See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Indiana Eminent Domain
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.midwestpopulistamerica.c ... nforce-eminent-domain-dispute/
Published: Jul 19, 2008
Author: Octavia
Post Date: 2008-07-19 18:12:20 by octavia
Ping List: *Destroying the Middle Class* Subscribe to *Destroying the Middle Class*
Keywords: None
Views: 725
Comments: 37
My first attempt at a post so I hope I link right. I ran into this article while researching eminent domain in Indiana. My husband and I were notified on June 26 that the town we live near is annexing 1500 acres to include my 70 acre farm. Soon thereafter, we were notified that the mayor, although we are not yet under his juristiction, needed to meet with us about plans involving our farm. We now have more info. A neighboring landowner plans on developing a medical/commercial complex next to our farm. We are to be placed in a TIF(Tax Incremental Finance) district designated for economic development to increase the property tax base. The neighbors' plan requires 5 to 10 acres for building and another 10-12 acres to allow for a county gravel road to be paved and which will be rerouted in a large S-curve through my farm so as to maximize the neighbor's frontage space. The meeting on 8/22 is to fully present the plan and for us to present any plans which we might have for developing the property so as to maximize its economic potential. Unfortunately, it is rolling hills, grasslands, orchards, ponds and a farm rather than concrete and steel. Our lives have been shattered
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 20.
#12. To: octavia (#0)
(Edited)
Tell them that you want to build a free college for gifted black agriculture students in the spirit of George Washington Carver, especially now that the collapsing economy is going to disproportionately affect the already dispossessed, forgotten minorities. Ask the council (or zoning board or whoever) to make the first donation and to make a list of like minded others who not only will act in the spirit of altruism, but will welcome blacks into the community. (Notify the press in advance) Then present wild-eyed, shoot-from-the-hip "don't quote me on this" estimates of property assessments and name drop a few corporations and foundations who've already expressed interest in supporting the plan, (contingent upon the county's approval of future tax exemption of course) including the Ford Foundation, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and mention that the ACLU has tentatively expressed interest in defending against the usual "stealth attacks from closet Klansmen in the legislature, which IN is known for" (heh heh) when the plan is publicized. Watch how they tippy toe around trying to take the land then. Most important, remember that no matter how logically and/or eloquently the solicitor or other hired hatchetman tries to dismiss your plan, be ready to scream out and finger them (pardon the expression) as the cowardly racists that we know they are!!! (But when you first finish the presentation you ask, "So, how much can I put you down for?", innocently and wide eyed and expectantly) I don't know if I could personally stop the theft of the land, but I do know that I could make them regret that they ever had favorable impressions of their positions in "public service." If you do it right (or even bungle it-that's the beauty of allegations of racism against public officials) they will at the very least always be remembered as the "______" who weren't really racists, least ways not that we could prove." Just think of all of those poor suffering folks in Indianapolis who are going to freeze and starve because we've allowed the federal reserve and alien banksters to plunder the nation's wealth! Only cruel, heartless (and probably racist) bastards would try to turn a profit at this point in America's grim history when so many of your fellow citizens are facing nightmares of unprecedented horror! (I can really pour it on) I got black activists involved in a town dispute with my wife's uncle over his rental property years ago, and the mayor (whose full time job was as director of an inner city HELP program for poor blacks) resigned as mayor and moved out of town! I felt a lot better then.... And the town council was lectured publicly and warned that they were being watched by a particularly arrogant (full time) stevedore (and part time) pain in the ass NAACP officer, who said, "Now, ain't you folks 'shamed of what you did? I sho hope we all learned sumthin heah!"
i like it! what a great mind you have.
