++ PROPERTY RIGHTS - From "asset forfeiture" (taking property without judicial process and converting it to personal or government use), TOST regulations restricting your rights to sell property, to oppressive wind farms, to EPA regulating mud puddles to drain commissioners imposing easements and taxes on private property, to planning officials declaring all the property belongs to governments, to internationalists imposing restrictions based upon alleged environments crises and unconfirmed treaties, to interstate and intra-state compacts, we are losing control of our real, personal and intellectual properties at an alarming rate!  

(repeat for some)  The Supreme Court heard arguments in a high-stakes legal battle over a tiny waterfront lot that could affect how courts weigh whether government has illegally taken private property.  THE ISSUE IS WHO OWNS AND CONTROLS YOUR PROPERTY!
    The owners of the waterfront land in Wisconsin claim that St. Croix County, through a decades-old environmental regulation, has taken their private property without compensation. Property rights advocates and several states have leapt to their defense, arguing that the case is important for maintaining rights for landowners across the country.
   On the other side, Wisconsin and St. Croix argue that lower courts were correct in rejecting the claims. They are supported by the federal government and several other states. John Echeverria, a takings expert at Vermont Law School, said Murr v. Wisconsin could end up becoming one of the most important property rights cases ever decided by the Supreme Court. they were told they couldn't sell the property. Congress added the St. Croix River to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers program in 1972, and an ensuing county ordinance based on state regulations required a total area of at least an acre to develop. The 1975 ordinance, which required subtracting wetlands and floodplains from the total land area, meant the Murrs' vacant lot was too small to develop. The key question justices will grapple with is how courts should weigh whether an uncompensated taking of private property has occurred in violation of the Fifth Amendment...the court may say, "Why can't these poor people build their house?"
   One immediate effect of the case could be in deciding a separate pending property rights case in front of the Supreme Court. In that case, Lost Tree Village Corp. v. United States, the government asked justices to review a lower-court decision that found the government liable for $4.2 million after it denied a real estate company permits to fill in wetlands. The developer, Lost Tree Village, had argued that a coastal parcel in Florida would be worth $25,000 without the necessary permit and $4.8 million with it after being developed into a residential property.  More

NOTE: PROPERTY RIGHTS will be a significant issue at MiCPAC 2017 in Holt, Michigan, April 29, 2017.  We are flying in from Tennessee John Anthony, author and head of Sustainable Freedom Lab, an expert on government restrictions, takings and regulations that limit our liberties and freedom, as unelected governmental boards and commissions creep into more and more control.