GOVERNMENT USING EMINENT DOMAIN TO STEAL FAMILY FARMS.

We learned a lot since the Bundsy's, Janet Reno, and Bill Clinton

The Trump administration to intervene on behalf of a New Jersey family trying to stop the government seizure of a 175-year-old farm.

Court documents reveal settlement agreement giving Ammon Bundy's Emmett house to St. Luke's

A decade after armed standoff, the Bundys appear to be above the law.

Cliven Bundy was forced off this land in the 1990s, when much of it was designated as critical habitat for the endangered desert tortoise, after a controversial land swap that also allowed Las Vegas to continue growing. And even though the feds had revoked his permits, they didn't come for his cows until 2014, and it didn't go well.

Twenty Years Ago Today, the Montana Freemen Started Its 81-Day Standoff. The impasse informed the federal government’s reaction to the recent standoffs

"The FBI has gone to great pains to ensure that there is no armed confrontation, no siege, no armed perimeter, and no use of military assault-type tactics or equipment," then-Attorney General Janet Reno said in a statement. "The FBI is trying to negotiate a peaceful solution."

Family Ranch continues to battle High-Speed Rail. "I understand that this is where they are putting it, we’re not trying to stop it anymore. We’re understanding that this is where they’re going. What we’re hoping for is saying, ‘hey, look, you have to make us whole.' We have to be able to get water to this crop. We have to do all these things. You can’t just push your weight around like this and walk all over us,” says Richard Felipe, a fourth-generation farmer.

California farmers furious over delayed payments for land seized in high-speed rail push. "Whether the Maudes, the Henrys, or others whom we will soon announce, the Biden-style government takeover of our family farms is over," she added. "While this particular case is a city eminent domain issue, we @usda are exploring every legal option to help."

Andy Henry says he has received many multimillion-dollar offers for the farm, but he has denied all of them.

“Didn’t matter how much money we were offered,” Henry said. “We saved the farm no matter what. We turned down all the offers to preserve the legacy for our family, city, and even state.”

In April, he received a letter from the Cranbury Township Committee telling him that he can either accept an offer or the farm would be taken by eminent domain.

Light at the End of the Tunnel is a Train. If your home or business is in close proximity to the proposed California High-Speed Rail (CHSR), you will need the most effective eminent domain, real estate, and land use attorneys on your side. With over 60 years of litigation experience in the fields of eminent domain, valuation, and business law, our attorneys at Sullivan, Workman & Dee, LLP can help you get maximum compensation if your property is affected.

The CHSR project broke ground in 2015. The $64 billion plan has come under political and legal fire and will surely be a point of contention for years to come as it expands throughout California. The CHSR is mandated to operate without a subsidy and to link California’s major cities in the Bay Area, Central Valley, and Southern California. In the second phase of construction, the system will extend north through the Central Valley to Sacramento, and south through the Inland Empire to San Diego. The California High-Speed Rail Authority, a state agency directed by a board of governors, is managing this expansive bullet train project.

5 Things You Need To Understand About Eminent Domain.

Let’s break this down.

1. The right to your private property is a natural right.

It seems like a no-brainer, but even the simple act of writing those words would have meant certain harm to the man who wielded such a radically different idea—which is why John Locke only acknowledged authorship of his “Second Treatise on Government” in his will.

Yet even though our Founders embraced Locke’s radically different stance, recognizing the right to private property as inherent and subsequently enshrining this concept in our founding—today there are still many who take the age-old view that property is just “a legal deed to an object with the use and disposal of the object subject to the whims and mercies of the state.” And when property is just something you have a right to so long as the government decides you can—then eminent domain (especially in the sense the aforementioned presidential candidate understands it) makes perfect sense.

But if there’s a natural God-given right to privately own things, then eminent domain has no place in our society—right? Well—yes and no. Keep reading.

2. Good government’s core purpose is to protect that property.

As James Madison put it (emphasis added), “this being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.”

Sen. Ben Sasse also put it succinctly: “government is just our shared project to secure those rights.”

