Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 63

Thread: Man faces $75G a day in EPA fines for building pond -- on his property

  1. #1

    Default Man faces $75G a day in EPA fines for building pond -- on his property

    All Andy Johnson wanted to do was build a stock pond on his sprawling eight-acre Wyoming farm. He and his wife Katie spent hours constructing it, filling it with crystal-clear water, and bringing in brook and brown trout, ducks and geese. It was a place where his horses could drink and graze, and a private playground for his three children.

    But instead of enjoying the fruits of his labor, the Wyoming welder says he was harangued by the federal government, stuck in what he calls a petty power play by the Environmental Protection Agency. He claims the agency is now threatening him with civil and criminal penalties – including the threat of a $75,000-a-day fine.

    “I have not paid them a dime nor will I,” a defiant Johnson told FoxNews.com. “I will go bankrupt if I have to fighting it. My wife and I built [the pond] together. We put our blood, sweat and tears into it. It was our dream.”

    But Johnson may be in for a rude awakening.
    cont.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...-own-property/



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    But Johnson may be in for a rude awakening.
    SWAT raid inbound in 3...2...1...

  4. #3

    Default

    Defund the EPA!

    He had approval from his state, shouldn't it be a state's right?

  5. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lindsey View Post
    Defund the EPA!

    He had approval from his state, shouldn't it be a state's right?
    Even approval from the state, acknowledgement on maps that your land is not a wetlands, testing by multiple specialists confirming as much, and being double digits away from the nearest creek, the EPA can come and say on their authority alone, absent any Due Process, that you need to return the land to its former state, and plant a list of plants they give you, at your own expense. Failure to do so is a fine of $75,000 per day and some have been imprisoned (for the crime of moving fresh fill from one side of their property to the other).

    A half-century ago, John Pozsgai emigrated to America from Hungary. Twenty-five years later, he bought a hunk of land in Morrisville, Pennsylvania, that had been used as an illegal dumping ground for used tires and old car parts. Pozsgai wanted to build a garage on the land. So he hauled away the old tires—7,000 of them—and the rusty scrap metal, and hauled in clean fill dirt and topsoil.

    No good deed goes unpunished, and Pozsgai’s wasn’t. Sometimes when it rained, the tires caused water to build up on the property. In the eyes of the federal government, that made it a wetland. Federal agents used surveillance cameras to record Pozsgai’s cleanup activity and had him arrested for “discharging pollutants”—i.e., the fill dirt and topsoil—“into the waters of the United States.” Convicted, he got a three-year prison sentence and a $200,000 fine.
    http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/2...minal-in-the-e

    Many others as well.
    “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell

    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    In terms of a full spectrum candidate, Rand is leaps and bounds above Trump. I'm not disputing that.
    Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump

  6. #5

    Default

    No good deed goes unpunished, and Pozsgai’s wasn’t. Sometimes when it rained, the tires caused water to build up on the property. In the eyes of the federal government, that made it a wetland. Federal agents used surveillance cameras to record Pozsgai’s cleanup activity and had him arrested for “discharging pollutants”—i.e., the fill dirt and topsoil—“into the waters of the United States.” Convicted, he got a three-year prison sentence and a $200,000 fine.
    Three Felonies a Day.

    Just a matter of putting enough surveillance on everybody.

  7. #6

    Default

    These people are not going to stop unless they have some skin in the game.

  8. #7

    Default

    You used to be able to file for some sort of cash payment from the government for building ponds.

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enoch150 View Post
    These people are not going to stop unless they have some skin in the game.
    Simple as that. They all live and work somewhere, and just like the other chimps, fear and coercion affect their choices.

  10. #9

  11. #10

    Default

    ..... sorry triple post. lol. please mods delete the extra's.
    Last edited by tommyrp12; 03-15-2014 at 02:39 AM.

  12. #11

    Default

    ......
    Last edited by tommyrp12; 03-15-2014 at 02:38 AM.

  13. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcchiefs6465 View Post
    Even approval from the state, acknowledgement on maps that your land is not a wetlands, testing by multiple specialists confirming as much, and being double digits away from the nearest creek, the EPA can come and say on their authority alone, absent any Due Process, that you need to return the land to its former state, and plant a list of plants they give you, at your own expense. Failure to do so is a fine of $75,000 per day and some have been imprisoned (for the crime of moving fresh fill from one side of their property to the other).



    http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/2...minal-in-the-e

    Many others as well.
    "Murika!" burp

  14. #13

    Default

    Nothing is truly yours in this country.

