US v Cooley amicus brief why Klamath Project lost takings case 032021

Our Klamath Basin Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.

Amicus brief United States v. Cooley filed in the U.S. Supreme Court explains why Klamath Project irrigators lost the 20+ year takings lawsuit filed by counsel who never had the chance of winning,

Lawrence Kogan, Kogan Law Group 3/20/2021

"You might wish to share the following amicus brief that was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Cooley, on Feb. 19, 2021.

The amicus brief will explain why Klamath Project irrigators lost the 20+ year takings lawsuit filed by counsel who never had the chance of winning.

OFFICIAL corrected version Amicus brief United States v. Cooley Kogan note: "look to the Supplementary Table of Authorities for weblinks to various of the sources discussed in the brief."
UNOFFICIAL Amicus brief United States v Cooley Kogan note: "If people find that the webstrings in the Supplementary Table of Authorities are inoperable because of the brief printing process, you then should also post the unofficial version of the brief with the operable hyperlinks embedded in the text."

As you may recall, the U.S. Claims Court held in 2017, that Project irrigators hold state-appropriated water rights with an earlier priority date than all other water users, except for the time immemorial priority date associated with Indian aboriginal water rights.

Basically, our brief reveals that the USG has been engaged in a 150-year conspiracy against U.S. Constitution-based federalism to strip States of their sovereignty over lands, waters and other natural resource rights they were supposed to have assumed upon statehood on equal footing with the original 13 states, and consequently, against individual constitutionally protected rights.

As the result, individual ownership in land which should be state land, and individual rights to use waters in what should be state waters, have been taken by the federal government for the public purpose of fulfilling the USG's "tribal trust obligations" owed to the local Indian tribes.

The federal government has long used a change in Indian policy that took place in 1871 and contains hidden Civil War powers, to rely on the Indians as a smoke screen to claim ownership of western lands and waters, contrary to multiple provisions of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And, the USG has long lied to the federal courts about exercising these hidden war powers during peacetime, resulting in the federal courts, including the SCOTUS, deferring to the USG in litigation at the expense of state sovereignty and individual constitutionally protected rights.

The former DOJ/BIA water rights/Indian rights lawyer, William Veeder, had, from the 1940's through the 1970's served as the architect of this effort, which former President Nixon implemented at a high policy level to disenfranchise western States and landowners. As the result, the Lincoln Indian policy which the Radical Republicans in the Reconstructionist Congress long ago buried, was buried even deeper by the Nixon administration.

Had the Lincoln Indian policy of 1863, with its beneficent treatment of Indians as private landowners and, ultimately, as State/U.S. citizens, been fully implemented, this would not have occurred.

The key telltale of whether the USG is surreptitiously exercising these hidden war powers is the simultaneous presence of rivers, Indian tribes, and hydroelectric dams. The Klamath Basin has all three indicia. This provides the USG with enough reason to seek to funnel waters into Central Valley, CA.

The USG has and continues to exercise these hidden war powers along the Columbia, Colorado, and Rio Grande Rivers and all their tributaries.

If you have any questions after reading the attached amicus brief with fully operable hyperlinks to key historical statutes and reports, including a key Nixon administration memo, please feel free to contact me.

BTW, the attached brief is an "unofficial" brief because the "official" brief had omission and typographical errors which are now being corrected. The error-ridden "official" brief was pulled from the SCOTUS website late this week, awaiting arrival of the corrected brief, which should soon be posted to the SCOTUS website."

Sincerely,

Lawrence A. Kogan

The Kogan Law Group, P.C.

100 United Nations Plaza

Suite #14F

New York, NY 10017

(o) (212) 644-9240

(c) (917) 565-1521

www.koganlawgroup.com

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

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml