In my attempts to enlighten landowners about the issues facing them and the ownership of their land, I have uncovered the following information which is directly relevant to anyone owning land and indirectly relevant to the average citizen. I hope that some of your "eyes" will be opened by what I have provided here.

The Founding Fathers went to great lengths to balance political power in America by establishing the three branches of government. Most everyone knows them as the executive (the chief executive), legislative (makes the law) and judicial branches (adjudicates the law). Unfortunately, the Found Fathers did not take into account that the executive and legislative branches, in order to discharge their full duties, abdicated their responsibilities to make law and created a fourth branch of government, the "administrative bureaucracy". We all know that the executive branch has a cabinet and the cabinet is made up of "Czars" of those administrative bureaucracies. These bureaucracies have little oversight from either the executive or legislative branches and end up creating administrative law that is not authorized by the legislative branch. (That is, on it face, unconstitutional)

In the State of Washington we have the Revised Code of Washington (RCW's) that are laws created by the legislature. Then we have the Washington Administrative Code (WAC'S) that are laws created by these administrative bureaucracies (DSHS, DOE, Fish and Wildlife, etc. etc. etc). Bulging federal and state bureaucracies promulgate and pump out these administrative codes by the thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) every year. The average citizen has no knowledge of any of them until they run afoul of them. Landowners are now running seriously afoul of them through ESA's, FCWA's, GMA's, CAO'S, WRIA'S, etc and the list goes on and on. Most of this crap is driven by radical environmental policies and agendas and most of that agenda comes right out of the United Nations. It rarely gets filtered by our legislators.

Dr. Robert Crittenden, in his work as a fisheries biometrician (he explains what that is) has researched and written an essay on what has happened in the State of Washington with these administrative bureaucracies. These bureaucracies have tremendous power and they wield it with disdain for our constitutions, such as we are now seeing with the Water Resources Inventory Assessment (WRIA's) districts. In the following essay, you will see just how arrogant these folks are and who is calling the shots. The essay appears below and is also attached as a WORD document. I hope you will take the time to read it.

I am a PhD Fisheries Biometrician that is a fisheries biologist who is, also, a mathematician/statistician. But, over the last decade, I have been writing books on politics. In this talk, I will tell you about my three books, and in the process will tell you something about the salmon crisis and the programs it leverages.

During the early 1990's, while I was doing consulting, as a biometrician, for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, I became aware that they were deliberately depressing the salmon stocks. At that time, I was still naive about the major environmental groups. I thought that they might do something about it. So, I decided that I would tell one of them.

I spoke to the State Director of the Audubon Society. --- He listened to me for about five minutes, then he said, "Yes, we are doing it, but you'll never be able to prove it." The next day, I went to the local environmental clearing house and newspaper, The Green Pages. --- As I already knew about it, they told me the rest of the story.

What they said was that the heads of the Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Ecology, and Natural Resources, the Tribal Fisheries Commission, the Sierra Club, and the Audubon Society had been meeting on a weekly basis to decide which fish stocks to depress in order to leverage environmental programs. The Green Pages had been regularly attending those meetings in order to be on top of developments.

After that, I quit working for the Department and wrote a book about this. It contains quite a lot more about this than just this one incident. But, I think that conveys the substance of what was going on.

No one was talking about this, back in 1993. Today, most people in the Northwest know this, but back then, no one did. I went on a speaking tour, and sold approximately 1200 copies of Salmon at Risk in Western Washington. I also had relatively good coverage on conservative talk radio. This book had an impact.

Then, I began a second book. I knew what policies they had been trying to leverage, so I looked into the organizations who claimed those policies. These were The Nature Conservancy of Washington, the Washington Roundtable, the Northwest Renewable Resources Center, Discovery Institute, and a few others.

I did what is called "an analysis of interlocking directorates" to determine who the decision makers behind them had been. --- The result was that it appears that they were about two-dozen heads of big business in Washington State. Most of them were old money, many of them are names, which will be familiar to you, a significant number of them are from the "Seattle Establishment." The book contains, summaries of the organizations' programs, tables of their boards of directors, and a brief biography for each of them. It has been used as a reference manual by the Conservative Caucus in the Washington State Legislature. --- When people came into their office, they could look up who they were, what groups they were members of, and what programs those group claimed.

