… the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department illegally rerouted the stream …

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department rerouted the stream on federally OWNED land that is a federally managed wildlife refuge.

Where is the illegality?

Becker served as Chief Legal Counsel and Policy Director for the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee.

Oh, crap, there goes their case. It’s a lost cause already.

Where is the illegality?

Good grief - I have never seen a more obedient, government-worshiping slave on any of the forums I have visited.

The federal government owns 84.9% of Nevada’s land, and over 10 million acres in Nye County alone, where the Roca Solida Church property is located. But the greedy federal government can’t leave the tiny 40 acre Patch of Heaven parcel alone.

Greedy doesn't begin to describe these bastards.

Becker served as Chief Legal Counsel and Policy Director for the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee.

Oh, crap, there goes their case. It’s a lost cause already.

And your Paulophobia strikes again - what a frigging tool!

Mr. Becker learned liberty from the masters. Let’s hope he can bring justice to Pastor Fuentes, who risked so much to come to the land of the free.

That word "Liberty" scares the shit out of you.

Where is the illegality?

Good grief - I have never seen a more obedient, government-worshiping slave on any of the forums I have visited.

The federal government owns 84.9% of Nevada’s land…

That has always been the case and the federal government makes the decision on what they want to do on FEDERAL LAND including diverting a stream.

So, Good grief, man….I ask again: WHERE IS THE ILLEGALITY?

Greedy doesn't begin to describe these bastards.

Greed has nothing to do with it and they may be bastards….but I ask you again: WHERE IS THE ILLEGALITY?

That word "Liberty" scares the shit out of you.

No, but idiot Paultard libertarian assholes like you make me laugh when you think you can personally decide alone what the federal government can and can not od.

Now, I ask you again: WHERE IS THE ILLEGALITY?

Where is it illegal for the federal government to own land and divert a stream on the land they own?

Eh?

This would normally be the point where Pinguinite, in his misguided libertarian way, would post to Stone that I engaged in another thread to only start a “flame war.”

That would again be incorrect.

When I engaged in this thread, I in no way had the intent to start a “flame war.”

I simply CHALLEGENED the factuality of the article….you responded….and I responded to you.

And poor little Pinguinite is curled up is his lonely and isolated libertarian world….pouting his ass off.

You libertarians are good as one thing….pouting. But that’s about all you can do.

Where is it illegal for the federal government to own land and divert a stream on the land they own?

They don't own it.

In 2006, the ministry bought the land for a youth retreat and to do traditional baptisms, as the property has included a spring-fed stream, known as the Carson Slough, since at least the 1880s. The land is surrounded by a federally managed wildlife refuge.

Not only that, but their criminal actions caused extensive damage to church property.

The feds have always had their eye on the property and in 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department illegally rerouted the stream to a higher elevation entirely outside of Roca Solida’s property.

Three weeks later, “the stream overflowed the federal agency’s poorly engineered new banks during rain showers — sending destructive floods of mud and muddy waters through the camp,” explains the Nevada Policy Research Institute (NPRI) website, damaging the church’s facilities.

Where is it illegal for the federal government to own land and divert a stream on the land they own?

They don't own it.

Pay attention, asshole

I said the federal government owns the land surrounding the land the ministry owns.

The feds can damned well do anything they want to on the land it owns....unfortunately for some, that is the way it works.

The ministry knew the feds owned all the land surrounding their plot and nowhere does it say that the ministry bought the "water rights" to the stream flowing through their land when they bought the property.

Ignorance is a terrible things sometimes to some people....but you liberterians know all about that sort of thing.

Not only that, but their criminal actions caused extensive damage to church property.

There were no illegal criminal actions and the extensive damage to the property has not been proven.

If the aread flooded with the stream diverted, what is there to say the area would not have been flooded worse with the stream flowing throught it.

Ever consider that the feds may have saved the ministry some property damage....eh?

There were no illegal criminal actions and the extensive damage to the property has not been proven.

Attaboy!

Spoken like a true government-worshiping slave.

fed.gov can do no wrong and they only have our best interests in mind.

in 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department illegally rerouted the stream to a higher elevation entirely outside of Roca Solida’s property. Three weeks later, “the stream overflowed the federal agency’s poorly engineered new banks during rain showers — sending destructive floods of mud and muddy waters through the camp,”

Just a "coincidence", I suppose?

You're a useful idiot for the establishment.