    That's not your house; oh sure, you paid it off, but if you stop paying those property taxes, say goodbye to it.

    Oh, what do you mean you're going to drive your car down to the capital to protest? Sorry, not your car either; stop paying the property tax on that, and say goodbye to it.

    The dirt on your land? Ha ha! Good one, buddy. Not yours, sorry. I mean, sure, you paid your property tax, but if you so much as move a single blade of grass, we'll sick our thugs on your and demand you put that grass back or face tens of thousands in fines and imprisonment.

    You know what? $#@! it; a strip mall would look hella good on your property, so we'll just give you a paltry sum and take it.

    You can thank us for improving the local economy later, comrade.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sister Miriam Godwinson View Post
    We Must Dissent.

  15. #14

  16. #15

    Default

    Did anyone ever kill any of those employees in EPA because of things like this? I mean I read about this kind of stuff all the time and it simply is hard to believe that no one ever did anything violent.
    Today I decided to get banned and spam activism on this forum...

    SUPPORT RANDPAULDIGITAL GRASSROOTS PROJECTS TODAY!

    http://i.imgur.com/SORJlQ5.png

    For more info. or to help spread the word, go to the promotion thread here.



    Quote Originally Posted by orenbus View Post
    If I had to answer this question truthfully I'd probably piss a lot of people off lol, Barrex would be a better person to ask he doesn't seem to care lol.


  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barrex View Post
    Did anyone ever kill any of those employees in EPA because of things like this? I mean I read about this kind of stuff all the time and it simply is hard to believe that no one ever did anything violent.
    I'm pretty sure they stay in their safe little offices, writing extortion notices and not venture out into the dangerous world of enforcement.

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.3D View Post
    I'm pretty sure they stay in their safe little offices, writing extortion notices and not venture out into the dangerous world of enforcement.
    Even theye have their own SWAT teams.......http://www.vice.com/read/even-the-ep...swat-teams-now

    Last month, miners who were digging for gold in the remote wilderness near Chicken, Alaska, (population 17) were alarmed by the sudden arrival of a group of armed men. The eight dudes in body armor were from the Alaska Environmental Crimes Task Force, which is led by the Environmental Protection Agency and was there to check 30 or so small mining claims for violations of the Clean Water Act and other environmental no-nos. That doesn’t seem like it would require the use of much force, but the squad who showed up in Chicken included armed FBI and Department of Defense agents and even a plane for “air support.”
    Theye have refused their Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

    Theye have erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

    Theye kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies

    Theye have combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution,

    For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

    For cutting off our Trade with parts of the world:

    For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

    For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

    Theye plundered and destroyed the lives of our people.

    Theye are at this time transporting Armies of Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of a civilized nation.

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Even theye have their own SWAT teams.......http://www.vice.com/read/even-the-ep...swat-teams-now
    So we have a standing army in our midst.

  20. #19

    Default

    Agenda 21

    Carl Drega
    "Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
    "Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
    "To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
    "People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.3D View Post
    So we have a standing army in our midst.
    I'm gonna say...yeah.

    Theye have refused their Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

    Theye have erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

    Theye kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies

    Theye have combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution,

    For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

    For cutting off our Trade with parts of the world:

    For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

    For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

    Theye plundered and destroyed the lives of our people.

    Theye are at this time transporting Armies of Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of a civilized nation.

  22. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    I'm gonna say...yeah.


  23. #22

    Default

    I feel safer now!

  24. #23

    Default

    The EPA has no authority in the several states

    http://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/docum...PDF/80-845.pdf




    THE E.P.A. AUTHORITY IS FOR POLLUTION CONTROL OF THE FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY, OR THE FEDERAL WORKS AGENCY, AND DOES NOT APPLY TO THE SEVERAL STATES.
    E.P.A. LETTER (below) STATES THE AGENCY’S AUTHORITY IS PUBLIC LAW 92-500, A MERE AMENDMENT TO THE ACT OF June 30, 1948, ch. 758, PUBLIC LAW 845(link below), an amendment cannot exceed the original enactment unless a person works for the FEDERAL SECURITY AGENY, OR THE FEDERAL WORKS AGENCY,THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE E.P.A.

