT USE RACE TO ADMITIn support of the appeal by two Texas

coeds denied admission to the Universityof Texas Austin because of their race,MSLF filed a friend of the court brief withthe U.S. Court of Appeals for the FifthCircuit. MSLF, which prevailed in thelandmark Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pearuling by the U.S. Supreme Court (TIMEcalled it a legal earthquake), argues thatthe Texas federal district court,in upholding the use of race bythe University of Texas, reliedimproperly upon student sur-veys and the Universitysunsupported judgment as tothe critical mass of minoritystudents necessary; as a result,the district court went beyondwhat was permitted by the

Supreme Court in its 2003 decision regard-ing the University of Michigan School ofLaw. MSLF also contends that theSupreme Courts 2003 ruling is an aberra-tion that deviates significantly fromdecades of equal protection jurisprudenceand should be abandoned.

Abigail Noel Fisher of Sugar Land,who graduated in the top 12 percent of

her class, and Rachel MulterMichalewicz of Buda, who gradu-ated in the top 11 percent of herclass, applied for but were deniedadmission. In April 2008, theysued the University and its officialsin the U.S. District Court for theWestern District of Texas in Austin,alleging that they were denied theright to compete for admission.

Wolves imported into Idaho andMontana by the federal government nolonger merit listing on the federalEndangered Species Act (ESA) argue twowestern farm bureaus before a federaldistrict court in Montana in urging thecourt to uphold a decision by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). TheMontana Farm Bureau Federation andthe Idaho Farm Bureau Federation, rep-resented by MSLF, all three of whichintervened in a lawsuit filed by environ-mental groups aver that the gray wolf inthe northern Rocky Mountains is a dis-tinct population segment (DPS) of thegray wolf and may be removed fromESA protection given state plans byIdaho and Montana regarding the preda-tor. The DPS designation was made bythe FWS as to gray wolf populations inIdaho and Montana in April 2009.Environmental groups filed their lawsuitin June 2009. MSLF had challenged the1994 decision to place Canadian wolvesin the region.

The gray wolf (Canis lupus) onceroamed the northern Rocky Mountainregion; however, due to their predationon livestock, the federal government per-mitted their killing. By 1930, wolves hadbeen almost eliminated in the region. In1973, the FWS listed the Northern RockyMountain Wolf (Canis lupus irremotus) asendangered and, in 1978, listed thegray wolf as endangered in the lower48 States, except in Minnesota, where itwas threatened. In 1994, the FWS cap-tured wolves in Canada, imported theminto the United States, and released themin Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.

KEEP WOLVES OFF

KEEP READING!The Litigator, MSLFs quarterly

newsletter, is the indispensable toolfor staying informed regarding thelatest in MSLFs precedent-setting,nationally-significant, public-interestlitigation. The Litigator is mailed onthe first of February, May, August,and November. Ensure that youkeep receiving The Litigator by contributing $25 annually.

GUN RIGHTS AT U.S. SUPREME COURT

Page FourTheLitigator

HELP MSLF FIGHT FOR FREEDOM: JOIN THE LEGACY SOCIETYName ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Address _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

City_______________________________________State __________________________Zip ___________________________________

Home Phone ________________________Cell Phone___________________________E-Mail ________________________________

oSend me FREE information on Planned Giving.

oCall me! I have planned giving questions.

oI have added MSLF to my estate plans. Put my name on the plaque.

oSend me the MSLF ENewsletter.

Mail to: MSLF, 2596 SOUTH LEWIS WAY, LAKEWOOD, CO 80227

!

Suggest this bequest language to your attorney:

I [name], of [city, state, ZIP] give, devise and bequeath to Mountain StatesLegal Foundation (MSLF), (tax identification number 84-0736725) 2596 SouthLewis Way, Lakewood, Colorado 80227, [written dollar amount or percentage ofthe estate or description of the property] to continue its mission to protect andpreserve individual liberty, the right to own and use property, limited and ethicalgovernment and the free enterprise system.

When you add MSLF to your will, be sure to tell us! We want to thank you byadding your name to MSLFs Legacy Society wall plaque.

ACT NOW: REMEMBER MSLF IN YOUR WILL

More than 60 percent of adults livingin households with children do not havewills. You need one if:

You are married; You have minor children or ail-

ing parents; Your entire estate is valued at

more than $50,000; You own real estate; You own a business; You support MSLF!

