Immigrant flees socialism in Eastern Europe, is jailed by socialism in US (legal, border)

[summers73]

In Pennsylvania, take the story of John Pozsgai, an immigrant from Hungary, who worked as a mechanic and eventually saved enough money to purchase the land bordering his home in Morrisville, Pa. This land was an old auto junkyard, and Mr. Pozsgai, taking pride in his home, proceeded to clean up this landfill by removing 7,000 old tires and rusted-out automobiles. However, the EPA did not view this effort as a clean-up but rather a violation of the Clean Water Act. You see, Mr. Pozsgai’s property was a wetland, ambiguously defined by the EPA as any property that has some sort of connection to a wetland. That connection to a wetland was a small drainage ditch located on the edge of his property.

Mr. Pozsgai did not need a permit to dump topsoil on an isolated wetland. However, the Army Corps of Engineers insisted he apply for one. Next, the EPA set up surveillance cameras to capture Mr. Pozsgai filling his land with topsoil. EPA agents then arrested him for “discharging pollutants into waters of the United States.” These “pollutants” consisted of earth, topsoil and sand. The EPA openly admits that no hazardous wastes were involved in the case, yet Mr. Pozsgai was found guilty and sentenced to three years in prison and fined $202,000. Mr. Pozsgai spent 1 1/2 years in prison, 1 1/2 in a halfway house, and was under supervised probation for five years. His family went bankrupt and was unable to pay its property taxes on the land.

PAUL: EPA regulations violate constitutional rights - Washington Times

[subsound]

United States v. Pozsgai

In December 1989, a Philadelphia jury convicted John Pozsgai on 40 counts of knowingly filling wetlands in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, without a Section 404 permit. Mr. Pozsgai was sentenced to three years in jail, ordered to restore the site upon his release, and assessed a fine. His conviction and sentence have been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Even prior to purchasing the 14-acre tract in 1987, Mr. Pozsgai was told by private consultants that the site contained wetlands subject to permitting requirements of Section 404. He purchased the property at a reduced price due to the presence of wetlands, and then proceeded to ignore no fewer than ten warnings from EPA and Corps field staff to stop filling the wetlands without first getting a Section 404 permit. He also defied a temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by a Federal court judge. In fact, the government documented violations of the TRO on videtape, thanks to the cooperation of neighbors whose homes were being flooded as a result of Mr. Pozsgai's filling in his wetlands.

- He knew about it when he purchased the property.
- He refused to get the permit after 10 separate warnings, and then violated the federal restraining order to stop him.
- The soil he put on the property resulted in flooding damage of his neighbors houses.

Sounds like what they should be doing. This isn't some action solely by (from your link) abusive and power-hungry EPA bureaucrats.

Unless you would like to live on one of the homes he flooded because he was being a dick, even though it was 22 years ago.

[disgustedofCalifornia]

Again, because of MONEY AND GREED, they Sell to a civilian Land that They Don't Want the Civilian to Do anything with it. There are Too Many Self-Serving, liars and greed here in the U.S. Why would they Sell a property that they don't want the Owner That Paid for It to do anything with it?? It's all about SCREWING PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR MONEY and DOING IT LEGALLY -- LEGAL THIEVES -- IS PERFECTLY LEGAL IN THE U.S. TO BE A LEGAL THIEF, that is Why No Body Should Buy anything in the U.S. and spend their Money Elsewhere.

[EmeraldCityWanderer]

If it is socialist that some one is punished for violating a law they knew about, damaging many people's homes in the process willfully, I think your definition of socialism is the same as justice.

I don't see what is wrong with some one being punished for violating the law, and damaging many people's homes. What about his neighbors freedom of having a home that was not flooded?