    United States Office of Solid Waste 530-F-08-017
    Environmental Protection and Emergency Response November 2008
    Agency www.epa.gov/emergencies


    On November 26, 2008, EPA promulgated a final rule to amend a Clean Water Act (CWA) section 311 regulation that defines the term “navigable waters” (73 FR 71941). In this action, EPA announced the vacatur of the July 17, 2002, revisions to the definition of “navigable waters” in accordance with an order, issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (D.D.C.) in American Petroleum Institute v. Johnson, 571 F.Supp.2d 165 (D.D.C. 2008), invalidating those revisions. The court decision also restored the regulatory definition of “navigable waters” promulgated by EPA in 1973; consequently, EPA is amending the definition of “navigable waters” in part 112 to comply with that decision. This final rule does not amend the definition of “navigable waters” in any other regulation that has been promulgated by EPA.

    The term “navigable waters” of the United States means “navigable waters” as defined in section 502(7) of the FWPCA, and includes:
    (1) all navigable waters of the United States, as defined in judicial decisions prior to the passage of the 1972 Amendments of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, (FWPCA) (Pub. L. 92-500) also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), and tributaries of such waters as;
    (2) interstate waters;
    (3) intrastate lakes, rivers, and streams which are utilized by interstate travelers for recreational or other purposes; and
    (4) intrastate lakes, rivers, and streams from which fish or shellfish are taken and sold in interstate commerce.
    PARALLEL TABLE OF AUTHORITIES AND RULES
    http://www.gpo.gov/help/parallel_table.pdf
    Authorities

    92–500..................40 Parts 21, 136, 140, 421, 429

    40 CFR 116.3 - DEFINITIONS.
    § 116.3
    Definitions.
    As used in this part, all terms shall have the meaning defined in the Act and as given below:
    The Act means the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-500), and as further amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-217), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; and as further amended by the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-676);

    Contiguous zone means the entire zone established or to be established by the United States under article 24 of the Convention of the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone;
    June 30, 1948, ch. 758, title III, Sec. 311, as added Oct. 18, 1972, Pub. L. 92-500, Sec. 2, 86 Stat. 862
    _____________________________________
    THE ACTUAL LAW, PUBLIC LAW 92-500 AMENDED


    CHAPTER 758 June 30, 1948, Public Law 845

    AN ACT
    To provide for water pollution control activities in the Public Health Service of the Federal Security Agency and in the Federal Works Agency, and for other purposes.
    *note States retain their rights.
    http://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/docum...PDF/80-845.pdf







    http://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/docum...PDF/80-845.pdf
    33 USC § 1270 - LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN PROGRAM
    Source
    (June 30, 1948, ch. 758, title I, § 120
    The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, referred to in subsecs. (b)(1), (2)(A), (3) and (r), is act Aug. 7, 1953, ch. 345, 67 Stat. 462, as amended, which is classified generally to subchapter III (Sec. 1331 et seq.) of chapter 29 of Title 43, Public Lands

  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greyseal View Post
    The EPA has no authority in the several states

    http://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/docum...PDF/80-845.pdf




    THE E.P.A. AUTHORITY IS FOR POLLUTION CONTROL OF THE FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY, OR THE FEDERAL WORKS AGENCY, AND DOES NOT APPLY TO THE SEVERAL STATES.
    E.P.A. LETTER (below) STATES THE AGENCY’S AUTHORITY IS PUBLIC LAW 92-500, A MERE AMENDMENT TO THE ACT OF June 30, 1948, ch. 758, PUBLIC LAW 845(link below), an amendment cannot exceed the original enactment unless a person works for the FEDERAL SECURITY AGENY, OR THE FEDERAL WORKS AGENCY,THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE E.P.A.

    United States Office of Solid Waste 530-F-08-017
    Environmental Protection and Emergency Response November 2008
    Agency www.epa.gov/emergencies


    On November 26, 2008, EPA promulgated a final rule to amend a Clean Water Act (CWA) section 311 regulation that defines the term “navigable waters” (73 FR 71941). In this action, EPA announced the vacatur of the July 17, 2002, revisions to the definition of “navigable waters” in accordance with an order, issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (D.D.C.) in American Petroleum Institute v. Johnson, 571 F.Supp.2d 165 (D.D.C. 2008), invalidating those revisions. The court decision also restored the regulatory definition of “navigable waters” promulgated by EPA in 1973; consequently, EPA is amending the definition of “navigable waters” in part 112 to comply with that decision. This final rule does not amend the definition of “navigable waters” in any other regulation that has been promulgated by EPA.

