NOW AVAILABLE!! Government Pirates
Written by Don Corace, this is a must read for all concerned about the erosion of private property rights in America.
Click here to order: Government Pirates: The Assault on Private Property Rights–and How We Can Fight It
GOVERNMENT PIRATES
The Assault on Private Property Rights–and How We Can Fight It
By: Don Corace
ISBN: 978-0-06-166143-3
Price: $14.95 ($16.25 Can.)
Trade Paperback; Trim: 5 5/16 x 8”; 288 Pages
Release: 7/2/08 On Sale: 7/22/08
ABOUT GOVERNMENT PIRATES:
After years of hard work and saving, you finally own a home. But don’t get too comfortable. If government officials decide they want your property, they can take it—for a wide variety of shady reasons that go far beyond the usual definition of “public purposes.” The courts have allowed these injustices to persist. And there is nothing you can do about it—not yet.
Real estate developer and property rights expert Don Corace offers the first in-depth look at eminent domain abuse and other government regulations that are strangling the rights of property owners across America. Government Pirates is filled with shocking stories of corrupt politicians, activist judges, entrenched bureaucrats, greedy developers, NIMBY (Not-in-My-Backyard) activists, and environmental extremists who conspire to seize property and extort money and land in return for permits. Corace provides the hard facts about individual rights and offers invaluable advice for those whose property may be in danger.
It is the one book that every property owner in America has to read.
PRAISE FOR GOVERNMENT PIRATES:
“Government Pirates is certain to ignite a property right movement for decades to come.” — Sean Hannity
“Every day on my nationally syndicated radio show I do a segment on the ‘government outrage of the day.’ Don Corace has just given me enough material to last me until retirement.” — Neal Boortz
ABOUT DON CORACE
A successful real estate developer and businessman for more than twenty-five years, Don Corace has appeared on Hannity & Colmes, The Neal Boortz Show, and many other media venues and has testified before Congress on property rights issues. He is the author of the novel Offshore, and he lives in Florida with his wife.
www.DonCorace.com
www.GovernmentPirates.com
http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780061661433/Government_Pirates/index.aspx
SIGNINGS/EVENTS SCHEDULED TO DATE
July 21-25 – HANNITY & COLMES – Fox News Channel - TV Interviews
July 22-25 – SEAN HANNITY SHOW – Radio Interviews
July 26 – NEW YORK -Book Revue Signing with Sean Hannity
Grendell Urges Property Rights Activists To Oppose Great Lakes Compact
Ohio State Senator Tim Grendell (R-18th District) is urging all property rights groups and their members to read the Great Lakes Compact before it is too late. The Great Lakes Compact purports to be the efforts of the Governors of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, ,,New York, and Minnesota and representatives of the Canadian Provinces of Quebec and Ontario to enter into an agreement to govern diversion of the waters of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River.
Grendell, however, noted that states who sign onto the compact may not notice an overlooked provision that will effectively decimate private property rights throughout the region. “Snuck into this bill is a small measure that has gone largely unnoticed. Section 1.3 declares that ‘the Waters of the Basin are precious public natural resources shared and held in trust by the States.” (Emphasis added)
Grendell explained that this small provision may seem innocuous, especially to those people not familiar with the public trust doctrine. The public trust doctrine is a common law principle that requires the government hold certain water resources in trust for the public. The public trust doctrine traditionally refers to natural lakes and navigable rivers that are subject to the public rights of navigation, commerce, fishery, and (in some states) recreation.
The Compact’s definition of public trust extends the common usage to all of the “waters of the Basin,” including “the Great Lakes and all streams, rivers, lakes, connecting channels and … tributary groundwater within the Basin” (emphasis added).
Grendell explained, “In other words, the Compact would convert privately owned lakes, ponds, farm irrigation ditches, drainage ditches, well water, and wetlands into public property. This is an unprecedented taking of private property rights from individuals and businesses living within the Great Lakes Region.”
Grendell is urging people to review the Compact (if you cannot access link, see: http://cglg.org/ and in legislation proposed in various states), then contact state legislators to demand that they oppose any effort to ratify the Compact. Legislation is pending in (Ohio, New York, Michigan, and Illinois), but could be considered in (Pennsylvania, Indiana, Minnesota, and Wisconsin) very soon. “The legislation is a Trojan Horse that will take your private property rights and turn them over to the control of seven other states and two Canadian Provinces. Socialism may be acceptable in Canada, but it is not acceptable in Ohio.”
Grendell encouraged the leadership of any interested property rights organization to contact his office to find out what they can do to stop this Compact and to get more information.
“There are a lot of people who are working hard to take away our private property rights. We need to defend them before it is too late.”
