National Audubon Society, communist bastards

[liberty]

National Audubon Society, land grabbing communist bastards

This road has been used since the 1920’s ; how long does take for prescriptive to take effect in California?


http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20 ... /110929379

MAYACAMAS MOUNTAINS, Calif. -- A group of California families are accusing the National Audubon Society of whiting out parts of maps to swindle them out of their best land. This is property that in some cases has been in the families' hands since the 1920s.

The Cervieres brothers, immigrants from France, came to California in 1895. By 1924 they had money to buy beautiful plots of land high up in the Mayacamas Mountains, towering over Sonoma wine country in northern California.

They wanted a place of retreat and refuge for what they hoped would someday be a large and extended family of Cervieres. Their descendants became five families who bought even more land in the Pine Flat area of these mountains.

And they did form a tradition across the decades of enjoying almost every major family occasion, summers and holidays in this mountain paradise. They built five homes they collectively dubbed "the ranch."

"The ranch was like the lifeblood, the glue that held the family together," said Lea Raynal, now one of the extended family's matriarchs.

But a fire swept through in 2004 and burned down three of the houses.

"Torched this whole thing," Lea's son Mike Raynal said, looking up at a bare chimney that's all that's left of one home. "We lost everything."

Family members felt horrible but fanned hope by deciding to rebuild as quickly as possible.

Another Blow

Then came another devastating blow from a surprising source. A neighbor had bequeathed thousands of acres next door to the National Audubon Society, best known for its love of birds and conservation.

To rebuild, the families would need to upgrade the roads leading across Audubon land to accommodate their heavy construction equipment.

But after decades of everyone sharing these roads, Audubon said no and then hit the families with yet another bombshell: It said it had proof their very best acres, the flat ones where their houses had been, were actually Audubon land.

"It was like being hit in the stomach, the wind knocked out of you," Lea recalled.

Audubon representatives showed the family survey maps that appeared to bolster Audubon's claim, maps that years later family members would find had parts whited out by Audubon.

According to the family's lawyer Peter Prows, the reps gave them an ultimatum: "We're not going to let you rebuild your homes unless you agree to the boundary as we're claiming it to be on our drawings."

Mike's brother, Phil Raynal, said that would have pushed family members' new houses "approximately 300 yards up the hill, way up in an upper meadow - virtually impossible to build on."

"This is the only flat area," he said, pointing to the area around him where their houses had been.

Prows said Audubon then informed the families, "If you don't agree, we're going to go out and build a fence on that line, and if you try to interfere, we're going to call the police."

Legal Battle Begins

In court documents later, Audubon insisted it believed its claim that it truly owned the best acres of its next-door neighbors.

And since it was legally bound to preserve the wilderness acres bequeathed it, the company said it couldn't just hand those acres back to the families if it really owned them.

Audubon said it held meetings and bent over backwards to work out a deal with the families.

But here's what Phil heard from an Audubon representative at one of those meetings: "This property has never, ever been yours. Get over it."

"That haunts me. I tell you what, that haunts me every day," he said.

Phil and his family accuse Audubon of simply coveting their land.

"It really bothers me that they'd come up here and try to take something that's ours," Phil's young son Ryan said.

So the families decided to fight, with Mike and Phil Raynal leading the way. They threw themselves into a years-long effort to prove the ancient boundaries were correct and their land was indeed theirs, not Audubon's.

A Costly Fight

Their efforts cost them and their families hundreds of thousands of dollars across several years, and much more than just money but "thousands and thousands and countless hours," Phil said, shaking his head.

The brothers for years cut their way through rugged brush to find the original surveyors' landmarks, facing rattlesnakes, ticks, poison ivy, and exhaustion.

They both already had full-time jobs. This fight became another one. Mike's daughter Danielle feels it cost her her father.

"I've lost a father pretty much," she said. "Me and my dad were very close, and it's been hard. We've all drifted apart."

Some family members were not only spending every spare hour fighting to prove Audubon wrong. But while all this was working its way through the legal system, the families couldn't rebuild and were cut off from their piece of paradise and all those family gatherings like they'd had for decades.

"You have family reunions. You're always having holidays," Danielle remembered as she recalled how the five families would spend months of each year together on the ranch.

"And then it's just an abrupt stop," she said.