You need to revise your will if therehave been changes in any of the following:

Marital status; Desired executor/guardian; Finances; Beneficiaries; Place of residence; Tax laws; Childrens financial needs; Degree of support for MSLF.

NEED TO DRAFT ORREVISE YOUR WILL?

During these tough economictimes, some life-long supporters find ithard to make the financial contribu-tions they have in the past.

They may continue to supportMSLF and ensure its fight for libertyfar into the future by naming MSLF intheir wills or making MSLF a beneficia-ry of a life insurance policy their lovedones no longer need.

A gift for MSLFs future has greatvalue for MSLFs fight for freedom.

IF HELPING IS HARD

GIFT OF SECURITY IS BETTER THAN CASH?MSLF values all gifts provided by its generous supporters; they permit MSLF to

aggressively defend the rule of law and constitutional liberties in the courts of theland. Each supporter, however, may find the value of some gifts, in terms of taxeslawfully avoided, more valuable than others. One example is that involving thechoice between a gift of cash or one of long-term appreciated securities; in this case asupporter in the 28% marginal tax bracket wishing to contribute $10,000:

CASH SECURITY

$10,000 (cash) contribution $10,000 (securities bought at $2,000)

-2,800 income taxes saved -2,800

capital gains tax avoided -1,200

$ 7,200 post tax contribution cost $6,000

For those supporters concerned that the securities, which were bought yearsago, are a good investment and likely to continue to increase in value, experts have asuggestion: contribute the stock and use cash to buy the same stock again. In theend they will still hold that good investment but will have eliminated the taxablecapital gain to date!

Income tax regulation and estate tax laws are complex and vary state to state.PLEASE consult a tax advisor before making any decision. If you decide to con-tribute stock, please follow the instructions on the facing page and NOTIFY MSLFthat they are on the way.

Page FiveTheLitigator

MSLF receives no government funds (except when it wins in court and thejudge orders the federal government to pay attorneys fees and expenses).

MSLFs sole source of support is the tax-deductible contributions of thosewho support its aggressive litigation program.

MSLF is a nonprofit, public interest I.R.C. 501(c)(3) corporation, which makesthe contributions it receives tax deductible.

MSLF is committed to the vision of the Founding Fathers: individual liberty,the right to own and use property, limited and ethical government, and thefree enterprise system.

MSLFs commitment to the Constitution ensures that America remains a nationof laws and not of men and that the rich liberty legacy of this nation continues.

MSLF does only one thing: it goes to court in defense of the Constitution,strict adherence to the laws of the land, and those who cannot afford to hirelegal counsel to protect their rights.

Only YOU can ensure that MSLF may continue its vital work.

Federal, state, and local taxes take an ever-increasing share ofones income.

Gift giving decreases taxes while advancing charitable goals.

At a time when many mechanisms for legally lowering taxeshave been eliminated, the opportunities for reducing taxes byplanned charitable giving have been increased!

Income Tax Each year a person may deduct as much as 50percent of his or her adjusted gross income (AGI) for gifts ofcash to a qualified charity; that limit is only 30 percent for giftsof appreciated property.Estate Tax A person who died in 2009 is entitled to an exclu-sion of up to $1,000,000; however, estates in excess of thatamount may deduct charitable gifts, by will or trust. Becausefederal estate taxes over $1,000,000 range from 37 percent to 50percent, for every charitable gift of $1,000, the estate saves upto $500 in taxes. Please consult your tax adviser.

Contributions of stock can be made electronically to MSLF's brokerage account DTC 0164. When transferring stock, indicateacct. #7080-3528, Charles Schwab & Co., 518 17th St., Suite 100;Denver, CO 80202. (Richard Wulforst 303-260-5908; 303-260-5917).Please notify MSLF BEFORE making the transfer; there is noway to identify a stock donor without prior notification.

Problemk

SolutionkReasonk

The Meansk

StockkTransfer

Information

MSLF CANNOT REST;ITS ROLE ESSENTIALTO REMAINING FREE

In 2010, MSLF will have been going to court for 33 years, fighting to compelcompliance with the commands of theConstitution and federal law to ensurethat America remains a nation of laws.At no time during these three decadeshas the need for MSLF to go to court onbehalf of those who could not affordlegal representation been lessened. Infact, as the federal bureaucracy hasgrown and as federal laws havebecome more far-reaching and intru-sive, MSLFs caseload has increaseddramatically. That is obvious from areview of the scores of MSLF cases.

