View image: ([link removed])
Caption:
“**Please consider forwarding this email to your friends and family – they can sign up **_**[here]([link removed])**_** today.**“ —
———————————————————————————
———————————————————————————
**Owners of home once owned by Marilyn Monroe fight governmental taking**
The people who now own a residence once the property of famed actress Marilyn Monroe are fighting what they say is a government taking of their property.
The government, according to the Pacific Legal Foundation, which is fighting the case, is demanding that the structure be labeled a public historical monument.
That would mean the owners are limited in what they can do with property they bought and own.
The fight has been brought to court by Brinah Milstein and Roy Bank, who charge that Los Angeles is violating their constitutional rights by imposing that status on their property.
They charge the city has confiscated their rights without compensation because a designation as a monument would kill all viable economic uses.
"These homeowners have a straightforward request: either let them use their own property or compensate them fairly for turning it into a public monument," said J. David Breemer, a lawyer for the PLF.
"The Fifth Amendment doesn’t have caveats. If the city of Los Angeles wants a museum, it must pay for one — not force private homeowners to bear the cost and liability."
Milstein and Bank bought the "deteriorating" property in 2023 with plans to demolish and redevelop.
The city approved the demolition permits, then reneged.
PLF reports Monroe owned the home for 157 days before her 1962 death.
The city ignored any concerns over its preservation for 60 years before Milstein and Bank bought it.
In fact, it's had 14 owners, each with renovation projects.
The owners even offered to have to structure moved to a city location to be used as a monument, but the city refused.
———————————————————————————
———————————————————————————
**Family farm caught up in fight over fairness of federal government's 'in-house' courts and judges**
A family farm property has been caught up in a new fighting involving the fairness of "in-house" courts and judges run by federal agencies.
Those are procedures and processes set up by various agencies to act as courts. They take cases, assign them to judges, prosecute them and issue rulings.
The problem is that the court staff, the judges, the prosecutors all are working for the same agenda. Even defense counsel.
It is the Institute for Justice reporting the U.S. Supreme Court could consider a dispute challenging the constitutionality of those courts.
It was the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that ruled against a court procedure run by the Department of Labor. So the government appealed.
The fight is over Sun Valley Orchards, which was penalized in 2015. Owners Joe and Russell Marina then joined with the IJ to fight.
"Small businesses targeted for fines have the right to defend themselves in a real court, with a real judge and jury, rather than an agency court where the only judge is an agency bureaucrat," said IJ lawyer Rob Johnson.
"It's fundamentally unfair to try a business in a court where everybody involved is employed by the same administrative agency."
The Supreme Court already has ruled in a case with similar circumstances, stating that the Securities and Exchange Commission was required to present its case in a real federal court in front of a real jury.
"When you walk into an agency court, you know nobody is really going to listen to you, and you know you're never going to get a fair trial," said Joe Marina.
The family actually shut down their farm operations several years ago, amid the fight, because of the threat of a half million dollar penalty from the government agency.
———————————————————————————
———————————————————————————
**Government gives up, admits it has no rights to build road on private land**
The U.S. Forest Service has given up. It has admitted that it has no rights to build a road that it wants on someone else's private land.
According to the Pacific Legal Foundation, the resolution came through a settlement finalized in federal court in Tennessee in the fight with Gregory Ringenberg.
The document has the federal agency acknowledging "that it does not have a right to access or build a public road through Dr. Ringenberg’s property, which borders the Cherokee National Forest in southeastern Tennessee."
"We are thrilled to see a victory for our client, who has spent years fighting the Forest Service’s attempts to claim a right-of-way over his private property without paying for it," said Damien Schiff, a PLF lawyer.
"The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is clear—the government cannot take private property without payment of just compensation. This settlement respects and affirms that right."
Ringenberg bought a piece of land, about 140 acres, in 2019. He planned a family retreat.
Then he learned the Forest Service was claiming the right to build its road on his land.
Forest Service officials claimed there was a road easement deed from a previous owner. But it was never recorded on the title.
The federal government's "land grab" immediately was taken to court by Ringenberg, who explained the easement was invalid and that the Fifth Amendment required the government pay just compensation for any land it took.
Seven years later, the parties have reached a settlement.
The Forest Serviced disclaimed any interest in the road or the property, and an order signed by the court formalized that.
———————————————————————————
View image: ([link removed])
Follow image link: ([link removed])
Caption:
———
You are reading a plain text version of this post. For the best experience, copy and paste this link in your browser to view the post online:
[link removed]