Ever consider that the feds may have saved the ministry some property damage....eh?

"We had to destroy the village to save it"?

... llegally rerouted the stream...

You bolded and underlined it....yet neither you nor the article has pointed out WHAT the feds did was ILLEGAL.

Can you point that out?

"We had to destroy the village to save it"?

Nope, without the diversion....who is to say the flooding would not have been worse.

Even more basically, where was it proven that the diversion caused the flooding?

Damn, I hate YELLOW JOURNALISM ...

You bolded and underlined it....yet neither you nor the article has pointed out WHAT the feds did was ILLEGAL.

IT WAS NOT THEIR LAND!

Your disdain for private property rights is duly noted - commie.

Three weeks later, “the stream overflowed the federal agency’s poorly engineered new banks during rain showers

Had the stream ever overflowed before the diversion and flooded the property....hmmm?

IT WAS NOT THEIR LAND!

The land where the feds diverted the stream WAS FEDERALLY OWNED LAND....IT WAS THEIR [the feds] LAND - ignorant libertarian asshole.

Had the stream ever overflowed before the diversion and flooded the property.

Probably not - at least not to the extent that the illegal diversion did.

That also does not negate the fact that you're an imbecile.

The point is that this was PRIVATE PROPERTY not owned by the gooberment.

And the ILLEGAL diversion caused the flooding.

Just a "coincidence", I suppose?

The force of nature works in mysterious and strange ways....so sayeth the LORD.

Well, maybe the Lord didn't actually say that....but he probably would have, had he thought of it before I did.

The land where the feds diverted the stream WAS FEDERALLY OWNED LAND....IT WAS THEIR [the feds] LAND

Asshole. Your worship of the federal government and your belief that they can do any damned thing they please is sickening.

As I said earlier, your hatred of private property rights displays your communist mindset.

And the ILLEGAL diversion caused the flooding.

Why was the diversion ILLEGAL and what would the extent of the flooding have been without the diversion?

Maybe greater....eh?

Who knows....you and I surely don't.

Your every premise is based on pure speculuation

Your worship of the federal government and your belief that they can do any damned thing they please is sickening.

NOPE!

But I do despise the YELLOW JOURNALISM articles you post and they don't do a damned thing in any way that is constructive.

That also does not negate the fact that you're an imbecile.

Why do you call me an imbecile?

Is it simply because I challenge your YELLOW JOURNALISM ARTICLES and your spastic warped thinking view points that support the YELLOW JOURNALISM ARTICLES?

It looks that way ...

You're a useful idiot for the establishment.

Nope!

I am a TRUTH SEEKER.

And you are unable to provide any truthful answers to the questions I ask.

YELLOW JOURNALISM ARTICLES

In other words, articles that don't reflect Gatlin's warped view of reality.

I am a TRUTH SEEKER.

Lying sack of shit - you hide from and shun the truth.

I am a TRUTH SEEKER.

Lying sack of shit - you hide from and shun the truth.

You show me the first documented TRUTH in this article and see if I hide from it or shun it.

SHOW ME THE TRUTH, ASSHOLE.

Not some biased opinion of a YELLOW JOURNALIST....that will never be considered to be the truth by intelligent people.

Seems to me that if you divert a river to destroy neighboring property than you are liable.

You show me the first documented TRUTH in this article and see if I hide from it or shun it.

Here's the first one - the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment–“No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

All other truths about this case stem from a simple reading of the Fifth Amendment.

Not some biased opinion of a YELLOW JOURNALIST..

The article is factually correct as written, you just don't like the facts - they contrast drastically with your view that the government can do any damn thing they please.

Seems to me that if you divert a river to destroy neighboring property than you are liable.

Not if the government does it - at least according to Gatlin.

Where is it illegal for the federal government to own land and divert a stream on the land they own?

If changing the course of the stream produces destruction to another person's property, there is liability.

In the case of a goverment action that produces such consequences, you may meet obstinance in bringing suit and collecting.

… according to Gatlin.

You will now learn something factual according to Gatlin about your Yellow Journalism puke article…just sit down, shut up and READ!

In 2006, the ministry (Roca Solida Church) bought the land for a youth retreat and to do traditional baptisms, as the property has included a spring-fed stream, known as the Carson Slough, since at least the 1880s. The land is surrounded by a federally managed wildlife refuge.