"Everybody getting together. It was just absolutely amazing," Danielle's mother Carin Raynal recalled. "And this whole debacle has just torn all of it apart."

Another family member, Bruce Young, testified in a sworn declaration.

"There's no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the emotional stress and aggravation to which Audubon subjected me is the cause and underlying reason for the three strokes I have suffered and survived," he said.

'White Out' Gate

Then another stunning surprise in 2010 after years of legal wrangling: Audubon caved and said it would accept the original property lines and let the families use the roads unimpeded.

"They completely capitulated," Prows stated.

No one outside of Audubon knows why this capitulation, but one more shock was ahead. In 2012, the families' lawyers discovered with a subpoena that at the start of all this, Audubon had held back from family members some of the surveying maps it had commissioned.

They had also altered the maps they presented to prove Audubon's claim.

"Audubon had actually doctored the drawings that it showed to our clients," Prows said. "It took white out, and we have emails from Audubon's very top people talking about putting white-out on the maps - removing the lines that its surveyors had put on the maps that Audubon didn't like, showing that the boundary really was in the right place all along."

This screamed lies and coverup to the families.

"We actually call it 'White Out Gate' now," Phil said.

He still gets mad thinking of those thousands of hours he and Mike spent researching, gathering documents, combing through the thick brush on their land.

"Really what sunk in was all those years - seven, eight years of hard work when they knew from day one this was never their property. Ever! They knew it," Phil fumed.

"I couldn't believe anybody would do that," Mike Raynal said. "I wouldn't do that to another human being, period."

A Bid for Restitution

Now the families are suing for fraud. Audubon admitted in court documents it didn't give them all the surveyor's maps but said that was because not all were relevant. It said it did white out lines on the maps but only lines it said were extraneous.

Audubon calls this lawsuit frivolous, demanding the families pay its legal bills.

Family members refuse to give an inch because all these years of legal war have certainly cost them.

"It's affected everybody mentally, physically, emotionally," Carin Raynal said.

When CBN News asked repeatedly for an interview or written comments, Audubon suggested researching the court documents and would only give the following mission statement:

"Audubon is fully committed to its mission as a non-profit organization dedicated to faithful care of the earth. We believe that every person on earth is a steward of land, air, water and wildlife. We believe that safeguarding America's great natural heritage builds a better world for future generations, preserves our shared quality of life, and fosters a healthier environment for all of us."

Lea Raynal summed up her family's feelings about Audubon: "They came in and stirred up all this mess, and we're left with nothing."

[dales]

The URL is from Sept. 2011.

[liberty]

The URL is from Sept. 2011.

I saw it on the 700 Club today. Does it make a difference?

[Rick]

Lib I bet you read a lot of Readers Digest in yer younger days...

[Scooter]

I saw it on the 700 Club today.

And the picture is complete.

[rubato]

Any private landowner might have done exactly the same. Why would they do differently? The Cervieres family apparently did not own the land they thought they did. If they did, then a survey would have shown they were right. And why are they entitled to "expand and improve" the road just because they failed to take adequate steps to prevent fire ?

Sounds to me like someone has forgotten that he cares about property rights.

yrs,
rubato

[liberty]

Any private landowner might have done exactly the same. Why would they do differently? The Cervieres family apparently did not own the land they thought they did. If they did, then a survey would have shown they were right. And why are they entitled to "expand and improve" the road just because they failed to take adequate steps to prevent fire ?

Sounds to me like someone has forgotten that he cares about property rights.

yrs,
rubato

Property doesn’t ‘t have rights, people do and one of the most fundamental rights is the right to be left along and that includes ones property.


Audubon had actually doctored the drawings that it showed to our clients," Prows said. "It took white out, and we have emails from Audubon's very top people talking about putting white-out on the maps - removing the lines that its surveyors had put on the maps that Audubon didn't like, showing that the boundary really was in the right place all along."

[rubato]

No one cares about a bullshit story about 'doctored lines'. All they had to do was pay a licensed surveyor and any 'doctored lines' are moot.

They're making up bullshit stories because the facts don't work for them. The 700 club is repeating bullshit because they have bought into the meme started by the John Birch Society that 'environmentalists are the new communists'.

And you're repeating it because you can't or won't think it through once you've decided to demonize someone.

