> This bit was reprinted from the Pagosa Springs Sun... This is but one of >many situations people are facing out west with regards to even there OWN >private property that may be surrounded by "public land" or abutt it. With >the Wildlands Project being pushed the way that it is this could start >happening out here if it isn't already.... After this bit is a piece from the >actual landowner stating what has happened to her. > > >The Pagosa Springs Sun is non-exclusive and has granted reprint rights >to its articles. If you need conformation, please contact the >publisher, David Mitchell.) > >PAGOSA SPRINGS SUN Pagosa Springs, CO (970) 264-2101 >e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >www.websites.pagosasprings.net/pagosaspringssun/home.htm > >____________________________________________________ > >Front Page February 10, 2000 > > >Private property debate sparked by conviction > >By John M. Motter > >A property rights question festering in western Colorado and across the >West is focusing on an issue that sprouted in Archuleta County. > >The question at issue is, can the U.S. Forest Service abrogate private >property rights that existed prior to the existence of the Forest >Service? > >A group of citizens who believe that the Forest Service cannot violate >those old private property rights has visited with the Archuleta County >commissioners twice during the past two weeks. They want the >commissioners to take a stand backing the older rights and opposing the >Forest Service position. That stand could include county assertion that >the roads are county roads, thereby removing them from Forest Service >jurisdiction. > >A local focal point of the issue is the criminal conviction of Dianna R. >Luppi, an Archuleta County resident who owns property on Turkey Springs >Road patented by the U.S. Government under the 1882 Homestead Act. > > The landowner's editorial..... > >PAGOSA SUN Letters to >Editor February 17, 2000 > >Gaining compliance > >Dear Editor, > >As the "convicted criminal" mentioned in John Motter's article titled >"Private property debate sparked by conviction" of Feb. 10, 2000, I >would like to add some information. > >The Forest Service demanded I sign an easement contract, pay a fee and >acquire a permit to travel to and from my home, located off Turkey >Springs Road. Although I paid the fee, I refused to sign their contract >as it offered me nothing but increased liability in exchange for a right >I already enjoyed, namely unencumbered access to my property. > >The U.S. Forest Service was not satisfied with merely being paid. The >contract was extremely important to them, so important that this is what >the government was "forced" to do to gain my compliance: > >- - Charge me criminally for three counts of driving home without a permit > >- - Mount surveillance cameras to "catch" me in the act of driving home > >- - Try me under "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction" (military >law) > >- - Strip me of all my constitutional rights in court, including my right >to court appointed counsel, trial by jury and a speedy trial > >- - Change the penalty of $500 per count allowable by statute to $5,000 >per count > >- - Threaten me with imprisonment throughout the proceedings with no >counsel present > >- - Issue a bench warrant for my arrest based on the U.S. Attorney's false >testimony in court > >- - Attempt to disenfranchise me of my appeal rights based on the >fraudulently obtained bench warrant > >- - Place me on criminal probation for one year which, among other abuses, >stripped me of the right to bear arms and allowed trespass and entry to >my property without warrant > >- - Deny me access to my home for more than a year on the pretense that I >would be committing a crime to drive home without signing a contract and >thereby violating the terms of my probation > >- - Threaten to appoint a conservator to sign the contract for me if I >continued my refusal > >- - Place two $5,000 liens against me under the Anti-Terrorism and >Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. > >For the act of driving to and from my home I was brutally treated as if >I were a dangerous felon, stripped of my liberty without just cause and >my property without just compensation. I was forced into contract, >risking imprisonment or worse if I failed to obey. > >The minor details that the road in question is an unrestricted Archuleta >County road leading to a U.S. Land Patented homestead property did not >stop the U.S. Forest Service in their ruthless pursuit of a coerced >signature of a contract I had no legal obligation to sign. Section >701(a) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, under >which Act I was tried and convicted, states the following: "Nothing in >this Act, or in any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed as >terminating any valid lease, permit, patent, right-of-way, or other land >use right or authorization existing on the date of the approval of this >Act [Oct. 21, 1976]." > >Pay attention to this case, Archuleta County. Your property and your >liberty may hinge on it. You may soon find out why this contract was so >important to the U.S. Forest Service and you may not like the answer. > >Diana Luppi > >Mesa, Ariz. >_________________