Interview with Rep. Ron Klink (D-PA)
Interview with Congressman Ron Klink (D-PA), during the UN Climate Change Conference in Buenos Aires, Argentina, November 11, 1998
What is your impression of the reception that your delegation has received here in Buenos Aires from the NGOs and delegates attending this conference?
I think it has been a very good reception. We’ve had great dialogue, we met with the NGOs today, we’re going to meet with some of the environmentalists in a few moments from now. We have a series of meetings planned with some of the developing nations, with the EU (European Union), and we are looking forward to continuing the dialogue. I was in Kyoto a year ago, so I’m really kind of renewing some working relationships.
Let’s cut straight to the chase. I heard the delegation press briefing yesterday, and a point that you made really stuck out in my mind. When you were talking about the impact of environmental regulations on the industry in southwest Pennsylvania. How do you relate that to what might be the possible consequences of this Kyoto Protocol?
Back in the 1970’s and 1980’s, everybody wanted clean air. We clearly had a problem with dirty air in Pittsburgh. Once, in the early part of this century, one of our great American writers referred to Pittsburgh as “hell with the lid off”. We had clouds of smoke coming up from the steel mills, they would blot out the sun at mid day. It was not healthy. There were groups like GASP (Group Against Smog and Pollution), that were formed there, they did a lot of good work. The problem was that as we continued to push, farther and farther toward clean air, we made demands on the steel industry, on the glass industry, and they were making investments in clean air technology. But that was instead of modernizing the plants. Instead of staying competitive in a world wide market place. So now we come to a period of time in the late 70’s and early 80’s where we’ve got clean air but we’ve got no jobs. Steel mills have virtually shut down throughout the Pittsburgh region. We lost, over a two-decade period, 155,000 manufacturing jobs. That’s in one small section of southwestern Pennsylvania, 155,000 jobs.
We’re clearly looking at a situation where we have to adhere to the Kyoto Protocol, and the developing nations don’t. As a former newscaster, I did that for 24 years, I covered a lot of our industries which simply moved out of western Pennsylvania, moved out of the United States. They moved to South America, and to South East Asia, taking the dirty technology with them. If what we are concerned about is global warming, we all have the same address, in this great universe, this planet earth. We have to come up with a system where all of the countries are doing their part, not a system that allows you, number one, to get credit for plants that have already shut down decades ago, which is what the Kyoto Protocol does for the EU. They get credit for North Sea oil that was found during Margaret Thatcher’s term. They shut down their coal-powered power plants then, and went to the gas-fueled power plants, natural gas fueled power plants. They get credit for all the factories that shut down in eastern Germany. If this was a real, serious effort, we would be looking at ways to say alright, all of these things have occurred, where do we go from here?
We’re not losing all of those jobs; we’re creating economic opportunity.
I will tell you this: the worst, and I said this yesterday, and I’ll say this as often as people will listen, the worst environmental degradation occurs when you have severe poverty. If you double those communities in southwestern Pennsylvania where we lost the 155,000 jobs, tax base goes down, school districts go down, kids aren’t as smart, families are falling apart, we have no tax base to support building new sewage lines, the water lines, we don’t take care of our storm water runoff, the community falls apart, houses are abandoned, factories are abandoned, we have these huge brownfield sites we can’t cleanup. That is environmental degradation at its worst.
You may have seen earlier in the week, there was a lot of attention drawn to the situation in Central America and the great tragedy there. Here in this hall there was a universal cry, pointing to America as the great emitter of luxury emissions, saying that we’re somehow responsible for the situation in Central America. Did you see any of that?
I heard about some of it, and I will tell you that it is the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard. In Kyoto, not one person, I was there in Kyoto, not one person in the environmentalist community, the NGO community, and any government community, suggested that the emission of carbon dioxide into the air by human kind, was responsible for hurricanes. I would suggest that exactly the opposite is true. If you had a decent economic base, like we have in the United States, those people would not have the problem with storm water runoff that was destroying these homes. Why do we not have the same damage from hurricane Milton in southern Florida that we have in Central America? Because our homes are built more secure. We have storm water runoff. This comes through affluence. Affluence that we gain through building up our nation and using carbon-based fuels to be able to that.
What we have to do is to develop Central America. We have to develop these nations, build decent houses for the people, give them the opportunity to have decent jobs. We cannot preclude that by chasing our worst polluters out of the United States, sending them to Mexico, letting them continue to operate right across our border with the worst kind of pollution in a nation that, first of all, is not participating in anything that is taking place in Kyoto or here in Buenos Aires. Mexico is also not enforcing any of its own environmental laws. Let’s just go on down through Central America, and say, “what have these countries done to up lift the lives of the common ordinary working people?” Take a look at the American pattern for allowing people to get ahead. A lot of it was done because we were able to use our coal resources, we were able to use our oil resources. And still at the same time, without having a gun to our head, we tried to find the cleanest way of doing it, and we continue to do that today. Regardless of what happened in Kyoto and what happens here in Buenos Aires, industries are going to continue to search for the cleanest ways of producing their product because if you have emissions, that means fuel that is not being burned. It’s a waste of energy, and it just makes common sense to burn fuel efficiently.
