Return to main page

Return to Archives



Supreme Tyranny


Posts, articles, quotes, and links on the SCOTUS land grab




Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (posted 6/24/05)

4/23/05 Associated Press One of the worst days in the history of the United States. I am not exaggerating. This decision is antithetical to everything this country stands and stood for. Cities, states, counties, and the Federal Government can already, with impunity, seize private homes and businesses for the 'public use'. Yesterday the liberals on the Supreme Court took tyranny to the next level. Now, our government officials can seize private property and give it to other private citizens! How is this any different than what Huego Chavez is doing down in Venezuela? 

    Just like politicians and their cronies and the 'friends' and 'associates' of doctors and medical bureaucrats skip the lengthy, and often fatal, waitlists of the Canadian Health Care system, so too will the connected, the rich, and powerful, use government to prey upon the weak and helpless, and steal their property. As the so-called 'moderate' Sandra Day O'Conner said:

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

    In Zimbabwe, a country starving and suffering under the thieving and murderous Marxist dictatorship, we find these recent actions would be now be legal, albeit with 'just compensation', in the United States:

    When Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe systematically burned out white farmers and murdered them for their valuable land, the civilized world hardly noticed.It was about wealth redistribution, said Mugabe. It was about land reform, he said. Those buzzwords were enough for the international community and the slaughter continued. Now Mugabe has turned his deadly attention to the poor – driving hundreds of thousands from their homes in what he euphemistically calls an "urban renewal" program – or "Operation Drive Out Trash."

    More: The UN estimates that this campaign, which has taken only 1 month, has already resulted in 1.5 million Blacks losing their homes. As unbelievable as this may sound, at the time when Zimbabwe needs to import 1.2 million tons of food to support its population, Mugabe has banned people from growing food in their own yards in urban areas to feed their own families.

    Hypothetically, in defending Mugabe, Justice Stevens, writing for the majority said:

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including - but by no means limited to - new jobs and increased tax revenue," Stevens wrote.

    Since when was it the the duty of government to increase its tax revenues and provide jobs? I though the primary duty of government was to protect our liberty, which means minimizing our taxes so we can create our own jobs. The most important function of government is establishing the equal rule of law, for example, preventing stealing, which is the very thing this ruling legalizes. But even if high tax revenues were the sole goal of an elitist government, it still doesn't justify this sort of thievery. Who the heck are these elitist judges to establish their own version of Tyranny over the citizens of the United States? (See The Founding of The United States for how private property rights are at the root of our constitution and liberty)

    From the declaration of independence:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. <.> But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    The good news is that people are not sitting silently. There is broad public outcry over this decision that will hopefully scare our politicians into action. People on, a Conservative/Libertarian forum and the folks at the Democratic Underground, a liberal/socialist forum, were equally upset and outraged as seen by comments here and here and here and here, respectively. Even Ralph Nader came out with the following statement:

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v City of New London mocks common sense, tarnishes constitutional law and is an affront to fundamental fairness.

    Who, you might ask, is actually in favor of the right of government to take property from one group of people and give it to another? Well, you're phrasing the question the wrong way because we've been doing this since 1913 when the first peacetime income tax was passed. During the 60s and 70s and up through the 90s, we spent trillions of dollars on wealth redistribution that just made the poor poorer and the rich less productive. What you mean to be asking is: who can support the confiscation of private land by the government in order to give it to another individual? As you can see the two questions are quite similar (nearly identical). The only reason this ruling is upsetting people is because the debate has now been framed in a manner that people can more readily comprehend. But, to answer your question, no one is supporting it - well, besides the New York Times, which took a break from snagging some prime Manhattan real estate (The New York Times benefited from eminent domain in clearing the land for the new building it is constructing opposite the Port Authority Bus Terminal.) to come out with a sickening editorial titled: The Limits of Property Rights, the first sentence of which is: The Supreme Court's ruling yesterday that the economically troubled city of New London, Conn., can use its power of eminent domain to spur development was a welcome vindication of cities' ability to act in the public interest. (yet, it certainly doesn't look like the houses being condemned are 'economically troubled')

    This is why we must get strict interpreters of the Constitution on the Supreme Court; ie Conservative/Libertarian Judges. How can the vast majority of the country be against an unconstitutional act and yet, the act stands? As stated in Marbury vs. Madison:

"It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void; is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual."

    Why even bother with real estate agents any more? Why would a developer try to voluntarily purchase properties when he can simply have the state seize them? Who decides what the seized properties are worth? The government! The entity buying/stealing the property gets to decide what they, or the corrupt third party, pay for it?

    The residents are still fighting:

    Among the New London residents the city has tried to force out of their homes was Wilhelmina Dery, who was born in her home in 1918 and has lived there all her life.

    "I am sick," said Susette Kelo, sitting on the porch of the pink Victorian cottage that she bought on her nurse's salary eight years ago. "Do they have any idea what they've done?"

    "It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."

    "I spent all the money I had to buy these properties," said Von Winkle, a former deli owner who lives in the neighborhood and owns two other rental homes. "They were not inherited. They were not a gift. I sold sandwiches to buy these properties. It took 21 years."

    Who are you, Wilheminia Dery, Susette Kelo, and Von Winkle, mere citizens, to know what is best for the 'masses'? Don't you have any notion of 'public sacrifice'? The STATE will bulldoze and bury all three of you, along with any leftover 'radical notions' of American Liberty.

    The greatest evil is not done in those sordid dens of evil that Dickens loved to paint but is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices. 

- C. S. Lewis




(Update 6/25/05)

When David Meets Golieth

5/8/05 Newsday Added to the newly created archive 'Supreme Tyranny'.

Recall how I said in the previous post that this Supreme Court ruling would lead to political corruption, elitism, and that those who could buy influence would use it tyrannically against the little guy? Well, it turns out that the elitist, liberal, college president, Claire Gaudiani, who originally dreamed up this scheme in Connecticut may have had a small conflict of interest: her marriage to a Pfizer executive (the company that is 'developing' the private homes), made her what she called "the poster child for the monster." Another bit of useful information: The only structure in Fort Trumbull spared from condemnation was the squat, one-story Italian Dramatic Club, a hangout for local and state politicians. (all emphasis added) It is pure politics and pure thievery and our Supreme Court just legalized it.

    Now, some have said that this isn't a big deal because our local governments will still be held accountable. Will they? Since power corrupts, the more power government possesses the more unaccountable they will be. The whole purpose of the Constitution is to limit the power of government and restrict what it can do. No, I don't have the faith that our Supremes have that local governments will be wise and benevolent. I think many are headed by people like Claire Gaudiani who said: "There are circumstances in which the one gives to the many,". I don't see why communities should be able to decide whether or not to legalize stealing. As Ayn Rand said:

There can be no compromise between a property owner and a burglar; offering the burglar a single teaspoon of one's silverware would not be a compromise, but a total surrender - the recognition of his right to one's property. What value or concession did the burglar offer in return? and once the principle of unilateral concessions is accepted as the base of a relationship by both parties, it is only a matter of time before the burglar would seize the rest...


    (Posted 6/25/05)

    Here is an interesting analogy. Some have said this new SCOTUS ruling is ok because, under the constitution, the owners always get 'just compensation'. Besides that not being true (historically some property owners have gotten just cents on the dollar), and even if it were, what if you were raped and someone gave you $100,000. Or someone punched you in the face, but then gave you $10k. Isn't this money 'just compensation'? Obviously not. 'Just compensation' cannot exist without consent. Without consent, you might still be able to call it 'compensation', but it certainly isn't 'just'. Only you can determine the value of your property. If your value of it is infinite, then it cannot be 'justly' sold and any 'compensation' can never be enough. 


