Introduction

This is a story of how a family, which had operated a large dairy farm on the south coast of Massachusetts, was targeted by local government and elitist activists, prevented from lawful use of their land, and thereby lost their farm, the land, and their home of 30 years.

The real estate on which the farm was located was a large parcel of 1000+ acres, which was well-located farm land, with salt-water frontage, and well suited for development. The family had no intention to develop the property, until individuals, without consulting them, decided to manipulate the zoning regulations in order to restrict future use. Over a period of many decades, the family had contributed approximately $1 million to the town in taxes, but was dismayed that the most basic forms of fair treatment were not to be applied to them, both in the town's response to the zoning issue, and in it's response to their attempt to protect themselves, by the filing of a preliminary subdivision plan to lock in then-existing zoning regulations.

The result of an 11 year struggle for their rights is a story of threats, secretive zoning changes, abuse of the courts and local government, seduction, and finally bankruptcy and eviction from the family home, after an unwarranted foreclosure. At this point, the 74 year old former owners (and a 97 year-old mother-in-law) must vacate by September 3, 1997.

Early Beginnings

For the past 30 years, from the time they purchased a dairy farm that the Frates and Bernier families had sold to a development company, the family of Joseph and Maria Hill has owned an 1100 acre farm, on saltwater, in Dartmouth, Massachusetts and actively worked it until 1980.

The land itself is one of a kind. Wesley Ewell, a land planner, commented in a 1991 letter to Maria Hill, "On the matter of comparable properties, there simply are none. I have been evaluating properties along the entire northeast coast from Machais, Maine to Norfolk, Virginia since 1978. In that time I have found no other parcel this size, with such ideal topography, with this much water frontage, and with such proximity to urban population centers. In my opinion, your property is truly unique."

The farm was not a "gentleman's" farm. The Hills had management and herd development consultants who were from the University of New Hampshire: Dr. Boynton, Chairman of the Dairy Department and Ken Fowler, the UNH herdsman for 35 years. The family operated both the dairy farm, with a total of 250 head, producing up to 6000 lbs. of milk per day, and a Morgan horse farm on the property. In the early 1980's because Joseph Hill had several heart attacks, and because his sons were still being educated, (one at Virginia Polytech in Dairy Science), a decision was made to sell the herd. After this was done, in part to keep up the land, the Hills leased the cropland to a farm family from the next town. They still retained much of the farm equipment and all the facilities, in the hope that one day the herd would be restocked and the farm restarted.

A Modest Proposal

Contributing to the decision to sell the herd was the result of a petition to the town government to enlarge a pond, which had been used for decades to water cattle, and to sell off gravel. The plan was to use the proceeds from the gravel sales to generate the $70,000 estimated as needed to refit the milking parlor with an automatic milking machine takeoff and monitoring system. Gravel has always been, and still is, a traditional family farm land use in this area. Yet the Hills' anti-farming neighbors, working through the town, turned out in force to oppose this modest plan. The ruckuses (and misstatements) at the permit hearings were unbelievable.

A Record of Land Preservation

If preserving the land was their agenda, then their action was still more difficult to comprehend, given the Hills record for preserving over 1000 acres of land. In reality, the decision of the Hills to purchase 300 acre and 400 acre parcels, known as the Freitas and Dartmoor Morgan Horse Farms, respectively, stopped the imminent development of these properties in the late 60's. The former, as previously mentioned, was already owned by a developer at the time of purchase, and Dartmoor was about to be purchased by one.

In 1981, attempting to retain and improve the farm, an offer was made to sell the development rights to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Hills' objective then was not to sell the land and leave their home, but merely to sell the rights of development to remove all financial stress on the farm. The mortgage debt was minimal because the farm had been profitable enough to support the family, pay costs, and meet the payroll for five employees.