Lets talk a little bit about the political realities in the States. There has been a lot of rumor at this conference about the President or Vice President signing this protocol possibly today, or tomorrow. What are the implications of signing this protocol in view of the Senate resolution?
What you are doing is agreeing beforehand, to something that you don’t know what the rules are going to be. All of the rules as to how this is going to be enforced and how these trading mechanisms are going to take place, and how countries are going to be given credit for what they do and don’t do, are going to be established sometime way off into the future. Two years from now, three years from now, four years, but we have to agree today. I likened it yesterday to the fact that number one, you don’t get involved in a card game when you know it’s fixed. And then when you get into the card game and it’s fixed, you play your hand the best you can, and the last thing, the dumbest mistake you can make is to give all your money away. We are doing all three. We got involved in this whole thing in Kyoto, we knew it was a rigged card game. It’s rigged here because of what we agreed to in Kyoto. We know it is not going to be beneficial to our nation. So we come down here and we misplay our hand. Which is exactly what we’ve done, and now we want to either give our money or our technologies to all of these developing nations in order to buy them off, to make them come into this rigged card game. There is a lot of foolishness taking place, and I think we need to step back and take a long hard look, and make sure that it is not, in fact, the process which is driving the policy.
We have some fear that the administration may move toward implementation of the provisions of the treaty without ever even intending to send it to the Senate for ratification.
We have had the same fear. Let me just tell you that. And as a result of that, in the budget which the President just signed two weeks ago, we addressed that, and we cut off funds. He can’t do that. And by signing that law, he apparently agreed to the fact that there is no back door implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. Let’s get on to a serious methodology for determining what we as the nations of the world are really going to do. I am sick and tired of looking at workers across my region and around our nation who are denied the opportunity for employment, based on decisions that our government makes, whether we have a democratic or republican congress, or we have a democratic or republican President. Both parties have made the mistakes in developing trade policies, and policies relating to clean air, and concern for the environment, that do not take into consideration the ability of workers around our country and around this world to be able to lift themselves out of poverty and to create products, to create some new methodology.
I think what happened in Kyoto, when it was kicked up to the ministers’ level in the final twelfth hour, was disgraceful. You can’t get through this thing. You’ve got to agree to the protocol before you have the opportunity to change it. How does that make any sense; to agree to something, before you can change it to make it work? Well, it doesn’t make any sense at all. So we are going to watch the administration.
One of the members of your bipartisan delegation is not with you. Why?
George Dingell from Michigan. Mr. Dingle decided that he was supposed to be here with me, but he decided not to come because he was so angry that the administration announced that they were going to sign this protocol. He said, well, if they are going to sign it, why in the world do I even need to go down there? They have already made up their mind before this whole thing has been negotiated. So, he saw no purpose in coming, and thought he would stay back in Washington DC and communicate to the American public from there. Well, I came on down to Buenos Aires and represented both him and the Democrats who agree with us here in Buenos Aires.
In the remaining minute or so that we have, what can we as average Americans, do to see to it that we take correct action in regards to this treaty. What can the average American do about what’s going on in Buenos Aires?
I think the average American needs to understand that you don’t want to see your gasoline going up 60 cents to a dollar a gallon, which is exactly what will happen. You don’t want to see your utility bills going through the roof. This would be a dramatic impact that would cost each family across our country one to two thousand dollars on average each year. The meeting that we had in Kyoto with the environmentalists, I thought, was very interesting. They opened the meeting by telling us the science of global warming is ill-defined. If it is ill-defined, why do we want to sign an agreement, which would, in essence, begin to de-industrialize the United States, to move the industrial base of our nation off our shores, to the developing nations that don’t have to apply the same standards of conduct. So you can pollute if you are in China, you can pollute if you are in India, but if you are in the United States you have a different set of rules. That doesn’t make sense.
Thank you, Congressman Klink.
The Bob Learzaf Story
A Landowners’ Nightmare
By: Henry Lamb
It was already hot on June 17, when Bob Learzaf got up. He latched his screen door, put the chain-latch on the front door, and left it ajar while he went to take a bath, and get ready to go to work. He was alone in his Pittsburgh apartment.
He heard voices at his door, hushed, excited voices. Then came a rapid, loud knock on the door.
“Who’s there?” Bob shouted.
“Come to the door! Come to the door, now!”
“Who is it? What’s going on?” Bob shouted, as he clambered out of the bathtub, reaching for a towel.