    I'm also read some Liberals websites that are blaming this on 'big business', in an attempt to salvage their worldview and return to blaming Conservatives. Big business, in general, wants the same thing these homeowners desire: to be left free to run their business and live their lives free of government coercion and harassment. Sure, there is corporate welfare and corporate sponsored regulatory exclusions, trade shenanigans etc.., but this all stems from the fact that government has given itself the power to do things like as redistribute wealth and regulate. The problem is big government. Conservatives/Libertarians want to shrink government, while Liberals, generally, want to expand it, as these SCOTUS justices did here. Stop throwing blame around and realize that, as Ronald Reagan said: Man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.




(Posted 6/27/05)

A few brief updates:


Washington Post Chat

6/24/05 Interesting tidbit here from some 'expert' defending the ruling: 

J. Peter Byrne: Most urban development, of course, still is entirely private, without any ise of eminent domain. Cities are more likely to offer developers properties that they have taken in tax foreclosures and use subsidies to achieve their public goals through private development. In the Connecticut case, New London proposed to convey important parcels for $1 to a private developer willing to follow their plan. This may be brilliant or mad depending on the circumstances, but public/private cooperation is a fact of life in cities. Condemnation is the least frequent vehicle for it. 


In depth analysis from the SCOTUSblog

(ongoing) Here you actually can find some somewhat rational opinion in favor of the Kelo opinion. Especially here. Obviously I disagree with them, but for the 'sky is falling we are doomed' folks, this might offer some relief.  


(posted 6/28/05)

Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter land proposed to be condemned for "Lost Liberty" Hotel

6/28/05 Free Star Media On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home. Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land. The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged." I really hope this passes! And if it does, how can he protest? (btw Atlas Shrugged is a great book.)


(Posted 7/3/05)

Added to 'Supreme Tyranny', regarding the Kelo property rights. 

Republican lawmakers Fire back at Judicary

7/1/05 New York Times Illustrating the broad discontent in the House over the court ruling on property rights, House members voted 365 to 33 late Thursday night in support of a resolution expressing "grave disapproval" at the court decision. <.> In the Senate, John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, is proposing legislation that declares the power of eminent domain available only for "public use" and says such use cannot be construed to include economic development. However, when Republicans tried to stop Federal funding of the thieving of property they ran into familiar opposition: the House voted 231 to 189 to approve a measure that would prohibit federal financing for property seizures. So, many Democrats get on record opposing the ruling, but then vote to fund it? House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, said she "would oppose any legislation that says that we would withhold funds for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court, no matter how opposed I am to that decision." Begs the question of why the Federal government funding private developers anyway? If they need a bill to block it, we can infer that this was already happening.

    In other news, a brief update on the possible seizure of Justice Souter's NH property. Logan Darrow Clements, the freestarmedia director leading the condemnation drive says he won't just stop at Souter's house: When asked by television host Rich Lowry, who was filling in for Sean Hannity, why he didn't go after Justice John Paul Stevens' abode as well, Clements responded, "There are such things as hotel chains, and so we can certainly have other locations." LOL! The Lost Liberty Hotel, 5 great locations. :)

    Conservatives are rallying around the idea: The proposal pleased 100 or so conservatives at the regular Wednesday morning strategy meeting hosted in Washington by Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, a conservative organization. "Let's go rock and roll," Norquist said after hearing of Clements' idea. <.> The Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm in Washington, said Wednesday it would devote $3 million to its "Hands Off My Home" campaign in the wake of the Supreme Court decision.


Posted 7/19/05

Connecticut Tea Party - The Kelo Effect

7/19/05 Wall Street Journal Editorial (Full Text):

    Homeowners in New London, Connecticut got a temporary reprieve last week when state legislators declared a moratorium on takings of private property while they consider how to revise the law on eminent domain. The state assembly could meet in special session as early as this month.    