The Audobon society are exercising their rights as property owners just as anyone would.

yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

So where are the lines and who owns what? (I am unclear on who is claiming what?)
I had a minor dispute with my neighbor on the back of my property. I would cut down their hedges a little back past the fence and they were saying it was infringing on their property. I pointed out to them that the fence was installed as per code which says it must be at least six inches inside ones property line. Turns out mine was twelve inches inside my property line and I had the right to cut back twelve inches of their bushes past my fence. All I did was go straight up from my fence as best I could. If I had a laser beam, it might have been more presice.

[Econoline]

The Cervieres family apparently did not own the land they thought they did. If they did, then a survey would have shown they were right. And why are they entitled to "expand and improve" the road just because they failed to take adequate steps to prevent fire ?

According to the linked news story the Cervieres family say they spent over a million dollars in legal and survey costs to defend their claim, and since it is a large (168 acres), irregular, remote piece of land that figure seems believable. I can also believe that as a large national organization the Audubon Society might have had access to more resources and thought the family would just capitulate rather than spend that kind of money to fight them. In the end, the Audubon Society capitulated, and so the Cervieres family apparently *DID* own the land they thought they did.: "In 2012, the families' lawyers discovered with a subpoena that at the start of all this, Audubon had held back from family members some of the surveying maps it had commissioned. They had also altered the maps they presented to prove Audubon's claim."

The road is a separate issue, but (again according to the linked news story) the fire burned 12,525 acres and 20 structures in the area and state fire investigators identified electrical equipment at a Calpine geothermal plant as the cause of the fire. Most of the families received money as part of a recent $4.13 million settlement between Pine Flat landowners and Calpine, but if Calpine paid for the cost of rebuilding and the existing road was inadequate for the construction equipment needed to rebuild, that issue presumably should have been settled years ago between Calpine and Audubon rather than leaving the damaged property owners in the middle of a dispute, with the money but not the road access required to rebuild.

[oldr_n_wsr]

So the family won but at a big cost (lawers, etc). The audubon society should be made to pay that cost. (and I am not anti-audubon society) just they should pay a littel more attention.

[liberty]

The Cervieres family apparently did not own the land they thought they did. If they did, then a survey would have shown they were right. And why are they entitled to "expand and improve" the road just because they failed to take adequate steps to prevent fire ?

According to the linked news story the Cervieres family say they spent over a million dollars in legal and survey costs to defend their claim, and since it is a large (168 acres), irregular, remote piece of land that figure seems believable. I can also believe that as a large national organization the Audubon Society might have had access to more resources and thought the family would just capitulate rather than spend that kind of money to fight them. In the end, the Audubon Society capitulated, and so the Cervieres family apparently *DID* own the land they thought they did.: "In 2012, the families' lawyers discovered with a subpoena that at the start of all this, Audubon had held back from family members some of the surveying maps it had commissioned. They had also altered the maps they presented to prove Audubon's claim."

The road is a separate issue, but (again according to the linked news story) the fire burned 12,525 acres and 20 structures in the area and state fire investigators identified electrical equipment at a Calpine geothermal plant as the cause of the fire. Most of the families received money as part of a recent $4.13 million settlement between Pine Flat landowners and Calpine, but if Calpine paid for the cost of rebuilding and the existing road was inadequate for the construction equipment needed to rebuild, that issue presumably should have been settled years ago between Calpine and Audubon rather than leaving the damaged property owners in the middle of a dispute, with the money but not the road access required to rebuild.

In the past I have always had the greatest respect for the Audubon Society. Their mission of promoting birds, wild land and trees is something that I strongly approve of ; it bothers me when I drive along the road and see acres of land with the tress bulldozed so someone can raise a little more wheat. But all that is destroyed when a large organization acts as a bully. A bully abuses his power just because he can. They can overcome this and put it behind them if they will just do the right things.

And yes Rubuto they are the new Communist if they engages in this kind of activist. I see little difference between this and Stalin’s man made famine that he used to take the land of the Ukrainian peasants.

[Jarlaxle]

So the family won but at a big cost (lawers, etc). The audubon society should be made to pay that cost. (and I am not anti-audubon society) just they should pay a littel more attention.

They should be made to pay 10 times that cost in punitive damages! Whomever is responsible for this travesty should go to prison for a very long time.

[Guinevere]

So the family won but at a big cost (lawers, etc). The audubon society should be made to pay that cost. (and I am not anti-audubon society) just they should pay a littel more attention.