At a meeting with Agriculture Commissioner Winthrop, in his office, Mrs. Hill was told that the agency very much wanted to "preserve the land" but was short of funds. He said however that they worked closely with wealthy private groups, which had pools of private money for land acquisition. He then introduced her to a Mr. Davis Cherington, who was present, representing such a group, "The Conservation and Farm Lands Trust".

Strangely Low Offers

Soon afterward, other similar private land acquisition "trusts", including The Slocum River Trust, contacted Mrs. Hill. Their interest was not in buying the development rights, but in acquiring the entire property, through a combination of taxpayer money and non profit money, and to develop the land so as to attract high income owners. Their offers ranged from $1,000/acre, to a high of $2500/acre.

In contrast to these very low offers, an appraisal in 1991, about ten years later and after the real estate crash of the 80's, indicated a market value of $20,000 per acre, or $29.5 million, and $17.7 million in a distress sale situation. It seemed obvious in the early '80s that the Hills had been identified as ready for a distress sale. Having invested much time, energy, and money into the land and farm, this fact was not well regarded by them. Nonetheless, Maria Hill had many meetings with these people, both before and after Mr. Charles Straus, one of the cofounders of FORM (The Friends of Russells Mills), moved to Dartmouth. She had extensive correspondence with them, and spoke to them many times on the telephone. She states that they never considered her needs or made anything close to a fair market offer.

Covert Activities

An action of the Dartmouth town government in the mid 80's was a precursor of things to come. At that time, all of the Hill's Horseneck Road land was rezoned for two acres. Although Mrs Hill was not opposed to the idea of 2 acre zoning for that area, she was never approached by the town government about it.

Soon after, in 1985, Mrs. Hill learned from a Fall River developer, then working on Slades Corner Road, near the Hill's residence, that a small group was tiptoeing around, without the basic neighborly courtesy of a visit or discussion, quietly targeting almost exclusively their land, for another zoning change. This private group petitioned the local authorities for the change, after soliciting signatures from local residents, but without approaching the Hills to solicit their opinion. The proposed change was again a change from one acre to two acres.

Reluctantly, Mrs. Hill filed a preliminary one acre subdivision plan for a 200 acre wooded parcel, an area not used in the farm operation, to preserve her private property rights, but not necessarily to begin development. She states, "If I was so inclined, I could have developed the property ten years earlier."

Opposition to the Subdivision Plan

On January 14, 1986, at 3 p.m., the preliminary subdivision plan was filed at the town planner's office and stamped with the appropriate notation indicating that it had been received. That same evening, after the filing, the Town Meeting convened, and after business hours and 11 pm, voted to change the zoning on the land relating to the proposed subdivision to 2 acres. A meeting of the planning board was then called on a subsequent date, during which the preliminary plan was rejected - the first time that a preliminary plan had ever been rejected by the town.

Mrs. Hill asserts that the Planning Board bowed "to the special interest pressure of FORM" and "unlawfully denied both Preliminary and Definitive Plan, and stipulated that the denial was based on failing to meet the new, two acre standard." The legality of the subdivision plan was then, and has since been, appealed to the Land Court of the Commonwealth on a total of three different occasions, and, each time, the Court has decided that the one acre filing was lawful. Under Massachusetts land law, the rule is first in time, first in right.

Despite the fact that the 1986 plan was drawn to meet all the one acre town zoning requirements existing at that time, and requested no variances (an exception to a zoning rule) or special permits, a local group, known as FORM (the Friends of Russells Mills) sprang into action to oppose it - under the pretense of First Amendment rights. The group, which was closely related if not identical to the group which had initiated the petition for the zoning change, shortly after the plan filing, formally organized, incorporated, and hired attorneys to fight the Hills. About six months later, the Hills were also required to hire an attorney.