Your Support Is VitalIf there is one lesson MSLF has

learned over the past 33 years, it is that,regardless of which party occupies theWhite House or controls Congress, thethreat to liberty remains and MSLF mustbe ready, willing, and able to go to courtto defend freedom. As Thomas Jeffersononce said, Eternal vigilance is the priceof liberty. One of the prices that mustbe paid for MSLF to remain vigilant isthe price that tens of thousands ofAmericans pay annually by makingtheir tax-deductible contributions toMSLF and its litigation.

The support of MSLF by tens ofthousands of Americans committed tofreedom could not be more important.Your support will ensure that MSLFremains IN THE COURTS FOR GOOD!

Yes! I want to help MSLF in its brave fight to ensure the guarantees of theU.S. Constitution and to preserve the rule of law throughout the land!

o Enclosed is a tax-deductible contribution of $25. Please keep sending me The Litigator!

o Enclosed is a tax-deductible contribution of $ _______to help MSLF in its courtroom battles.

o Enclosed is a tax-deductible contribution of $_______ for MSLFs Endowment Fund.

o PLEASE send me information on planned giving.

Name ____________________________________________________________________________

Street ____________________________________________________________________________

City ___________________________State ________________________Zip _________________

Day Phone ( ______) ________________E-mail Address _________________________________

Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF) Is A Nonprofit, Public-Interest Law Firm, Certified As A 501(c)(3) OrganizationSince Its 1977 Founding.

Therefore, Your GenerousContributions to MSLF Are Tax Deductible!

The Arizona Mining Association,in a friend of the court brief filed byMSLF, challenged a 2-1 ruling by theU.S. Court of Appeals for the NinthCircuit and urged that an en banc panelof the court rehear the case. At issue isa proposed land exchange between theBureau of Land Management (BLM)and Asarco LLC, which was analyzedat length by the BLM and upheld,against a challenge by envi-ronmental groups, by theInterior Board of LandAppeals (IBLA) and anArizona federal district court.The Ninth Circuit panel,however, held the studiesperformed by the BLM underthe National EnvironmentalPolicy Act (NEPA) to be inad-equate. The Associationargues that the panels rulingrejects the will of Congress, rendersland exchanges off-limits to the miningindustry, and robs Arizonans of jobs.Created in 1965, the Association repre-sents the States mining industry,which, in 2008, contributed $10.4 bil-lion to the States economy and paid$167 million in State and local taxesand fees.

In Gila and Pinal Counties, Arizona,Asarco LLC owns and operates the Ray

Mine Complex, which includes a265,000-ton-per-day open-pit coppermine, a smelter and other plants, as wellas mills, concentrators, leaching sys-tems, and related support facilities. TheRay Mine is the second most productivecopper mine in Arizona and the thirdmost productive in the U.S.

In 1994, Asarco proposed a landexchange with the BLM to consolidate

its holdings and to sup-port and expand its min-ing operations: Asarcowould convey to theUnited States 18 parcelsof private land totaling7,300 acres; in return,Asarco would receive 31parcels totaling 10,976.Between 1995 and 1997,the BLM consulted withvarious federal, state,

and local agencies, representatives,nongovernmental organizations, tribalentities, and private individuals. InOctober 1998, the BLM released a DraftEnvironmental Impact Statement forpublic comment. After reviewing andconsidering public comments, the BLMissued its Final Environmental ImpactStatement in June 1999. In April 2000,the BLM issued a Record of Decisionand approved the land exchange.

ARIZONA MINERS APPEAL A 2-1 RULING

Page SixTheLitigator

Two small mining companies, whichdiscovered and developed a valuable golddeposit in an area mined since the late1800s, filed a brief in their appeal of a rul-ing by a Washington, D.C., federal districtcourt that they had not made valid discov-eries under the General Mining Law.Ernest K. Lehmann & Associates ofMontana, Inc., and Mount Royal JointVenture, which seek reinstatement of theirsix mining claims, had challenged the rul-ing by the U.S. Department of the Interiors(DOIs) Interior Board of Land Appeals(IBLA) upholding an Administrative LawJudge (ALJ) decision that six of their four-teen claims are invalid. In April 2009, how-ever, the district court deferred to theagency and upheld the IBLAruling. Theminers argue that the DOI made assump-tions no reasonably prudent miner wouldmake and that the agencys expertassumed the deposit would be high-grad-ed and that tons of very valuable orewould be discarded. The miners alsoargue that, contrary to a U.S. SupremeCourt ruling, the burden of persuasion wasimposed on them and not the agency.

