Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [RLCFL] Hollywood steals land for developer

Expand Messages
  • Jeff Palmer
    Michael is absolutely correct that eminent domain is an ideal issue for us. Below, I ve attached an e-mail from the Institute for Justice (who pursued the
    Message 1 of 18 , Jun 23, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Michael is absolutely correct that eminent domain is an ideal issue for us.
      Below, I've attached an e-mail from the Institute for Justice (who pursued
      the case to the U.S. Supreme Court) which affirms Mike's strategy of taking
      the fight to the state-level.

      [Note to RLC-Action: Discussion of strategy & tactics would be in order.
      Discussion of the merits of eminent domain should be take to RLC-Discuss.]

      Jeff Palmer - jap@...
      * * *
      Quote of the Week: “If the rights of the individual are not respected by
      the group, the group itself cannot exist for long.” -- Jo Stockton (Audrey
      Hepburn), Funny Face, 1957

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Michael Horowitz" <hmichael@...>
      To: <RLCFL@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 6:57 AM
      Subject: [RLCFL] Hollywood steals land for developer

      > Over the objections of a man who said Hollywood is stealing his
      > family's land to enrich a powerful developer, the City Commission
      > voted Tuesday night to begin eminent-domain proceedings on a small
      > retail building downtown to make way for a $100 million condo project.
      >
      > http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-scra22jun22,0,
      > 2705761.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines
      >
      > This should be priority one to outlaw the use of eminent domain to
      > transfer private property from one owner to another. If the developer
      > wants the land he needs to pay enough to the owner that they want to
      > sell.
      >
      > Instead of just talking the RLC should work to get an amendment of the
      > next ballot to outlaw this in the Florida constitution.

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Chip Mellor [mailto:WMellor@...]
      Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 12:29 PM
      To: IJ Distribution
      Subject: Supreme Court Upholds Eminent Domain Abuse

      FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

      June 23, 2005


      Homeowners Lose Eminent Domain Case

      Institute for Justice Warns:
      Supreme Court Leaves Homeowners Vulnerable
      To Tax-Hungry Bureaucrats & Land-Hungry Developers

      Washington, D.C.- Today, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a blow to home and
      small business owners throughout the country by allowing the government to
      use eminent domain to take homes so that businesses can make more money off
      that land and possibly pay more taxes as a result.

      The Institute and its clients issued the following statements after learning
      of today’s decision.

      Chip Mellor, the president of the Institute for Justice, said, “The majority
      and the dissent both recognized that the action now turns to state supreme
      courts where the public use battle will be fought out under state
      constitutions. The Institute for Justice will be there every step of the
      way with homeowners and small businesses to protect what is rightfully
      theirs. Today’s decision in no way binds those courts.”

      “The Court simply got the law wrong today, and our Constitution and country
      will suffer as a result,” said Scott Bullock, senior attorney for the
      Institute for Justice. “With today’s ruling, the poor and middle class will
      be most vulnerable to eminent domain abuse by government and its corporate
      allies. The 5-4 split and the nearly equal division among state supreme
      courts shows just how divided the courts really are. This will not be the
      last word.”

      “One of the key quotes from the Court to keep in mind today was written by
      Justice O’Connor,” Bullock said. “Justice O’Connor wrote, ‘Any property may
      now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from
      this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those
      citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process,
      including large corporations and development firms.’”

      Dana Berliner, another senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, said,
      “It’s a dark day for American homeowners. While most constitutional
      decisions affect a small number of people, this decision undermines the
      rights of every American, except the most politically connected. Every
      home, small business, or church would produce more taxes as a shopping
      center or office building. And according to the Court, that’s a good enough
      reason for eminent domain.”

      Mellor said, “Today’s decision doesn’t end the Institute for Justice’s fight
      against abuses of eminent domain. We will work to ensure not only that the
      property owners in New London keep their homes, but that all home and small
      business owners are protected from these unconstitutional land grabs by
      governments and their business allies. This is a terrible precedent that
      must be overturned by this Court, just as bad state supreme court eminent
      domain decisions in Michigan and Illinois were later overturned by those
      courts.”

      Susette Kelo, one of the homeowners challenging eminent domain abuse, said,
      “I was in this battle to save my home and, in the process, protect the
      rights of working class homeowners throughout the country. I am very
      disappointed that the Court sided with powerful government and business
      interests, but I will continue to fight to save my home and to preserve the
      Constitution.”

      Mike Cristofaro, another one of the homeowners whose family has owned
      property in Fort Trumbull for more than 30 years, said, “I am astonished
      that the Court would permit the government to throw out my family from their
      home so that private developers can make more money. Although the Court
      ruled against us, I am very proud of the fight we waged for my family and
      for the rights of all Americans.”

      # # #

      To unsubscribe from IJ's distribution list, please reply to this email with
      "unsubscribe" in the subject line or send an email to bstevens@....

      --
      No virus found in this outgoing message.
      Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
      Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.0/27 - Release Date: 6/23/2005
    • michael franks
      I am apalled by all of this!!!! Totally shocked at the Surpreme Courts decision on this one. Even Sandra OConnor wrote a good brief. Our Texas RLC
      Message 2 of 18 , Jun 23, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        I am apalled by all of this!!!! Totally shocked at the Surpreme Courts
        decision on this one. Even Sandra OConnor wrote a good brief.

        Our Texas RLC Chairman and Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson has
        always said "the greatest threat to liberty is a city council" (or
        something to that effect)

        Michael
      • John Pankratz
        There is an ironic logical disjoint here for libertarians who have been fond of saying we should devolve power to the lowest possible level of governemt
        Message 3 of 18 , Jun 23, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          There is an ironic logical disjoint here for libertarians who have been
          fond of saying we should devolve power to the lowest possible level of
          governemt because local government is the most responsive to the people.
          Following the logic of that philosophy, the best and proper recourse is
          for the people of New London to
          recall their commissioners. From one way of looking at it, the Supremem
          Court decision might be construed as a conservative, even
          consititutional one, in that it left power with local government.

          I disagree with the Court, however, because there is a clear
          constitutional protection that they failed to uphold. On the other
          hand, if it weren't for earlier decisions by the Court applying
          limitations on the federal government to the states, would this have
          even been an issue? I seem to recall libertarians lamenting that the
          Court had applied the 1st amendment regarding establishments of religion
          to lower levels of government.

          ........ john p ...........


          michael franks wrote:

          >I am apalled by all of this!!!! Totally shocked at the Surpreme Courts
          >decision on this one. Even Sandra OConnor wrote a good brief.
          >
          >Our Texas RLC Chairman and Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson has
          >always said "the greatest threat to liberty is a city council" (or
          >something to that effect)
          >
          >Michael
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >


          --
          I'm a libertarian by logical necessity because I'm a Christian.

          http://www.theadvocates.org/christian/thies.html
        • Ray Holtorf
          In my opinion, and I know this is not action, so bear with me, each of these individual fights are nothing more than a distraction. None of this will matter if
          Message 4 of 18 , Jun 24, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            In my opinion, and I know this is not action, so bear
            with me, each of these individual fights are nothing
            more than a distraction. None of this will matter if
            we get two more 'Clarence Thomas justices' on the
            Supreme Court.

            The last two rulings are tremendous for "our" side
            because they both stick a finger in the eye of
            conservative and liberal alike.
            1. Liberals want pot and conservatives want states to
            have autonomy.
            2. Both liberals and conservatives want to actually
            own their property.

            We have two outrageous rulings from the Supremes. WHat
            we need to do is point out that those supported by
            President Bush voted on the side of the American
            people both times (with the exception of Scalia on
            pot), while those supported by Clinton / Schumer /
            Kennedy and Durbin voted to take away pot and a
            state's autonomy.

            You can't fight this battle at the local level - get
            site of the big picture. Use Hitler-style propoganda
            technics. Come up with a simple message, with very
            feww points, and repeat them over and over. Then we
            will earn landslide support for someone like Thomas.

            Want to take action? Come up with a list of three or
            four simple points on why these rulings are bad, and
            why Republicans have the right idea when it comes to
            freedom (OK OK that might be sic, but let's work with
            it).

            Then we can get ahold of local LP folks, and RP
            organizations, and have EVERYONE start to hit the
            message HARD - call every radio talk show you can
            find...