So—it’s our natural right to own property, and it’s good government’s duty to protect that right. Still, government needs to carry out its necessary and limited functions in society—and that’s where the concept of eminent domain comes in.

3. There’s two schools of thought on eminent domain.

First, there’s the idea that government has the inherent right to seize property simply by virtue of being the government. And that’s how most governments have operated for millennia.

Then there’s the second school of thought, and that’s the one that the bucks this age-old understanding of government’s role. In this one, government can exercise eminent domain, but only within very specific confines.

Our Founders knew the tendencies of mankind and our predictably oppressive governments—so, they nipped it in the bud. They sought to protect property and allow government to perform its necessary actions by greatly limiting the concept of eminent domain—making it a small function within even smaller parameters. It was never meant to be a convenience factor for the government (if the government could find another way to complete its necessary project, it should) nor was it meant to further the cause of private ambitions.

4. In the United States, constitutional eminent domain allows the government to take privately owned property—so long as two conditions are fulfilled.

Here’s where those confines I was talking about in No. 3 come in. In the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, our Founders allowed for this action only if a) it’s explicitly for public use, and b) the owner(s) are justly compensated for it.

Roads, public utilities or other government structures—that’s public use. It was never intended to help investors build casino parking lots; it was never meant to allow government to help one private entity steal from another. Think about it: if that was indeed the intent, why would our Founders step away from the historical norm of total government authority in the first place? Why go to the trouble of placing limitations around something governments have done for millennia?

5. 2005 changed everything.

Well, the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Kelo v. New London changed everything.

To make a very long story short, the city of New London wanted to bulldoze private homes to make way for things like office spaces, parking areas and other structures that would benefit major pharmaceutical company Pfizer plans to build a new headquarters.

And residents like Susette Kelo, unsurprisingly, weren’t having it. Unfortunately for them, though, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that indeed, they would. It’s not the first time law-abiding citizens found themselves at the abusive hands of government overreach, but this time was immensely different. How?

This case permanently changed the parameters within which the government’s use of eminent domain is confined. Remember No. 4? The government can invoke eminent domain so long as it’s doing so for public use (roads, utilities, government buildings). This case made the public the deciding factor. It allows the government to decide whether something is for the “public good.” This then allows the government to “take property for the sole purpose of enhancing its tax base.” And, in the Kelo case, “this includes a government taking property from one private party and transferring it to another.” The limits on the government’s ability to take land from its owners were devastatingly loosened.

In sum, yes. We need roads and utilities, military installations, and the like. And our Founders wisely provided for that, but always with the understanding that government existed to protect rights first and foremost throughout any project it undertook. So finally, let me ask you this: if those are the parameters, wouldn’t that make anything else simply legalized, government-assisted theft? You be the judge.

IS IT ANY DIFFERENT IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT TAKING YOUR LAND TO BUILD A MILLIONAIRE’S SPORTS PLACE?

No More Tax Dollars for NFL, NBA, and Other Sports Franchises. No more money to subsidize billionaires. America has had enough of it.

No More Tax Dollars for NFL, NBA, and Other Sports Franchises

America’s $36 trillion national deficit is a crisis that has real, long-lasting consequences. Despite what fiscally irresponsible liberals will claim, you can’t spend your way into economic prosperity.

Furthermore, there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow if we continue to spend obscene amounts of money. There is only more inflation. There is only a deterioration of the dollar and our spending power.

Currently, every day, taxpayers face financial hits from all angles. The cost of living is unaffordable, and inflation continues to rise. At the same time, taxes that go to the government are being wasted on frivolous and ludicrous expenditures.

9 Eminent Domain Examples & How to Fight Eminent Domain. Whether it be a retail mall taking over the land of private homes or a utilities company taking away farmland, there are countless examples of eminent domain throughout history.

All too often, the government’s right to buy private property and use it for a public project can cause big trouble for property owners. The government may overstep its rights, and landowners may not get the compensation they are entitled to. In 1978, Penn Central Transportation submitted plans to build an office above Grand Central Terminal in New York City. The NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission denied the plans on the grounds that the terminal is a landmark.