I named that book, "Elite Planners" because it is about these planning organizations, which represent the elite, here in Washington State. I later combined it with my first book, Salmon at Risk, as a combined book, under the title, "Two Studies of Public Policy in Washington State".

At about that time, I realized that although I knew what they had done and who they were, I did not understand why they had done it. I spent the next four and a half years researching that question. --- The final result was a history of Western thought, tracing both the conservative and liberal agendas from their origins to the present day.

The conservative agenda or, more exactly, the Western viewpoint, is usually attributed to Aristotle. It reached virtually its modern form in the works of Cicero, who led the group who assassinated Julius Caesar in the Senate House. These Classical writings were lost during the Dark Ages, but were rediscovered around 1200, during the Golden Age of France. At that time, Thomas Aquinas, wrote, based on them, what became essentially the "constitution" for all the governments of Western Europe during the Medieval Period.

There were relatively few major changes from then to the present. --- Richard Hooker made a few, at the end of the medieval period; John Locke made some, around the time of the English Glorious Revolution, of 1688; and finally some changes were made in writing the US Constitution. --- That document represents essentially the finished form of Western political thought.

It was only then, that the liberal or "Eastern" position really came together. It is essentially counter-cultural, an antithesis to the Western position. It began life in Prussian under Frederick the Great. The major steps in its further development were as follows: Kant, who shattered the Western paradigm; Fichte, was the philosopher of jackbooted authoritarianism; and Hegel, was seminal to many ideas of modern liberalism.

Karl Marx was Hegel's brightest student. His ideas bring us up to the First World War. The "new world order," which was to follow it, was based, in part, upon his ideas. But, the US and Britain did not sign the Treaty of Versailles. So, that attempt failed.

Then, the Paretian Scholars at Harvard University set out to design a new structure for society. And the University of Chicago was involved in this effort, too. They invented the New Deal, which was how America was run from 1933 to approximately 1960. After that, we began a transition to yet another form of government. That new form might be called "Neo-Democracy". It was the brainchild of Elton Mayo, who was one of the Paretian Scholars at Harvard.

J. Edwards Deming spent a Summer working in Mayo's project, while he was a graduate student. He finished his doctorate at Yale, worked briefly for the US Census, and then was invited to introduce this scheme into business in Japan. You may know it by the name "Total Quality Management" or "TQM."

Red China has also been run by this scheme from their very beginning. But, it is not a form of Communism. Mao gave one of the best brief descriptions of it, when he said: "We are no longer Communist in the Russian sense of the word, we are a right wing socialist democracy."

Aristotle said that the rights of man reside in the individual because he or she has an intellect that is the left brained higher reasoning process, which allows the individual to create new ideas. That is the basis of the structure of Western society.

But, some people don't have an intellect. Aristotle said that they are slaves by their nature. They don't like that idea. They invented a new concept: "the mind as white paper," that is that society trains into people all the ideas they will ever have. Thus, society is the source of ideas and, therefore, the origin of all valid authority, instead of the individual. This is what is meant by "socialism" in this context.

Also a totalitarian State, where the State systematically imposes its ideas on the people is a better expression of the views of the people, a purer democracy, than if this process of writing on their otherwise blank minds were left to chance and individuals are allowed to express themselves in what we view as "democracy" in the Western World. Thus, when they say "socialist democracy", they probably mean "totalitarian collectivism."

This may strike you as weird twisted abstract philosophy. Except for one thing: This new form of government is in place, today, in Washington State. You will find it in the Watershed Councils and Water Resource Inventory Areas.

These are appointed councils, run by the consensus process. You have no voice on who sits on these councils. They are appointed by various means except that none of them are not elected nor appointed by people you elect acting through due process. This is essentially the same structure of local government as Red China has, it is based on the scheme invented by Elton Mayo.

The Watershed Councils and WRIA's are controlled through funding. The funding stream leads up to the Salmon Recovery Board. Sitting at its head is William Ruckelshaus. This year, he controls, largely at his sole discretion, approximately 100 million dollars of Federal Salmon Recovery Funds, for Washington State. With this kind of money behind him, he is effectively the Czar of Washington.

And you will find him sitting on the boards of the various elite planning organizations I examined in my second book, Elite Planners. They in turn connect to planning groups on the national and international levels. This is our new governance system. This is what "globalization" means to us here at the grass roots level in Washington State.