            Ray Holtorf - Iowa

            --- Jeff Palmer <jap@...> wrote:

            > Michael is absolutely correct that eminent domain is
            > an ideal issue for us.
            > Below, I've attached an e-mail from the Institute
            > for Justice (who pursued
            > the case to the U.S. Supreme Court) which affirms
            > Mike's strategy of taking
            > the fight to the state-level.
            >
            > [Note to RLC-Action: Discussion of strategy &
            > tactics would be in order.
            > Discussion of the merits of eminent domain should be
            > take to RLC-Discuss.]
            >
            > Jeff Palmer - jap@...
            > * * *
            > Quote of the Week: “If the rights of the individual
            > are not respected by
            > the group, the group itself cannot exist for long.”
            > -- Jo Stockton (Audrey
            > Hepburn), Funny Face, 1957
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: "Michael Horowitz" <hmichael@...>
            > To: <RLCFL@yahoogroups.com>
            > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 6:57 AM
            > Subject: [RLCFL] Hollywood steals land for developer
            >
            > > Over the objections of a man who said Hollywood
            > is stealing his
            > > family's land to enrich a powerful developer, the
            > City Commission
            > > voted Tuesday night to begin eminent-domain
            > proceedings on a small
            > > retail building downtown to make way for a $100
            > million condo project.
            > >
            > >
            >
            http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-scra22jun22,0,
            > > 2705761.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines
            > >
            > > This should be priority one to outlaw the use of
            > eminent domain to
            > > transfer private property from one owner to
            > another. If the developer
            > > wants the land he needs to pay enough to the owner
            > that they want to
            > > sell.
            > >
            > > Instead of just talking the RLC should work to get
            > an amendment of the
            > > next ballot to outlaw this in the Florida
            > constitution.
            >
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: Chip Mellor [mailto:WMellor@...]
            > Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 12:29 PM
            > To: IJ Distribution
            > Subject: Supreme Court Upholds Eminent Domain Abuse
            >
            > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
            >
            > June 23, 2005
            >
            >
            > Homeowners Lose Eminent Domain Case
            >
            > Institute for Justice Warns:
            > Supreme Court Leaves Homeowners Vulnerable
            > To Tax-Hungry Bureaucrats & Land-Hungry Developers
            >
            > Washington, D.C.- Today, the U.S. Supreme Court
            > delivered a blow to home and
            > small business owners throughout the country by
            > allowing the government to
            > use eminent domain to take homes so that businesses
            > can make more money off
            > that land and possibly pay more taxes as a result.
            >
            > The Institute and its clients issued the following
            > statements after learning
            > of today’s decision.
            >
            > Chip Mellor, the president of the Institute for
            > Justice, said, “The majority
            > and the dissent both recognized that the action now
            > turns to state supreme
            > courts where the public use battle will be fought
            > out under state
            > constitutions. The Institute for Justice will be
            > there every step of the
            > way with homeowners and small businesses to protect
            > what is rightfully
            > theirs. Today’s decision in no way binds those
            > courts.”
            >
            > “The Court simply got the law wrong today, and our
            > Constitution and country
            > will suffer as a result,” said Scott Bullock, senior
            > attorney for the
            > Institute for Justice. “With today’s ruling, the
            > poor and middle class will
            > be most vulnerable to eminent domain abuse by
            > government and its corporate
            > allies. The 5-4 split and the nearly equal division
            > among state supreme
            > courts shows just how divided the courts really are.
            > This will not be the
            > last word.”
            >
            > “One of the key quotes from the Court to keep in
            > mind today was written by
            > Justice O’Connor,” Bullock said. “Justice O’Connor
            > wrote, ‘Any property may
            > now be taken for the benefit of another private
            > party, but the fallout from
            > this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries
            > are likely to be those
            > citizens with disproportionate influence and power
            > in the political process,
            > including large corporations and development
            > firms.’”
            >
            > Dana Berliner, another senior attorney with the
            > Institute for Justice, said,
            > “It’s a dark day for American homeowners. While
            > most constitutional
            > decisions affect a small number of people, this
            > decision undermines the
            > rights of every American, except the most
            > politically connected. Every
            > home, small business, or church would produce more
            > taxes as a shopping
            > center or office building. And according to the
            > Court, that’s a good enough
            > reason for eminent domain.”
            >
            > Mellor said, “Today’s decision doesn’t end the
            > Institute for Justice’s fight
            > against abuses of eminent domain. We will work to
            > ensure not only that the
            > property owners in New London keep their homes, but
            > that all home and small
            > business owners are protected from these
            > unconstitutional land grabs by
            > governments and their business allies. This is a
            > terrible precedent that
            > must be overturned by this Court, just as bad state
            > supreme court eminent
            > domain decisions in Michigan and Illinois were later
            > overturned by those
            > courts.”
            >
            > Susette Kelo, one of the homeowners challenging
            > eminent domain abuse, said,
            > “I was in this battle to save my home and, in the
            > process, protect the
            > rights of working class homeowners throughout the
            > country. I am very
            > disappointed that the Court sided with powerful
            > government and business
            > interests, but I will continue to fight to save my
            > home and to preserve the
            > Constitution.”
            >
            > Mike Cristofaro, another one of the homeowners whose
            > family has owned
            > property in Fort Trumbull for more than 30 years,
            > said, “I am astonished
            > that the Court would permit the government to throw
            > out my family from their
            > home so that private developers can make more money.
            > Although the Court
            > ruled against us, I am very proud of the fight we
            > waged for my family and
            > for the rights of all Americans.”
            >
            > # # #
            >
            > To unsubscribe from IJ's distribution list, please
            > reply to this email with
            > "unsubscribe" in the subject line or send an email
            > to bstevens@....
            >
            > --
            > No virus found in this outgoing message.
            > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
            > Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.0/27 -
            > Release Date: 6/23/2005
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            > RLC-Action-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            === message truncated ===




            ____________________________________________________
            Yahoo! Sports
            Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
            http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
          • Barry Moore
            From what I can tell, EVERY local talk show in the DFW area is talking about it, and excoriating the ruling. Ray Holtorf wrote: In my
            Message 5 of 18 , Jun 24, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              From what I can tell, EVERY local talk show in the DFW area is talking about it,
              and excoriating the ruling.

              Ray Holtorf <rayholtorf@...> wrote:
              In my opinion, and I know this is not action, so bear
              with me, each of these individual fights are nothing
              more than a distraction. None of this will matter if
              we get two more 'Clarence Thomas justices' on the
              Supreme Court.

              The last two rulings are tremendous for "our" side
              because they both stick a finger in the eye of
              conservative and liberal alike.
              1. Liberals want pot and conservatives want states to
              have autonomy.
              2. Both liberals and conservatives want to actually
              own their property.

              We have two outrageous rulings from the Supremes. WHat
              we need to do is point out that those supported by
              President Bush voted on the side of the American
              people both times (with the exception of Scalia on
              pot), while those supported by Clinton / Schumer /
              Kennedy and Durbin voted to take away pot and a
              state's autonomy.

              You can't fight this battle at the local level - get
              site of the big picture. Use Hitler-style propoganda
              technics. Come up with a simple message, with very
              feww points, and repeat them over and over. Then we
              will earn landslide support for someone like Thomas.

              Want to take action? Come up with a list of three or
              four simple points on why these rulings are bad, and
              why Republicans have the right idea when it comes to
              freedom (OK OK that might be sic, but let's work with
              it).

              Then we can get ahold of local LP folks, and RP
              organizations, and have EVERYONE start to hit the
              message HARD - call every radio talk show you can
              find...