“Come to the door, now. Federal Marshals!”
“I’m taking a bath, let me get some clothes on.”
“No, you must come to the door immediately!”
Bob heard the chain-latch snap, and running footsteps. He emerged from the bathroom, clad only in a towel, to find seven federal marshals in his tiny living room, one of whom was a woman.
Seven, armed federal marshals to apprehend this…this, criminal?
“Tell the woman she has to leave, this is not a peep-show,” Bob protested.
“We’re here because you failed to appear in court.”
“What court?” Bob asked.
Bob’s protestations were ignored. The marshals proceeded to examine the apartment, including Bob’s wallet, and other personal items.
“I’ve got guns in this apartment. I want you to know that.”
Bob collects flint-locks, and keeps a loaded 45 by his bed, which a marshal quickly found.
“Stay out of my stuff; you don’t have a search warrant. Put that gun down, it’s loaded,” Bob demanded.
The marshals let Bob put on a pair of shorts. They cuffed him, put him in leg-irons, and took him to jail.
No one read him his rights.
No one showed him a warrant.
No one cared what he had to say.
After sitting in jail for two hours, someone slipped a warrant under his cell door. He was charged with: “Maintaining any kind of road, trail, structure, or other improvement on National Forest system land without a special use authorization,” a criminal offense subject to six months in jail and a fine of $5,000.
He had never received a notice to appear in court. The prosecutor could not produce a notice of service at the preliminary hearing. The judge released him on his own recognizance with a new court date set for July 8.
Bob’s troubles began 20 years before he was born. His great-uncle Mel Sojanski bought Iron City Junction from the Iron City Lumber Company, on October 16, 1923. Bob has the original Bill of Sale, which identifies “all the buildings and land comprising Iron City Junction of the Iron City Railroad.”
The building on the land was the railroad office. Uncle Mel had cut and fitted the stones for the building’s foundation, chimney and porches, when he was a young man, in the late 1890s. Iron City Junction was where several narrow-gauge rail lines converged. Steam locomotives pulled cars loaded with logs to the junction where they were off-loaded and hauled to the mill. When the railroad no longer needed the facility, uncle Mel and some relatives bought the place for $150 “cash-in-hand paid.” From the beginning, it was to be used by the family as a hunting and fishing camp.
In 1928, the federal government “acquired” the remaining lands of the Iron City Lumber Company. Government representatives called on uncle Mel to give him the good news. Yes, the government recognized the Bill of Sale, but because uncle Mel’s land was now surrounded by federal land, and because there were no real surveys, the government required a “special use permit,” that only cost $3 per year. Uncle Mel trusted his government - no problem.
Until 1976. Uncle Mel was no longer on the scene. Bob’s father and two uncles were in charge. The Forest Service presented them with a new “special use permit,” which “supersedes permit #19, dated November 19, 1928.” The new permit came with three pages of conditions. Condition 29(a), on the last page of fine print, says the permit would not be renewed upon termination on December 31, 1996.
When 1996 rolled around, Bob was the man in charge of the family’s Iron City Hunting & Fishing Club. The Forest Service knocked on his door and said “you must vacate the property and burn your cabin.” “Why would I do a crazy thing like that?” Bob asked. “My family has owned this land since 1923.”
The Forest Service issued a notice of violation on June 16, 1997. In the space labeled “court appearance,” are the hand-written words “To be notified by court.”
Bob went first to the District Ranger, and then to the Director of the Allegheny National Forest, John Palmer, with his Bill of Sale. “We’ve got a problem here I think we can solve. Here’s the original Bill of Sale my uncle Mel got when he bought the place in 1923.”
“That’s not worth a thing. You don’t have a claim. You’ve got to remove the building and leave,” was Palmer’s reply.
Bob found an attorney. “Wow, I can’t believe this,” says the attorney. “They’re charging you with a criminal violation. This is a civil matter. It’s an ownership dispute.”
The attorney arranged for two postponements, with the court supposed to notify Bob’s attorney when a new date was set. Time passed. No word about a court date. Bob called his attorney who advised him to let a sleeping dog lie. He did, for more than a year. But on June 17, the sleeping dog awoke, broke in his front door, and hauled him off to jail.
Bob is not a wealthy man. He can’t afford a battery of attorneys to counter the tax-paid attorneys on call for the Forest Service. He appeared in Court on July 8 without an attorney. The prosecutor tried for 45-minutes before court to talk Bob into pleading no-contest. No jail time, a small fine, and it’ll all be behind us, the prosecutor said. “Will I still have my land?” “Well, no.”
The judge postponed the case again, advising Bob to get an attorney. He has to appear again on August 17. He is no closer to finding an attorney who will take the case without money.
