Re: THE PLAINTIFFS: The People!!

Our issue in making it the people of california vs. such agencies is our ability to attract a district attorney that will enforce the laws in such a manner, so a criminal case will have a higher burden unless someone knows a DA willing to take the case. I do not rule out that such a person can be found, because I do not know how much effort has been applied to finding that person.

KI, I think any of those cases has a much better chance in the courts as a civil case. I personally like case three although that case would require some proof of connection between the parties (obtained under subpeona). However, while we as private citizens can certainly sue to effect enforcement of the public's preserved rights (because we are a member of such public), and enjoin illegal enforcement of invalid laws and applied regulations and procedures that are contrary to the established charters of their respective agencies, it will require two things - standing and legal expertise. Standing may not be as simple as we think, in so much as whether it can be argued that the public is illegally denied access to the publicly owned riparian resource that is Deep Creek Hot Springs. The case would have excellent grounds to proceed if it were joined as a plaintiff by a single person, or more, that has been denied entry through Bowen Ranch at a time period when that access is the only practicable means of accessing the springs. I don't think that will be hard to find, just hard to get to sign on the case. The second, legal expertise, would be harder, as it would be far more probable that we would win the case with a lawyer whose career encompasses either previous work experience in BLM, USFS, or both, and a record of challenging such agencies in court with success. These lawyers are feared by the government agencies that previously employed them - why do people that go to tax court get attorneys that used to work for the IRS? Exact same principle.

To anyone that cares - We need the name(s) of plaintiff(s) that have been injured, i.e. turned aside at Bowen Ranch, and their agreement to play party to the suit. We can argue that non payment of the fee is denial of access but it will be harder to defend against the private property right (state action claims of the fourteenth amendment) and much easier to overturn when persons have been willing to pay the 'toll fee' and still been denied. Proof, although beneficial, would not be necessary; just their willingness to state such under perjury.

happy springing,
serenity