Agency accused of confiscating property and keeping it

By Bob Unruh August 7, 2021 

The Environmental Protection Agency has been sued for taking over property adjacent to the 2015 Gold King Mine catastrophe in Colorado to stage cleanup equipment and projects, and keeping it, never paying for it or even for renting it.  The case seeks millions of dollars in damages and has been submitted to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims by the New Civil Liberties Alliance on behalf of landowner Todd Hennis............

In response to the disaster, Ennis gave verbal permission for the EPA to temporarily use a part of his property, adjacent to mine, "for an emergency staging area for equipment and supplies."  But, "rather than thank Mr. Hennis for his quick cooperation and compensate him for the use of his land, EPA took advantage of him. Without so much as a phone call or email to Mr. Hennis, EPA constructed a $2.3 million dollar water treatment facility on a concrete slab on Hennis’s property. Worse yet, EPA has repeatedly refused—across three presidential administrations—to pay him anything for the privilege," the legal team explained..........

"Adding insult to injury, the government has threatened Mr. Hennis with soul-crushing civil penalties should he attempt to exercise his constitutional rights to exclude EPA from his property. When Mr. Hennis refused to sign an eight-year 'Consent for Access to Property' that would have paid him nothing, EPA issued a civil enforcement action against him. The agency has threatened that he will be subject to penalties of up to $59,017 per day for any period of time during which EPA believes he is not complying with its demands," the NCLA explained...........To Read More...

 

When 'reasonable' burdens aren't

November 27, 2018 By Gary M. Galles

While most eyes were on Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination battle, the Supreme Court opened its term by hearing Weyerhaeuser v. Fish and Wildlife Services, a property rights case with substantial implications for Americans.

The case is an appeal of a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling for the government involving about a hundred remaining dusky gopher frogs in Mississippi. The Fish and Wildlife Service designated 1,500 acres of privately-owned land in Louisiana as critical habitat for the frog. But the frogs have not lived in Louisiana for 50 years. The location’s loblolly pines would need to be removed and replaced with longleaf pines, which require periodic burning. Yet Fish and Wildlife has decided that forcing the owner to forgo other profitable opportunities and adapt his land for the frog is “reasonable” without even conducting an environmental impact study.

The case focuses on the “reasonableness” of designating as “critical habitat” private land which is not currently suitable for the frogs but could be made so at some cost. (Essentially most ownership rights would be transferred to the frogs.) Justice Samuel Alito captured the issue well when he said, “The question is who is going to have to pay and who should pay for the preservation of this public good.”............ To Read More

My Take - Another federal agency that needs to be seriously rolled back or even better yet - eliminated!  This agency, along with the EPA, the Bureau of Land Management and other agencies  have done more to undermine Constitution rights than any reasonable person can find acceptable. 

Their actions, ignored by the Congress, promoted by almost every administration since 1960, heralded by a corrupt media, and enforced by a corrupt federal judiciary, clearly is a treasonous effort to destroy the Constitution by the leftists who've infested the federal government for over 100 years. 

Why is that so hard to grasp? 

Because it's was done slowly, and promoted to the public as being done to save the planet, and a large number of those involved are true believers failing to grasp the very real danger these agencies represent. 

Family asks Florida high court to lift bird ban on their private property

By William Patrick  /   November 22, 2016  /   News  /   31 Comments @ Florida Watchdog

 

A Florida family is looking to the state Supreme Court to resolve a decades-old property rights dispute that’s gone to the birds — literally.

In 1970, Tom and Molly Beyer purchased a 9-acre island in the Florida Keys for $70,000. The property was intended to be a legacy investment for the couple’s children. Despite development zoning, local officials eventually blocked the Beyers from building on it through a series of land use restrictions.

First, they could only develop one home per acre. Then, one home per 10 acres. Finally, Monroe County officials designated the vacant investment property a bird rookery, effectively banning all future development.

“This case is about an uncompensated property grab — literally, an unconstitutional island grab,” said Mark Miller, managing attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Florida-based Atlantic Center.

“The island has been seized from the Beyers in all but name,” he said.

The couple passed away during the past twenty years of legal battles to reclaim the use of their land, and their children have since taken up the family cause. They’ve enlisted the help of the the nonprofit public interest law firm that specializes in property rights and a “balanced approach to environmental regulations,” according to its website.

Miller filed an opening brief with the Florida Supreme Court earlier this month to appeal the Third District Court of Appeal’s previous ruling, which sided with the city of Marathon against the Beyers.
The high court asked to hear the challenge but has yet to officially take up the case.

The Third District held that the city met its constitutional obligations to offer “just compensation” for the land through a local Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) program. Under the scheme, points are awarded toward the purchase of development permits in city approved areas.

A trial court beneath the Third District also approved the compensation gesture as satisfying the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause that prohibits the government from taking private property without payment.

In 2005, a city land official known as the Beneficial Use Special Master awarded the Beyers 16 ROGO points after denying their initial appeal to lift the bird rookery designation.

Miller says the points, or credits, aren’t a “tangible payment,” and don’t come close to a fair arrangement.

“At best, they amount to guesswork about possible development at some undetermined time in some unidentified place,” he said.

According to the brief, evidence presented during the Special Master proceeding showed that the rookery reclassification had diminished the value of the property by 98.7 percent.

What’s more, the family has been required to pay taxes on the property since its purchase.

“Although the city is oh-so-generously allowing the family to continue paying taxes on their island property, and to retain all the liabilities that come with property ownership, bureaucrats have commandeered the actual use of it for purposes of their own choosing,” Miller said.

If the state Supreme Court decides not to take up the case, Miller said he’s prepared to go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. His firm is representing the Beyer family at no charge.

 

Click here to LEARN HOW TO STEAL OUR STUFF!
 

William Patrick is Watchdog.org’s Florida reporter. His work has been featured on Fox News and the Drudge Report, among other national sites. He’s also been cited and reposted by numerous statewide news organizations.  wpatrick@watchdog.org
 

Loretta Lynch 'Pleads Fifth' on Secret Iran 'Ransom' Payments...

Obama admin blocking congressional probe into cash payments to Iran

Adam Kredo

Attorney General Loretta Lynch is declining to comply with an investigation by leading members of Congress about the Obama administration’s secret efforts to send Iran $1.7 billion in cash earlier this year, prompting accusations that Lynch has “pleaded the Fifth” Amendment to avoid incriminating herself over these payments, according to lawmakers and communications exclusively obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) and Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) initially presented Lynch in October with a series of questions about how the cash payment to Iran was approved and delivered.
In an Oct. 24 response, Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik responded on Lynch’s behalf, refusing to answer the questions and informing the lawmakers that they are barred from publicly disclosing any details about the cash payment, which was bound up in a ransom deal aimed at freeing several American hostages from Iran.......To Read More.....