    Call it the Kelo effect. A few weeks after the Supreme Court's ruling in Kelo v. New London that local governments have more or less unlimited power to seize private property, Connecticuters aren't the only citizens who want to make sure they can't be evicted from homes and businesses in order to make way for private economic development. A grassroots movement has sprung up across the country.

    It's instructive to watch how quickly politicians can react when they want to. In Connecticut, where Democrats control both houses of the state assembly, a Republican-sponsored bill to forbid the taking of private homes for private economic development failed as recently as three weeks ago. Yet last week Speaker of the House James Amann was quoted on the need for a law that "offers homeowners some peace of mind." Mr. Amann represents Milford, whose aldermen recently voted unanimously to prevent the city from using eminent domain to take property for private development.    

    As for Governor Jodi Rell, a Republican, when we called her office a few days after the Kelo ruling, a spokesman talked about the need "to strike a right balance between property rights and economic development." Last week, Ms. Rell issued a press release calling eminent domain "the 21st century equivalent of the Boston Tea Party." This time, she said, "it is not a monarch wearing robes in England we are fighting; it is five robed justices at the Supreme Court in Washington."

    The disconnect between the people and politicians encompasses much more than just the Kelo case. However, it does show that politicians are, after all, somewhat accountable to the people, even if we have to cause a racket to get their attention. If people got this fired up and involved every time government tried to plunder, regulate, and restrict us, then they wouldn't be able to do it anymore. Liberty hangs on by a small thread, a small group of activist citizens keep it safe for the rest of the apathetic and uncaring/ignorant populace. 

    Regardless of ideology, people who see wrongs being done and are aware of the blatant criminality of those in government often believe that the best course to bring about change is through running for office themselves, volunteering for a political candidate(s), or donating to a political candidate. While all of this may be important, discussing, educating, thinking, and writing about these issues individually may actually accomplish more. Because any given politician will bend to the will of the people, which politician it is that is doing so, is more or less irrelevant. The will of the people is what is important. This is why the bias of the media has been the focus of sharp and persistent attack from Conservative/Libertarian bloggers, in contrast to the Liberal bloggers. We are sick of the media distortions influencing the will of the people.      

    Most importantly, the will of the people needs to recognize the danger of runaway democracy, the country cannot be run by the will of the people. The country needs to be returned to its roots, where the will of the people and the will of the politicians doesn't really matter. For example, as I state in 'The Founding of the United States and the Constitutionality of Charity': All of the citizens cannot vote to take the property of the richest citizen because that rich citizen is King of his own property under the Constitution.

    The power of government needs to be again restricted, either by judicial fiat, by our elected officials, or by constitutional amendment. This can only be accomplished by changing the will of the people. 


Posted 8/1/05

Added to 'Supreme Tyranny'

Land Fight Hits Home For Justice

7/30/05 New York Post Libertarians upset about a Supreme Court ruling on taking land have proposed seizing a justice's vacation home and turning it into a park. Signatures are being collected for a petition to ask the town to use Justice Stephen Breyer's 167-acre Plainfield, N.H., property to create a "Constitution Park" with stone monuments to commemorate the U.S. and New Hampshire constitutions, said party Vice Chairman Mike Lorrey. <.> Earlier this month, a member of the libertarian Free State Project suggested that the town of Weare, about 45 miles southeast of Plainfield, make [Justice David] Souter's home into a "Lost Liberty Hotel."



Further Articles:




3/23/10 (By Travis)

Utah plans to take US land through eminent domain
Business Week ^ | March 10, 2010 | BROCK VERGAKIS
Ha, nice!




3/10/10 (By Travis)

Pa. coal town above mine fire claims massive fraud

3/9/10 Associated Press

Centralia was all but wiped off the map as the slow-burning mine fire that began in 1962 at the town dump spread to the network of mines beneath the town, threatening residents with poisonous gases and dangerous sinkholes. A $42 million government relocation program was largely completed by 1993, when officials invoked eminent domain to get dozens of holdouts to leave.


Eminent Domain for 'public safety'? This is the first I've heard of it.

lol, satire





(Posted 12/20/06) By Travis

U.S. Supreme Court to Consider Eminent Extortion Case for Review
12/18/06 Institute For Justice

    Because Didden planned to build a CVS on his property—land the developer coveted for a Walgreens—the developer demanded $800,000 from Didden to make him “go away” or ordered Didden to give him an unearned 50 percent stake in the CVS development. If Didden refused, the developer would have the Village of Port Chester condemn the land for his private use. Didden rejected the bold-faced extortion. The very next day the Village of Port Chester condemned Didden’s property through eminent domain so it could hand it over to the developer who made the threat.



Public Power Private Gain

5 year compilation of government abuse of power by the Castle Coalition (I'm guessing the name stands for the Constitutional principle that every man is a king of his castle). Detailed report on all 50 states. Check out yours! If they are abusing this now, imagine what will happen after this ruling? Includes info on:

10,282+ filed or threatened condemnations for private parties

3,722+ properties with condemnations filed for the benefit of private parties

6,560+ properties threatened with condemnation for private parties

4,032+ properties currently living under threat of private use condemnation

41 states with reports of actual or threatened condemnations for private parties

9 states with no reports of either actual or threatened private use condemnations

And yet many of these are unreported: To give some sense of how few private condemnations are reported, the Connecticut courts recorded 543 redevelopment condemnations from 1998 through 2002. That's 17.5 times more than the 31 we found reported in newspapers.


Posted 7/12/05

Added to 'Supreme Tyranny'

Could it happen here? 

7/7/05 Zwire Back in Connecticut (state where the town of Kelo is located): Last week, both the state Senate and House of Representatives, controlled by Democrats, defeated a GOP measure that would have prohibited local governments from seizing owner-occupied residential property for private economic development. (Meanwhile, in Texas and Georgia... Another example of why people flee the blue states and come to red states?)


Master of Someone else's Domain

7/6/05 Vodka Pundit A look at Nacy Pelosi, Democratic minority leader in the house, and her ties to big development companies that have given heavily to Democrats. Here is a Pelosi interview:

Q: Do you think it is appropriate for municipalities to be able to use eminent domain to take land for economic development?

Ms. Pelosi: The Supreme Court has decided, knowing the particulars of this case, that that was appropriate, and so I would support that.


Posted 8/16/05

Added to 'Supreme Tyranny'. Some good news and some bad news. The good news is that the:

New London Agency agrees to Moratorium on Eminent Domain

7/26/05 Stamford Advocate Michael Joplin, president of the New London Development Corp., told The Day of New London that his agency will allow houses in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood to stand while the legislature takes up the eminent domain issue. State lawmakers have asked all local governments in Connecticut to refrain from seizing property for private development until they decide whether such action should be allowed.

    The bad news is that the attempt to seize Supreme Court Justice Souter's New Hampshire house to build the 'Lost Liberty Hotel' is running into trouble:

Weare Board Of Selectmen Minutes Meeting

7/18/05 Town Of Weare Mr. Campana commented on the Supreme Court’s decision regarding eminent domain and the Souter property and encourages the Selectmen to decide what is in the best interest of the town and how the town could benefit. Selectman Fiala read aloud the following letter dated July 13, 2005:  

    The Weare Board of Selectmen wish to inform all interested parties that we are in full support of protecting the property rights of all our citizens. We have no desire to take land from any owner, even when a legal taking is possible. We will continue to assist homeowners in keeping their property and to enforce their rights of ownership to the fullest extent of the law. Furthermore, we rebuke all efforts to deny any citizen of Weare their right to enjoy the full, legal use of their land.

    Selectman Fiala stated personally that the Board has no intention of taking anyone’s land. Mr. Campana questioned if the Board would not take the land because it was for a business venture. Selectman Fiala stated that the Board does not want to take any land for any reason. Mr. Campana questioned if the town needs land for a road will they never be able to take the land. Chairman Buono stated that there are always negotiations that go along with land taking and eminent domain. The Board is united in letting residents know that they will stand behind them and not take anyone’s land. Mr. Campana wants to make sure that the statement applies across the board. Selectman Fiala stated that the statement does not just apply to this land but to everyone’s land. Selectman Kurk feels that people really need to read the 58 pages that go along with the Supreme Courts decision. Mr. Campana hopes that all landowners are protected by the Boards decision. Selectman Osborne stated that she can’t justify taking the land because of the decision that was made through the Supreme Court. Mr. Campana questions whether this is beneficial to the town to take the land for business purposes and the tax revenue it will bring.

    In other news, here is an interview given by Logan Darrow Clements, the Libertarian owner of freestarmedia:

Recording Part 1
Recording Part 2


Posted 9/10/05

Added to 'Supreme Tyranny'

    Although I originally commented that the day this ruling was announced was one of the worst days in the history of the United States, it turns out that I was wrong. Although it may have been one of the worst rulings, it finally woke up the apathetic people and thus, ironically, it may have been one of the best things to happen. As mentioned, it also helped shatter the myth that Liberalism aids the little guy, when, in fact, it has historically done the exact opposite. Missouri Condemnation No Longer So Imminent / Supreme Court Ruling Ignites Political Backlash

9/6/05 Washington Post Here in Missouri and all over the country, the court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London has sparked a furious reaction, with politicians of both parties proposing new legislation that would sharply limit the kind of seizure the court's decision validated. (This is not entirely true, as mentioned, some liberals in Congress, notably Democratic minority leader Nancy Pelsoi, have not denounced the ruling.) 

    As a result, a decision first seen as a key legal victory for cities that want to use eminent domain for private projects has turned into a major setback on the political front for pro-development interests.

    The popular backlash has slowed or blocked many pending projects, as developers, their bankers and local governments suddenly face public furor.

    "Most if not all state legislatures will be dealing with eminent-domain laws next year," Morandi said. "The outcry has been so sharp that many states already have task forces or study committees at work on this issue this summer. Most of the proposed legislation is designed to restrict the kind of governmental action that the court upheld in Kelo ."

    The Institute for Justice, a Washington-based libertarian think tank, said that hundreds of local governments around the country are also debating new ordinances to restrict the use of eminent domain.

    So this is good news. But, more interestingly:

Justice Stevens Adds Fuel to the Fire Over the New London Eminent Domain Case

8/29/05 Speaking to a bar association meeting in Las Vegas last week, United States Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens confessed that he thought one of his own recent opinions, though correct as a matter of law, was wrong as a matter of policy. Stevens authored the majority opinion in Kelo v. City of New London, which upheld the forced sale of private homes to a commercial real estate developer. Yet he commented at the meeting that his constitutional judgment in that case was "entirely divorced from my judgment concerning the wisdom of the program."

    Where in the Constitution does Stevens finds the rational for the confiscation of private land by government to be given to other private individual and what precedent is he referring to, and how can this precedent be compatible with the Constitution? As a Supreme Court justice, it is his duty to overturn unconstitutional precedents and uphold Liberty in the United States. 


Posted 10/3/05

Florida City Considers Eminent Domain

10/3/05 Washington Times Florida's Riviera Beach is a poor, predominantly black, coastal community that intends to revitalize its economy by using eminent domain, if necessary, to displace about 6,000 local residents and build a billion-dollar waterfront yachting and housing complex.
    "This is a community that's in dire need of jobs, which has a median income of less than $19,000 a year," said Riviera Beach Mayor Michael Brown.
Yet Liberalism sticks up for 'the little guy'? 

CA: Blight? Yeah right - National City badly abuses land-seizure law

9/9/05 San Diego Union-Tribune On some abuses in Cali with the liberal (pun intended) use of 'blight' designation. If you give government power to do something they will use and abuse it, irregardless of limitations placed on it when the power was created. Both of these stories were added to 'Supreme Tyranny'.



Posted 2/13/06

N.H. Town Rejects Plan to Evict Souter

2/4/06 Associated Press 

    Residents on Saturday rejected a proposal to evict U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter from his farmhouse to make way for the "Lost Liberty Hotel."

    But voters deciding which issues should go on the town's March ballot replaced the group's proposal with a call to strengthen New Hampshire's law on eminent domain.

    "This is a game," said Walter Bohlin. "Why would we take something from one of ours? This is not the appropriate way."

    Sorry to be the bearer of this disappointing news. But the fact that this got wide media coverage and attracted much public interest still made pursuing the 'Lost Liberty Hotel' worthwhile. 

    This will probably be the last post added to 'Supreme Tyranny'. To end on a positive note, due to public outrage, eminent domain laws all across the country are being strengthened. But rest assured, if the people grow complacent in their demands to protect private property, so too will government. 

    The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.

- Thomas Jefferson



Eminent Domain

7/7/05 New York Times Did the city of Pittsburgh benefit from it's liberal (pun intended) use of eminent domain? 


Lost Liberty Hotel Update (Lost Liberty Hotel Newsletter)


Forced off the Farm

7/4/05 Pioneer Press Details how the city of Wyoming stole a farm from a family at a low price and then resold it to another private company for millions. 


Liberal Land Grab

6/26/05 New York Post The stereotype is that conservatives are heartless and in the tank to big business — while liberals are the ones who stand up for the little guy. So how come the liberal Supreme Court justices just sold a bunch of New London, Conn., homeowners up the Thames River? Good question! Maybe the stereotype is wrong...



Hollywood moves to seize woman's storefronts so developer can build condos

6/22/05 Sun Sentinel In voting to do so, the commissioners were following through on a promise they made to developer Charles "Chip" Abele in July 2004. They signed a contract agreeing to condemn the property if the developer was unable to strike a deal with David Mach's father, George. (Fair enough right? Bet they got a great offer...)


Report: Mills (Corp.) made donations to politicians tied to SF project

6/25/05 Bakersfield California SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A company that sought state approval for a major development deal on the city's waterfront made substantial campaign contributions to politicians who controlled the project's fate, a newspaper reported Saturday.

    Campaign finance records show that Mills Corp., which long has lobbied to build a $210 million retail and sports complex on Piers 27-31, contributed at least $53,250 to Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, state Attorney General Bill Lockyer and state Controller Steve Westly in the months before and after they endorsed the project, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

Westly and Bustamante, who sit on the three-member California State Lands Commission, made up the 2-0 vote in favor of the Mills plan in June 2003. Lockyer's office, which provides legal counsel to the commission, determined the project met state standards for development of the publicly owned piers.

    While the contributions fall within the legal limits of state campaign finance laws, some political watchdogs said they created the appearance of impropriety.

"In a sense, it's legalized bribery," said Bob Stern, who heads the Center for Governmental Studies. "They expect that their money will get them something." Now, with this Supreme Court ruling, The same thing can happen except the state can now legally just give Mills Corp some of its citizen's property. For the proper price...


This land is not your land

7/28/05 Oakland also evicted Tony Fung, Revelli's next-door neighbor and the owner-operator of Autohouse on 20th Street. "I am a first-generation immigrant," Fung told me. "This is my American dream." To hell with Fung's dream -- the city of Oakland seized it, so that someone else can build on it. And without offering enough money for Fung to relocate his business, he says.


The Condemned

1/05 Mother Jones When he built Rookwood Tower back in 1997, Anderson had easily convinced the city to authorize such a study -- although he was ultimately able to assemble the necessary properties on his own. But in 2003, three years after he was indicted for corruption, the longtime mayor -- whom Anderson had given $23,000 in campaign contributions ("an astronomical sum around here," says one city official) and an undisclosed amount toward legal fees -- resigned. 


