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

Re: [RLC-Action] RE: [RLCFL] Hollywood steals land for developer

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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.