Thanks! I'm serious about using this tactic. These rotten political hacks (who are always incestuously involved with greedy developers) are now taking private property for things other than "forts, arsenals", littoral access to island forts and strategic waterways, etc., as mandated by the constitution are a bunch of thieving good for nuthins who should be jailed. The constitution is supposed to be a document that lists limited powers, and that which is not specifically included is excluded. There is no good reason why eminent domain should be used to increase the tax base of any goddam political entity or for some murky, unspecified general welfare benefits, period! In fact the constitution authorized federal eminent domain for national defense, (what other legit purpose could there have been prior to the NRA, the TVA and Hoover Dam?) and I can think of no reason that a state, county or municipal corporation should ever have cause to take property. (Roads can be rerouted the way they are when the favored bidder wins, irrespective of additional costs) And, the "just compensation" clause of the 5th amendment was not intended to expand eminent domain, but was included in case of an emergency where a bivouac'd army (defending against a sneak attack by Mexicans for instance) is camped on private property and is forced to butcher livestock to feed the soldiers. It did not expand federal power to take whatever, whenever for whatever. And, the fact that state/county eminent domain pre-dates the constitution is no reason that it should have survived at all once The King was given the boot. "Comma or smudge? A mark on the original, hand-written, Bill of Rights has been interpreted as either a comma or a smudge, and the difference may well be meaningful. The mark is found in the Takings Clause (eminent domain) of the Fifth Amendment: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use [ , ] without just compensation." Different sources have quoted this phrase with and without the comma.[2] In the original text it is not clear if there is a comma or a smudge. “ In theory, if those commas exist, the government would have a bit more legal room to confiscate private property. Tom Merrill, a Constitutional scholar and professor at Columbia Law School, believes that the words 'for public use' modify the word 'taken,' and are thus items taken for the public use are merely a subset of what the government can take. His belief in this particular grammatical structure would certainly be aided by the presence of commas, but Professor Merrill prefers to base his reasoning on the attitudes and other writings of the author of the Fifth Amendment, James Madison.[3]" Let's ask learned scholar Prof. Alan Dershowitz: "Oh yes, this other smudge definitely authorizes torture and the use of confessions obtained under duress!, So, I'm quite sure that we should err on the side of increased govt power here, too!" Those who wish to argue my theory should read the following and then tell me, "which was more likely the understanding of the people who ratified the constitution?" "Prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment,'' the power of eminent domain of state governments ''was unrestrained by any federal authority.'' 168 The just compensation provision of the Fifth Amendment did not apply to the States, 169 and at first the contention that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment afforded property owners the same measure of protection against the States as the Fifth Amendment did against the Federal Government was rejected. 170 However, within a decade the Court rejected the opposing argument that the amount of compensation to be awarded in a state eminent domain case is solely a matter of local law. On the contrary, the Court ruled, although a state ''legislature may prescribe a form of procedure to be observed in the taking of private property for public use, . . . it is not due process of law if provision be not made for compensation. . . . The mere form of the proceeding instituted against the owner . . . cannot convert the process used into due process of law, if the necessary result be to deprive him of his property without compensation.'' 171 While the guarantees of just compensation flow from two different sources, the standards used by the Court in dealing with the issues appear to be identical, and both federal and state cases will be dealt with herein without expressly continuing to recognize the two different bases for the rulings." Theft by another name is..... And, if the govt believed that the paper money they left in place of the people's plundered gold was on par, then why didn't they keep the damned old paper and let people keep their gold?" Any attempt to pay "fair market value" for octavia's property instead of what it's "real market value" would be if sold at the right time in the right market is theft by another name. And (before Bush) the people of the world wondered why we have to lock the roof access to towers and high rises in the US....
i never knew about the comma or smudge controversy. in my mind, it makes no difference regarding the intent. just compensation is just compensation.
Exactly. And, if the govt is not bound by "specific limited use" language then what's to stop it from moving anyone the way that Amerindians were moved with each discovery of gold and oil? Obviously the govt never intended to pay "just compensation" for the wealth of resources they stole from "sovereign nations" any more than they intended to fairly compensate my Mom's pal for the necklace made of Mexican gold coins that was removed from her drilled-out safety deposit box. In fact, let's take this discussion up a notch and ask, how much in plunging federal reserve notes would you accept right now for your home knowing that BushCo is no longer publishing M3 figures and the presses are as hot as Glass Packs from running night and day to crank the feds' tissue paper out? How many wheelbarrows brimming with "federal reserve notes" would be "just compensation"? In octavia's circs, what guarantee does she have that the value of her "jc" won't be on par with (or below) the Mexican peso before she can deposit it and buy Swiss francs with it?
Thanks for your thoughts. Since I started to exert my rights to access information the city holds on my farm(City File 724-C) we got a surprise visit from the county property tax assessor the next day. Somebody had noted our home energy system(been up for 9 months with all appropriate permits) and our "metal" roof(not). Think I will be careful to obey the traffic laws in town verrry carefully from now on.