A Strategy of Harassment through Litigation

The defeats of FORM's cause in the Land Court, and the court's denial of standing to FORM, did not bother Straus and the Hill's other opponents, even though the Land Court's first affirmation of their rights was made by the Chief Justice of the Land Court. The reason for this seems to be indicated by FORM's attorney, who had told Mrs. Hill on the Courthouse steps, after the first hearing before the Land Court, that their agenda would be to create litigation (to the Supreme Court if necessary) that would discourage anyone from buying a piece of land from her, and by otherwise actively working to make it impossible for her to raise needed mortgage funds. He also stated that [if Mrs. Hill refused to accept their dictates] he would ultimately cause her to lose her property.

FORM Coopts Dartmouth Town Policy

Four days after the Land Court Decision on April 10, 1989, a regular meeting of the Dartmouth Planning Board was held, during which the Land Court decision in favor of the Hills, and a possible Appeal, were discussed. The denial of standing to FORM was noted. The Planning Director informed the Board that FORM would probably vote to assume the entire cost of the Appeal. The subsequent Motion to Appeal was conditional: "provided that no public expenses are incurred". Three of the five Board members "questioned the legality of adding a condition to the Motion", which ultimately carried 3 to 2.

Then on April 18, 1989, at a Meeting of the Dartmouth Board of Selectmen, the minutes state that, although not on the agenda, Charles B. Straus, Jr., as Director of FORM, submitted a letter which "noted that the Planning Board voted on April 10 to Appeal the Land Court Decision, if this process could be accomplished at no cost to the Town...Mr. Straus requested the Selectmen's support and vote to allow FORM to underwrite the cost to Town Counsel." Then, "on motion made by Mr. Mosher [Selectman]and seconded by Mr. Santos, it was unanimously voted to instruct Town Counsel to proceed with the appeal process, conditional upon receipt of a letter of intent from FORM that the cost of such appeal will be underwritten by the Friends Of Russells Mills (FORM) through an Agency Gift Account that will be established by the Town Accountant...(After an impromptu meeting in the corridor), later in the evening Mr. Straus (signing as President of FORM), submitted to the Board a handwritten letter signed by all the members of FORM indicating that they would underwrite the entire cost of the appeal of the decision of the Land Court..."

This record indicates that the votes of the Town Boards to Appeal the Land Court Decision was dependent on the Town receiving funds from an external source. If that funding had not become available, then, according to the resolution of the Board of Selectmen at the time, no appeal of the decision favoring the Hills would have occured. FORM, a small non-elected body, was therefore allowed by the Board of Selectmen, to stand in its shoes, and affect the direction of town policy, solely by transferring money to the Selectmen's "Gift Account".

Because FORM's ultimatum, as detailed on the steps of the courthouse, has been successfully carried out over the past eleven years, at a March 18, 1997 meeting for a proposed "Historic District", Straus was able to proclaim to the 40+ assembled neighbors that FORM, and others, have now accomplished their goal of destroying Mrs. Hill. And, by forcing her to hire attorneys and fight for the historic rights of every American citizen, the "Friends of Russells Mills" have impoverished her in the process.

A Business Offer from Switzerland

Over the years various costs, both financial and personal, resulting from fighting litigation, engineering the subdivision, and financing, were taking their toll. The prospect of selling the property was becoming more attractive.

This was the milieu when the Hills came across an advertisement from a Swiss attorney offering to exchange property in Germany for real estate in the U.S. under section 1031 of IRS code. Meetings with Josef Huber, the Swiss representative of the attorney, living in Memphis, Tennessee, followed. Eventually Mr. Huber suggested that a joint venture between the Hills and his clients would speed the process along. He offered to put up the money to satisfy the bank's needs, if the Hills would put up the land. A verbal agreement was made at the Airport Hilton dining room. Because it was 7 pm, and Huber ostensibly had a plane to catch to Switzerland, in order to get the money, there was nothing written.

