Latest Alerts


The Stand and Fight Club Intends to Bring Back Rural America, to Bring Back the Rights of Rural Americans. In a fresh, vital new “Campaign Coordination 2017” we will:

  • File lawsuits, at least 13, one symbolically for each of our first colonies, to require regulators to follow the law and coordinate with local governments to reach consistency with local policies that protect our forest industries, mill workers, fishermen, miners, ranchers, farmers, water users, nurserymen, dairymen, truckers, recreation uses of OUR LANDS, and the property and personal rights of individual citizens
  • Train citizens to a level of legal knowledge and strategy that will let them “persuade” their local governments to do their duty and exercise their authority to require the regulators to be consistent with local plans, policies and actions
  • Equip citizens with the tools they need to support those local officials and help them through the coordination process in paralegal fashion
  • Teach the constitution and the people’s rights by offering materials and teaching assistance to K1 through 12, in colleges, in community adult classes, through radio and television and news publications—keeping in mind that IF YOU DON’T KNOW YOUR RIGHTS, YOU DON’T HAVE ANY.
  • Keep you advised and up to speed with our progress, and with what the regulators are trying to do to further demolish our God Given liberty.






Feds Hide $25 MILLION In Payments To Enviro-Lawyers

Posted by American Lands Council 75sc on August 18, 2016






Groups concealed by the federal government have gained no less than $25 million dollars in Americans tax dollars through lawsuits under three environmental laws since 2009. 

The Department of Treasury’s Judgment Fund database tracks how much federal agencies have paid out for lawsuits and court settlements, but doesn’t track the names of the individuals or groups that are actually suing the government.

More than $49 million in taxpayer funds was paid to lawyers suing the Obama administration under three major environmental statutes, TheDCNF found. Environmental activists have gotten millions from taxpayers suing the government to expand federal regulation.


But further analysis revealed that more than half of those payments went to groups the federal government concealed.

The U.S.Treasury isn’t keeping complete data on law firms, and activist groups getting taxpayer dollars has transparency advocates worried. The department also frequently redacts names of attorneys getting tax dollars under the Privacy Act, according to an attorney with the Judgement Fund.

“It’s no surprise the Treasury Department is hiding who gets the money in these transactions,” Adam Andrzejewski, Founder and CEO of transparency group, told TheDCNF. “Because these suits involve the federal government, taxpayers have a right to know where their tax dollars are going and what agendas they’re advancing.”


The administration paid out more than $25 million to attorneys and firms that were either listed as “unnamed” or “redacted” from 2009 to 2015. Nearly $630,000 was paid out to groups where some of the plaintiff’s attorneys were listed but others were redacted.


The $49 million was paid out to groups under 512 so-called “citizen lawsuits” – lawsuits filed under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act or the Endangered Species Act, TheDCNF previously reported.


Some 292 lawsuit payments withheld the names of the law firms involved, and all of the attorneys’ clients were concealed. Another 85 cases, which raked in $13.9 million, named the attorneys involved, but it was unclear what firms or activist groups they worked for.

Only 123 case payments – or nearly one-quarter – were completely transparent about the name of the law firm defending the plaintiff. Those groups took in nearly $9.4 million.

Some of these legal payments could be for what are called “sue-and-settle” lawsuits — where a group, mainly environmental activists, sue a federal agency to get them to issue a new regulation.

Instead of fighting the suit, the federal agency quickly settles the case and uses the resulting consent decree as political cover to issue controversial regulations. Not only do activists further their agenda, but they can get their attorneys’ fees paid for by taxpayers.

“It is quite concerning that the Department of Justice refused to acknowledge how much they have paid in attorneys fees in ‘sue and settle’ cases,” Chaim Mandelbaum, an attorney with the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic, told TheDCNF. “Given the Obama administration’s substantial use of a ‘sue and settle’ method to create policy, through collusion with outside groups, the need for transparency into these arrangements is substantial.”

