view this email online: http://www.pacificlegal.org/sentry/Next-Tuesday-We-re-at-the-US-Supreme-Court-for-property-rights

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

January 9, 2013
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Seeking justice from the justices -  for the Koontz family, and property owners
everywhere

VIDEO: Coy Koontz, Jr. continues the fight that his father began over 20 years ago. (http://youtu.be/8-XDD6KyWaQ)

Mark down this date: Next Tuesday, January 15.

On that morning, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear one of the most important property rights cases in years — the PLF case of Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District.
(http://www.pacificlegal.org/cases/Theres-no-off-site-exception-to-Fifth-Amendments-takings-clause)

PLF Principal Attorney Paul J. Beard II will be arguing on behalf of a family that was hit with a public sector shakedown — and decided to fight back.

Although this case concerns a local Florida agency’s injustice against the late Coy Koontz, Sr., and his family, it’s about property rights nationwide.

At issue: Can regulators use the land use permitting power to extort money for government’s own gain? Can they force permit applicants to fill government piggy banks or fund programs that have nothing to do with the owner’s proposed land use?

PLF Podcast Now Playing

Listen to a discussion of the Koontz case with Paul J. Beard II. (http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/pacificlegals-podcast/id542746766)
Don’t have iTunes? Listen to the podcast online. (http://traffic.libsyn.com/pacificlegal/1-9-13_podcast.mp3)

We’re facing down the Obama Administration — in defense of property rights

One sign of the nationwide importance of the Koontz case: The Obama Administration has weighed in against us. The Administration has filed a friend of the court brief for the bureaucracy that tried to extort the Koontzes — and against PLF’s fight
to protect property owners from government arm-twisting.

The saga of this case begins more than 15 years ago, when the now deceased Coy Koontz, Sr., asked for permission to commercially develop about four acres of land in Orange County, Florida.

The St. Johns River Water Management District set a price: Mr. Koontz would have to dedicate 11 acres for conservation and pay up to $150,000 for improvements on the district’s own property.

Mr. Koontz was willing to dedicate the 11 acres, but he objected to paying for work at the government site, which was miles away, with no connection to his property or project. So, his permit application was denied.

A family’s commitment to constitutional rights brings them to the U.S. Supreme Court

The Koontz family sued over this payoff demand. After Coy Koontz, Sr., passed away, Coy, Jr., continued the fight, and, represented by PLF, the case has been taken by the nation’s highest court.

We’re building on our landmark victory 26 years ago in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, where the Supreme Court first held that the permitting process can’t be used for shakedowns. We’re urging the Supreme Court to tell bureaucrats everywhere that the Fifth Amendment bans extortion of money and other resources, not just real property.

Just how arrogant is the bureaucracy that tried to coerce money from the Koontzes? Coy Koontz, Jr., and his wife, Linda, relay a story of being in an elevator with  one of the government’s witnesses who had just testified during one of the hearings in the case. When asked why the agency hadn’t just purchased the property outright, the witness stated, “why would we buy the property when we can get it for free?”  This kind of calculated, callous disregard for Americans’ property rights is why PLF fights so vigorously to defend our Constitution — and the rights of all Americans to be free from government abuse!

We’ve been “rescuing liberty” for 40 years — please help us celebrate! PLF 40th Anniversary
(http://www.pacificlegal.org/40thAnniversary)

We’re celebrating our 40th Anniversary with a Gala at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library* on March 2, 2013, joined by George F. Will and Michael Reagan. For information, visit http://www.pacificlegal.org/40thAnniversary, or contact Jennifer Rohde at (916) 419-7111 or email at jlr@pacificlegal.org.

And you can mark the New Year with a commitment to freedom, by making a generous donation to PLF and our never-ending fight to “rescue liberty from coast to coast”! (http://www.pacificlegal.org/donate)

*Views and opinions expressed by Pacific Legal Foundation are not necessarily shared by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Foundation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rob Rivett
President
Pacific Legal Foundation
www.pacificlegal.org

       by Bob UnruhEmail | Archive

You’re the owner of a piece of commercial property, and local regulators are asking you to make sure the impact of work you’d like to do is mitigated: wetlands accommodated, the property fixed up and cleaned up.

So no problem.

Then regulators tell you they also are going to require that you – at an expense estimated up to $150,000 – fix up and clean up a piece of unrelated government property miles away from your project.

Or else.

What do you do?

That’s the question that will be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court in a dispute out of Florida that is being handled by the Pacific Legal Foundation.

In the case, the owner of a piece of commercial property in Orange County, Fla., the Koontz family, was told that to get the permits necessary to use their land, they would have to spend thousands of his dollars making improvements to government-owned land miles away – just because that’s what officials decided they wanted.

“Property owners large and small, from coast to coast, should be thankful that the U.S. Supreme Court has accepted this important property rights case,” said Paul Beard, principal attorney for the foundation.