              Ray Holtorf - Iowa

              --- Jeff Palmer <jap@...> wrote:

              > Michael is absolutely correct that eminent domain is
              > an ideal issue for us.
              > Below, I've attached  an e-mail from the Institute
              > for Justice (who pursued
              > the case to the U.S. Supreme Court) which affirms
              > Mike's strategy of taking
              > the fight to the state-level.
              >
              > [Note to RLC-Action:  Discussion of strategy &
              > tactics would be in order.
              > Discussion of the merits of eminent domain should be
              > take to RLC-Discuss.]
              >
              > Jeff Palmer - jap@...
              >  * * *
              > Quote of the Week:  “If the rights of the individual
              > are not respected by
              > the group, the group itself cannot exist for long.”
              > -- Jo Stockton (Audrey
              > Hepburn), Funny Face, 1957
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: "Michael Horowitz" <hmichael@...>
              > To: <RLCFL@yahoogroups.com>
              > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 6:57 AM
              > Subject: [RLCFL] Hollywood steals land for developer
              >
              > >  Over the objections of a man who said Hollywood
              > is stealing his
              > > family's land to enrich a powerful developer, the
              > City Commission
              > > voted Tuesday night to begin eminent-domain
              > proceedings on a small
              > > retail building downtown to make way for a $100
              > million condo project.
              > >
              > >
              >
              http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-scra22jun22,0,
              > > 2705761.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines
              > >
              > > This should be priority one to outlaw the use of
              > eminent domain to
              > > transfer private property from one owner to
              > another.  If the developer
              > > wants the land he needs to pay enough to the owner
              > that they want to
              > > sell.
              > >
              > > Instead of just talking the RLC should work to get
              > an amendment of the
              > > next ballot to outlaw this in the Florida
              > constitution.
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: Chip Mellor [mailto:WMellor@...]
              > Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 12:29 PM
              > To: IJ Distribution
              > Subject: Supreme Court Upholds Eminent Domain Abuse
              >
              > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                         
              >
              > June 23, 2005
              >
              >
              > Homeowners Lose Eminent Domain Case
              >
              > Institute for Justice Warns:
              > Supreme Court Leaves Homeowners Vulnerable
              > To Tax-Hungry Bureaucrats & Land-Hungry Developers
              >
              > Washington, D.C.- Today, the U.S. Supreme Court
              > delivered a blow to home and
              > small business owners throughout the country by
              > allowing the government to
              > use eminent domain to take homes so that businesses
              > can make more money off
              > that land and possibly pay more taxes as a result.
              >
              > The Institute and its clients issued the following
              > statements after learning
              > of today’s decision.
              >
              > Chip Mellor, the president of the Institute for
              > Justice, said, “The majority
              > and the dissent both recognized that the action now
              > turns to state supreme
              > courts where the public use battle will be fought
              > out under state
              > constitutions.  The Institute for Justice will be
              > there every step of the
              > way with homeowners and small businesses to protect
              > what is rightfully
              > theirs.  Today’s decision in no way binds those
              > courts.”
              >
              > “The Court simply got the law wrong today, and our
              > Constitution and country
              > will suffer as a result,” said Scott Bullock, senior
              > attorney for the
              > Institute for Justice.  “With today’s ruling, the
              > poor and middle class will
              > be most vulnerable to eminent domain abuse by
              > government and its corporate
              > allies.  The 5-4 split and the nearly equal division
              > among state supreme
              > courts shows just how divided the courts really are.
              >  This will not be the
              > last word.”
              >
              > “One of the key quotes from the Court to keep in
              > mind today was written by
              > Justice O’Connor,” Bullock said.  “Justice O’Connor
              > wrote, ‘Any property may
              > now be taken for the benefit of another private
              > party, but the fallout from
              > this decision will not be random.  The beneficiaries
              > are likely to be those
              > citizens with disproportionate influence and power
              > in the political process,
              > including large corporations and development
              > firms.’”
              >
              > Dana Berliner, another senior attorney with the
              > Institute for Justice, said,
              > “It’s a dark day for American homeowners.  While
              > most constitutional
              > decisions affect a small number of people, this
              > decision undermines the
              > rights of every American, except the most
              > politically connected.  Every
              > home, small business, or church would produce more
              > taxes as a shopping
              > center or office building.  And according to the
              > Court, that’s a good enough
              > reason for eminent domain.”
              >
              > Mellor said, “Today’s decision doesn’t end the
              > Institute for Justice’s fight
              > against abuses of eminent domain.  We will work to
              > ensure not only that the
              > property owners in New London keep their homes, but
              > that all home and small
              > business owners are protected from these
              > unconstitutional land grabs by
              > governments and their business allies.  This is a
              > terrible precedent that
              > must be overturned by this Court, just as bad state
              > supreme court eminent
              > domain decisions in Michigan and Illinois were later
              > overturned by those
              > courts.”
              >
              > Susette Kelo, one of the homeowners challenging
              > eminent domain abuse, said,
              > “I was in this battle to save my home and, in the
              > process, protect the
              > rights of working class homeowners throughout the
              > country.  I am very
              > disappointed that the Court sided with powerful
              > government and business
              > interests, but I will continue to fight to save my
              > home and to preserve the
              > Constitution.”
              >
              > Mike Cristofaro, another one of the homeowners whose
              > family has owned
              > property in Fort Trumbull for more than 30 years,
              > said, “I am astonished
              > that the Court would permit the government to throw
              > out my family from their
              > home so that private developers can make more money.
              >  Although the Court
              > ruled against us, I am very proud of the fight we
              > waged for my family and
              > for the rights of all Americans.”
              >
              > # # #
              >
              > To unsubscribe from IJ's distribution list, please
              > reply to this email with
              > "unsubscribe" in the subject line or send an email
              > to bstevens@....
              >
              > --
              > No virus found in this outgoing message.
              > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
              > Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.0/27 -
              > Release Date: 6/23/2005

              >
              >
              >

              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >     RLC-Action-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              === message truncated ===



                         
              ____________________________________________________
              Yahoo! Sports
              Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
              http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com

              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
              http://mail.yahoo.com

            • Douglas Lorenz
              Well, this looks like the rare issue where EVERYONE in the RLC agrees and is profoundly outraged. However, I haven t heard anyone offer an action plan outside
              Message 6 of 18 , Jun 24, 2005
              • 0 Attachment

                Well, this looks like the rare issue where EVERYONE in the RLC agrees and is profoundly outraged.  However, I haven’t heard anyone offer an action plan outside of Ray’s outline.  I understand how difficult it is to get people active over controversial issues, but there isn’t any controversy here.  We’re all adamantly opposed to the Supreme’s ruling.

                 

                I’m still a bit burnt out after my last few attempts to get people on this list to commit to a course of action, so someone else will have to do the legwork on this one.  The issue is in the media right now, and the clock is ticking.  You only have a few more days of relevance before the public discards this issue as no longer current.

                 


                From: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com [mailto:RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Barry Moore
                Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 8:55 AM
                To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] RE: [RLCFL] Hollywood steals land for developer

                 

                From what I can tell, EVERY local talk show in the DFW area is talking about it,

                and excoriating the ruling.

                Ray Holtorf <rayholtorf@...> wrote:

                In my opinion, and I know this is not action, so bear
                with me, each of these individual fights are nothing
                more than a distraction. None of this will matter if
                we get two more 'Clarence Thomas justices' on the
                Supreme Court.

                The last two rulings are tremendous for "our" side
                because they both stick a finger in the eye of
                conservative and liberal alike.
                1. Liberals want pot and conservatives want states to
                have autonomy.
                2. Both liberals and conservatives want to actually
                own their property.

                We have two outrageous rulings from the Supremes. WHat
                we need to do is point out that those supported by
                President Bush voted on the side of the American
                people both times (with the exception of Scalia on
                pot), while those supported by Clinton / Schumer /
                Kennedy and Durbin voted to take away pot and a
                state's autonomy.

                You can't fight this battle at the local level - get
                site of the big picture. Use Hitler-style propoganda
                technics. Come up with a simple message, with very
                feww points, and repeat them over and over. Then we
                will earn landslide support for someone like Thomas.

                Want to take action? Come up with a list of three or
                four simple points on why these rulings are bad, and
                why Republicans have the right idea when it comes to
                freedom (OK OK that might be sic, but let's work with
                it).

                Then we can get ahold of local LP folks, and RP
                organizations, and have EVERYONE start to hit the
                message HARD - call every radio talk show you can
                find...

                Ray Holtorf - Iowa

                --- Jeff Palmer <jap@...> wrote:

                > Michael is absolutely correct that eminent domain is
                > an ideal issue for us.
                > Below, I've attached  an e-mail from the Institute
                > for Justice (who pursued
                > the case to the U.S. Supre me Court) which affirms
                > Mike's strategy of taking
                > the fight to the state-level.
                >
                > [Note to RLC-Action:  Discussion of strategy &
                > tactics would be in order.
                > Discussion of the merits of eminent domain should be
                > take to RLC-Discuss.]
                >
                > Jeff Palmer - jap@...
                >  * * *
                > Quote of the Week:  “If the rights of the individual
                > are not respected by
                > the group, the group itself cannot exist for long.”
                > -- Jo Stockton (Audrey
                > Hepburn), Funny Face, 1957
                >
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: "Michael Horowitz" <hmichael@...>
                > To: <RLCFL@yahoogroups.com>
                > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 6:57 AM
                > Subject: [RLCFL] Hollywood steals land for developer
                >
                > >  Over the objections of a man who said Hollywood
                > is stealing his
                > > family's land to enrich a powerful developer, the
                > City Commission
                > > voted Tuesday night to begin eminent-domain
                > proceedings on a small
                > > retail building downtown to make way for a $100
                > million condo project.
                > >
                > >
                >
                http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-scra22jun22,0,
                > > 2705761.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines
                > >
                > > This should be priority one to outlaw the use of
                > eminent domain to
                > > transfer private property from one owner to
                > another.  If the developer
                > > wants the land he needs to pay enough to the owner
                > that they want to
                > > sell.
                > >
                > > Instead of just talking the RLC should work to get
                > an amendment of the
                > > next ballot to outlaw this in the Florida
                > constitution.
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: Chip Mellor [mailto:WMellor@...]
                > Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 12:29 PM
                > To: IJ Distribution
                > Subject: Supreme Court Upholds Eminent Domain Abuse
                >
                > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                         
                >
                > June 23, 2005
                >
                >
                > Homeowners Lose Eminent Domain Case
                >
                > Institute for Justice Warns:
                > Supreme Court Leaves Homeowners Vulnerable
                > To Tax-Hungry Bureaucrats & Land-Hungry Developers
                >
                > Washington , D.C.- Today, the U.S. Supreme Court
                > delivered a blow to home and
                > small business owners throughout the country by
                > allowing the government to
                > use eminent domain to take homes so that businesses
                > can make more money off
                > that land and possibly pay more taxes as a result.
                >
                > The Institute and its clients issued the following
                > statements after learning
                > of today’s decision.
                >
                > Chip Mellor, the president of the Institute for
                > Justice, said, “The majority
                > and the dissent both recognized that the action now
                > turns to state supreme
                > courts where the public use battle will be fought
                > out under state
                > constitutions.  The Institute for Justice will be
                > there every step of the
                > way with homeowners and small businesses to protect
                > what is rightfully
                > theirs.  Today’s decision in no way binds those
                > courts.”
                >
                > “The Court simply got the law wrong today, and our
                > Constitution and country
                > will suffer as a result,” said Scott Bullock, senior
                > attorney for the
                > Institute for Justice.  “With today’s ruling, the
                > poor and middle class will
                > be most vulnerable to eminent domain abuse by
                > government and its corporate
                > allies.  The 5-4 split and the nearly equal division
                > among state supreme
                > courts shows just how divided the courts really are.
                >  This will not be the
                > last word.”
                >
                > “One of the key quotes from the Court to keep in
                > mind today was written by
                > Justice O’Connor,” Bullock said.  “Justice O’Connor
                > wrote, ‘Any property may
                > now be taken for the benefit of another private
                > party, but the fallout from
                > this decision will not be random.  The beneficiaries
                > are likely to be those
                > citizens with disproportionate influence and power
                > in the political process,
                > including large corporations and development
                > firms.’”
                >
                > Dana Berliner, another senior attorney with the
                > Institute for Justice, said,
                > “It’s a dark day for American homeowners.  While
                > most constitutional
                > decisions affect a small number of people, this
                > decision undermines the
                > rights of every American, except the most
                > politically connected.  Every
                > home, small business, or church would produce more
                > taxes as a shopping
                > center or office building.  And according to the
                > Court, that’s a good enough
                > reason for eminent domain.”
                >
                > Mellor said, “Today’s decision doesn’t end the
                > Institute for Justice’s fight
                > against abuses of eminent domain.  We will work to
                > ensure not only that the
                > property owners in New London keep their homes, but
                > that all home and small
                > business owners are protected from these
                > unconstitutional land grabs by
                > governments and their business allies.  This is a
                > terrible precedent that
                > must be overturned by this Court, just as bad state
                > supreme court eminent
                > domain decisions in Michigan and Illinois were later
                > overturned by those
                > courts.”
                >
                > Susette Kelo, one of the homeowners challenging
                > eminent domain abuse, said,
                > “I was in this battle to save my home and, in the
                > process, protect the
                > rights of working class homeowners throughout the
                > country.  I am very
                > disappointed that the Court sided with powerful
                > government and business
                > interests, but I will continue to fight to save my
                > home and to preserve the
                > Constitution.”
                >
                > Mike Cristofaro, another one of the homeowners whose
                > family has owned
                > property in Fort Trumbull for more than 30 years,
                > said, “I am astonished
                > that the Court would permit the government to throw
                > out my family from their
                > home so that private developers can make more money.
                >  Although the Court
                > ruled against us, I am very proud of the fight we
                > waged for my family and
                > for the rights of all Americans.”
                >
                > # # #
                >
                > To unsubscribe from IJ's distribution list, please
                > reply to this email with
                > "unsubscribe" in the subject line or send an email
                > to bstevens@....
                >
                > --
                > No virus found in this outgoing message.
                > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                > Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.0/27 -
                > Release Date: 6/23/2005

                >
                >
                >

                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >     RLC-Action-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                === message truncated ===



                           
                ____________________________________________________
                Yahoo! Sports
                Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
                http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com

                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                http://mail.yahoo.com

              • DGHarrison
                I agree with Doug Lorenz. Time is of the essence in this matter. I suggest that as a minimum, we each write Letters to the Editor to several newspapers in our
                Message 7 of 18 , Jun 24, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  I agree with Doug Lorenz. Time is of the essence in this matter. I suggest that as a minimum, we each write Letters to the Editor to several newspapers in our respective areas. The talk shows tend to have their loyal listeners, so calling in to a conservative talk show would be just more preaching to the choir, although if allowed, you could urge listeners to write Letters to the Editors and give them the talking points to work with. I think we also need to call our local Public Radio stations. Usually, Minnesota Public Radio doesn't put conservatives on the line (I've called dozens of times, been put on the waiting list, and never been connected. I stopped calling after the umpteenth time I'd been put on hold for the entire show), but maybe you don't have to present yourself as a conservative on this one. Just let them know you're angry about the ruling of the Supreme Court.

                  Ray suggested that a list of a few talking points should be presented. I'll buy that. Has anyone written that list? If so, please share it with us so we all have a head start and a unity of voice. What is our purpose here? Are we trying to say the liberal judges were wrong and the conservative ones right? That's just more partisan bickering and won't really solve the problem, which is that the ruling needs to be overturned. What does it take to get the SCOTUS to say, "Oops!" and reverse itself? Has it ever been done? If so, that's one of the talking points.

                  Basically, I think the object here is to get the ruling overturned, not to score political points. Going for the points is like two kids bickering about who spilled the grape juice on the carpet instead of cleaning it up before Mom gets home. They'll both be standing there shouting, "Did not!" "Did too!", while the grape juice stain sets in and becomes impossible to remove. Acting quickly is the key, and never mind who gets the blame or the credit. The blame can be laid at the public's feet after the damage is undone.

                  Anyone care to help provide the talking points? We can all take those facts and conclusions and work them into our own letters and dialogues. I must confess that I need some high powered help here getting the facts, but there are judicial scholars amongst us, are there not? Just give me a list of good talking points and I'm off to the races -- today!

                  Doug Harrison
                  Minnesota

                  Douglas Lorenz wrote:

                  Well, this looks like the rare issue where EVERYONE in the RLC agrees and is profoundly outraged.  However, I haven’t heard anyone offer an action plan outside of Ray’s outline.  I understand how difficult it is to get people active over controversial issues, but there isn’t any controversy here.  We’re all adamantly opposed to the Supreme’s ruling.