In 1976, when the Forest Service issued the “20-year, no-renewal permits,” there were 193 private land owners in northwest Pennsylvania’s Allegheny Forest. Bob is the last.
It may be just a coincidence that 1976 is the same year that the United States signed a United Nations policy document which declared “Public (read: government) control of land use is indispensable.” It was the decade of the “Federal Land Use Planning Act,” unsuccessfully promoted by Morris Udall. It was the decade of Rachel Carson, and the birth of the modern environmental movement. The United Nations Environment Program was an infant, and just beginning to preach its gospel of government land use control.
It is no coincidence that by 1996, agencies of the federal government were not interested in talking to anyone about property rights, especially people who owned small parcels surrounded by federal land. People have been driven out of the forests of the northwest. People are being removed from private property, one way or the other, from one end of this country to the other. With little fanfare, and less publicity, people like Bob, who don’t have the resources to fight the feds, are being steam-rolled into submission, or thrown into jail - or both.
“We never missed opening day of trout season,” Bob recalls. As a boy, he and his sisters, Carolyn and Barbara, his father, uncles, and cousins spent most of the summer, hunting, fishing, and enjoying the fruits of uncle Mel’s purchase. Towering white and blue spruce trees planted by uncle Mel, now stand guard over the stones he cut for the foundation, and the cabin, covered with wormy-chestnut slabs, milled nearly a century ago.
A century of family, of place, of identity, which should be passed on the next generation, means nothing to the Forest Service, or its commander. The government wants the land; the government takes the land. If the landowner is a millionaire, and doesn’t mind spending his fortune on attorneys, and has several years to waste, the land owner might be able to keep his land, or at least get paid for it, if he lives long enough to get the case to the Supreme Court. But most victims of government greed are like Bob, hard-working individuals who just want to be left alone. They have neither the wealth, nor the stomach, to fight the very government that was created expressly for the purpose of protecting, not taking, their property.
Learzaf update - May 2, 2000
Bob Learzaf was fined $2000, and sentenced to one year’s probation, by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on April 26. Bob’s crime: he refused to burn (or remove) a cabin from land he believes his family has owned since 1923. In 1928, the federal government bought the surrounding land which is now a part of the Allegheny National Forest.
The feds believe that Bob’s parcel was included in the 1928 sale to the federal government.
Bob has the original bill of sale which says otherwise.
Neither the Forest Service, nor the Judge, accept the original bill of sale as a valid conveyance of title.
Unless an appeal reverses Judge McLaughlin ruling, Bob may enter his cabin one more time - under the supervision of the federal government - to remove personal belongings. After that, the feds will do whatever they wish with the property that Bob’s uncle Mel paid $150 in 1923. For 77 years, the property belonged to the Learzaf family. Now, it belongs to the federal government. No, the property was not condemned by elected officials. No, the property was not purchased at fair market value. No, Bob was not given a choice; he was given a fine and a sentence and a record - for having the audacity to want to protect his private property.
Bob Learzaf is the last of 195 private property owners who have been removed - one way or another - from the Allegheny National Forest.
Henry Lamb is the Executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization
and Chairman of Sovereignty International, Inc.
Defenders Represent PA Farmer Against EPA
WATERFORD, PA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 30, 2006
After a long-fought battle against the government to obtain compensation for the taking of their farmland, Robert Brace may finally see his day in court before the end of this year.
Mr. Brace’s battle with the government began in 1987 when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Corps of Engineers told Mr. Brace he could no longer farm on part of his Erie County land because it was considered wetlands. This was land that Mr. Brace had purchased in December of 1975 from his father and which he intended to use to continue and expand his family farming business. Although the soil on this land was highly productive for farming, it was considered to be poorly drained and in need of drainage to make it suitable for production of cabbage and potatoes. Thus, with the assistance and funding of another federal governmental agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, he arranged for and began excavation and burying of plastic tubing, “drainage tile,” to improve soil conditions for row crops. This was a common practice in Erie County during that time period and was encouraged by the USDA.
After Mr. Brace had expended considerable sums to install this drainage system and maintain it so that the land would be productive for crops, the EPA told Mr. Brace he was in violation of the Clean Water Act and brought an enforcement lawsuit against him in a Pennsylvania federal district court. Although the district court in 1993 agreed with Mr. Brace that his activities should be considered “normal farming practices,” which are exempt from the Clean Water Act’s provisions, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision. After the Supreme Court denied his petition for certiorari, Mr. Brace was forced to enter into a consent decree in which he agreed to remove a major part of the drainage system he had installed on his land and restore thirty acres of his land to unusable and undevelopable wetlands “in perpetuity” according to a restoration plan drafted by EPA. He was also forced to pay a $10,000 fine.
