Posted on 12/22/2017 1:36:54 PM PST by reaganaut1
In 2009, the federal government decided to take property from Kevin Brott and other landowners in Michigan for a recreational trail. That was done under the Trails Act, which allows the government to turn abandoned railroad lines into hiking trails.
There is nothing inherently wrong in that, but under the Fifth Amendment, whenever government takes private property for public use, it is required to pay the owners just compensation. The problem is that under federal statute (the Tucker Act), property owners are only allowed to submit their claims for compensation to the Court of Federal Claims (CFC) if the amount in question exceeds $10,000.
Crucially, in the CFC, there are no juries. Thus, in an important class of cases, Americans are denied their Seventh Amendment right to a trial by jury.
When Brott sued, the federal district court for Western Michigan held that the Tucker Act was perfectly legal and thus it had no jurisdiction. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s ruling in a decision released in May.
If the Sixth Circuit’s decision stands, a large hole will have been blown in the right of property owners to obtain just compensation when their land is taken.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
I the wall ever gets built....then it’s ok to take land away...
Unconstitutional...I don’t care what any of those black-robed tyrants say....it isn’t right as it “bypasses” a citizen’s constitutional rights.
I don't pretend to know much about the law in this area, but in the rails to trails situations with which I'm very casually familiar, the railroad still owned the property and then either transferred it outright or granted an easement to a local government unit for purposes of a trail. Neighboring landowners would have had nothing to do with this.
Because a jury of your peers will give you more money than the Government wants to pay.
My thoughts as well.
They use the endangered species Act to take the ability to use your land without paying you..
This case with the rail right of way is different...Where I live they have built a fifty mile bike path and spent millions so the bikers do not have to cross busy streets..bridges..
Theft. When the government does it, it’s fascism.
It appears the rail road used the land based on an easement. When the rail road ceased operation, the easement terminated and full ownership was returned to the actual owner.
https://pacificlegal.org/case/brott-v-united-states/
Yes, this is a government screw job, especially if the easement was forced upon the original land owner by the govt in the first place.
Wayne Hage of Tonopah, Nevada filed his lawsuit against the Feds in the Court of Federal Claims-—which was the main reason he won.
However-—Trump needs to get the payment PLUS INTEREST due to his family ASAP. The FEDS have been tap dancing ever since they lost Wayne’s lawsuit.
Why is this considered, in any way, legitimate?
Then young legislator, future governor, future wannabe candidate for POTUS, Howie Dean got a state bill passed to turn the land into bike paths. Then Burlington mayor, future US senator, Bernie Sanders, supported the bill.
Some twenty years later, the USSC sided with the current deed holders.
“Some twenty years later, the USSC sided with the current deed holders. “
I rest my case! The SCOTUS needs a thorough overhaul including a definition of their WORK OBLIGATIONS. I am really tired of seeing critical decisions languish around the SCOTUS for years. They are like a bunch of “doctors” who only pick at scabs, but never treat the wound completely.
I believe Texas and Nevada are the only two states that allow you to file a land patent and thus attain your allodial rights. Its up for debate as to whether the feds could still take your land, but allodial rights do protect you from eminent domain by local and state government.
I’ve heard from others that there is a process in every state for filing a land patent...but they make it as difficult and mysterious as possible.
A lot of words, but not one of them said that they actually own the former RR property. If they have a deed, lets see it. If not, does it fully meet the rare requirements of the law on a one-sided transfer of ownership.
If they cannot produce one or the other, they stole the land and now want to keep the true owner from using it. Just living next to property that someone is not using does not automatically mean that the title of the property transfers to you.
I hate articles like this that don’t cite a single fact, but just troll.
The government used eminent domain to force the sales of homes in Doodletown NY (Rockland County, south of West Point) to build a “ski center” as part of Bear Mountain State Park. The center was never built, but the park kept the land - the last of a few hamlets they had seized in the 20th century for the park. The “hill people”, some of whom had families going back before independence, were sh!t out of luck; lawyers and preachers tried but failed to stop the state.
The local Dems had their eyes on the land, and when they finally got a majority to force a sale, she struck first by gifting it to the Feds.
As it should be!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.