                   

                  I’m still a bit burnt out after my last few attempts to get people on this list to commit to a course of action, so someone else will have to do the legwork on this one.  The issue is in the media right now, and the clock is ticking.  You only have a few more days of relevance before the public discards this issue as no longer current.


                • R. Kenneth Lindell CEBS, CFP
                  I have already filed a bill in the State Legislature to make sure eminent domain is only used for building new public byways and subject to judicial review.
                  Message 8 of 18 , Jun 24, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment

                    I have already filed a bill in the State Legislature to make sure eminent domain is only used for building new public byways and subject to judicial review.

                     

                    Rep. Ken Lindell

                    Frankfort, Maine

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com [mailto:RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Douglas Lorenz
                    Sent:
                    Friday, June 24, 2005 1:12 PM
                    To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: RE: [RLC-Action] RE: [RLCFL]
                    Hollywood steals land for developer

                     

                    Well, this looks like the rare issue where EVERYONE in the RLC agrees and is profoundly outraged.  However, I haven’t heard anyone offer an action plan outside of Ray’s outline.  I understand how difficult it is to get people active over controversial issues, but there isn’t any controversy here.  We’re all adamantly opposed to the Supreme’s ruling.

                     

                    I’m still a bit burnt out after my last few attempts to get people on this list to commit to a course of action, so someone else will have to do the legwork on this one.  The issue is in the media right now, and the clock is ticking.  You only have a few more days of relevance before the public discards this issue as no longer current.

                     


                    From: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com [mailto:RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Barry Moore
                    Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 8:55 AM
                    To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] RE: [RLCFL] Hollywood steals land for developer

                     

                    From what I can tell, EVERY local talk show in the DFW area is talking about it,

                    and excoriating the ruling.

                    Ray Holtorf <rayholtorf@...> wrote:

                    In my opinion, and I know this is not action, so bear
                    with me, each of these individual fights are nothing
                    more than a distraction. None of this will matter if
                    we get two more 'Clarence Thomas justices' on the
                    Supreme Court.

                    The last two rulings are tremendous for "our" side
                    because they both stick a finger in the eye of
                    conservative and liberal alike.
                    1. Liberals want pot and conservatives want states to
                    have autonomy.
                    2. Both liberals and conservatives want to actually
                    own their property.

                    We have two outrageous rulings from the Supremes. WHat
                    we need to do is point out that those supported by
                    President Bush voted on the side of the American
                    people both times (with the exception of Scalia on
                    pot), while those supported by Clinton / Schumer /
                    Kennedy and Durbin voted to take away pot and a
                    state's autonomy.

                    You can't fight this battle at the local level - get
                    site of the big picture. Use Hitler-style propoganda
                    technics. Come up with a simple message, with very
                    feww points, and repeat them over and over. Then we
                    will earn landslide support for someone like Thomas.

                    Want to take action? Come up with a list of three or
                    four simple points on why these rulings are bad, and
                    why Republicans have the right idea when it comes to
                    freedom (OK OK that might be sic, but let's work with
                    it).

                    Then we can get ahold of local LP folks, and RP
                    organizations, and have EVERYONE start to hit the
                    message HARD - call every radio talk show you can
                    find...

                    Ray Holtorf - Iowa

                    --- Jeff Palmer <jap@...> wrote:

                    > Michael is absolutely correct that eminent domain is
                    > an ideal issue for us.
                    > Below, I've attached  an e-mail from the Institute
                    > for Justice (who pursued
                    > the case to the U.S. Supre me Court) which affirms
                    > Mike's strategy of taking
                    > the fight to the state-level.
                    >
                    > [Note to RLC-Action:  Discussion of strategy &
                    > tactics would be in order.
                    > Discussion of the merits of eminent domain should be
                    > take to RLC-Discuss.]
                    >
                    > Jeff Palmer - jap@...
                    >  * * *
                    > Quote of the Week:  “If the rights of the individual
                    > are not respected by
                    > the group, the group itself cannot exist for long.”
                    > -- Jo Stockton (Audrey
                    > Hepburn), Funny Face, 1957
                    >
                    > ----- Original Message -----
                    > From: "Michael Horowitz" <hmichael@...>
                    > To: <RLCFL@yahoogroups.com>
                    > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 6:57 AM
                    > Subject: [RLCFL] Hollywood steals land for developer
                    >
                    > >  Over the objections of a man who said Hollywood
                    > is stealing his
                    > > family's land to enrich a powerful developer, the
                    > City Commission
                    > > voted Tuesday night to begin eminent-domain
                    > proceedings on a small
                    > > retail building downtown to make way for a $100
                    > million condo project.
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-scra22jun22,0,
                    > > 2705761.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines
                    > >
                    > > This should be priority one to outlaw the use of
                    > eminent domain to
                    > > transfer private property from one owner to
                    > another.  If the developer
                    > > wants the land he needs to pay enough to the owner
                    > that they want to
                    > > sell.
                    > >
                    > > Instead of just talking the RLC should work to get
                    > an amendment of the
                    > > next ballot to outlaw this in the Florida
                    > constitution.
                    >
                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: Chip Mellor [mailto:WMellor@...]
                    > Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 12:29 PM
                    > To: IJ Distribution
                    > Subject: Supreme Court Upholds Eminent Domain Abuse
                    >
                    > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                         
                    >
                    > June 23, 2005
                    >
                    >
                    > Homeowners Lose Eminent Domain Case
                    >
                    > Institute for Justice Warns:
                    > Supreme Court Leaves Homeowners Vulnerable
                    > To Tax-Hungry Bureaucrats & Land-Hungry Developers
                    >
                    > Washington, D.C.- Today, the U.S. Supreme Court
                    > delivered a blow to home and
                    > small business owners throughout the country by
                    > allowing the government to
                    > use eminent domain to take homes so that businesses
                    > can make more money off
                    > that land and possibly pay more taxes as a result.
                    >
                    > The Institute and its clients issued the following
                    > statements after learning
                    > of today’s decision.
                    >
                    > Chip Mellor, the president of the Institute for
                    > Justice, said, “The majority
                    > and the dissent both recognized that the action now
                    > turns to state supreme
                    > courts where the public use battle will be fought
                    > out under state
                    > constitutions.  The Institute for Justice will be
                    > there every step of the
                    > way with homeowners and small businesses to protect
                    > what is rightfully
                    > theirs.  Today’s decision in no way binds those
                    > courts.”
                    >
                    > “The Court simply got the law wrong today, and our
                    > Constitution and country
                    > will suffer as a result,” said Scott Bullock, senior
                    > attorney for the
                    > Institute for Justice.  “With today’s ruling, the
                    > poor and middle class will
                    > be most vulnerable to eminent domain abuse by
                    > government and its corporate
                    > allies.  The 5-4 split and the nearly equal division
                    > among state supreme
                    > courts shows just how divided the courts really are.
                    >  This will not be the
                    > last word.”
                    >
                    > “One of the key quotes from the Court to keep in
                    > mind today was written by
                    > Justice O’Connor,” Bullock said.  “Justice O’Connor
                    > wrote, ‘Any property may
                    > now be taken for the benefit of another private
                    > party, but the fallout from
                    > this decision will not be random.  The beneficiaries
                    > are likely to be those
                    > citizens with disproportionate influence and power
                    > in the political process,
                    > including large corporations and development
                    > firms.’”
                    >
                    > Dana Berliner, another senior attorney with the
                    > Institute for Justice, said,
                    > “It’s a dark day for American homeowners.  While
                    > most constitutional
                    > decisions affect a small number of people, this
                    > decision undermines the
                    > rights of every American, except the most
                    > politically connected.  Every
                    > home, small business, or church would produce more
                    > taxes as a shopping
                    > center or office building.  And according to the
                    > Court, that’s a good enough
                    > reason for eminent domain.”
                    >
                    > Mellor said, “Today’s decision doesn’t end the
                    > Institute for Justice’s fight
                    > against abuses of eminent domain.  We will work to
                    > ensure not only that the
                    > property owners in New London keep their homes, but
                    > that all home and small
                    > business owners are protected from these
                    > unconstitutional land grabs by
                    > governments and their business allies.  This is a
                    > terrible precedent that
                    > must be overturned by this Court, just as bad state
                    > supreme court eminent
                    > domain decisions in Michigan and Illinois were later
                    > overturned by those
                    > courts.”
                    >
                    > Susette Kelo, one of the homeowners challenging
                    > eminent domain abuse, said,
                    > “I was in this battle to save my home and, in the
                    > process, protect the
                    > rights of working class homeowners throughout the
                    > country.  I am very
                    > disappointed that the Court sided with powerful
                    > government and business
                    > interests, but I will continue to fight to save my
                    > home and to preserve the
                    > Constitution.”
                    >
                    > Mike Cristofaro, another one of the homeowners whose
                    > family has owned
                    > property in Fort Trumbull for more than 30 years,
                    > said, “I am astonished
                    > that the Court would permit the government to throw
                    > out my family from their
                    > home so that private developers can make more money.
                    >  Although the Court
                    > ruled against us, I am very proud of the fight we
                    > waged for my family and
                    > for the rights of all Americans.”
                    >
                    > # # #
                    >
                    > To unsubscribe from IJ's distribution list, please
                    > reply to this email with
                    > "unsubscribe" in the subject line or send an email
                    > to bstevens@....
                    >
                    > --
                    > No virus found in this outgoing message.
                    > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                    > Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.0/27 -
                    > Release Date: 6/23/2005