Mr. Brace then filed the present lawsuit in order to seek compensation for the taking of his land in 1998. However, before he could obtain his day in court, he was forced to face numerous motions filed by the federal government to try to keep the case from going to trial. Since 1998, the government has filed two motions for summary judgment, one in 2000 and one in 2001, alleging that it had not taken Mr. Brace’s land. Both those motions were denied. In 2002, the government filed a motion to dismiss, claiming Mr. Brace had failed to state a claim, and that motion was also denied. With no more legal avenues for the government to delay trial of the case, the parties proceeded with identification of their witnesses and discovery.
Currently, both Mr. Brace and the government have identified the key witnesses they intend to present at trial, including expert witnesses, and have just wrapped up depositions of those witnesses.
In addition to his own testimony, Mr. Brace will present two fact witnesses at trial and one expert, a land appraiser. One witness is Joseph Burawa, who is now retired, but was County Executive Director for the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) for Erie County, part of the USDA, from 1967 to 1989. Mr. Joseph Burawa, will testify that from 1975 to 1985, the ASCS actively encouraged farmers by providing them financial assistance and technical assistance (through its sister agency, then known as the Soil Conservation Service or SCS) to maintain, improve, and expand agricultural drainage systems on their farms in Erie County. He will testify that Mr. Brace sought assistance from ASCS and SCS in 1970 to prepare a drainage plan for his land. He will further testify that SCS provided him technical assistance in preparing and implementing the drainage plan and that ASCS partly funded the project.
Another witness for Mr. Brace is John Burawa, a commercial lender with Mercer County State Bank in Erie County, who has had a financial relationship with Mr. Brace since late 1970s. He will testify to the severe impact that the government’s actions in this case have had on Mr. Brace’s farming operations and financial condition. He will also testify that it is only due to Mr. Brace’s exceptional business acumen that he has been able to keep his business afloat and provide for his family during these hard times. Mr. Burawa will further testify to his knowledge of the feasibility of farming and value of farmland in Erie County, having had decades of experience in lending to farmers in the area.
Finally, Mr. Brace will present at trial an expert land appraiser, James Lignelli of Diversified Evaluation Company in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Mr. Lignelli valued Mr. Brace’s property (a 58 acre tract) at its most profitable possible use, known as the “highest and best use,” for a residential subdivision development. Based on a conceptual development of a subdivision with 125 lots, Mr. Lignelli will testify that the property in 1996 (when it was taken by the government) was worth $455,000. He will also testify that after the government took 30 acres of that land, requiring Mr. Brace to remove the extensive drainage tiles he had installed on those acres, fill in ditches, and restore the property to wetland, the entire tract has no fair market value.
The government has identified three fact witnesses and one expert. According to the government, one of its identified witnesses, Jeffrey Lapp, currently the Wetlands and Oceans Program Manager for EPA’s Region 3, will primarily testify at trial regarding his role in drafting the restoration plan for Mr. Brace’s property in his position then as Wetlands Enforcement Coordinator. In deposition, he testified regarding the extensive work that Mr. Brace was required to undertake in order to “restore” his drained farmland to unusable wetland. A second witness, David Putnam, who is currently a wildlife biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will testify at trial regarding his involvement in the enforcement action against Mr. Brace. At deposition, he stated that FWS and EPA, as well as several other governmental agencies, all believed that they had a strong case against Mr. Brace in the enforcement action and that it was clear that the government had jurisdiction over the 30 acres of land that ultimately became subject to the consent decree. Finally, the government may present at trial the testimony of Lewis Steckler, the District Conservationist for the Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly SCS) in Erie County. He stated in deposition that SCS did indeed assist Mr. Brace in preparing and implementing a drainage plan on his property. He also stated that after the consent decree, he personally observed Mr. Brace being forced to rip out the extensive drainage system on his land, only days before Christmas in 1996.
Finally, the government will present the testimony of its expert witness, George Silver, of Burlington, Vermont. Mr. Silver valued Mr. Brace’s property (135 acre tract) for a highest and best use of a diversified cash crop operation, concluding a value of $355,000 before the entry of the consent decree, despite the fact that, as he stated in deposition, he failed to talk personally with real estate developers or brokers in Erie County to see where trends toward development of such land were going. After the 30 acres were made subject to the restoration plan in the 1996 consent decree, Mr. Silver valued the property at $305,000, only $50,000 less than the value before the consent decree, despite the fact that those 30 acres were rendered completely unusable and must be kept as such “in perpetuity.”
Now that depositions of the key witnesses have concluded, the next step is for the court to set a trial date. Both sides have proposed possible trial dates before the end of the year and filed a proposed trial schedule with the court on July 2, 2004.
4th Grade Common Sense
4th Grade Common Sense! The article discussed below was written by the Granddaughter of Pla Vice-Preisdent Mr. Robert Brace. Read the paper in her own handwriting below.