First Foreclosure Attempt

On returning from the Hilton, the Hills were surprised to see that a foreclosure notice had been placed in the newspaper by their bank. This was communicated to Huber at the time of his next phone contact. Both Huber and the Hills agreed that the only way that a joint venture could take place would be if the land was protected, and so after mutual agreement between all parties on the subject, the Hills filed for Chapter 11 Reorganization protection of their farm corporation.

Breach of the Joint Venture Agreement

After returning from Switzerland (or from wherever he went), Huber produced some indication of financial backing. It was a letter vaguely worded, however, which would not have satisfied the bank. He claimed that his backers needed more information, and so he was given engineering information, plans, buildout projections, and planning documents - information that the Hills had spent about $3 million assembling, although the Hills retained some key elements of this documentation for safe measure. During this time Huber continued to maintain that he was moving ahead on the joint venture.

In late October of 1992, during the negotiating phase, Mr. Huber began to meet with the private secretary to the Hills attorney after hours. She has admitted to this under oath, and that she was in bed with him when Huber had a phone call with Mrs. Hill, during which he talked about "the joint venture". She also admitted to speaking with Huber's attorney about the joint venture.

This has significance for at least two reasons. It gives sworn testimony that there was a joint venture, and secondly it indicates that Huber was probably receiving all the information that the Hills were giving to their attorney, in particular because the attorney, now deceased, was so ill that much of the work had to go directly to his private secretary.

Huber did eventually produce the required funds, but instead of using them for the joint venture he used them to have Eiko Immobilien buy the mortgage, and then transferred the mortgage quickly (at the same closing) to Goldrock Corporation, Phoenix. Four days later Goldrock's attorney requested that the Hills consent to a friendly foreclosure. It was made clear that they wanted to foreclose in order to own the property themselves.

Events Leading to Foreclosure

After the bank mortgage was purchased and the bank's interests were satisfied, the Hill's corporation came out of Chapter 11 protective status briefly, but then returned to it to forestall a foreclosure auction attempt by Goldrock (an automatic stay of foreclosure is the result of Chapter 11 status). Eventually the family corporation was forced out of Chapter 11 into Chapter 7, after which a trustee was appointed. Goldrock was then able to successfully foreclose on the second attempt.

The property was sold at auction in January 1996 by Goldrock Corporation to itself for the low sum of 5.5 million, and transferred to Indurama Finance Corporation. The last known legal advertising for the sale was in January 1995. Subsequent auction notices, were at best minimal, and may not have met the legal requirements for foreclosure auction notification. The last advertising was in a small local paper with a circulation of about 5,000, after December 7, 1995, and the date of the auction, was on January 6, 1996.

A Deficiency or Veiled Threat?

By keeping the auction notices obscure, Goldrock was able to keep serious investors largely uninformed, and keep the results of the bidding process as low as possible. In doing so they were also more easily able to create what they call a Deficiency, the difference between the sale price and their alleged legal cost plus interest. In a convenient twist for Goldrock, it turns out that Mr. and Mrs Hill are the guarantors for this alleged "deficit" of about $1.6 million. Although the deficit might not be easily defensible in court, Goldrock could use it to punish the Hills by making them go to court and spend more scarce funds on their defense. If they should do something disadvantageous to Goldrock, like challenge the legality of the sale based on inadequate advertising, then this is a possible, if not likely, response of Goldrock.

Factors Leading to the Courts Decision to Allow Foreclosure

A. Mounting Costs

The result of 11 years of litigation have put a tremendous financial burden on the Hill family. At the outset, in the early 80's, the entire debt was about $400,000. At the time of chapter 11 bankruptcy hearings in the mid 90's, however, that debt had mushroomed to $4.7 million - due to legal costs, interest, and engineering work on the subdivision. To this debt, the bankruptcy court added other "alleged" costs of Goldrock Corporation, which brought the total figure dangerously close to the low property appraisal of $7 million which the court was using.

