|
Harvey Frank Robbins is a land-owner who has been engaged in "a tense and prolonged conflict () government land-management officials"〔(''Court grants three cases'' ), Lyle Denniston, SCOTUSblog, 1 December 2006〕 over his Dude ranch near Thermopolis, Wyoming, resulting in a Supreme Court case claimed to be "potentially far more dangerous to the rights of property owners than the notorious ''Kelo v. New London'' decision."〔(''This Is My Land'' ), R.S. Radford and Timothy Sandefur, ''Legal Times'', 19 March 2007〕 The previous owner of the ranch had given an easement over the land to the Bureau of Land Management, but the BLM failed to record the easement, so it ended when Robbins purchased the land. According to an article in ''Legal Times'' by two supporters of Robbins:〔 :Realizing their mistake, the agents ordered Robbins to sign over the easement, and when he refused, they grew belligerent. “The federal government doesn’t negotiate,” one official told him. Instead, they promised that Robbins’ refusal would “come to war” and that they would give him a “hardball education.” Then they began a vendetta against him that would last to the present day. :They cancelled his right of way over government-owned land, repeatedly harassed the guests at his ranch, cited him for minor infractions while letting similar violations by his neighbors go unnoticed, and brought him up on criminal charges of interfering with federal agents during their duties. The jury acquitted him after deliberating for less than 30 minutes. :After enduring years of such treatment, Robbins sued, arguing, among other things, that the BLM agents had violated his Fifth Amendment right to exclude others from his property. The trial court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit agreed. The government then challenged the Tenth Circuit's decision via an appeal by six BLM employees.〔( ''Charles Wilkie, et al., v. Harvey Frank Robbins'' ), Supreme Court of the United States petition, docket 06-219〕 They claim that decision exposes federal employees to damages liability merely for carrying out their regulatory duties for the benefit only of the government, not themselves. The case also raises questions about RICO's applicability towards government officials, and "()hether the Fifth Amendment protects against retaliation for exercising a 'right to exclude' the government from one’s property outside the eminent domain process".〔 In June 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government and sent the case back to the lower courts.〔("WILKIE v. ROBBINS (No. 06-219) 433 F. 3d 755, reversed and remanded" ), Supreme Court of the United States, June 25, 2007〕 ==References== 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Harvey Frank Robbins」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|