9th Grade Common Sense
** The following article was given as part of an oral presentation by Hillarie Brace, granddaughter of PLA Vice President Robert Brace, for an oral communications class at General McLane High School. The article has since been published in “The Environment,” released by Green Haven Press and edited by Mary K. Hill.**
Hillarie Brace
Mrs. Kemp
Oral Communications
5 March 2005
Your Property Rights
I want to start off by asking you to take a second and think about your grandfather, or the general image of a grandfather. Now I’m sure you imagine the usual fishing trips, camping, backyard games, and warm hugs. Now let me tell you about my relationship with my grandfather. He has been fighting the government for his rights for almost 19 years. He is no different than any of your grandfathers; however he has been denied his rights guaranteed to him in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and because of this he has not gotten to know his grandchildren like he should. We can thank the United States government for that. They showed up on his family farm in 1987 and told him he could no longer use a piece of his land, which, if put to its best use, would have an estimated value in excess of three million dollars. He did not only lose this profit, but was also forced to pay taxes and legal bills. This was all because the land fell under the category of “wetland.” Now I understand the importance of wetlands and am not here to tell you that they aren’t important; we need to realize, however, that as our government tries to protect the wetlands, they are ruining our nation. We need to educate everyone on this vital matter, before it is too late.
First, you have to realize how our government works. When you think of the government, you generally think of a system that helps the common good, all people. But if you believe that, you are mistaken. Yes I will agree that the government does help most people, however they do not help all of us. Slowly they are taking away our private property, making it public property, and destroying our nation. Picture this: you are fresh out of college, newly married, and are looking for somewhere to settle down. There is a beautiful one-hundred acre piece of land for sale with a price tag that fits your budget. The possibility remains, however, that the government will step in, once you have purchased it, and tell you that you must vacate it, return it to its natural state, and still pay taxes on it. You most likely are not going to purchase this land, correct? This threat does exist, however most people are not aware of it. The government can step in at any time and take your land away, whether you think it is for a good reason or not. We need to educate everyone about this, especially those who are in high school, so that we may change this before it gets to far out of hand. If not we may find ourselves in that situation.
Next, you need to realize that this does affect you. While speaking with Mrs. Kemp last week on this issue, she told me that it will not affect anyone in this room for quite awhile, however I believe this is not true. My grandfather has been on his own since age fifteen, has been farming since this time. We are all at the age where we are beginning to think about our futures. Some of us are thinking about college, taking interest surveys through the guidance office to find out what types of careers we may be successful in. Others in this room will be heading off to college in the fall, and the rest lay somewhere in between. No matter where you are at, you are mostly likely thinking about your future, myself included. Each and every one of us has high hopes it will be the very best. So why not start now to make these changes, so that they do not suddenly come upon us and startle us. When Bob Learzaf’s uncle made a purchase of a parcel of land in 1923, he assumed, like anyone would, that he was guaranteed his rights by the Fifth Amendment and the land would remain rightfully his and in his family unless he sold it. This is not the case. In 1996, Bob was now the owner of the land, and he was told that he must vacate the property and burn his cabin. We need to get the word out about situations like this and educate ourselves so that we don’t become victims like Learzaf.
Lastly, I would like to bring to your attention that all of us are environmentalists to some extent. We all have probably recycled something at one point in our lives, picked up a piece of discarded trash, and all want a clean environment in which to live. There are those extreme environmentalists, however, which pose a threat to our property. Brock Evans is one of these extreme environmentalists, of private property he says, “Let’s take it all back.” Extreme environmentalists believe that we do not actually own land, they believe that we are just here for a here for a short period of time to care for the land, then we die and someone else takes over that duty. Now I agree that we are only here for a short time and that once we pass away, someone else will take over our duties. I do not believe, however, that we do not own land. We pay a purchase price, taxes, and other fees to maintain the land. Extreme environmentalists, with their attitude towards the whole thing, however, will do whatever it takes to deprive an individual of their private property. Even a piece of seemingly dry land may be considered wetlands if the choice of classification falls into the wrong hands. If we educate ourselves and our peers, we will have a much better chance at protecting ourselves from facing this horrible situation.
In conclusion, I am asking you to educate yourself and those around you about property rights. This way, when you purchase your property, you will not be denied the rights guaranteed to you by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and your land will remain your own.
Bibliography
Lamb, Henry. 13 January 2005. Feds say: burn your cabin or go to jail.
“Victim Update: Bob Learzaf.” Pennsylvania Landowner Spring 2000:8.
Walters, Timothy Robert. The Endangered American Dream. Srafford:Rawhide Western Publishing, 1995.
Victims - Robert Brace
Robert Brace & Sons, Inc.
