PERMFILE105571 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LEGAL NOTICE NO TRESPASSING TO FEDERAL OiiICERS Oi THE IRS, NEw, HUD, ENYIRONMENTAL NEAtTN, AHD ANY OTNER UNCONBTITUTIONAL AO[NCIE4; AND TO All MEM8ER5 Ot -IANNING 6 ZONlNO e0ARD5: U.S.C. TITLE IB, SEC. 4H 8 49R U.S.C. TITLE 19, :1983, t9B5, 1986. WARNING iOLLOW NGEiEDERAL CI REMINAL LAW S 1vY0 Op MO[{ r<RSONS COMNR{ Lp IXIVR{, OPVRS{f, SNP[ARN. OR INrIMIMi[ ANY <In([N ,M rM RR C%[[GSC W (MpYN[M OS pNY pMNI Op p11mLFOk 3{CURIO 10 MM aITN[ COMfRRmON OS [Ni [ANS OS ML VMIRO S1AR9, Oq pLUV3( Or MIS N„VINO f0 f%F[(IfID [Mi SgMI: Oq II 1NO Oe MORL [[930Nf OO M OR4WfC ON nG MIONWAY, O0. ON iN( M(M13E303 ANOiNfq. WIM M[ INRM r0 Pp[V[N( Oq NINO[P MIS Rf( [%[qp3! Op [NLOYM(NI OS ANY g14N1 Op r[IVICIO( f0 RCVp{D ~ iMY SNAL[ [( [N!O NOi MO p! iMAN 1 W,D4p O0.1NP0.1fONFD NOi NAR[ rN/.N Ip Y[4(f OR pOLN~ 1{ O{AM 0.{fVR3, rN[y SN.SLI X fVpa(1 TO IMppRONM[Nr SOR AMY RRM OI YFASt 10 LNL' LAND JIBE FEE 55,000 PER PERSON PER DAY OR ANY PART THEREOF. "This is the sign posted by PhN Volt at the entrance to his property. He is quite serious ahmrt keeping trespassers out. He believes Coun [y,or other governmental officials, who come onto his property with- out pcnnissimt violate his CBnsti[ utianal rights. ~ Wolf: Persecuted Citizen orAnti-Government? 1 d by Michelle Sargcr the issues at handlbelicve the lawful Wolf has a history of issues with AA Phil Wolf lost another round in his issues have not been addressed. Gilpin CouNy's nurbonty. Wolf ongoing battle with Gilpin Ceunry The...court was more concerned bought eppro%imately IOOU acres of over pfoperly issues. First Judicial about scolding and trying [p fine us vacant land adjacent w Highway 119 District Coun Judge Plflut liom Jab additionally because we challenged near mile marker L5 (across from the ferson County upheld Gilpin County the bullying tactics by this county. We gas station and new treaUncnl Ibciliryl Judge Rogers original ruling. have a right to redress government in 1998. During 2002, Nblf built a During 2UU3, the County cited Wolf without pa[alty when we Ceel we arc home and added a septic system on for erecting nvo outbuildings on his violateJ. We are prepared to take This his properly without obtaining a pcr- property without obtaining the re- to the highest autfinriries in the coon- mit from Gilpin County. The Couny quired building penults. The County try. We have the help of a Innd rights balked when they teamed of the im- asked Wo1F to obtain the permits aFler group in Washington pC that is excit- prpvements. This matter was later the fact, bw Wolf refused. The Coun- ed about this casc...should it gel m successfully resolved in WoI PS Ihvor ty eventually filed an action against the federal level County officials take when he hired on engineer to prove him in court Io require him to comply an oath to uphold the constimlion and the system was up to speci Fiu'Itions. with County regulations. it seems some have never read it or Wolfs property was originally zoncJ In July 2003, Gilpin County Judge Choose to ignore it to serve self imer- ns vacant Innd He .von his bid Ip re- Rogcrs found in the County's favor est not the people." zone the land as agriculural through a and wrote a judgment fining Wolf County Manager Roger Baker mm- State appeal. ARer this rezoning, he $500 for failing to obtain the permit mented: "TheCounty's position is and applied far abatement and eventually and an ndditiotnl daily fee for each always has been that none of Mr. received about $30,060 in yyeviously day he is not in compliance. Wolf ap- Wo1Ps arguments have any merit and overyaid property taxes. Wolf slntes pealed the decision in First Judicial the courts have consislenlly agreed he uses the land for grazing livestock, District Court. with the County. While we certainly Wolf again came to the mention of 'this week, Judge Plaut upheld the respect Mc Wolfs right to disagree, the County when he built outbuild- decision of Judge Rogers. The origi- the fact that the court keeps finding ings, including a barn, on his proper- nal $500 fine and daily fee for non- these matters frivolous should ty withou[obtniningabuilding permit compliance arc still in effect. Judge demonstrate to Mr Wol(and others from the County. His neighbor report- PIau1 also granted the County's re- That he is unlikely to prevail at any ed the new sovctures to Gilpin Coun- quest for art order Cor M[ Wolf to pay level." ty officials. Wolf stated ht is not re- altomcy~ fees and court costs associ- The original action was appealed yuired to obtain a permit (or oulhuild- nted with the appeal. The judgment based on jurisdictioml issues. Wolf ings on agricultural Imtd and has re- nlse accused Wolf oFbeing "anti-gov- does not believe Gilpin County has fused to do so. emmenl". The judgment agtinsl Wo1F the right to require building permits Wolf does ao1 believe the County includes a per diem fee until the judg- for outbuildings on his agricultural has jurisdiction over or the right to meat is paid. zoned IarM. [ell him what to do with his land. He Wolf is not giving up here. He plans Wolf claims Judge Plaut never al- says Om County is relying on toles to press on with This issue. continuing tended to the basic issues in the ap- that change frequently rasher than on his fight al the State Court ofAppeals peal. Items such ns late filings by conslim[ional law. and, if necessary, at the federal level. County Attorney Jim Pe[rock being please turn to page 5 Wolf slated: "Our position remains accepted by Judge Rogers were not steadfast in pursuit of vindication on addressed by the higher court. --- -.T,.T rniTNTY PFT*,• • "_, ,n:., """_~-- -