                    >
                    >
                    >

                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >     RLC-Action-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    >
                    === message truncated ===



                               
                    ____________________________________________________
                    Yahoo! Sports
                    Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
                    http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com

                    __________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                    http://mail.yahoo.com


                  • Douglas Lorenz
                    And you re not that far from the real source of this atrocity, Connecticut. We need a media effort to put Rep. Lindell on as much New England media as possible
                    Message 9 of 18 , Jun 24, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment

                      And you’re not that far from the real source of this atrocity, Connecticut … 

                       

                      We need a media effort to put Rep. Lindell on as much New England media as possible to get discussion going for his bill.  With all the people we have in New Hampshire , they should be able to find a representative to do the same in their neighborhood.

                       


                      From: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com [mailto:RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of R. Kenneth Lindell CEBS, CFP
                      Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 10:54 AM
                      To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: RE: [RLC-Action] RE: [RLCFL] Hollywood steals land for developer

                       

                      I have already filed a bill in the State Legislature to make sure eminent domain is only used for building new public byways and subject to judicial review.

                       

                      Rep. Ken Lindell

                      Frankfort, Maine

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com [mailto:RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Douglas Lorenz
                      Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 1:12 PM
                      To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: RE: [RLC-Action] RE: [RLCFL] Hollywood steals land for developer

                       

                      Well, this looks like the rare issue where EVERYONE in the RLC agrees and is profoundly outraged.  However, I haven’t heard anyone offer an action plan outside of Ray’s outline.  I understand how difficult it is to get people active over controversial issues, but there isn’t any controversy here.  We’re all adamantly opposed to the Supreme’s ruling.

                       

                      I’m still a bit burnt out after my last few attempts to get people on this list to commit to a course of action, so someone else will have to do the legwork on this one.  The issue is in the media right now, and the clock is ticking.  You only have a few more days of relevance before the public discards this issue as no longer current.

                       


                      From: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com [mailto:RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Barry Moore
                      Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 8:55 AM
                      To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] RE: [RLCFL] Hollywood steals land for developer

                       

                      From what I can tell, EVERY local talk show in the DFW area is talking about it,

                      and excoriating the ruling.

                      Ray Holtorf <rayholtorf@...> wrote:

                      In my opinion, and I know this is not action, so bear
                      with me, each of these individual fights are nothing
                      more than a distraction. None of this will matter if
                      we get two more 'Clarence Thomas justices' on the
                      Supreme Court.

                      The last two rulings are tremendous for "our" side
                      because they both stick a finger in the eye of
                      conservative and liberal alike.
                      1. Liberals want pot and conservatives want states to
                      have autonomy.
                      2. Both liberals and conservatives want to actually
                      own their property.

                      We have two outrageous rulings from the Supremes. WHat
                      we need to do is point out that those supported by
                      President Bush voted on the side of the American
                      people both times (with the exception of Scalia on
                      pot), while those supported by Clinton / Schumer /
                      Kennedy and Durbin voted to take away pot and a
                      state's autonomy.

                      You can't fight this battle at the local level - get
                      site of the big picture. Use Hitler-style propoganda
                      technics. Come up with a simple message, with very
                      feww points, and repeat them over and over. Then we
                      will earn landslide support for someone like Thomas.

                      Want to take action? Come up with a list of three or
                      four simple points on why these rulings are bad, and
                      why Republicans have the right idea when it comes to
                      freedom (OK OK that might be sic, but let's work with
                      it).

                      Then we can get ahold of local LP folks, and RP
                      organizations, and have EVERYONE start to hit the
                      message HARD - call every radio talk show you can
                      find...

                      Ray Holtorf - Iowa

                      --- Jeff Palmer <jap@...> wrote:

                      > Michael is absolutely correct that eminent domain is
                      > an ideal issue for us.
                      > Below, I've attached  an e-mail from the Institute
                      > for Justice (who pursued
                      > the case to the U.S. Supre me Court) which affirms
                      > Mike's strategy of taking
                      > the fight to the state-level.
                      >
                      > [Note to RLC-Action:  Discussion of strategy &
                      > tactics would be in order.
                      > Discussion of the merits of eminent domain should be
                      > take to RLC-Discuss.]
                      >
                      > Jeff Palmer - jap@...
                      >  * * *
                      > Quote of the Week:  “If the rights of the individual
                      > are not respected by
                      > the group, the group itself cannot exist for long.”
                      > -- Jo Stockton (Audrey
                      > Hepburn), Funny Face, 1957
                      >
                      > ----- Original Message -----
                      > From: "Michael Horowitz" <hmichael@...>
                      > To: <RLCFL@yahoogroups.com>
                      > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 6:57 AM
                      > Subject: [RLCFL] Hollywood steals land for developer
                      >
                      > >  Over the objections of a man who said Hollywood
                      > is stealing his
                      > > family's land to enrich a powerful developer, the
                      > City Commission
                      > > voted Tuesday night to begin eminent-domain
                      > proceedings on a small
                      > > retail building downtown to make way for a $100
                      > million condo project.
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                      http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-scra22jun22,0,
                      > > 2705761.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines
                      > >
                      > > This should be priority one to outlaw the use of
                      > eminent domain to
                      > > transfer private property from one owner to
                      > another.  If the developer
                      > > wants the land he needs to pay enough to the owner
                      > that they want to
                      > > sell.
                      > >
                      > > Instead of just talking the RLC should work to get
                      > an amendment of the
                      > > next ballot to outlaw this in the Florida
                      > constitution.
                      >
                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: Chip Mellor [mailto:WMellor@...]
                      > Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 12:29 PM
                      > To: IJ Distribution
                      > Subject: Supreme Court Upholds Eminent Domain Abuse
                      >
                      > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                         
                      >
                      > June 23, 2005
                      >
                      >
                      > Homeowners Lose Eminent Domain Case
                      >
                      > Institute for Justice Warns:
                      > Supreme Court Leaves Homeowners Vulnerable
                      > To Tax-Hungry Bureaucrats & Land-Hungry Developers
                      >
                      > Washington , D.C.- Today, the U.S. Supreme Court
                      > delivered a blow to home and
                      > small business owners throughout the country by
                      > allowing the government to
                      > use eminent domain to take homes so that businesses
                      > can make more money off
                      > that land and possibly pay more taxes as a result.
                      >
                      > The Institute and its clients issued the following
                      > statements after learning
                      > of today’s decision.
                      >
                      > Chip Mellor, the president of the Institute for
                      > Justice, said, “The majority
                      > and the dissent both recognized that the action now
                      > turns to state supreme
                      > courts where the public use battle will be fought
                      > out under state
                      > constitutions.  The Institute for Justice will be
                      > there every step of the
                      > way with homeowners and small businesses to protect
                      > what is rightfully
                      > theirs.  Today’s decision in no way binds those
                      > courts.”
                      >
                      > “The Court simply got the law wrong today, and our
                      > Constitution and country
                      > will suffer as a result,” said Scott Bullock, senior
                      > attorney for the
                      > Institute for Justice.  “With today’s ruling, the
                      > poor and middle class will
                      > be most vulnerable to eminent domain abuse by
                      > government and its corporate
                      > allies.  The 5-4 split and the nearly equal division
                      > among state supreme
                      > courts shows just how divided the courts really are.
                      >  This will not be the
                      > last word.”
                      >
                      > “One of the key quotes from the Court to keep in
                      > mind today was written by
                      > Justice O’Connor,” Bullock said.  “Justice O’Connor
                      > wrote, ‘Any property may
                      > now be taken for the benefit of another private
                      > party, but the fallout from
                      > this decision will not be random.  The beneficiaries
                      > are likely to be those
                      > citizens with disproportionate influence and power
                      > in the political process,
                      > including large corporations and development
                      > firms.’”
                      >
                      > Dana Berliner, another senior attorney with the
                      > Institute for Justice, said,
                      > “It’s a dark day for American homeowners.  While
                      > most constitutional
                      > decisions affect a small number of people, this
                      > decision undermines the
                      > rights of every American, except the most
                      > politically connected.  Every
                      > home, small business, or church would produce more
                      > taxes as a shopping
                      > center or office building.  And according to the
                      > Court, that’s a good enough
                      > reason for eminent domain.”
                      >
                      > Mellor said, “Today’s decision doesn’t end the
                      > Institute for Justice’s fight
                      > against abuses of eminent domain.  We will work to
                      > ensure not only that the
                      > property owners in New London keep their homes, but
                      > that all home and small
                      > business owners are protected from these
                      > unconstitutional land grabs by
                      > governments and their business allies.  This is a
                      > terrible precedent that
                      > must be overturned by this Court, just as bad state
                      > supreme court eminent
                      > domain decisions in Michigan and Illinois were later
                      > overturned by those
                      > courts.”
                      >
                      > Susette Kelo, one of the homeowners challenging
                      > eminent domain abuse, said,
                      > “I was in this battle to save my home and, in the
                      > process, protect the
                      > rights of working class homeowners throughout the
                      > country.  I am very
                      > disappointed that the Court sided with powerful
                      > government and business
                      > interests, but I will continue to fight to save my
                      > home and to preserve the
                      > Constitution.”
                      >
                      > Mike Cristofaro, another one of the homeowners whose
                      > family has owned
                      > property in Fort Trumbull for more than 30 years,
                      > said, “I am astonished
                      > that the Court would permit the government to throw
                      > out my family from their
                      > home so that private developers can make more money.
                      >  Although the Court
                      > ruled against us, I am very proud of the fight we
                      > waged for my family and
                      > for the rights of all Americans.”
                      >
                      > # # #
                      >
                      > To unsubscribe from IJ's distribution list, please
                      > reply to this email with
                      > "unsubscribe" in the subject line or send an email
                      > to bstevens@....
                      >
                      > --
                      > No virus found in this outgoing message.
                      > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                      > Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.0/27 -
                      > Release Date: 6/23/2005