“If the Koontz family can be hit with the government rip-off that happened in this case, then everybody’s property rights are put at risk. The Koontz family merely wanted to exercise their rights as property owners, to develop the family’s land in legal and responsible ways.

“But regulators saw a chance to pounce and make all kinds of costly, unrelated, outrageous demands,” he said. “Without any justification, the government demanded money, labor and resources as the price for allowing the Koontzes to use their own land.

“This was a flat-out shakedown, a form of extortion,” he said.

Family members had tried for years to develop the land, but the local St. Johns River Water Management District would not issue the necessary permits, “because Koontz would not agree to costly and unjustified conditions that the district imposed.”

“Specifically, the district demanded that Koontz dedicate his money and labor to make improvements to 50 acres of district-owned property located miles away from the proposed project,” the legal team explained.

“In other words, what we have here is a classic case of an unconstitutional shakedown. The U.S. Supreme Supreme Court has ruled that the government violates property rights – it commits a ‘taking ‘ in violation of the Fifth Amendment – if it tries to use the permitting process to extract conditions that aren’t related to the impact of the proposed development.”

“Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws”

Some details had been worked out. The Koontzes wanted to develop 3.7 acres of their land, which was in a habitat-protection zone. They agreed to dedicate another 11 acres of their land for conservation.

But the district also demanded the family replace culverts and plug ditches on district land seven miles away, at costs estimated to run as high as $150,000, the legal team said.

The family won the argument at the trial and appellate courts, but the Florida Supreme Court refused “to recognize that the district had imposed an unconstitutional take.”

The Pacific Legal Foundation noted that it won a case in 1987 in the Supreme Court that said governments can’t impose unrelated demands as the price of permits or other regulatory permissions.

See an explanation of the arguments:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/landowner-stands-ground-against-government-shake-down/

At the Supreme Court, PLF defends the Sacketts’ right to appeal EPA dictates

Washington, DC; January 9, 2012:

Oral argument was held at the United States Supreme Court in the Pacific Legal Foundation property rights case of Sackett v. United States Environmental Protection Agency. In this high-profile litigation, PLF seeks to establish that property owners have a right to appeal to court when EPA effectively seizes control of their property by declaring it “wetlands” under the Clean Water Act.

Arguing on behalf of PLF clients Mike and Chantell Sackett was Damien M. Schiff, a PLF Senior Staff Attorney. Read a transcript of the oral argument.

Sign up to receive email updates on the Sackett case from the PLF Liberty Blog.

In a statement for release after oral argument, Schiff said the following: “If EPA essentially seizes control of your property by labeling it as ‘wetlands,’ do you have a right to appeal to a court of law? EPA says, No. The Ninth Circuit has said, No. Today, on behalf of Idaho property owners Mike and Chantell Sackett, Pacific Legal Foundation urged the Supreme Court to say, Yes. The Sacketts — and all property owners who are hit with EPA attempts to control their property under the Clean Water Act — have a statutory right and a constitutional right to their day in court. EPA must not be considered a law unto itself. Its edicts — in particular, its ‘wetlands’ compliance orders to property owners — must be subject to meaningful judicial review.”

Victims of EPA overreach seek the right to their day in court

PLF clients Mike and Chantell Sackett, of Priest Lake, Idaho, bought a small parcel in 2005 with the intent to build a three-bedroom family home. The lot is in a residential area, where neighbors have built their own houses. The Sacketts obtained a county permit to build, and started laying gravel. But then they were blindsided by EPA, which came in and claimed the property is “wetlands” — and ordered them to return it to the agency’s liking, on pain of astronomical fines.

The Sacketts wanted to contest the claim that their land is “wetlands” — but the Ninth Circuit ruled that they would first have to go through a years-long “wetlands” permit process, which could cost 12 times the value of their land!

Represented by attorneys with PLF, the Sacketts are asking the Supreme Court: When property owners are hit by an EPA wetlands “compliance order,” do they have a right to meaningful judicial review — or is EPA effectively above the law?

About Pacific Legal Foundation: Donor-supported PLF (www.pacificlegal.org) is the leading watchdog organization that litigates, without charge, for limited government, property rights, individual rights, and a balanced approach to environmental regulations, in courts nationwide. The Sackett case marks the seventh time that the U.S. Supreme Court has taken a PLF case for review. Previous high-profile PLF property rights victories at the Supreme Court include Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987); Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1997); Palazollo v. Rhode Island (2001); and Rapanos v. United States (2006).

http://www.pacificlegal.org/page.aspx?pid=1782&utm_source=Sentry+-+2%2F23%2F12+NPIL+Day&utm_campaign=2-23-12+NPIL+SENTRY&utm_medium=email

Several THANK YOUS go out for this win for the Sacket couple from Idaho, who just wanted to build a home; and the Environmental Protection Agency said they couldn’t and adding insult to injury placed huge daily fines on the Sackets for not “complying.”

(Check out the articles below for the details.)

First to the U.S. Supreme Court Justices for ruling in favor of the Constitution and private property.  — Thank You.

