Michael Newman, the Pinehurst village attorney, wrote a stunning article in The Pilot on Nov. 7, claiming that there has been much misinformation promulgated by the leaders of Stop the Taking Of Pinewild (StTOP).

That an attorney of record for a defendant municipality would write a column on a case that is pending before the courts, accusing the plaintiffs of telling lies, is truly amazing. That he also would falsely accuse StTOP of intentionally misleading the residents of Pinewild is beyond unbelievable.

Let's get a couple of things straight. First, no lawsuit has been "filed by StTOP." The lawsuits were filed by hundreds of Pinewild residents. More than 900 residents asked to be added as plaintiffs in the constitutional claim of unlawful "taking" filed in the federal court. To imply that these are "StTOP lawsuits" obscures the fact that more than 80 percent of Pinewild residents oppose forced annexation and most are plaintiffs in the cases.

Secondly, there is no law requiring Pinehurst to annex Pinewild. We pleaded to be left alone.

I suggest that it was a miscalculation to assume forced annexation would be unopposed by residents of Pinewild. Lawsuits have been filed, and defending them is expensive. But that is an issue for the village to deal with. It is absurd for Mr. Newman to suggest that StTOP leadership is "blaming the village for incurring legal fees." Pinehurst can stop this repugnant forced annexation effort whenever it chooses.

In his article, Mr. Newman states: "Therefore, the contention that the cases have not yet 'been to court' is flat-out wrong. Both cases were 'in court.' Both courts summarily dismissed the suits, based upon well-established law. StTOP lost each time. Feigning ignorance of court losses is no substitute for the truth." When he says the federal case dismissal was based upon well-established law, he is being disingenuous at best. The clear implication of his statement is that the federal court dismissed the case on its merits which, as he knows, it clearly did not.

And, of course, the plaintiffs did not have their day "in court" to present their case on the merits. Mr. Newman says, "Feigning ignorance of court losses is no substitute for the truth." Misrepresenting what the court actually held is no substitute for the truth -- the whole truth, Mr. Newman.

Further, both Pinewild and the village have known since the inception of this litigation that the Pinewild annexation would be appealed to the highest court.

Pinewild will have "had its day in court" when the highest court in the land has its final say, based on all of the facts and legal arguments. There is no existing legal precedent controlling the facts in this case because Pinewild is the first private, gated community in the United States to challenge a forced-annexation statute.

Mr. Newman goes on to state that the federal courts have repeatedly held that forced annexation is not a taking and does not convert private property into public property. We don't agree. We believe that no court ever has considered whether the annexation of a private, gated community that owns all of its streets and common areas, thereby subjecting such community to all of the laws and regulations of the annexing village, constitutes the "taking" of property, requiring the payment of "just compensation."

This next contention of Mr. Newman is a real whopper. He says: "Annexation merely means that ... the village can 'swap hats' with Moore County, assume these governmental functions, and provide the same services to Pinewild residents that are currently enjoyed by Pinehurst residents." If it were the mere swapping of hats, I doubt there would be any lawsuits.

Perhaps Mr. Newman forgot that when the hats are swapped, the residents of Pinewild will have to pay Pinehurst about a million dollars a year in taxes (to start with) in addition to the Moore County taxes they now pay. And for the privilege of paying those taxes, the Pinewild residents will receive trash service we do not need and police protection we already have.

And, by the way, we also will be required to forfeit our right to exclude the public from our privately owned roads, all of which losses will diminish the value of our homes and our quality of life.

Finally, Mr. Newman gratuitously advises us that "threats against Pinehurst taxpayers and the Village Council accomplishes [sic] nothing, especially when the threats are premised upon false information and long-ago rejected legal theories."

What of our actions are "threats," Mr. Newman? We both know the claims contained in the complaint and legal briefs of the plaintiffs are not "premised upon false information or long-ago rejected legal theories." If they were, the courts would have severely sanctioned our attorneys.

It serves no useful purpose for the attorney of record for the village to seek to malign the motives of Pinewild residents in his apparent need to justify the legal fees incurred by the village. We have had enough of your rancor, Mr. Newman. Pinewild residents seek only to have their rights fairly adjudicated. We will abide by whatever decision is rendered by the highest court.

John Boesch is president of Stop the Taking Of Pinewild (StTOP).