                      >
                      >
                      >

                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >     RLC-Action-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      >
                      === message truncated ===



                                 
                      ____________________________________________________
                      Yahoo! Sports
                      Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
                      http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com

                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                      http://mail.yahoo.com


                       

                    • DGHarrison
                      If you ve got the stomach, here s a link to a PDF file
                      Message 10 of 18 , Jun 24, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        If you've got the stomach, here's a link to a PDF file of the majority opinion. Common sense and Justice O'Connor's dissent starts on page 27. I'm going to begin reading it now to search for the "talking points" but I could use some assistance from anyone else who has read it or who is about to read it. Thanks.

                        Doug Harrison
                        Minnesota

                        <http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf>
                      • Jeff Palmer
                        All good ideas. However, I d suggest also taking the Institute for Justice s advice and taking the fight to the state-level. Also, we should commend Rep. Ken
                        Message 11 of 18 , Jun 24, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Message
                          All good ideas.  However, I'd suggest also taking the Institute for Justice's advice and taking the fight to the state-level.  Also, we should commend Rep. Ken Lindell for his proposed legislation in Maine(!!) and trumpet it nationwide as a model.  I've already begun doing so.  [Are you an RLC member, Ken?  Do you have a link to the proposed legislation?]

                          Jeff Palmer - jap@...
                           * * *
                          Quote of the Week:  “If the rights of the individual are not respected by the group, the group itself cannot exist for long.” -- Jo Stockton (Audrey Hepburn), Funny Face, 1957

                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com [mailto:RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of DGHarrison
                          Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 1:52 PM
                          To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] RE: [RLCFL] Hollywood steals land for developer

                          I agree with Doug Lorenz. Time is of the essence in this matter. I suggest that as a minimum, we each write Letters to the Editor to several newspapers in our respective areas. The talk shows tend to have their loyal listeners, so calling in to a conservative talk show would be just more preaching to the choir, although if allowed, you could urge listeners to write Letters to the Editors and give them the talking points to work with. I think we also need to call our local Public Radio stations. Usually, Minnesota Public Radio doesn't put conservatives on the line (I've called dozens of times, been put on the waiting list, and never been connected. I stopped calling after the umpteenth time I'd been put on hold for the entire show), but maybe you don't have to present yourself as a conservative on this one. Just let them know you're angry about the ruling of the Supreme Court.

                          Ray suggested that a list of a few talking points should be presented. I'll buy that. Has anyone written that list? If so, please share it with us so we all have a head start and a unity of voice. What is our purpose here? Are we trying to say the liberal judges were wrong and the conservative ones right? That's just more partisan bickering and won't really solve the problem, which is that the ruling needs to be overturned. What does it take to get the SCOTUS to say, "Oops!" and reverse itself? Has it ever been done? If so, that's one of the talking points.

                          Basically, I think the object here is to get the ruling overturned, not to score political points. Going for the points is like two kids bickering about who spilled the grape juice on the carpet instead of cleaning it up before Mom gets home. They'll both be standing there shouting, "Did not!" "Did too!", while the grape juice stain sets in and becomes impossible to remove. Acting quickly is the key, and never mind who gets the blame or the credit. The blame can be laid at the public's feet after the damage is undone.

                          Anyone care to help provide the talking points? We can all take those facts and conclusions and work them into our own letters and dialogues. I must confess that I need some high powered help here getting the facts, but there are judicial scholars amongst us, are there not? Just give me a list of good talking points and I'm off to the races -- today!

                          Doug Harrison
                          Minnesota 

                          --
                          No virus found in this outgoing message.
                          Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                          Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.0/27 - Release Date: 6/23/2005

                        • Thomas Sewell
                          [...]Are you an RLC member, Ken? [...] I ll just note that RLC-Action is an RLC member s only list. :) Thomas
                          Message 12 of 18 , Jun 24, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            [...]Are you an RLC member, Ken? [...]

                            I'll just note that RLC-Action is an RLC member's only list. :)

                            Thomas
                          • DGHarrison
                            From the ruling (page 27): In February 1998, Pfizer
                            Message 13 of 18 , Jun 24, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              <http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf>
                              From the ruling (page 27): In February 1998, Pfizer Inc., the pharmaceuticals manufacturer, announced that it would build a global research facility near the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. Two months later, New London's city council gave initial approval for the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) to prepare the development plan at issue here. The NLDC is a private, nonprofit corporation whose mission is to assist the city council in economic development planning. It is not elected by popular vote, and its directors and employees are privately appointed. Consistent with its mandate, the NLDC generated an ambitious plan for redeveloping 90 acres of Fort Trumbull in order to "complement the facility that Pfizer was planning to build, create jobs, increase tax and other revenues, encourage public access to and use of the city's waterfront, and eventually 'build momentum' for the revitalization of the rest of the city." App. to Pet. for Cert. 5.
                              Robber Barons!
                              That should make a good 'talking point,' more like a 'shouting point!'

                              It would seem that another course of action, besides an attack on the ignorant Supreme Court justices, would be to attack the underlying culprit -- Pfizer Inc. A national boycott of Pfizer should get their attention. It wouldn't do much good to attack NLDC, but maybe they need to hear from the rest of the nation as well <http://www.nldc.org/>.