The claims are in the Sweet Grass HillsArea in Liberty and Toole Counties innorth-central Montana. The area consistsof intermingled private, state, and federalsurface and mineral interests.

MINERS APPEAL EXPERT EDICT

A California miner who won theright to engage in placer mining on hisclaim in the mountains of northernCalifornia after a February 2007 ruling bythe Interior Board of Land Appeals(IBLA) filed his formal Statement ofReasons in an appeal to the IBLA regard-ing his right to be reimbursed by theUnited States for legal expenses incurredin his victory. In 2007, the IBLA rejectedclaims by the U.S. Forest Service andupheld a December 2003 ruling by anadministrative law judge (ALJ) that theclaim of Donald Eno, a disabled veteranon fixed income, has an economic valuethat is more substantial than other usesargued by the Forest Service and is notlocated on land that is sacred, geologically

unique, or scenic. Subsequently, howev-er, when Mr. Eno sought reimbursementfor the legal fees and expenses incurred inhis victory pursuant to the EqualAccess to Justice Act (EAJA),another ALJ held that the gov-ernments legal action in thecase was substantially justi-fied and thus denied payment.

Mr. Enos appeal comes at a timeof increased media scrutiny on howthe federal government awards attorneysfee and expenses under the EAJA.According to a recent study, in casesinvolving the U.S. Forest Service from2003 to 2005, 35 of the 44 EAJA awardsmade were to environmental groups.Moreover, in Idaho federal district court

over the past decade, one environmentalgroup received nearly one million dollarsin attorneys fees and expenses. In some

cases, environmental groups didnot win; instead, the UnitedStates settled the lawsuits. The

view of many that the federalgovernment and federal

courts are too willing to makeEAJA awards to environmental

groups received additional supportwhen, early in 2009, Attorney GeneralEric Holder settled a lawsuit and paid$19,222 to three environmental groupsthat did little more than file a complaint!

Mr. Eno owns the Hound Dog placermining claim in the Plumas NationalForest Service near Quincy, California.

VICTORIOUS MINER FIGHTS FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS

Page SevenTheLitigator

Thanks for being there. We sure needyou more than ever.Doug NelsonDixon, NM

I appreciate your work.Frances C. YoungKetchikan, AK

You are one of the few I am sending acontribution to.Kenneth M. PikeRosemead, CA

My hope is that more people will takethe lead as MSLF has done to never giveup.Ronald F. WhitedSidney, MT

I do want to thank you for what you aredoing and please keep up the good work.Maxine MizellSan Antonio, TX

You people are the real A team.Mortimer J. LewisHenderson, NV

NOTABLE

QUOTES

LEGAL

ACTIONn A national organization and three

Colorado students or former studentsfiled their brief in their appeal of thedenial, by a state district court, of theirclaim that the University ofColorados ban on concealed carry oncampus violates state law and theColorado Constitution.

n MSLF filed its brief at the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Tenth Circuit urging theappellate court to uphold a ruling byWyoming federal district court thatPresident Clintons U.S. Forest Serviceroadless proclamation was illegal.

n AMontana family that prevailed atMontana federal district court in itsfight to allow the U.S. Forest Service toengage in forest health reclamation toprevent catastrophic fires urged the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuitto uphold the lower courts ruling.

n A New Mexico woman fighting forher right to use her private property

filed responsive briefs in her lawsuitagainst the U.S. Forest Service.

n A Wyoming man seeking to keep hisprivate property, which the U.S. ForestService wants for a public trail, filedpleadings before the U.S. Court ofFederal Claims and the Tenth Circuit.

n MSLF demanded that the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service withdraw its planfor designation of tens of thousands ofacres of critical habitat for thePrebles Meadow Jumping Mousebecause the agencys decision is notbased on good science; in 2003, MSLFsued over the mouses 1998 listing.