B. The Bankruptcy Court Uses a Low Appraisal

The decision of the court to use this low figure was critical in its eventual decision to allow Goldrock to foreclosure. It was appraised in January 1991 for a $29.5 million market value, and for $17.7 million in a distressed sale. A more recent appraisal, in September of '94 was for $12.6 million, which was in close accord with known property sales in the same geographic area, and around the same time, of $12,000 per acre for raw land. Despite these appraisals, the court was using a $7 million figure for it's determinations.

C. Threats by Government Officials

Compounding this unstable situation were a number of actions of the Town of Dartmouth. Some actions involved one or more town officials, who were calling potential buyers of the property and threatening to impede any development should they purchase it. There were multiple occurrences of this, before and during bankruptcy. It was shortly clear that most investors do not want to tie up millions in assets in a real estate venture if there is a significant chance that litigation and bureaucratic maneuvering is going to eliminate the profit margin. And consequently, the Hill's efforts to sell and infuse their corporation with much needed cash were seriously impeded - because interested buyers decided to walk away.

D. A Surprise Tax

Another town government action, a surprise levying of about $300,000 in forestry taxes on the family corporation, occurred shortly after chapter 11 was filed. The "taxable event" had occurred 15 years earlier, and the tax had not been previously levied - facts which made the timing of this assessment particularly peculiar. Perhaps the appearance of the town attorney before the court was calculated to increase the courts concern about this matter, at a decisive moment. Whatever the case, according to the bankruptcy rules, this tax had to be paid before any creditors, and the town document that accompanied the notification specified that no appeal was possible. In the eyes of the court, the mortgage holder might not have been adequately secured, because of interest accruing on this tax - eventhough it was realistic to believe that there was at least $5 million of equity remaining in view of the $12 million realistic appraisal.

A Saudi Prince and a Pilgrimage to Mecca?

The Hill's property was bought at foreclosure by unseen and unknown foreign owners. Recall that Goldrock Corporation of Phoenix purchased the property after foreclosing on the mortgage which it had purchased. The property was then quickly shifted to Indurama Finance Corporation.

The first corporation, Goldrock, has listed as its President Saud bin Abdul-Mohsen Al Saud. The only other officer listed, the secretary, is his daughter Noha bint Saud bin Abdul-Mohsen. They both are listed as having taken their offices on March 16, 1992 and have an address listing of P.O. Box 103, Jedda, Saudi Arabia. At one point, an effort was made to subpoena Mr. Saud Adul-Mohsen Al Saud, but according to an Attorney Nye of Phoenix, who incorporated Goldrock, they were at that time on a pilgrimage to Mecca. All other attempts to locate them or verify their existence have failed, including one inquiry to the Saudi embassy.

The Indurama Finance Corporation, the present proper owner, lists as the President and Officers R. Gratton Brown, of Memphis, a long time attorney of Josef Huber, and Leo Wyss of Switzerland. These are the only officers listed, and so there is an absence of a record of any present Saudi connection with the former Hill property, if there really ever was one.

Should Locals want to Grant Foreigners Rights which they Deny to their Own People?

The Saudi connection is most likely fantasy, but local newspapers quote Charles Straus, leader of FORM, as saying that the new owner is a Saudi Prince. At the Historic District meeting, Mr. Straus openly told the nearby residents to accept that, without the new owners filing a plan, that is, on blind faith, he has agreed that the new owners (but not the 30 year resident) will be allowed to develop the land. Perhaps to make his position seem more tenable, Straus also alleged at this meeting that Mrs. Hill would have built "tract" housing, which is a complete oxymoron, given Dartmouth's zoning and subdivision laws, and the fact that this land is zoned 80% two acre, (and 20%, one acre).

Despite the doubtful validity of the Saudi connection, what is clear is the favoritism shown to foreign corporate interests over those of local ones by the FORM leadership.

A RICO Suit and a Special Prosecutor

Further irony lies in the interest of Swiss authorities in Mr. Josef Huber, one of the few identifiable foreign participants, because of alleged involvement in a $14 million civil RICO suit in Memphis, Tennessee.