Penn Central tried to sue them, claiming that the City’s regulations over the terminal, specifically labeling it a “landmark” and limiting development, amounted to a “taking” of the property. The US Supreme Court rejected Penn Central’s argument, ruling that the City’s landmark designation did not amount to a “taking.”

The first U.S. Supreme Court case relating to the federal government’s eminent domain rights occurred in 1875. In Kohl, leaseholders on a parcel of land challenged the federal government’s attempt to acquire their property interest for a post office through condemnation. The court ruled against the leaseholders and in favor of the government, confirming the federal government’s right to take the land within the states through eminent domain.

In 1992, the South Carolina state government enacted a law that affected the development of a segment of private coastal land in the state. Because the acquisition prevented the landowner from developing its property, the Supreme Court ruled that the landowner was entitled to compensation from the government resulting from the enactment of the law.

Another famous eminent domain case occurred in 2005, when the city of New London, Connecticut, was granted the right to take private homes and then transfer the ownership to a private developer to develop a local economic project. In this controversial case, the Supreme Court essentially ruled that eminent domain allowed a city to take away homes and give them to private parties for a “public purpose.”

In 1945, Congress authorized the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency to rebuild a housing area under the power of eminent domain.

An owner of a department store in the same housing district sued the agency, saying the taking of his land was a violation of his rights. The court unanimously ruled in favor of the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency.

In a 1984 eminent domain case in Hawaii, the courts ruled that Hawaii’s Land Reform Act was constitutional, allowing the state to take land from property owners and give it to property renters. This ruling was seen as a means to redistribute land and prevent private landowners from holding the majority of the land.

In 2004, Arlington made a deal with the Dallas Cowboys to build a stadium in the city. However, they had to demolish a neighborhood when the location was chosen.

When the residents and the city couldn’t agree on compensation, the city used eminent domain to take the land anyway. As a result, the residents sued the city. They claimed the land seizure wasn’t for public use because it was for a stadium for a private entity. The city argued that the stadium was for the public because it was a sports venue for both professional and amateur athletes, and the public could enjoy. Ultimately, the court sided with the city of Arlington and upheld the eminent domain.

In 2011, the South Lafourche Levee District determined that it needed levees on the west bank of Bayou Lafourche, as it was vulnerable to flooding. This required them to take that land away from residents to build the levee. One of the residents, Chad M. Jarreau, of the land affected was a dirt farmer. This meant that the levee project would cause significant damage to his business. He rejected the offered compensation, considering it unfair compared to the value of his company. Soon, both parties were in court over the right to use eminent domain. Eventually, the court sided with Jarreu.

Although many of these eminent domain examples occurred decades ago, the government and utilities continue to exercise eminent domain today. They will use it for commercial properties, pipelines, power lines, and road development, among many other applications.

Here are a few examples:

• In 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a gas company seeking to use state land to construct a natural gas pipeline.

• Ohio History Connection recently settled a debate about giving the public access to ancient earthworks by buying out a country club’s lease after a decade of legal wrangling.

• The Alaska Department of Transportation exercised eminent domain to construct a road across an Alaska Native family’s land.

  IT’S NOT LIMITED TO AMERICA.

  17 June 1935 | Manfred Buchen was born in Kiel, Germany. He was a boy who loved boats and the wind in his hair, growing up in Dutch Tilburg after fleeing Nazi oppression. But safety never came. In September 1942, at just 7 years old, he was deported from Westerbork to Auschwitz. After the selection, he was led to the gas chambers. His childhood ended in smoke — but his name endures, whispered by the wind along forgotten canals.

  

ANIMAL RESCUE FARM ATTACKED BY 10 GOVERNMENT AGENTS, WITH GUNS, WARRANTS. KILLED P'NUT AND FRED.

GOVERNMENT TRYNANY COMES IN MANY FORMS, SMALL AND HUGE, LIBERTY, AND FREEDOM

.