    The term “navigable waters” of the United States means “navigable waters” as defined in section 502(7) of the FWPCA, and includes:
    (1) all navigable waters of the United States, as defined in judicial decisions prior to the passage of the 1972 Amendments of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, (FWPCA) (Pub. L. 92-500) also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), and tributaries of such waters as;
    (2) interstate waters;
    (3) intrastate lakes, rivers, and streams which are utilized by interstate travelers for recreational or other purposes; and
    (4) intrastate lakes, rivers, and streams from which fish or shellfish are taken and sold in interstate commerce.
    PARALLEL TABLE OF AUTHORITIES AND RULES
    http://www.gpo.gov/help/parallel_table.pdf
    Authorities

    92–500..................40 Parts 21, 136, 140, 421, 429

    40 CFR 116.3 - DEFINITIONS.
    § 116.3
    Definitions.
    As used in this part, all terms shall have the meaning defined in the Act and as given below:
    The Act means the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-500), and as further amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-217), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; and as further amended by the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-676);

    Contiguous zone means the entire zone established or to be established by the United States under article 24 of the Convention of the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone;
    June 30, 1948, ch. 758, title III, Sec. 311, as added Oct. 18, 1972, Pub. L. 92-500, Sec. 2, 86 Stat. 862
    _____________________________________
    THE ACTUAL LAW, PUBLIC LAW 92-500 AMENDED


    CHAPTER 758 June 30, 1948, Public Law 845

    AN ACT
    To provide for water pollution control activities in the Public Health Service of the Federal Security Agency and in the Federal Works Agency, and for other purposes.
    *note States retain their rights.
    http://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/docum...PDF/80-845.pdf







    http://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/docum...PDF/80-845.pdf
    33 USC § 1270 - LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN PROGRAM
    Source
    (June 30, 1948, ch. 758, title I, § 120
    The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, referred to in subsecs. (b)(1), (2)(A), (3) and (r), is act Aug. 7, 1953, ch. 345, 67 Stat. 462, as amended, which is classified generally to subchapter III (Sec. 1331 et seq.) of chapter 29 of Title 43, Public Lands
    You forget that in modern Amerika the laws only apply to us, they do not apply to them.

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    You forget that in modern Amerika the laws only apply to us, they do not apply to them.
    I love these guys that come into a thread like this, greyseal and Christopher Brown come to mind, and post a bunch of obscure legal mumbo jumbo, as if it was a magic incantation that would stop 5.56 rounds from the SWAT raiders.

    They are the $#@!ing law...

  27. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barrex View Post
    Did anyone ever kill any of those employees in EPA because of things like this? I mean I read about this kind of stuff all the time and it simply is hard to believe that no one ever did anything violent.
    Carl Drega comes to mind...there have been a few others.

  28. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    I love these guys that come into a thread like this, greyseal and Christopher Brown come to mind, and post a bunch of obscure legal mumbo jumbo, as if it was a magic incantation that would stop 5.56 rounds from the SWAT raiders.

    They are the $#@!ing law...
    Yeah if paper could stop bullets, everybody would have a shirt made out of it.

  29. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    I love these guys that come into a thread like this, greyseal and Christopher Brown come to mind, and post a bunch of obscure legal mumbo jumbo, as if it was a magic incantation that would stop 5.56 rounds from the SWAT raiders.

    They are the $#@!ing law...
    You know, there are people that understand this, lawyers, judges, and courts, that's the purpose of the post

  30. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barrex View Post
    Did anyone ever kill any of those employees in EPA because of things like this? I mean I read about this kind of stuff all the time and it simply is hard to believe that no one ever did anything violent.
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Carl Drega comes to mind...there have been a few others.
    It's happened to food inspectors too. Of course these incidents do not lead to anything positive or productive, just more aggressive tyranny.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_..._and_murderer)
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  31. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greyseal View Post
    You know, there are people that understand this, lawyers, judges, and courts, that's the purpose of the post
    Having been an elected lawmaker, I'm pretty sure that I understand the law. What you do not understand is that the ordinary citizen is expected to obey every jot and tittle of the law on pain of enforcement and death, but those who act as agents of the government are not held to the same standard of law as we are. This is a violation of Article 4 Section 4, of course, but nonetheless citing US Code in order to describe the role of a government agent is naive at best. The law applies to us, the law does not apply to them. If you don't grasp that already, then I suggest you start paying attention. It's getting mighty ugly in this country.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast





Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-03-2016, 10:10 PM
  2. ME - Woman facing stiff fines for building treehouse on her property
    By Anti Federalist in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-25-2015, 02:59 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-03-2014, 12:18 PM
  4. Man Faces $500 a Day Fines for Pet Ducks
    By Lucille in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-02-2013, 03:52 PM
  5. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 04-12-2013, 06:53 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •