Is there a such thing as property rights anymore?

This is the forum frequently asked questions section and will always be a work in progress.

Why create such a forum?

Several reason's have lead me to create this forum but the biggest is the over moderation and censorship on previous forums that I have visited has inspired to to create a forum solely about today's politics. Today's politics are more controversial than they ever have been and …

The Rules here are very simple

-No Attacking a person's race and/or religion
-No Personal Threats (this includes the politicians)
-Stay on Topic
-No links to porn sites and nudity
-Swearing is allowed but it has to be appropriate and NO F-bombs and other grossly vulgar words

-Don't be a douchebag

Most offensives will get a warning, however you may not even get a warning and you may be banned, …

VOR = James Taggart

Are you PINHEADS having trouble with my question??

Were the Sacketts in compliance with the law when they started hauling fill??

voiceofreason wrote:: Were the Sacketts in compliance with the law when they started hauling fill??

It’s hard to know from your question what law you are referring to, but if it was the permit thing you brought up before I’d have to say that from the evidence presented so far the answer is yes. The permitting you alluded to earlier would have been for filling in an alleged wetland. EPA never provided any proof that the land was in fact a wetland. Until such time that a wetland is established to exist on the Sackett property a permit is not required.

There has been no evidence presented thus far to indicate whether any other laws or permit violations have occurred. If you have any further knowledge of violations please feel free to present them. So far, this case has just been about whether the EPA can claim a wetland exists on private property without hard evidence and force a land owner to cease improvements on the property and be prevented from challenging the EPA ruling in court.

Is there some other compliance issue you have in mind?

http://www.hcn.org/wotr/pity-the-sacketts-not-much/print_view

Judith Lewis Mernit wrote:: But the Sacketts don't really deserve the sympathy they're getting. A timeline Chantell Sackett created for the Army Corps of Engineers reveals that she and her husband knew early on that they were building on a wetland. The Sacketts run an excavation and construction business; the law should not have been a mystery to them. Even the local golf course brags about its stunning wetlands.

Nor did the EPA officials show up at the Sackett lot unbidden; they were responding to a complaint from a local resident. Some area residents are battling against a 14-lot subdivision planned for the north end of Priest Lake, which is also a refuge for threatened bull trout in the Kaniksu National Forest.

That forest also supports both black and grizzly bears, along with wolves, elk and caribou. Those creatures might be mere trivialities to the Sacketts, who in an interview with a sneering right-wing radio host shrugged that they see no wildlife save the occasional desultory deer. But many of their fellow residents, including some humans, feel differently. And they have property rights, too.

Thanks YONNI...

So now that a complaint was filed, I'll ask again whose property rights are more important??

voiceofreason wrote:

http://www.hcn.org/wotr/pity-the-sacketts-not-much/print_view

Judith Lewis Mernit wrote:: But the Sacketts don't really deserve the sympathy they're getting. A timeline Chantell Sackett created for the Army Corps of Engineers reveals that she and her husband knew early on that they were building on a wetland. The Sacketts run an excavation and construction business; the law should not have been a mystery to them. Even the local golf course brags about its stunning wetlands.

Nor did the EPA officials show up at the Sackett lot unbidden; they were responding to a complaint from a local resident. Some area residents are battling against a 14-lot subdivision planned for the north end of Priest Lake, which is also a refuge for threatened bull trout in the Kaniksu National Forest.

That forest also supports both black and grizzly bears, along with wolves, elk and caribou. Those creatures might be mere trivialities to the Sacketts, who in an interview with a sneering right-wing radio host shrugged that they see no wildlife save the occasional desultory deer. But many of their fellow residents, including some humans, feel differently. And they have property rights, too.

Come on Pinhead; you're going to have to do better than that. You’re going to throw an article at me written by some environmental whako from Kalifornia as proof that the Sacketts violated some law? There are so many things wrong with that article that I’m not even going to attempt to sort them all out for you.
Show me some hard, cold, facts that support your claim that the Sacketts were/are in violation of some Idaho law. I don’t want opinions from some tree hugger from Kalifornia. Show me a case file at either the state or federal level that CLEARLY shows they are being charged with a violation.

voiceofreason wrote:: Thanks YONNI...

So now that a complaint was filed, I'll ask again whose property rights are more important??

Complaint filed? WTF are you talking about?

VOR they filled a basement of a house that was previously there, so what's the big deal?

voiceofreason wrote:: So now that a complaint was filed, I'll ask again whose property rights are more important??

So, a complaint was filed. What was the nature of the complaint? Who filed it? Was the complaint valid? I’m being woken up at night by a dog barking. My neighbor has a dog. I can file a complaint against my neighbor. I don’t need any proof that it was my neighbor’ dog doing the barking to file the complaint. Now law enforcement gets involved and my neighbor must prove that his dog wasn’t doing the barking.

Anybody is free to file a complaint. It doesn’t mean the complaint is valid. That’s what the justice system is for; determine the validity. That has not been done in this case – yet.

BOOB Wrote

"The only entity that the Sacketts have an issue with is the EPA. No other parties were noted or implied. So the neighbors of the Sacketts are a non-issue."

WRONG!!!!!

Some person be it a neighbor or what the hell ever, involved the Federal Govt
because they felt as if their rights had been violated.

So riddle me this LIBERTARIAN PROPERTY RIGHTISTS Whose property rights
are going to be defended???

Ya'll say that is about the only role a limited Govt. should fill. What do ya want them to do??

voiceofreason wrote:: Some person be it a neighbor or what the hell ever, involved the Federal Govt
because they felt as if their rights had been violated.

There are no FACTS in evidence to support your contention. A complaint was filed. That's it. The validity of that complaint has not been determined. So far, it has been determined (by SCOTUS no less) that the Sacketts have the right to pursue a judgment against the EPA. Please show me the PROOF where anybody else had one or more rights violated.

WRONG AGAIN!!!!

The fact is that someone filed a complaint. Warranted or not it was filed.

On to your next point. The property is considered WETLANDS by the EPA and the CWA. FACT. They started filling their property before obtaining the proper paperwork IE EPA exception / permit to do the work they did. FACT.

The victory is in essence the ability of the Sackett's to challenge that ruling as coming only from the EPA.
I can take their side on this 100%. I still have a problem with the Sacketts
not performing their due diligence until after the fact. They are excavators,
they do this shit for a living. They knew better.

What you can't wrap your mind around is the fact that just because these people have title to their lands they can't do whatever the F they want. They can't dig a pit and drain their oil from their excavating rigs. They are infringing on the rights of the people that complained in one way or another. It's irrelevant
what the issue is under your libertarian definition of what Govt. should be.

Now if the SCOTUS comes back and the finding is that this land is indeed
wetlands I hope they throw the book at these people just like I wish they would
throw the book at any individual that has an effect on an ecosystem just like Priest Lake, Red Butte Creek or the Gulf of Mexico.

voiceofreason wrote:: The fact is that someone filed a complaint. Warranted or not it was filed.

But you still have not produced any FACTS that the complaint filer had his or her property rights violated.

voiceofreason wrote:: The property is considered WETLANDS by the EPA and the CWA. FACT.

Taaadaaaa! We are in agreement! How some ever; just because they CONSIDER it to be wetlands don't make it wetlands. And has been stated earlier, their satellite imagery CLEARLY shows it not to be.

I'm STILL waiting for you to show me irrefutable PROOF that somebody else's property rights have been violated. Shit or get off the pot Pinhead. Your dancing act is wearing very thin.

» FREEDOM is PROPERTY
» Individual rights
» Bo's Reelection and Gun Rights
» 1st Amendment rights trampled?