According to the Wall Street Journal, he and/or his agri business empire is also attracting the attention of the special counsel in the Mike Espy matter, a former Secretary of Agriculture. The Journal reported that the recently indicted Mr. Ron Blackly, Espy's chief of staff, worked out of the Huber Farm Management's Office in Greenville, Mississipi while employed by then Congressman Espy.

The Pied Piper of Dartmouth

Mr. Straus, despite these unresolved questions swirling around Mr. Huber, would have you believe that persons like Huber will give the Hill's land more consideration than the family who, in 30 years, has built nothing but one cow barn and three upright silos on 1100 acres.

Again, on March 18th, 1997, at the meeting of the Town of Dartmouth Historic District Study Committee, it seems that the leader of the Hill's opponents, Charles Straus, implied in remarks made to people in attendance, that Mrs. Hill got what she deserved because he made a valid offer and she did not sell to him. It is clearly arrogant to believe, that individuals have a duty to sell their family home merely because someone else wants it, and is willing to apply various methods of coercion against the individual who resists.

A Ten Million Dollar Fabrication

Mr. Straus further, and completely INACCURATELY(!) told those assembled at the same meeting that he had made an offer to Mrs. Hill for $10 million. This appeared to impress some attendees, and perhaps alleviated their concerns about Mr. Straus's integrity after seeing front page news reports which exposed unflattering facts about FORMs actions not previously published. In addition, these reports clearly suggested that FORMs aggressive actions may have played a major role in pushing an elderly couple out of their home, and that their future prospects of self-support are now very much in doubt as a result. Mrs. Hill chose not to respond directly to Straus's nonsense, but instead, opted to give those who called her, and were interested, a list of documents which they could read and from which they could draw their own conclusions about Straus's statements.

In May of 1988, James Czuprena, an appraiser who Straus indicated at a public meeting was working for him, sent a letter to the Hills which indicated a possible $10 million value, but never included that figure as part of an offer. Mrs. Hill sent the letter to her objective advisors, who explored the ten year history of dealings with these same parties. These advisors spoke again with the major players, and were unanimous in their opinion that no serious offer was being made because there was no money behind it.

A Countersuit

At the same March 18 Historic District meeting, Straus spoke of a lawsuit that he expected would soon be ended. Straus is not referring to the subdivision zoning case; that matter had been thrown out of court several times, over many years.

Straus's reference was to a Civil Action in Bristol Superior Court that is more of a personal matter for him. In 1994, Mrs. Hill's family farm company, Moorhead Corp, brought what is essentially a civil rights suit in Bristol Superior Court against Straus, Slocums River Trust, FORM, et al. In the Three Count Civil Action, Moorhead asserts in Count One, that Straus and the other Defendants committed interference with advantageous business relations, in Count Two, that they are guilty of abuse of process, and in Count Three, they are guilty of civil conspiracy in preventing Moorhead from (lawfully) developing real property in Massachusetts.

Countering the Hill's Countersuit

The defendants sought to have the civil action dismissed by giving it a spin, describing it as a SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) suit, which is a suit that attacks the right to free speech. In Massachusetts dismissing a Slapp suit is quite simple. However, the Court saw through this, ruled that this was not a SLAPP suit, and dismissed the Defendant's Motion.

Normally, this would mean that Mrs. Hill would get her day in Court, before a jury of her peers. When Moorhead was forced to file in Federal Court for reorganization (Chapter 11), however, and was then converted to a Chapter 7 status, this suit became an asset of the estate when a trustee was appointed. The suit's defendants then saw an opportunity to avoid facing a court of law. They offered the Trustee $1000 dollars for the Hill's lawsuit, stating that they would then quash it; it was accepted by the Trustee; Mrs. Hill bid $1500 to the trustee; the Defendants upped their bid to $2000, along with a written threat to sue the Trustee for their expenses, if he awarded it at a higher amount to "the Hills". Nevertheless, knowing that federal law called for award to the high bidder (even if by one dollar), Mrs. Hill bid $2250., which is 12.5% more than the amount originally accepted by the Trustee. Nonetheless, The Trustee awarded the asset-lawsuit to the Defendants for $2000. Mrs. Hill had appealed the award to the Federal Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, which denied her appeal, and so she is now appealing pro-se to the 1st Circuit Court.