Waterford, Pennsylvania
Bob Brace seeks compensation from the federal government for substantial damages he incurred to comply with federal wetlands rules. Those regulations destroyed a key parcel of prime land on the Brace homestead farm and wasted 10 years worth of his personal sweat equity and another 10 years of expensive litigation in the Tucker Act Shuffle. In his complaint, Bob is seeking compensation for his land, for which there is no longer any economically viable use, and for losses resulting from being unable to use the land since 1987. Because of permanent restrictions imposed by the United States, his property cannot be farmed or developed. If Brace could put the land to its highest and best use, it would have a value in excess of $3,000,000.
Ever since the wetlands enviro-police showed up at his farm in 1987, Bob Brace has devoted a substantial portion of his life to two objectives: First, working within the confines of the system to defend his family’s land in a lengthy Court battle challenging the federal government’s takeover of normal farming in rural Erie County under the guise of wetlands regulation. And second, speaking out on the rapid erosion and ultimate destruction of Constitutionally protected private property rights that results from excessive environmental regulation by educating and encouraging landowners to stand up for their rights.
Bob’s efforts, along with a handful of his supporters, led to the formation of PLA and gave a voice to property rights in Pennsylvania.
Can the Government lock up your land for some bureaucratically contrived public purpose without justly compensating you?
Does the takings clause mean what it says?
Brace and his family have been vilified and ridiculed by the media, regulatory bureaucrats, and those who make a living off regulation or “go along to get along.”
He has also been abandoned by political leaders who jumped on his bandwagon when they thought it was politically expedient, but jumped off when environmentalists turned up the heat. For example, it is no secret that Governor Ridge flip-flopped on wetlands reform after he was elected. Not only did Ridge leave Bob Brace and hundreds of similarly situated Pennsylvanians in the lurch, but he also went out of his way to scuttle Representative Howard Fargo’s state wetlands reform legislation (House Bill 200), a measure that was patterned after then-Congressman Ridge’s wetlands reform bill, H.R. 1330. Regrettably, the record of Pennsylvania’s United States Senators on this issue is not too sterling either. Landowners like Bob Brace have come to know all too well the difference between campaign rhetoric and forthright legislative leadership and tough votes.
For the last 11 years, Bob Brace has been an outspoken voice for the Constitutional rights of ordinary citizens not only in Pennsylvania but throughout the nation. He has been a beacon of hope to the little guy who is being overwhelmed as the juggernaut of government control rolls over private property rights. He has traveled throughout Pennsylvania and the United States to carry his message to landowners and ordinary citizens, and he has received recognition and awards for his unflagging defense of property rights.
Much to his credit, Bob has also played by the rules, and his only uncorrected violation has been to continue speaking out against injustice and the erosion of our constitutional system. People who know what it’s like to cope with aggressive environmental bureaucrats and lawyers are truly fortunate to have an advocate like Bob Brace whose personal philosophy and courage defines what it means to “take a stand for your land.”
The question is now before the Court of Claims.
Can the Government lock up your land for some bureaucratically contrived public purpose without justly compensating you?
Does the takings clause mean what it says?
Bob Brace hopes that the bedrock principles in which he so strongly believes will at last be vindicated.
What Is The Tucker Act?
TUCKER ACT. - The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. S 1491, grants the U.S. Claims Court “jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded . . . upon the Constitution.’ ” Monsanto, 467 U.S. at 1017 (citing 28 U.S.C. S 1491). Therefore, a Tucker Act taking claim is a claim for the just compensation required by the Fifth Amendment.
The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. S 1491, provides in relevant part: The United States Claims Court shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort.
For further information on the Tucker Act please visit:
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju56127.000/hju56127_0.htm
PLA Testimonies
Forestry Task Force on the Forest Legacy Program in Pennsylvania (not currently available)
By Keith Klingler
President,
Pennsylvania Landowners’ Association
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law
By Robert Brace
RE: The Regulatory Fair Warning Act
The French Creek Project (not currently available)
PLA’s Comments Concerning the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy’s Draft Conservation Plan for the French Creek Project
Submitted By Henry Ingram, Esq.,
Resource Law Partners
On Behalf of
The Pennsylvania Landowners’ Association
Senate Environmental Resources & Energy Committee
Hearing on Pennsylvania Special Protection Waters Program
By Henry Ingram, Esq.,
Resource Law Partners
On Behalf of
The Pennsylvania Landowners’ Association
and
The Pennsylvania Bluestone Association
Local Government/Environmental Resources & Energy Joint Committee (not currently available)
By Henry Ingram, Esq.,
Resource Law Partners
PA Fish & Boat Commission (not currently available)
By Thomas Coffin, President,
LeBoeuf Manufacturing
Pennsylvania Landowners’ Association, Inc.