Andrzejewski added: “Taxpayers have a right to know who is profiting from so-called ‘sue and settle’ schemes in which special interest groups advance a regulatory agenda without any transparency or oversight.”

A 2013 study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found 71 “sue-and-settle” lawsuits between 2009 and 2012 that resulted in more than 100 new regulations, many of which imposed more than $100 million in compliance costs every year.

The Chamber found the Sierra Club used “sue-and-settle” more than any other environmental group during that time. The Club sued the government 34 times from 2009 to 2012, and was often represented by Earthjustice, a Sierra Club spin-off formed in 1997 that focuses on environmental litigation.


You and I foot the bill for these lawsuits with our tax dollars, money better spent actually helping our environment, not enriching a few “environmentalist” groups.

Earthjustice was the most frequently named counsel in the environmental lawsuits, representing plaintiffs in 39 cases and raking in nearly $4 million from taxpayers. TheDCNF was able to identify some Earthjustice lawyers involved with the cases, but they weren’t always listed as working for the activist group.

It’s unclear how much more Earthjustice may have made off suing the government because of all the “redacted” or “unknown” recipients in Treasury’s database, or if any of the lawyers listed in the database without their employer were Earthjustice attorneys at the time of the case.



August 19, 2016



Hilary Clinton’s naming of Ken Salazar as the overlord of her transition team is the straw that breaks the back—a clear signal that she believes in the war on the west that Salazar waged as President Obama’s law-breaking Secretary of Interior.

The friendly countenance did not extend to western landowners. Salazar has no conscience when it comes to taking jobs from westerners; he has no conscience when it comes to shutting down the public lands; he has no conscience when it comes to promoting Agenda 21 programs at the expense of those who I serve.  He had no conscience when it came to using bogus “scientific” studies and reports to justify his anti-western positions.

For over twenty five years I have fought as hard as I know how to protect the rights of ranchers, farmers, miners, loggers, landowners, and then recreation enthusiasts.   I started that fight for the ranchers of Owyhee County, Idaho, then for those of Modoc County, California.  I continued the work with Margaret at Stewards of the Range, and then with Margaret and Dan at American Stewards of Liberty.  Forming a family business, Trademark America, I continued with son Jon and daughter in law Staci.  Then, finally with the Stand and Fight Club.

My work has been apolitical—almost as much damage was done in the administrations of the two Bushes as in the Clinton years.  But, this week an announcement was made by the Clinton camp that makes this political for me.  I have always tried to be honest with those who work with me, and for that reason I have to advise you and all those who work with me of my decision.  I have to oppose the election of Hilary Clinton as best I can.  When she appointed Ken Salazar to be chair of her transition team it was a clear statement that she will escalate the War on the West that I have defended against.  If he is to serve as overlord of transition, will he also serve as her Secretary of Interior?  I do not believe that ranchers can survive another tour of duty by Salazar—and I know miners can’t.

It was Salazar who made the withdrawal decision that sruck at uranium mining in and near the Grand Canyon.  That decision was based on a lie, i.e., that the mining would cause pollution of the waters of the Canyon.  In fact, testimony which I elicited during a hearing on that withdrawal showed that the mining technique would actually prevent pollution or contamination.  A Bureau of Land Management District Manager testified that without the mining, there would be a danger of such contamination.  He testified that he would not have made the withdrawal, that it came from Salazar with no local input.

It was Salazar who was ready to issue an order to destroy the dams on the Klamath.  He backed down at the last minute when members of the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors and I went to Washington to oppose the decision because he was ignoring a specific requirement of law.  We had with us evidence that the heavy metal build up in silt behind the dams would kill all fish and life in the river for a decade, yet the idea was to destroy the dams in order to restore salmon.

Michelle Malkin,[1] for National Review, has just written about another of Mr. Salazar’s self-benefiting escapades.

