My wife, Renee, and I finally finished our trial in administrative court this week, culminating a long year and a half of litigation initiated by the Department of Environmental Services, joined by a 501(c)(3) taxpayer-subsidized NGO, the Coastal Conservation League (CCL), and two liberal newspapers — the far-left-leaning State, which acts as a government mouthpiece, and the Post and Courier, whose owner sits on the board of the Coastal Conservation League.
The week before trial, we terminated the services of our attorneys, who informed me it would cost an additional $200,000 to go to trial in administrative court (no jury), where I was unlikely to prevail, and therefore, I should settle. The easy decision would have been to settle, pay the fine, and move on with our lives. However, as you will see below, settling would have a domino effect not just on island residents but on property owners throughout the state. Therefore, in an unprecedented move, Renee and I — who are not lawyers and have never seen the inside of a courtroom (other than in My Cousin Vinny) — decided to represent ourselves against the deep state.
Unfortunately, instead of citizens standing together, I was informed that some island residents posted on social media that they were praying we would fail. We can always disagree — it is our right. But I hope we can disagree without wishing harm on people we disagree with and do not even know. Matthew 18 in the Scriptures goes one step further and suggests you first talk with the person you disagree with. Religion can be uniting if we let it.
Renee and I had three days to prepare before our first day in court. Unfortunately, we had to ignore our child and dog and spend 15-hour days understanding statutes and regulations. Our major weakness was that we did not understand all the complicated procedural issues around entering evidence, questioning witnesses, and so on. We were understandably nervous entering the courtroom that first day and did not know how the judge would react. Luckily for us, Judge Ralph Anderson was very understanding and patient with us novices, and treated both of us with great respect. For that, we are eternally grateful.
We walked into the courtroom and were struck by the deep state’s bench, filled to the brim with lawyers for the state and CCL, along with many of their witnesses. On our side: one friend who drove up from Charleston. The trial was scheduled for three days, but DES/CCL took up the entire time with thousands of slides and witnesses. Several slides were apparently sent in by island residents acting as agents for the state. There were also false allegations — which we had to disprove — submitted by sitting Councilmember Blair Hahn to his contact at the Coastal Conservation League, a radical environmental group that believes all residents on barrier islands should retreat and let water reclaim the land, eventually rendering the islands nonresidential.
Since the trial extended to five days, I will summarize their positions. First, they now claim unlimited jurisdiction behind setback lines and critical lines. This applies not only to oceanfront but also to creekside, marshfront, and more. Based on the testimony of their expert — which DES/CCL agreed with in their closing statement — this theory could theoretically extend to any property, even those not waterfront.
They accused us of egregious violations and of ignoring their orders. One witness said that in her 15 years, she had not seen such a blatant violation of the law. On cross-examination, I asked if, in the last 25 years, anywhere on the South Carolina coast prior to us, she could name a case where jurisdiction had been enforced landward of the state setback line. She could not. In the 2019 Hilton Head seawall case, DES said in a sworn judicial pleading that they did not even have “procedures” to enforce jurisdiction landward of the setback line.
Their new position is that after a major storm, they can inspect the “vegetation line” — even if vegetation was washed away — and declare that area a “beach critical area” under government jurisdiction. That means only beach-compatible sand can be added. You cannot replace your grass, shrubs, pine straw, fence, play equipment, or even furniture. I asked their expert: If another Hugo came and washed away the soil, covering everything with sand across the road, could they inspect the vegetation line across the street the next day and declare that land under jurisdiction? He said yes. DES and CCL confirmed they agreed with this position. This leads to untethered jurisdiction.
I asked another witness: How can someone buy waterfront property if they can’t rely on the plat and setback lines to know where they can plant a vegetable garden or maintain their yard? The answer: You’d have to contact the department — and the answer could change day by day, storm by storm, and property by property.
As mentioned earlier, they used the full three days for their case. At the end of that time, they rested, and it was our turn. There was a one-week break before we resumed. During that week — even though their case was closed — they sent Christopher Stout, chief of the Bureau of Coastal Management, to our home to gather more photos. When court resumed, they tried a procedural move to enter new evidence. That evidence? Pictures of 116 Ocean and 120 Ocean, our neighbors, to suggest further vegetation retreat. What they didn’t disclose? That they had issued a permit to the city to dump Army Corps sand, which covered all vegetation in front of the escarpment. No citizen should face this type of government overreach.
We noticed in The State newspaper that reporter Sammy Fretwell claimed we were only arguing to reduce the fine. That is false. I told the judge I was there to defend the Constitution — to argue that a government agency cannot unilaterally seize private property without compensation while the property owner continues paying taxes to the original line. I told the judge I would agree to pay the full fine — I wasn’t there to work it off. The judge seemed surprised and told the other side to take the deal, as they’d get the full fine if they prevailed. Their response: “We have to talk to our client.” The judge asked, “Client? Who is your client?” No response. They declined the deal.
I asked several times why CCL, a private charity, was assisting a state agency against private citizens. I cited statute 48-39-120, which says the state owns land in public trust below the mean high tide (MHT) line — defined as the line when the property was first developed. That makes sense, since taxes are still paid to that original line. For us, that line is more than 300 feet seaward of our structure.
CCL and DES offered testimony from an island resident saying he couldn’t ride his bike at high tide and submitted an affidavit from Jimmy Carroll claiming our structure impeded his walks. I reminded the judge that landward of the MHT line at the time of development is legally private and taxable property, and that both the U.S. and South Carolina constitutions prohibit taking it without compensation. Apparently, this was news to the radicals, who insist they can claim any sandy ground without paying for it — or reducing the taxes.
This isn’t a fight we started, but it’s one we intend to finish. It is the first time this century that a “red state” unelected agency is asserting landward jurisdiction beyond a state-approved setback line, using a vegetation line standard born out of a settlement between CCL and DES in the Hilton Head lawsuit. Under that agreement, CCL dropped its suit in exchange for DES enforcing a new definition of “beach critical.”
This is a fight for all of us. I’m happy to discuss it individually with anyone. Once you see the testimony and evidence, you’ll understand: allowing this precedent will lead to the greatest confiscation of private property in South Carolina history. I’ve heard horror stories from people across the state, but those would fill a book.
Let’s stay united as citizens, defending the supreme law of the land — the great Constitution our founders were prepared to die for. As George Washington said, “Property rights and freedom go hand in hand. You cannot have one without the other.” In these modern times, do we still have the courage to fight for our freedom?
-
This commentary represents the opinions of Lucky Dog Publishing owner Rom Reddy about what occurred at a public trial where he was a pro se defendant in a civil enforcement. This piece does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the newspaper. In keeping with our philosophy of publishing all opinions, we welcome responses, which must be limited to 400 words and will be published on a space-available basis.
