Constitution Park Foundation

Another Side of Eminent Domain

2006-09-19T20:43:00.000-07:00

Thor Solberg, over at Airport Business, exposes another heinous abuse of eminent domain that many communities are using to drive private airports out of business in order to force them to auction their land off to developers for dirt cheap prices. This is a battle he is only too aware of, because it is happening to the airport his own family owns and operates:

States and municipalities have long been involved with the improvement and operations of local airports using their power in the areas of zoning, taxation, and development. And, they have wielded the powerful tool of eminent domain to assist airports in their development by acquiring the land necessary to make needed improvements. But now, as the owner and operator of Solberg Airport in Readington, NJ, a small, family-owned, public-use general aviation facility, we are experiencing the more nefarious side of eminent domain.

For the first time, a local municipality in New Jersey is seeking to use eminent domain to seize almost all of the land of an airport - Solberg - including runway safety areas and runway end protection zones, to prevent any further improvements to the safety, security, and utility of the facility.

It is bad enough towns get to eminent domain property, but in this case, they are only seizing the parts of the property that are in need of repair, upgrade, and are necessary to flight operations. The town thinks it is getting off cheap, by not seizing ALL of the airport at once, as they should if eminent domain were at all justly administered (cough, spit). Read the rest at the link above. This case is just one more example of why ED is simply legalized theft.

Police Seizures: Eminent Domain By Another Name

2006-08-26T15:13:00.000-07:00

The police departments of America are just getting out of control. First there was United States vs. $127,000 in US Currency, in which the Supreme Court ruled that police could seize cash found in people's cars on the logic that "anybody carrying that much cash must be doing something criminal". Absurd, I know. No presumption of innocence, no consideration that someone might just dislike banks, checks, and credit cards.

Then there was the recent case of Mr. Michael Gannon of Nashua, here in New Hampshire, in which his home security system videotaped the rude behavior of police who came to his home when he reported a crime, telling him to move because "he was too rich for the neighborhood". When he reported the rude behavior to the police superiors, he was arrested for breaking the states uninformed videotaping laws (despite multiple signs on his property informing people they were being taped), and even when the charges were dropped, the police kept the tape, claiming it was "contraband".

Now, the NH Supreme Court has handed the police here a big win, when they ruled on Tuesday that the government can keep and destroy more than 500 CDs taken from Michael Cohen, owner of Pitchfork Records in Concord, in 2003 even though the state failed to prove that a single disk was illegal.

In this Manchester Union Leader article, Justice Dalianis, in her dissenting opinion is quoted as saying:

“the majority does not explain how statutes prohibiting the production, publication, or sale of certain works render possession of such works unlawful.”

Further, Dalianis concluded that “the state’s failure to establish in any way that the seized property constitutes contraband” made it impossible to justify keeping Cohen’s property.

Indeed, the majority’s reasoning is chilling. The majority concedes that no crime or illegal act was proven, but allows the confiscation anyway by concluding that a crime might have been committed. The majority used words such as “apparently,” “likely” and “would have” to describe the alleged illegal activity.

As it appears that police agencies have become full fledged gestapo units, declaring, "Ve vill decide vat ju are allowed to keep!"

I hereby open the floor for suggestions, of how we can take action in protest against police agencies, like in our Constitution Park and Lost Liberty Hotel civil actions against Justices Souter and Breyer ruling on Kelo, which puts policemens own property in jeopardy. Suggestions?

Announcement of Impending Victory

2006-05-28T12:58:00.000-07:00

As was in the news a few months ago, due to pressure put on local political allies of Justices Souter and Breyer, by the Constitution Park Foundation, Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers, the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire, NH Liberty Alliance, and Logan Darrow Clements' "Lost Liberty Hotel" project, the state legislature has passed a proposed state constitution amendment which will drastically narrow the scope of eminent domain in New Hampshire, to strictly government owned purposes. This question now goes to the Voters in Novembers statewide elections, which we predict will pass with an overwhelming majority of voter support.

We salute the courage of those who who stood philosophically four square behind this amendment. We recognise the willingness of others to set aside their big government principles to protect their friends on the US Supreme Court along with the rest of us, and we point out for particular distinction State Sen. Peter Burling, who has called me a "terrorist" on public radio for our proposals regarding his Harvard buddy Breyer's large Cornish estate, but who has voted for this amendment to protect his friend.

We hereby announce that we are calling off our proposition to eminent domain Breyer's property. We trust the voters of NH to vote in their own interests, and recognise that Breyer's allies in-state can no longer do anything to keep this amendment from passage.

While some may say that this does nothing for property owners in other states, we respond that that is what true federalism is all about. Get your own US Supreme Court justice to pick on. We had two, we've encouraged liberty groups in other states to pursue similar actions on other SCOTUS Justice owned properties, with no response.

Some purists may complain that we haven't outlawed eminent domain entirely. This is true, however the constitutional amendment as proposed would require such onerous action by the government to get around that such actions should properly raise plenty of public opposition in their own right. No Constitution can protect an apathetic populace from tyranny if they are too lazy to stand up on their own two feet for their rights.

Busy Bees and Puff Pieces

2005-08-10T12:22:00.000-07:00

Well, I've been running crazy since this story hit the news. The original Valley News article has been reprinted in every major newspaper in the US, on many TV news websites, and commented on many blogs. I did a second article for Free Market News the other day, then John Babiarz and I wrote an editorial for the Concord Monitor, which should be coming out this weekend, and now Catallarchy blog is looking for an article.

Freedomworks.org is interested in helping us with a nationwide fundraising campaign, and Hannity & Colmes called about doing an interview. The first donations started coming in. Thanks to all for the help. Be sure to spread the word.

ALSO: those of you in the Sacramento, Chicagoland, and NYC areas are encouraged to go after the properties of Kennedy, Stevens, and Ginsberg, respectively. Breyer is already running scared, with federal marshals guarding his property and a PR agent putting out puff pieces on what a great guy he is.

The Institute For Justice has filed a request for rehearing of the Kelo case, on July 18th, let us hope the Justices have gotten the message that the people will not tolerate this decision.

"It's far too late to work within the system and too early to shoot the bastards." - Claire Wolfe

I agree entirely. It is, however, high time that American patriots started "dumping tea" again.

Welcome

2005-07-30T21:12:00.000-07:00

If you haven't read the news, I and Ed Naile recently proposed that SCOTUS Justice Stephen G Breyer's property in Plainfield, NH, should see similar treatment for his participation in the Kelo v New London decision as is being visited upon fellow justice David Souter's property in Weare, NH. This has appeared on Free Market News Network, NH Public Radio, The Valley News, WorldNetDaily, the NY Times, AOL News, among others.

The plan is to build "Constitution Park" on Breyers property. If he refuses to sell, we are going to seek to have a vote of the people of Plainfield hold a vote to eminent domain his property for the park. The park will retain the 4,900+ sq ft log home on the property as a visitor center and foundation office, including an interpretive display on the history of property rights and eminent domain, plus any other out buildings. Two monuments will be built, featuring the US and NH Constitutions etched in stone for perpetuity, and a small public venue for public talks, including seminars on Constitutional law and individual liberties.

This is all going to take money and effort. The purpose of this blog is to bring together people who want to participate. I have set up a donations site at Pledgebank: http://www.pledgebank.com/ConstitutionPark. If you want to support the project, please go there and pledge. Thanks