When Leninists Rule the Nation

6/25/05 World Net Daily In a recent Supreme Court decision, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, "If the peasants sow the fields poorly, they should be helped – and this particularly applies to the poor peasants – by means of collective cultivation of the large estates. There is no other way of helping the poor peasants." Therefore, "the landed estates must be confiscated immediately." Actually, that was Vladimir Lenin writing in an issue of the Communist publication Pravda on June 2, 1917.





The articles below are only from the state of New Jersey in the last two years and I'm sure there's a lot missing:

Developer Payoff to County Executive

Executive Director Convicted of Kickbacks and Bribery (Property Scheming)

Developer Charged With Witness Intimidation

Council Chairman Solicits Bribes (Real estate deals)

Bribes to inflate land prices


D'Amiano pleaded guilty Sept. 15, admitting that he told Halper that he would have to pay $20,000 in cash and $20,000 in political contributions to a state political committee to receive a favorable price for the farmland. D'Amiano admitted that he told Halper the practical effect of not making the payments would be that Piscataway would obtain title to the farm in condemnation proceedings that had been ongoing.






Property Quotes (quotes from my quote page containing the word property [and a few others])



The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.

- John Adams



The system of private property is the most important guaranty of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not.
- Fredrich August von Hayek


Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist.

- John Adams


Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?

- George Washington


There can be no compromise between a property owner and a burglar; offering the burglar a single teaspoon of one's silverware would not be a compromise, but a total surrender - the recognition of his right to one's property. What value or concession did the burglar offer in return? and once the principle of unilateral concessions is accepted as the base of a relationship by both parties, it is only a matter of time before the burglar would seize the rest...

- Ayn Rand

No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.

- Mark Twain

When men get in the habit of helping themselves to the property of others, they cannot easily be cured of it.

The New York Times, in a 1909 editorial opposing the very first income tax

The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter, the rain may enter -- but the King of England cannot enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!

- William Pitt, the Elder (speech to the British Parliament describing a basic American principle [every man a king] that would become ingrained in our Constitution)

Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible. 

- CA Justice Janice Rogers Brown

Where once government was a necessary evil because it protected private property, now private property is a necessary evil because it funds government programs.
- CA Justice Janice Rogers Brown

Private property, already an endangered species in California, is now entirely extinct in San Francisco.
- CA Justice Janice Rogers Brown

Something new, called economic rights, began to supplant the old property rights. This change, which occurred with remarkably little fanfare, was staggeringly significant. With the advent of "economic rights," the original meaning of rights was effectively destroyed. These new "rights" imposed obligations, not limits, on the state. It thus became government's job not to protect property but, rather, to regulate and redistribute it. And, the epic proportions of the disaster which has befallen millions of people during the ensuing decades has not altered our fervent commitment to statism.
- CA Justice Janice Rogers Brown

The right to express one’s individuality and essential human dignity through the free use of property is just as important as the right to do so through speech, the press, or the free exercise of religion
- CA Justice Janice Rogers Brown

Government acts as a giant siphon, extracting wealth, creating privilege and power, and redistributing it.
- CA Justice Janice Rogers Brown

And most significantly, if we can invoke no ultimate limits on the power of government, a democracy is inevitably transformed into a Kleptocracy - a license to steal, a warrant for oppression. 
- CA Justice Janice Rogers Brown

Theft is theft even when the government approves of the thievery. Turning a democracy into a Kleptocracy does not enhance the stature of the thieves; it only diminishes the legitimacy of the government.
- CA Justice Janice Rogers Brown

JRB, one of the greatest property protecting judges alive today was opposed by senate Democrats and by the mainstream media (for example, here's a Washington Post Editorial: Reject Brown) More GREAT JRB quotes.



Return to Archives

Return to main page