The Yellow Journalism article neglected to mention that the spring-fed stream, known as the Carson Slough, since at least the 1880s has NOT always run through Roco Solida’s property since the 1880s.

The installation of ditches, roads, levees and impoundments over the years heavily modified the natural route of the spring-fed stream so much that it did run through the Roco Solida’s property at the time the ministry purchased the property. The area was in bad shape because of all the modifications to the stream. Past peat mining activities that removed valuable topsoil added to damage in the Carson Slough, along with the modification and alteration of the natural stream flow route.

While the article posted on this thread failed to mention it, it is important to note that springs within the Carson Slough have most recently been diverted from natural channels and confined to man-made ditches and the stream did then run through the church property.

The feds have always had their eye on the property and in 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department illegally rerouted the stream to a higher elevation entirely outside of Roca Solida’s property.

The feds have not always had their eye on the property, if the feds had wanted the property they could have purchased the property in 2006….when the church group did. What the feds always had their eye on was restoring the spring- fed stream to its natural channel for the water to follow its natural flow route. If the church had checked at the time they purchased the property, they could have found that planning was underway to reroute the stream flow. For it was in 2008, that because of the heavy damage to natural area, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service undertook the Upper Carson Slough Spring Channel Restoration, Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada. That modification was to return the stream flow to its natural route continues today.

In 2010-2011, the Fairbanks and Soda Springs were restored in naturalized spring channels in the Upper Carson Slough to enhance habitat for wildlife. Concurrent with the Fairbanks spring channel restoration, Otis Bay crews also restored the Soda Spring channel.

The US Fish and Wildlife service did nothing illegally. They had every legal right to restore the spring-fed stream to its natural flow route….and they did just that. All the natural restoration was done on federal land within the preserve. In doing the restoration, the USFWS also constructed a recreational hiking trail system that includes loop and spur trails, parking areas, overlook areas, and boardwalk designs. This trail system expands upon the existing recreational trail and boardwalk network in the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge to allow visitor access and to protect sensitive spring sites in the Upper Carson Slough.

http://elbsettevendemio.weebly.com/uploads/1/9/9/0/19909339/elbs_nfp p_report_final_20140617.pdf.

God, I hate Yellow Journalism.

The Canary Clan is charged with the responsibility to search impartially for the facts or actualities of a subject or situation. It is eminently qualified to perform this charge by devoting considerable time, deep reflection, careful deliberation, and serious consultation to approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda. The Canary Clan has a commitment to respect precedent, fairness and a determination to faithfully present the facts. You gotta walk that lonesome valley. Long live freedom of speech, long live the Canary Clan and God Bless America!

The church group jhas brought suit. They are represented by a lawyer named, Becker. Becker served as Chief Legal Counsel and Policy Director for the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee.

Here's the first one - the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment–“No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

That says absolutely NOTHING about the situation.

You need to specifically tell me where the church group was deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; [or had any] private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The 40 acres has not been taken from them, and there is no stated intention to do so.

And the spring-fed stream never originally ran through the property they purchased….it had been diverted to run through there with man-made ditches.

The article is factually correct as written, you just don't like the facts - they contrast drastically with your view that the government can do any damn thing they please.

The article is a pack of Yellow Journalism BULLSHIT. There are no facts for me to like – the government can pretty much do any damn thing it pleases, on the property it owns.

The Federal land ownership out west is very large, indeed.

The Federal government own 84.9% of the land in the state of Nevada, and about 28% of the land in the USA.

But I believe this misses the larger legal issue. You have a pissant in a State regulatory agency issuing a Warning Notice of an administrative fine the State Engineer may soon levy against the Federal government.

And he will hold his breath until he turns blue, the Federal government pays up, or the Federal government lawyers stop laughing, whichever comes first.

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

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf

On November 4th the Nevada Division of Water Resources, arbiter of water rights in Nevada, ordered the Fish and Wildlife to return the stream to its original banks traversing the church retreat property within 90 days, or face $10,000 per day in fines, having to replace up to 200% of the water diverted, and payment of attorney’s fees and investigative costs.

http://water.nv.gov/waterrights/

It is not clear to me what jurisdiction or authority a Nevada State agency would have to enforce an administrative fine against a Federal agency, or for acts committed on Federal land.