                              So, besides writing Letters to the Editor, may I suggest that we go after the corporate juggler that is responsible for this mess? We had the same damned thing happen right here in Bloomington (suburb of Minneapolis) when Best Buy wanted to build itself a nice new shiny glass and steel headquarters building. If we don't start going after the perpetrators, they'll just keep on doing what Robber Barons do best -- take what they can and shoot the rest. Folks, we're the buffalo here, and the robber barons have their NLDC scouts with their muzzleloaders aimed at our hearts. It's time for an uprising!

                              Here are some of the links you'll need to communicate why you're boycotting Pfizer. Let them know you're angry, and that as a customer of theirs, you do not approve of their piracy of other people's private lands. Pfizer's Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer is Hank McKinnell. I'm sure he'd love to hear from all of us and our friends.

                              http://www.pfizer.com/pfizer/do/index.jsp
                              http://www.pfizer.com/pfizer/are/mn_about_all.jsp
                              http://www.pfizer.com/pfizer/subsites/corporate_citizenship/index.jsp
                              http://www.pfizer.com/pfizer/subsites/philanthropy/caring/index.jsp

                              Make a note of all the products that Pfizer sells and avoid them if possible (prescription drugs may not allow you an option).

                              Dietary Supplement Products

                                   Unicap M
                                   Unicap Sr
                                   Unicap T
                              Hari Care Products
                                   Progaine 2-in-1 Shampoo
                                   Progaine Deep Cleansing Shampoo
                                   Progaine Volumizing Foam
                                   Progaine Volumizing Shampoo
                                   Progaine Weightless Conditioner
                              Oral Care Products
                                   Fresh'n Brite
                                   Listermint
                                   Listerine Essential Care Toothpaste Gel
                                   Listerine Essential Care Toothpaste
                                   Listerine Essential Care Tarter Control Toothpast
                                   Effergrip Denture Adhesive
                              Skin Care Products
                                   Lubriderm Body Bar
                                   Corn Huskers Lotion
                                   Pacquin Plus Dry Skin
                                   Pacquin Skin Cream Plus with Aloe
                                   Pacquin Medicated Hand and Body
                              Other Products
                                   Gelusil Antacid - Anti Gas Tablets 100's
                                   Three Flowers Brilliantine (Tres Flores)
                                   Three Flowers Brilliantine Solid
                                   Myadec Tablets
                                   Luden's Honey Licorice
                                   Luden's Menthol
                                   Luden's Sugar Free
                              Key Pfizer Pharmaceutical Products
                                  Aricept0 (donepezil hydrochloride tablets)
                                  Bextra (valdecoxib)
                                  Celebrex (celecoxib)
                                  Diflucan (fluconazole)
                                  Lipitor (atorvastatin calcium) tablets
                                  Neurontin (gabapentin)
                                  Norvasc (amlodipine besylate)
                                  Relpax (eletriptan HBr)
                                  Viagra (sildenafil citrate) tablets
                                  Viracept (nelfinavir mesylate)
                                  Xalatan (latanoprost ophthalmic solution)
                                  Zithromax (azithromycin)
                                  Zoloft (sertraline HCI)
                                  Zyrtec (certirizine HCI)
                              Key Pfizer Consumer Health Care Products
                                  Benadryl
                                  Cortizone
                                  Desitin
                                  e.p.t.
                                  Listerine
                                  Lubriderm
                                  Neosporin
                                  Purell
                                  Rogaine
                                  Rolaids
                                  Sudafed
                                  Visine
                                  Zantac
                              Key Pfizer Animal Health Products
                                  Clavamox/Synulox
                                  Equimax
                                  Naxcel/Excenel
                                  Rimadyl
                                  Dectomax
                                  Respisure/Stellamune
                                  Revolution/Stronghold

                            • Dave Nalle
                              ... Thomas has a particularly good argument in his dissent, commenting on the fact that the majority opinion is based not on the Constitution but on a string
                              Message 14 of 18 , Jun 24, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                >If you've got the stomach, here's a
                                ><http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf>link
                                >to a PDF file of the majority opinion. Common sense and Justice
                                >O'Connor's dissent starts on page 27. I'm going to begin reading it
                                >now to search for the "talking points" but I could use some
                                >assistance from anyone else who has read it or who is about to read
                                >it. Thanks.

                                Thomas has a particularly good argument in his dissent, commenting on
                                the fact that the majority opinion is based not on the Constitution
                                but on a string of prior decisions which move farther and farther
                                from the wording and intent of the 5th Amendment.

                                Dave
                                --

                                Tasty Thoughts from the Elitist Pig
                                http://www.elitistpig.com
                              • Dave Nalle
                                ... Just because he s actually gotten elected you should just assume he s not in the RLC... Plus I m pretty sure I remember some talk about him on the RLC list
                                Message 15 of 18 , Jun 24, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  >[Are you an RLC member, Ken? Do you have a link to the proposed legislation?]

                                  Just because he's actually gotten elected you should just assume he's
                                  not in the RLC...

                                  Plus I'm pretty sure I remember some talk about him on the RLC list
                                  when he was running a while back.

                                  Dave
                                  --

                                  Tasty Thoughts from the Elitist Pig
                                  http://www.elitistpig.com
                                • Tim Condon
                                  Good point, Dave. Thomas is a libertarian. O Conner is manifestly not; she wrote the main dissent, but Thomas s is inevitably going to be far more cogent. -
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Jun 24, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                              Good point, Dave. Thomas is a libertarian. O'Conner is manifestly not; she wrote the main dissent, but Thomas's is inevitably going to be far more cogent.  -
                                    ----Tim Condon, Free State Project



                                    Dave Nalle wrote:
                                    If you've got the stomach, here's a 
                                    <http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf>link 
                                    to a PDF file of the majority opinion. Common sense and Justice 
                                    O'Connor's dissent starts on page 27. I'm going to begin reading it 
                                    now to search for the "talking points" but I could use some 
                                    assistance from anyone else who has read it or who is about to read 
                                    it. Thanks.
                                        
                                    Thomas has a particularly good argument in his dissent, commenting on 
                                    the fact that the majority opinion is based not on the Constitution 
                                    but on a string of prior decisions which move farther and farther 
                                    from the wording and intent of the 5th Amendment.
                                    
                                    Dave
                                      

                                  • DGHarrison
                                    I have just finished sending e-mails to every single state representative, state senator, the governor, and lt. governor of the State of Minnesota. We, too,
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Jun 24, 2005
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I have just finished sending e-mails to every single state representative, state senator, the governor, and lt. governor of the State of Minnesota. We, too, are in special session, but I am skeptical about whether they will address this critical issue at this time. They are something like 7 days out from a government shut down, due to a partisan impasse on the state's budget. They have appointed a special judge to decide what emergency services will remain operating. Frankly, I am very pleased that the government will be shut down. For each day it is not operating, taxpayers get a reprieve from supporting the ne'er-do-anything entitlement class.

                                      Doug Harrison
                                      Minnesota

                                    • R. Kenneth Lindell CEBS, CFP
                                      Yes, I m the State RLC contact. I m also a former LP natcom member (I quit when I figured out how kooky the LP had become.) We are working on chartering a
                                      Message 18 of 18 , Jun 27, 2005
                                      • 0 Attachment

                                        Yes, I’m the State RLC contact.  I’m also a former LP natcom member (I quit when I figured out how kooky the LP had become.)

                                         

                                        We are working on chartering a State RLC this summer.

                                         

                                        State Representative R. Kenneth Lindell

                                        House District 41 – Frankfort

                                         

                                         

                                         

                                        -----Original Message-----
                                        From: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com [mailto:RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dave Nalle
                                        Sent:
                                        Friday, June 24, 2005 5:57 PM
                                        To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
                                        Subject: RE: [RLC-Action] RE: [RLCFL]
                                        Hollywood steals land for developer

                                         

                                        >[Are you an RLC member, Ken?  Do you have a link to the proposed legislation?]

                                        Just because he's actually gotten elected you should just assume he's
                                        not in the RLC...

                                        Plus I'm pretty sure I remember some talk about him on the RLC list
                                        when he was running a while back.

                                        Dave
                                        --

                                        Tasty Thoughts from the Elitist Pig
                                        http://www.elitistpig.com

                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.