May I suggest that you print this PUBLIC SERVANT'S QUESTIONNAIRE out and spring it on the bastard at the beginning of the next (and probably last) visit? It just so happens that this one I GOOGLED up was prepared by an Indiana citizen! There's a reason why you came here and posted, you see! Public Servant Questionnaire It is hereby requested of you in your official capacity, and requested of you as an individual person acting under colour of your official capacity that you answer the following list of questions, 21 in number, WHICH GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ARE REQUIRED TO ANSWER under provisions of the Privacy Act, the Freedom of Information Law, and various court decisions. At the end of the list are cited the pertinent authorities which mandate a complete answer from you upon request. The answers to these questions are necessary in order that this individual may make a reasonable determination concerning divulgence of information to this agency. 1. Public Servant's Full Name: ___________________________________________________________ His/her Home Address (do not use P.O. Box): House and Street: _____________________________________________ Apt #: __________ City: ________________________________________________________ State: __________ ZIP:_______________ 2. Name of department, bureau, or agency by which public servant is employed: Its mailing address: ______________________________________________ City: ________________________________________________________ State: ____________ ZIP:_______________ Phone number: _______________ 3. Supervisor's Full Name: _____________________________________________________________ His/her Home Address (do not use P.O. Box): House and Street: _____________________________________________ Apt #: ___________ City: ________________________________________________________ State:____________ ZIP:_______________ 4. Will public servant furnish proof of identity? (circle one) Y I N If Yes, what is the nature of proof? (circle one) [ I.D.#; Badge #; Driver's License; Other (describe below)] Write number here: _____________________________ 5. Will public servant uphold the Constitution of the united states of America? (circle one) Y / N 6. Does public servant object to the use of electronic recorder(s) during this investigation? (circle one) Y I N if Yes, please state and explain any such objection: 7. Under which jurisdiction does public servant assume authority in this investigation? (circle ore) [Common Law; Admiralty/Statutory; Other (describe)] 8. Will public servant furnish a copy of the law or regulation which authorizes this investigation? (circle one) Y / N 9. Are the questions to be asked based upon a specific law or regulation, or are they being used as a discovery process? Please either write "discovery" Or list the specific law or regulation here: 10. Will the public servant read aloud that portion of the law authorizing the questions he will ask? (circle one) V I N 11. Are the answers to the questions "voluntary" or "mandatory"? (circle one) If mandatory, what will be the effect upon this individual if he/she should choose not to answer any part or all of these questions? 12. What other uses may be made of this information? (please attach answer sheet if necessary) 13. What other agencies may have access to this information? (please, attach another sheet if necessary) 14. Name of person in government requesting that this investigation be made: If this person is not one of those named in questions 1 through 3 above, please list his/her full name and address: 15. Is this investigation "general" or is it "special" ? (circle one) Note: By "general" is meant any kind of blanket investigation in which a number of persons are involved because of geography. type of business, sex, religion, school, income, etc. By "special" is meant any investigation of an individual nature in which others are not involved. 16. Have you consulted, questioned, interviewed or received information from any third party relative to this investigation? (circle one) Y / N If so, please identify such third parties by listing all full names, addresses and phone numbers: (please attach another sheet if necessary) 17. Do you reasonably anticipate either a civil or criminal action to be initiated or pursued based upon any of the information which you seek? (check one) Y / N If Yes, then "Civil" or "Criminal"? (please circle one) 18. Is there a file of records, information, or correspondence relating to this individual being maintained by this agency? (circle one) Y / N if yes, circle all that apply, and describe: 19. Is this agency using any information pertaining to this individual which was supplied by another agency or government source? (circle one) Y / N If so, please identify such third parties by listing all full names, addresses and phone numbers: (please, attach another sheet necessary) 20. May this individual have a copy of all information referenced in questions I8 and 19 above? (circle one) Y / N If no, why not? 21. 21. Will public servant guarantee that the information in these files will not be used by any other department other than the one by whom he is employed? (circle one) Y I N if not, why not? _________________________________________________________________________________________________ If any request for information relating to this individual, a Indiana State Citizen is received from any person or agency, you must advise this individual in writing before releasing such information. Failure to do so may subject you to possible civil or criminal action as provided by the act. I swear (affirm) under penalty of perjury that the answers I have given to the foregoing questions are complete and correct in every particular. Public servant's signature: (signed in ink).Citizen may administer an oath if he/she desires. ________________________________________ Date: ______________ (print full name legibly underneath signature) Witness: ____________________ Witness:____________________ Authorities for Questions: 1,2,3,4: In order to ensure the identity of the PUBLIC SERVANT to whom the information is being given, residence and business addresses are required to serve process in a civil or criminal action upon this PUBLIC SERVANT et al if necessary. Proof of identification is standard procedure by government agents and officers. See Internal Revenue Manual, MT-9900-26, Section 242.133.; Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the united states of America, Freedom of Information Act. 5: All public servants must take an oath to uphold the Constitution. See Article VI, Constitution of the united states of America 6: I.R.S. Manual MT 9900-26-- 1/29/75-- Paragraph 241.5 7: Freedom of Information Act; Public Law 93-579, Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the united states of America 8,9,10: Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (d) (5), (e) (1), (e) (3) (A), (e) (3) (D) 12,13: Title 5 USC 552a paragraph (e) (3) (B), (e) (3) (C) 14: Public Law 93-579 (b) (1), Freedom of Information Act, Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the united states of America 15: Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (e) (3) (A) 16: Title 5 USC 552a paragraph (e) (2), Freedom of Information Act, Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the united stales of America. 17: Title 5 USC 552a. paragraph (d) (5) 18,19:Public Law 93-579 (d) (1), Freedom of Information Act 20: Title 5 USC 552a paragraph (d) (1), Freedom of Information Act 21: Title 5 USC 552a paragraph (e) (10) Now, octavia, the hook to this thing is this: Public servants won't give up their home addresses because they can be sued privately if you serve them at their residences. And, If they're served at home there's a 50/50 chance that their agencies won't back them up because if they're not well liked their supervisor can use the opportunity to make a statement about their personality defect and problems dealing with the public. If they are backed by the agency they'll have to hear what stoopid bastards they are for getting served at homes and have their actions (abusive as Hell, like a stormtrooper your suit will allege) critiqued by people who are generally cranky and also worried that they'll be next. (You specify in your suit that if the agency backs them and pays legal fees that other names i.e. his/her supervisors, training officers and even his spouse who is a "socialist queen living off the ill gotten spoils of this extortionist acting under color of law" will be next! Believe me, there's nothing more miserable than a low level govt hack with a pissed off spouse! "Why is she suing me? Are you abusing the public the way you treat me and the kids when you're out there now?") Do you ever ask yourself why the cops don't pull big shot lawyers over and beat the daylights out of them? It's because lawyers have the knowledge and knowledge is power! And, everything that a lawyer can do to them you can do, too! The difference is, if you file your own lawsuits and they're paying a lawyer you can win by default just by wearing them down financially with completely frivolous lawsuits! And every judge that dismisses your suit is added to the suit and you re-file it until they decide they don't need the hassled and let the suit proceed! If a bureaucrat says "Go ahead and sue! You can't fight City Hall!" then you say, "You're absolutely right! Now take this suit to your lawyer and he'll tell you that it's frivolous, and that you don't have a thing to worry about. And then he'll say, "Gimme 10,000 bux and I'll get started on it right away!" HAH! If you have courage and do your homework you'll be the last person that they ever harass again! (But, you must obey traffic laws and drive sober. But, that is expected of all who challenge govt including honest journalists and political gadflies. But, remember, human nature is such that cops and other bullies shy away from the strong and pick on the weak. Once you understand that then the fear can no longer be used against you! Nothing scares abusive govt types more than a loose cannon, a pro se litigant who can file lawsuits for fifty cents per page! When the inspector refuses to fill out the questionnaire (let him take a copy and you want carbon copies X2) you say Sorry, (or sorry Gents) no questionnaire no inspection. This questionnaire is a result of the federal Privacy Act and freedom Of Info Act or Public Law 93-579 (passed by the 93rd congress, bill # 579 in 1974) and it has already been upheld by the courts! You may have to reduce it (using Microsoft WORKS or other WP program) but that's simple enough. I've used it, it works and the funny part is, they whine and cry foul when you use the law against them! HAH! If they say "Okay if you wanna play lawyer then..." just interrupt and rudely announce that this is your life and you ain't playing!" Tell them to fill it out in its entirety or hit the road. If they refuse then call the police. No inspections unless you consent or they have a warrant. The cops will know that. If the locals give you trouble then call the state police and allege a criminal conspiracy right into the recorded phone system! it probably won't go that far but don't let them bluff or intimidate you and don't back down! Here's another PSQ, easier to read and already spell checked.- link In fact you can GOOGLE yourself and perhaps find one you like.
#21. To: All (#20)
wow. i like that and I know they would not like it. can I ask in what circumstance you used such a form? Thanks
the link you gave at the bottom said that the questionare applied to federal agencies. So would it only apply to feds and not city govt as the person's post applies to?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#14. To: HOUNDDAWG (#12)
#16. To: christine, octavia (#14)
(Edited)
i like it!
#17. To: HOUNDDAWG (#16)
#18. To: christine (#17)
#19. To: HOUNDDAWG (#18)
#20. To: octavia, christine (#19)
(Edited)
Replies to Comment # 20.
#25. To: HOUNDDAWG (#20)
#26. To: HOUNDDAWG (#20)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 20.