The cited U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

http://www.npri.org/docLib/20161107_USFWSAV-195FirstWarningNoticeTPjm11-4-16003.pdf

The cited arbiter order is actually a Warning Notice issued by Thomas C. Pyeatte Jr., P.E., Compliance and Enforcement.

The Federal courts repeated told the Ministerio Roca Solida to go hump itself, the 9th Circuit ruled against them, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

http://www.courthousenews.com/CNSNEWS/Story/Index/89739

Refuge Manager Exits Baptismal Stream Fight

5/5/2016 4:25:00 PM, Nick Divito

(CN) — The Ninth Circuit ruled that a church camp in southern Nevada that once used a diverted stream to baptize its devout cannot sue the federal manager responsible for the diversion to put the water back.

Ministerio Roca Solida, doing business as Solid Rock Ministry, had sued the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for diverting a stream that once coursed through its camp property on a slice of land in Nye County, Nevada.

The parcel of land included a large marsh and a "delicate ecosystem," which was "destroyed by peat-mining, ranching and crop production during the 1960s and 1970s," Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote for the three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco on Wednesday.

When the federal government obtained the nearby and troubled Ash Meadows Refuge land in the 1980s, the Fish and Wildlife tried to restore it by diverting water sources for irrigation back to their natural channels.

Roca Solida had bought the 40 acres of land in 2006, built a church camp and used the stream for baptisms in Nye County — one of Nevada's largest counties by area but least populated when compared to its powerhouse neighbor, Las Vegas in Clark County.

Nye County is also one of 11 Nevada counties where prostitution is legal.

Ash Meadows Refuge manager Sharon McKelvey set to task and began to divert water from the stream, which dried up the church camp's property.

The religious group balked, claiming in a lawsuit that the diversion caused at least $86,000 in damages to its property when the first rain after the diversion was created overflowed.

It also made constitutional cries, claiming that its religious rights were being trampled.

McKelvey moved to dismiss herself from the action, arguing that the church had failed to state a proper claim against her because it didn't demand damages from her and that she was entitled to qualified immunity as a federal employee carrying out orders.

The trial court denied McKelvey's motion, leading her to file an interlocutory appeal in 2013.

Ruling on McKelvey's appeal, the Ninth Circuit on Wednesday ruled that McKelvey should have been dismissed from the church's action because only the feds have the power to return the creek to the church's property.

"In this case, only the United States — through its officers — has the power to take the action that Roca Solida seeks: returning the stream to its previous path," McKeown wrote. "The Ash Meadows Refuge manager might be capable of effecting the remedy Roca Solida seeks, but McKelvey as an individual has no authority to do so."

The panel did, however, keep one door open for the church.

"Roca Solida may yet be able to obtain the equitable relief it wants, just not against McKelvey as an individual," McKeown wrote. Attachment

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2649363/ministerio-roca-solida-v-united-states

Ministerio Roca Solida v United States, 12-541L (Fed Cl 2014)

CONCLUSION

On the basis of the foregoing discussion, this Court’s exercise of jurisdiction is precluded by 28 U.S.C. § 1500. Plaintiff’s complaint, accordingly, is dismissed without prejudice, and plaintiff’s request for a stay is denied as moot. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/14-5058/14-5058-2015-02-26.html

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-circuit/1693325.html

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Ministerio Roca SOLIDA, Plaintiff–Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant–Appellee.

No. 2014–5058.

Decided: February 26, 2015

Before WALLACH, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.Joseph F. Becker, Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation, Reno, Nevada, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Anna Katselas, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by Elizabeth Ann Peterson, Sam Hirsch, Gregory D. Page, Andrew C. Mergen, Katherine J. Barton.

This case presents the question of whether a suit brought against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because an earlier-filed related claim against the United States remains pending in a United States district court. Because the Claims Court correctly held jurisdiction is improper under these circumstances, this court affirms.

- - - - - - - - - -

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/05/04/13-16808.pdf

Ministerio Roca Solida v McKelvey, 13-16808 (9th Cir, 4 May 2016)

In this case, only the United States—through its officers—has the power to take the action that Roca Solida seeks: returning the stream to its previous path through Roca Solida's land.⁴ The Ash Meadows Refuge Manager might be capable of effecting the remedy Roca Solida seeks, but McKelvey as an individual has no authority to do so. A Bivens action is not necessary in suits, such as this one, which seek equitable relief against the federal government, because the Administrative Procedure Act waives sovereign immunity for such claims. 5 U.S.C. § 702 ("An action in a court of the United States seeking relief other than money damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority shall not be dismissed nor relief therein be denied on the ground that it is against the United States . . . ."). Roca Solida may yet be able to obtain the equitable relief it wants, just not against McKelvey as an individual.