She writes about Tom Davis who bought over 1700 wild horses from the Bureau of Land Management just after Salazar took office as Secretary; he paid $10 apiece for them ($17,000) and then sold them for $154,000 for slaughter.  Davis had signed a contract that prohibited him from slaughtering or selling the horses for slaughter.  Davis had a business relationship, hauling cattle for Salazar for years.  In spite of his violation of the terms of his contract, no action was taken against him—he did not answer for what he did, except by enjoying his nine times over increase of money at the American taxpayers’ expense.

Malkin points out that David Phillips, then of the Colorado Springs Gazette, questioned Salazar about this openly defiant violation of contract and law, and was threatened by Salazar who angrily responded: “You know what, if you do that to me again, I’m going to punch you out. OK?  Don’t ever, ever, from the Gazette or anybody else do that to me again. Set me up.  You know?”  Phillips today writes for the New York Times.

She also writes about the federal judge who held Salazar in contempt of court because of his steadfast determination to ignore the judge’s decision in order to stop offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.  United States District Judge Martin Feldman held in Hornbeck Offshore Services v. Salazar, Civil No. 10-1663, USD Eastern District of Louisiana, that the evidence established a likelihood that Salazar’s decision to halt drilling “was arbitrary and capricious and, therefore, unlawful”.  He issued an injunction to prevent Salazar from carrying out his arbitrary decision.  Then, when Salazar persisted, the judge held there was “clear and convincing evidence of the government’s contempt of this Court’s preliminary injunction order.”  He referred to Salazar’s position as being “dismissive conduct” that would not tolerated.

Salazar claimed to have conducted a thorough review of the drilling prospects that favored termination of drilling, a review that represented that it had been reviewed by a panel of scientists.  Judge Feldman said that ‘several” of the scientists “publicly repudiated” the statement that they had reviewed the study.  Judge Feldman also pointed out that during the hearing, it was “exposed that an important White House official had changed the Safety Report [regarding drilling] before its public release which created the misleading appearance of scientific peer review.”  (see court’s order of February 2, 2011 Case 2:10-cv-01663-MLCF-JCW  Document 226)  He pointed out that when he specifically asked about this issue, the government denied that a change was made, but that later “the government does not now dispute” the story.  (Ibid. footnote 2)

I know of not one time that Salazar ever took into consideration the economic and cultural harm that resulted from his decisions.  The ban on drilling alone, according to Malkin, cost 19,000 jobs and $1.1 billion in lost wages.

Salazar also pulled 100 oil leases off the market in Utah based on a bogus report, an act that cost the state of Utah $139 million in lost tax revenue according to state representative Chris Herrod (R. Provo). See New York Times and Greenwire of April 2, 2010.

Losses of tax dollars, losses of jobs, losses of property rights meant nothing to Salazar who told a United States Senate committee in 2008 that he would refuse drilling permits in Alaska even if gas prices reached $10 per gallon in the United States.  (Malkin, “Hillary’s Headhunters: Sleazeball Ken Salazar”, August 17, 2016,

One final note:  Even Secretary of Interior Sally Jewell could not stand the heat over Salazar’s National BlueWays Initiative Secretarial Order.  The Order gave the Secretary unilateral control to designate entire waterways as “national blue ways”.  What that meant to water rights was not made clear, but therein lies the rub.  If his own Order permitted it, Salazar would have used it to wipe away private water rights just as he did in so many Native settlements throughout the west.  Under stressful examination by the House Natural Resources Committee, and particularly Representative Tom McClintock of California and Doc Hastings of Washington, Jewell  put a “pause” on the program.

If Salazar is part of a Clinton administration, you can bet that the Blue Ways Initiative will be just a beginning on federal control of every spring, stream, creek and tributary in the west.

I just can’t see it.  And his presence again is too big a risk for me to accept without fighting back politically.



[1] Malkin is a senior editor for Conservative Review, and author of Sold Out and Culture of Corruption.