FORM, and the other Defendants, have taught the Hills well that this is Massachusetts, where those with the deepest pockets are usually above the law. "Whatever happens", states Mrs Hill, "with nothing left to lose, I will still pursue my day in Court."

Personal Impact on the Hills

At age 74, Mrs. Hill has spent several hundred thousand dollars in this long, very important, legal battle, and also has lost her land, home, and on September 3, 1997, she will be evicted, and perhaps homeless. And, yes - one other "slight" problem - she has her 96 year old widowed mother, living "independently" next door, whom, as an only child, she has to care for, and try hopefully to bring through this crisis.

Her mother is deaf, and almost blind. On one occasion, when Prescott, Bullard & McLeod served her with an eviction notice, she did not understand anything that was said, and was upset that the deputy had not waited for a tip! Similarly, when a Herald News photographer was here to do a story on the events leading up to the foreclosure, she thought it concerned the fact that she was a long time member of the Horticultural Society! How does one transplant old trees?

A Danger for All Property Owners: the Local "Historic District"

The new hope of groups like FORM is that neighborhood property owners, or perhaps only those who are consulted, will elect to give a Historic District Committee authority to regulate property usage of all local residents in minute detail. They want the community to have faith that they will create new regulations which do what is right for all, if they are granted additional, irrevocable power.

The Hills resistance to "the controllers" has taught groups like FORM that, under our system, there is still a legal process cost to the "extra legal taking" of a citizen's property rights. They now propose to eliminate this process, and transfer the legal cost of controlling the homeowner to a taxpayer funded committee, i.e., to fight the citizens using their own money.

The Local Historic District, is such an innocently described mechanism to control the smaller home owner and the elderly. The wealthy are seldom truly affected. By creating regulation that burdens the average, or elderly, homeowner with legal costs, most will not fight a "committee" whose legal bills are paid by the taxpayer.

Since this is what the "committee" that controls the so called historic district is empowered and able to do, the lower income/fixed income homeowner therefore will have to remain docile. This is an old, very effective, control device which has been used, by both right and left wing governments, under a variety of brand labels in this century. It is the same device that has been used effectively in East Germany, in Hitler's Germany, and other similar, societies in Europe, Bolshevik Russia, Red China and elsewhere to control freethinking citizens.

In the case of the village of Russells Mills, Mr. Straus and FORM, have put their completely unnecessary homeowner control program, the "Local Historical District", with Straus as the district committee's leader, on a fast track process. This limits both debate, and time for the working homeowner to think through whether or why there is any necessity for what Straus wants them to agree to. They may not have time to determine that there is already a federal historic district in place, or to question why Fisher Road wasn't included up to Woodcock Road in their plan, or why Russells Mills (or any) homeowners should allow organized special interest neighbors, like (FORM), to control them. Why should they be misled into voting themselves into a control box they cannot ever get out of, and in so doing "freely" give up their birthright, and those constitutional homeowner rights that make this country special for the average person? Afterwards, when they learn what they bought into, and outrage finally erupts, they will have to accept the reply, that "you were naive enough to vote for it".

But all this having been said, none of it will effect Joseph or Maria Hill. At age 74, with "little quality time or money remaining", they believe that their horse has already been stolen. "My barn is empty", states Mrs. Hill, "But, possibly, others can learn from my experience."

To comment on this article or to offer assistance or advice to the Hill family, you may send e-mail to landgrab@ma.ultranet.com