They should be made to pay 10 times that cost in punitive damages! Whomever is responsible for this travesty should go to prison for a very long time.

1. I doubt very much the families paid $1MM in litigation and survey costs. 168 acres is a postage stamp out there. And $1MM in litigation costs -- the article says hundreds of thousands -- which is a lot, but much more realistic.

2. You're only hearing one side of the story. You know there is another. Audubon may have had a legitimate claim to the road. I looked for some real news sources for the story and found nothing.

3. The American Rule -- everyone pays their own litigation costs and attorney's fees. You don't penalize someone for asserting a legitimate claim, even if they ultimately lose on that claim (and in this case the claims were settled). What a horrible chilling effect on the ability to assert our rights to redress of grievances and several others.

[liberty]

What do people do that don’t have money?

[dgs49]

What about "adverse possession"? If you live for a period of years on land, with claim of ownership, and that claim is never disputed, then at some point you take title to the land. Laws differ from state to state, but surely CA has some form of adverse possession law or precedent.

There must be some significant information left out.

[dgs49]

California Code of Civil Procedure
§ 321. Possession, when presumed: Occupation deemed under legal title, unless
adverse

In every action for the recovery of real property, or the possession thereof, the person
establishing a legal title to the property is presumed to have been possessed thereof
within the time required by law, and the occupation of the property by any other person
is deemed to have been under and in subordination to the legal title, unless it appear
that the property has been held and possessed adversely to such legal title, for five
years before the commencement of the action.

§ 322. Occupation under written instrument or judgment, when deemed adverse
When it appears that the occupant, or those under whom he claims, entered into the
possession of the property under claim of title, exclusive of other right, founding such
claim upon a written instrument, as being a conveyance of the property in question, or
upon the decree or judgment of a competent court, and that there has been a continued
occupation and possession of the property included in such instrument, decree, or
judgment, or of some part of the property, under such claim, for five years, the property
so included is deemed to have been held adversely, except that when it consists of a
tract divided into lots, the possession of one lot is not deemed a possession of any
other lot of the same tract.

§ 323. What constitutes adverse possession under written instrument or
judgment

For the purpose of constituting an adverse possession by any person claiming a title,
founded upon a written instrument, or a judgment or decree, land is deemed to have
been possessed and occupied in the following cases:
1. Where it has been usually cultivated or improved;
2. Where it has been protected by a substantial inclosure;
3. Where, although not inclosed, it has been used for the supply of fuel, or of
fencing-timber for the purposes of husbandry, or for pasturage, or for the
ordinary use of the occupant;
4. Where a known farm or single lot has been partly improved, the portion of
such farm or lot that may have been left not cleared, or not inclosed
according to the usual course and custom of the adjoining country, shall
be deemed to have been occupied for the same length of time as the part
improved and cultivated.

§ 324. Premises actually occupied under claim of title deemed to be held
adversely
Where it appears that there has been an actual continued occupation of land, under a
claim of title, exclusive of any other right, but not founded upon a written instrument,
judgment, or decree, the land so actually occupied, and no other, is deemed to have
been held adversely.

§ 325. What constitutes adverse possession under claim of title not written
For the purpose of constituting an adverse possession by a person claiming title, not
founded upon a written instrument, judgment, or decree, land is deemed to have been
possessed and occupied in the following cases only:
1. Where it has been protected by a substantial inclosure.
2. Where it has been usually cultivated or improved.
Provided, however, that in no case shall adverse possession be considered established
under the provisions of any section or sections of this code, unless it shall be shown
that the land has been occupied and claimed for the period of five years continuously,
and the party or persons, their predecessors and grantors, have paid all the taxes,
state, county, or municipal, which have been levied and assessed upon such land.

[dgs49]

"...occupied and claimed for a period of five years continuously."

Wonder why that statute didn't determine the outcome.

[liberty]

"...occupied and claimed for a period of five years continuously."

Wonder why that statute didn't determine the outcome.

The property was used a vacation retreat and not a residence. Would that make a difference?

[Guinevere]

It may have been a defense to Audubon's action, we just don't have enough facts to know. And for the record you don't just yell "adverse possession " and become the owner of the land. You still have to bring an action to quiet title (which could have been a counterclaim to the Audubon action - again not enough facts to know).