Thank you for ALL youve done andcontinue to do in protecting our freedoms.Saralyn JohnsonWallowa, OR

Keep up the good work. Its an honor tobe associated with your firm.David A. VoldsethMartinsdale, MT

I am glad you are in the Pennsylvaniacourts battle over the natural gas deposit.Susan BrunoffNew Holland, PA

My grandfather and his brothersworked in the oil fields of northernPennsylvania . . . in the late 1880s til 1925or so . . . . God bless your efforts for theMinard Oil Company.Carol A. MorrisEast Jordan, MI

I have great regard for the work that theFoundation is engaged in.Patricia J. BeanBellbrook, OH

Thanks for all your efforts.Stephen S. KonzRepublic, WA

I agree with your work.Floyd C. SlagowskiCarlin, NV

You have fought this battle [to keep theRepublic] for so long.Arlene M. FrelkMerrillan, WI

Thank you for your help to so manywho are losing their freedom.Mary F. RushingPinckneyville, IL

Keep up the good work. Thanks for allyou do.Gene L. SchreibeisWorland, WY

[W]e are proud to help with your pro-gram.Timothy BarnardBozeman, MT

We appreciate your contributions to ourfree society and . . . are very proud of the workyou all do and the results you achieve . . . .Norman E. MurrayBuffalo, NY

Keep up the good fight and the greatwork.Mike CaskeyDenver, CO

I worry about the way this country isgoing . . . keep up the good fight.Jim BarnsdaleHomeland, CA

Last fall, a rural New Jersey family was thrilled to learnthat MSLF will represent it in New Jerseyfederal district court to defend its right toown and use its property. Matthew andAaron Hull and Matthews wife, Michelle,of Layton, New Jersey, were sued by theNational Park Service (NPS) after theyerected gates across Old Mine Road, whichbisects the Hulls property for 300 yardsand passes within 20 feet of their house, tokeep trespassers off their land. In a lawsuitfiled in March 2009, seeking damages andinjunctive relief, the NPS alleged that theroad, which lies within the Delaware WaterGap National Recreation Area (NRA), isproperty of the United States. The Hulls contend that theUnited States has never owned or maintained the road andthat it reverted to them after it was abandoned by the localtownship. In a filing by MSLF late last year, the Hulls coun-terclaim that they, not the NPS, own the road and the courtshould vest permanent title in them.

In the 1950s, the United States proposed creation of theTocks Island Dam Project on the Delaware River inSandyston Township, Sussex County, New Jersey, which

would have created a 37-mile-long lake between New Jerseyand Pennsylvania and would have been thebiggest dam project east of the Mississippi. Inthe 1960s, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineersacquired 72,000 acres of private land; manylandowners complained about insufficient com-pensation and heavy-handed tactics. In the end,the project failed due to local opposition andlack of funds, yet the land was never returned.In 1978, it was transferred to the NPS and man-aged as the NRA.

One of the most persistent opponents of theproject was Enos Cy Harker, a World War IIveteran who refused to sell the land on which helived for almost 50 years until he diedwhile

tilling a hillsidein October 2006 at age 93. By then, he wasthe only landowner along Old Mine Road who had not soldhis property to the federal government. In fact, he includeda deed restriction barring his property from ever being soldto the United States.

In September 2007, the Hulls bought the property,which is abutted on three sides by the NRA and on one sideby the Delaware River. Old Mine Road was abandoned bythe Sandyston Township in 1988.

MOUNTAINSTATESLEGALFOUNDATION

2596 South Lewis WayLakewood, Colorado 80227

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

Non Profit OrganizationU.S. Postage

PAIDDenver, CO

Permit No. 847

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ATTACKS YOUNG FAMILY OVER ROAD

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICERWilliam Perry Pendley

VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF LEGAL OFFICERSteven J. Lechner

VICE PRESIDENT OF ADMINISTRATIONJanice K. Alvarado

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Karen Kennedy, WY: ChairmanStephen M. Brophy, AZ: Vice ChairmanPeter K. Ellison, UT; TreasurerJames V. Taranik, NV; SecretaryPeter A. Botting, WAJohn R. Gibson, UTJames Graham, TXRon Krump, NVL. Jerald Sheffels, WADon Sparks, TX