Posted on 07/17/2007 5:48:39 AM PDT by 3AngelaD
Retirees Shirley and Herbert Leu had a problem. Part of their backyard was collapsing into a ditch that ran along the U.S.-Canadian border. Before building their 4-foot-high retaining wall, the Leus made sure they were in compliance with all local regulations...It never dawned on the Leus that this would lead to an international incident and an ideological battle over private property. The debate became one of whether an international commission could simply come onto their property, remove their wall and then send them the bill.
The controversy escalated to soap opera proportions with the Departments of State and Justice as well as the White House opposing the International Boundary Commission's (IBC) edict and President Bush last week stepping in and firing the U.S. representative on the commission. Apparently, this is the first time that a president has ever fired such a commissioner.
For his part, the fired commissioner, Dennis Schornack, claims that once appointed he has the job for life and cannot be fired. He is vowing to fight his firing in court. The IBC claims authority to enter and take the Leus' private property under a treaty between the United States and Canada...
To put it mildly, the Leus were shocked. After all, their retaining wall stands about 8 feet from the actual border andwell within their property line."[Mr. Schornack] was so rude, and so abrupt, standing and telling me he had the power to take the wall down and that if I got a lawyer, he'd win..."
To Mr. Schornack, the dispute is largely one of too much fealty to property rights.... Mr. Schornack and the IBC actually responded that they are not a government agency and are therefore not subject to the laws of the United States and its Constitution....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
After this admission, if I was the Sheriff of this locale, I would be waiting when they arrived to remove the wall and arrest every single one of them for trespassing and anything else I could think to throw at them...
After we get NAU implemented, we won't be needing these narrow border designation zones.
Try this:
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/ca_us/en/cus.1925.515.en.html#NOTEref_1
The only thing I can find is in Article 4. It says nothing more than the commission is empowered to maintain the vista. I can’t find anything that empowers them to establish the dimensions of the zone; I guess they made that up. Since they aren’t subject to the US Constitution, they can do that, kind of like the UN. Just ask them!
I think there’s more to this story then is being presented here. A simple google search reveals more. One article describes the wall being built to keep dogs under their watch from scampering off to Canada, which when they do sounds like a huge pain in the butt to legally retrieve. The few pictures I’ve seen do not lead me to believe erosion control is the real issue. It sure looks to me like grass would be just as effective.
Retaining dogs is much different than retaining soil. I’m thinking the next door neighbors have something to do with wanting this eyesore removed.
Below is a link for a picture (sorry HTML is not my thing)
I think a 9mm can provide the necessary leverage to resolve this to the home owners advantage.
What an a@!...
Reminds me of when GWB sneered "International law? I'll have to talk to my lawwww-yer."
What chutzpah from that blithering bureaucrat-for-life. Goes in and rips up peoples' property --and his precious treaty doesn't even give him authority over the 20-foot strip along the boundary.
I had a boundary line dispute once, when a developer who owned the lot adjacent to mine ripped out my stone steps. The steps crossed over a corner of his lot.
They would've been an illegal encroachment if I'd just built them recently; but since they'd existed there peaceably without any complaint from the lot's owners for over 20 years, they had become fully, legally mine through the doctrine of adverse possession.
I explained this politely to the developer. But he thought he was above the law and ripped out my steps anyway.
If the jerk hadn't been such a bully, I might've just let the matter drop. We didn't use the steps much anyway.
But out of rage at his 'tude I took him to court pro se, proved my adverse possession, got recorded title to the parcel of land AND got my steps rebuilt, all at his expense.
I only read the excert posted here, but it would appear that the wall was eight feet inside the boundary - I don’t see any ‘exception’ or ‘precedent’ situ.
Thanks. I read Chrisser’s comment, but that refers to a Canadian act, which is irelevant to US property owners. There is no US equivelant that I can find.
Ugly wall, isn’t it?
I’ve visited Blaine, stood at the border in a very pretty park, Peace Arch Park.
http://www.blainechamber.com/
I would have thought someone at the local level would have warned the couple that they were 2 feet over the “Vista.”
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.