Because "[dismissal can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory," Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988), Roca Solida's failure to state a cognizable Bivens action against McKelvey calls for dismissal of the claim against her. Consequently, we do not reach the question of whether alternative statutory avenues for relief would also preclude a Bivens action.⁵ Because Roca Solida does not seek damages against McKelvey, we likewise need not reach the issue of qualified immunity.⁶ McKelvey's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim should have been granted.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

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

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020160712A52/MINISTERIO%20ROCA%20SOLIDA%20v.%20U.S.

MINISTERIO ROCA SOLIDA v. U.S.

Case No. 2:12-cv-01488-RFB-VCF.

MINISTERIO ROCA SOLIDA, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE; and SHARON MCKELVEY, in her official and individual Capacities, Defendants.

United States District Court, D. Nevada.

July 8, 2016.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Ministerio Roca Solida, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph F. Becker, Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation.

United States Department of Fish and Wildlife, Defendant, represented by Patrick A. Rose, U.S. Attorney's Office & Troy K. Flake, United States Attorney.

Sharon McKelvey, Defendant, represented by Patrick A. Rose, U.S. Attorney's Office.

United States of America, Defendant, represented by Troy K. Flake, United States Attorney & Patrick A. Rose, U.S. Attorney's Office.

ORDER

RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II, District Judge.

Pursuant to the parties' agreement on May 27, 2016 at a status conference before the Court, the Court issues the following order:

IT IS ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of the Defendants on Plaintiff's Free Exercise claim consistent with its order on March 30, 2016. ECF No. 69.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the claims against Defendant McKelvey are dismissed pursuant to the Ninth Circuit's decision. ECF No. 71.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remaining claims shall be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each party shall bear its own costs and fees as it relates to all claims. The Clerk is instructed to close this case.

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

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/osg/briefs/2015/10/19/mrs-cert2-br_in_opp-osg_aay_v2c.pdf

Ministerio Roca Solida, Inc v US, S Ct 14-1413, On Petition for Writ of Cert, Brief for the United States in Opposition (October 2015)

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

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/LRI-Reply-Brief-as-filed-2.pdf

Resource Investments (Roca Solida) v US, S Ct 15-802 Reply Brief

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

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110915zor_4g25.pdf

(ORDER LIST: 577 U. S.)

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2015

CERTIORARI DENIED

14-1413
MINISTERIO ROCA SOLIDA V. UNITED STATES

See also:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/14-1413.htm

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

Thanks for your well researched post, nolu. It substantiates my conclusion that there is no “il” in the claim of “legality” made by the church group against the feds.

It is a I have stated, the stream that ran through the Roca Solida property when it bought the property in 2006 was a “diverted stream.” The stream was diverted from land owned by the federal government and managed by the US Wildlife and Fish Service.

Nowhere has it been shown or even suggested, the feds desire to acquire the 40 acre parcel owned by Roco Solida….other than the implied allegation made in the article posted on this thread and it was used only to gain sympathy to support the contentious Yellow Journalism article.

The feds are not trying to force the church group off the land. If the feds wanted the land, the feds could have purchased the land in 2006. Furthermore, nowhere do I find any evidence of the alleged $86,000 damage to the property owned by the church group.

Restoration of the area, including returning the stream to its “normal flow route” was in progress at the time Roca Solida purchased the property. The restoration dates back to as early as 1980, long before Roco Solida bought the 40 acres of land in 2006.

The church group bought a “pig in a poke” when it purchased the 40 acres of land in 2006 without doing due diligence to research the water rights, or the right for the continued flow of the stream, on the property they were purchasing. That is most unfortunate and quite obviously disappointing for the church group.

This is no a case here to show or prove that the government abused anyone, attempted to steal anything, or illegally took any action. It has been shown that just because the church group had the “legal right” to purchase the 40 acre parcel that had a “diverted stream” running through it….the church group had no “legal right” to demand the “diverted stream” be required to continue flowing through their property.

And now, yet another one of the many Yellow Journalism articles that Deckard continues to post, without doing diligent research, during his anti-government obsessive tirade has again been debunked. May it forever Rest in Peace …