Second to Pacific Legal Foundation for taking the fight to the highest court in the land — and winning!  — Thank You.

Third to the Sackets for staying the course. This battle has been exhausting and long with terrible threats from the federal agency EPA of huges fines and the loss of the use of their property.  — Thank You

This is a HUGE boon for landowners.

Government agencies from city, county, state and federal serve “the people” and when any one of such an agency is out-of-control, we must have the COURAGE to take a stand. It sure helps when others stand with you.

We, the people, must flex our voices, energy and time or we will lose our rights, liberties and freedom.

– Editor Liz Bowen

January 10, 2012

Mike and Chantell Sacket outside the U.S. Supreme Court – a youtube, click below

http://epaabuse.com/4250/news/u-s-supreme-court-justices-slam-epa-over-sackett-case/

The Sacketts of Idaho had their day in court yesterday – with their attorneys arguing on behalf of property rights and against the EPA’s ruthless behavior against this couple.

The Sacketts wanted to build a home on their lakefront property near Priest Lake, Idaho. They prepared for construction in 2007, but EPA bureaucrats arrived and told them they were building on wetlands. They were ordered to stop construction and to restore the lands or face huge fines – as much as $75,000 a day.

The conservative Supreme Court judges were highly critical of how the EPA handled this case. Justice Samuel Alito observed:

“You think maybe there is a little drainage problem in part of your lot, so you start to build the house and then you get an order from the EPA which says: ‘You have filled in wetlands, so you can’t build your house; remove the fill, put in all kinds of plants; and now you have to let us on your premises whenever we want to,’” Alito said. “You have to turn over to us all sorts of documents, and for every day that you don’t do all this you are accumulating a potential fine of $75,000. And by the way, there is no way you can go to court to challenge our determination that this is a wetlands until such time as we choose to sue you.”

Chief Justice John Roberts was also critical of the EPA.

Because of the administrative compliance order, you’re really never going to be put to the test, because most land owners aren’t going to say, ‘I’m going to risk the $37,000 a day. All EPA has to do is make whatever finding it wants, and realize that in 99 percent of the cases, it’s never going to be put to the test.

Justice Scalia was equally critical of the EPA’s tyrannical “high-handedness.”

Commentator Mark Steyn reacted to this case:

For more and more Americans, law has been supplanted by “regulation”–a governing set of rules not legislated by representatives accountable to the people, but invented by an activist bureaucracy, much of which is well to the left of either political party. As the newspapers blandly reported in 2010, the bureaucrats weren’t terribly bothered about whether Congress would pass a cap-and-trade mega-bill into law because, if faint-hearted Dems lose their nerve, the EPA will just “raise” “standards” all by itself.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its opinion on this case by the summer.

Read more at The Blaze …

From: EPA Abuse.com

Jan. 4, 2012

http://epaabuse.com/4094/news/epa-terrorizes-couple-%E2%80%93-case-reaches-u-s-supreme-court/

Idaho Couple just wants to build on own land. EPA said they can’t because it is “wetlands.”

Rich Trzupek writes in FrontPage Magazine today about the case of Mike and Chantell Sackett, an Idaho couple who had their property put off limits by the rogue EPA.

Trzupek briefly summarizes their case:

Six years ago, the couple bought a 0.63 acre parcel alongside a lake, intending to build a house. They started construction, and – like any number of individuals (as opposed to developers) building homes – they didn’t do a formal wetlands delineation before starting to move earth and dump gravel. (A “wetlands delineation” is the investigative process by which experts decide whether there is a wetland on site on not.)

***
The EPA ordered them to stop construction and to return the 0.63 acre site to its original condition. If they didn’t, the EPA said it could fine the couple up to $37,500 per day for non-compliance. In fact, the Agency can take such unjustifiably punitive action, for such is the power that Congress has surrendered to it. Unfortunately, it’s not at all unusual to see the EPA use its remarkable ability to levy ridiculous fines as a club in just this way.

The Pacific Legal Foundation is representing the Sacketts in this important case. A lawyer for the radical Natural Resources Defense Council is fearful that the Sacketts will win and be free to actually build on their own property. The lawyer said their victory would permit major polluters to tie up the EPA in litigation. On the contrary, this would be a victory for property owners and western civilization in putting handcuffs on EPA bureaucrats who routinely bully American citizens.

Read more at FrontPageMagazine and buy Rich Trzupek’s book, How The EPA’s Green Tyranny Is Stifling America

The Sacketts Testify Before A Senate Forum On Property Rights

From:  EPA Abuse.com

January 4, 2012 Comments (19)

The Sacketts are fighting for property owners in America from EPA tyranny. Their case is now at the Supreme Court. The EPA wrongly claims their property is a “wetlands” area and they’re subject to thousands of dollars in fines if they build on their own property. The Pacific Legal Foundation is defending them — and every American — from the EPA’s tyrannical edicts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hqp-Q9mggQ8