Jury nullification is a valid, non-violent practice. I don't know that it happens very often however. Keep in mind that this country is populated by a huge number of dronelike hiveminds who will believe anything and everything without research or thinking for themselves. Also, the state has unlimited resources to employ doing background checks on prospective jurors. Potential 'nullifiers' would be screened out and excluded.
New London property thieves demanding rent. (Kelo)
- Thread starter Warren
- Start date
- Status
Sindawe
Member
I have a really bad taste for "Emminent Domain" {arrogant Domain}. My grandmother's near life-long home in Memphis, TN was 'Emminent Domain-ed' back in 1962 or so for I-40, near Overton Park & Zoo.
43-plus years later, I-40 is STILL not complete. That gap in Memphis will probably still be there long after I am in the next world.
43-plus years later, I-40 is STILL not complete. That gap in Memphis will probably still be there long after I am in the next world.
armedandsafe
Member
From the link discussing the juror convicted of withholding information during jury selection:
So, if I'm on a prospective jury panel, I should stand and tell the judge my personal political beliefs and attitudes and life experiences? I have a feeling the judge would shut me down after only a couple of days of listening to my spiel.
Pops
So, if I'm on a prospective jury panel, I should stand and tell the judge my personal political beliefs and attitudes and life experiences? I have a feeling the judge would shut me down after only a couple of days of listening to my spiel.
Pops
B
BeLikeTrey
Guest
armedandsafe...
I tend to do it on a daily basis to anybody who'll listen. It's probably why I have NEVER gotten a jury duty letter
I tend to do it on a daily basis to anybody who'll listen. It's probably why I have NEVER gotten a jury duty letter longrifleman
Member
Odd timing. My wife recieved a Fed jury questionaire Sat. I told her I would be glad to have a teeshirt made up with the slogan "I (heart pic) Jury Nullification" to wear to the first interview. I'm pretty sure she won't be forced to hang around the courthouse long. 
El Tejon
Member
Wonder what would happen if the property owners "discovered" some endangered species on their property before they turned it over to the government?
Perhaps grounds for an injunction to stop the confiscation?
Just thinking out loud, hypothetically of course.
Perhaps grounds for an injunction to stop the confiscation?
Just thinking out loud, hypothetically of course.
Cosmoline
Member
Forget the tree frogs. The best bet is to bring in some diesel, chlorine and waste oil and start pouring it into the yards at night. That way the city will be getting a brand new superfund site for their troubles.
Al Norris
Member
FYI on the Jury Nullification case: Laura Kriho's case was dismissed when it reached the Colorado Supreme Court.
Background info here.
Index of Legal Rulings are here.
Court of Appeals full text (63 pg) here. Particularly pay attention to the discussion on Voire Dire, if you choose to read that ruling. It is pertinant to anyone who may be called as a juror.
On Aug 4, 2000, a Motion to Dismiss was filed with the District Court and accepted. Thus the case before the CSC was rendered moot.
This is not an outright win, rather the DA just got tired of losing... Usually, it's the other way around!
This case highlights the legal communities attack on Rights of Juries, starting in the late 19th century.
Background info here.
Index of Legal Rulings are here.
Court of Appeals full text (63 pg) here. Particularly pay attention to the discussion on Voire Dire, if you choose to read that ruling. It is pertinant to anyone who may be called as a juror.
On Aug 4, 2000, a Motion to Dismiss was filed with the District Court and accepted. Thus the case before the CSC was rendered moot.
This is not an outright win, rather the DA just got tired of losing... Usually, it's the other way around!
This case highlights the legal communities attack on Rights of Juries, starting in the late 19th century.
280PLUS
Member
Yes, this story reminds me of a section of New Haven that was also bought out under eminent domain back in ohhhhh, 1970 or so for a highway to be put through. They uprooted hundreds of families that had lived there for years. One of my uncles had a business there (auto repair garage) that he held out in for so long that the state or feds, even after having leveled the rest of the area, gave up and put the road elsewhere. His garage was the only building there until he finally retired. To this day the whole area remains empty except for a small parcel where the hospital put in a parking lot for it's employees. His garage was on Dwight St. if anyone feels like checking a map.
So these eminent domain horror stories are not new by any means.
B
BeLikeTrey
Guest
bet this guy doesn't get many jury notifications either
Which the previous owners will end up paying for. Let us repeat people, everyone who ever owned the land or "dumped" on it is potentially liable. The gov't will first look to the city, who will then turn to the owners. The city can prove that they didn't dump there because they never took possession. The owners can't because they controlled the property. So dumping on their land is a great way to further ruin their life.
publius
Member
Yes, it will be, because the dummies aimed the interstate right at the park, right across the street from the college. Folks, try to imagine aiming an interstate right at Central Park in New York. That's what they did.
Finally, someone woke up and called a halt to it, but not before they squashed neighborhoods along the planned route.
publius
Member
Not So Fast...
Like most states, Connecticut has a relocation assistance law which substantially increases the amount of compensation a homeowner or businessman gets if displaced by eminent domain. All these state laws are patterned after the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1970. As such, if the condemning authority's offer is insufficient for the displaced person or business to purchase a "comparable" property, the displacee may apply for additional relocation assistance funds to make up the difference. Of course this only applies to the occupants of the property.
As for investor owners, I am not terribly sympathetic. As a former redevelopment official, I had seen too many investor owners connive to understate the income from their properties in order to evade income and property taxes. Then they are hoisted with their own petard when the condemning authority asks for proof of their claim that their income property is worth much more.
Like most states, Connecticut has a relocation assistance law which substantially increases the amount of compensation a homeowner or businessman gets if displaced by eminent domain. All these state laws are patterned after the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1970. As such, if the condemning authority's offer is insufficient for the displaced person or business to purchase a "comparable" property, the displacee may apply for additional relocation assistance funds to make up the difference. Of course this only applies to the occupants of the property.
As for investor owners, I am not terribly sympathetic. As a former redevelopment official, I had seen too many investor owners connive to understate the income from their properties in order to evade income and property taxes. Then they are hoisted with their own petard when the condemning authority asks for proof of their claim that their income property is worth much more.
ksnecktieman
Member
Skeptic? I think you missed the boat here. The name of the boat is "Outrage". If you have read and understood the details of this case I do not see how you can say they are getting "FAIR MARKET VALUE".
They do not want to sell. their houses are being taken by the government to give to someone else to build a hotel. They are getting their "public good" status from claiming the city will get more taxes, so it will help everyone.
IF this legal precedent stands, any house on a nice corner lot, in any location can be taken by the city to build a Mc Donalds, or a KFC, or a convenience store.
Are YOU ready to move?
They do not want to sell. their houses are being taken by the government to give to someone else to build a hotel. They are getting their "public good" status from claiming the city will get more taxes, so it will help everyone.
IF this legal precedent stands, any house on a nice corner lot, in any location can be taken by the city to build a Mc Donalds, or a KFC, or a convenience store.
Are YOU ready to move?
Vitamin G
Member
Is there any organization of people forming to actively protest this, similar to the minutemen? They can't exactly bulldoze if people are living inside the building. With enough food and water, It could be a LONG standoff.
Call me crazy, but I, for one, feel that the individual right to truely own property, is worth dying for.
I'd go.
Call me crazy, but I, for one, feel that the individual right to truely own property, is worth dying for.
I'd go.
Somehow I'm envisioning that ending in Waco 2.
It'll turn from "grassroots protestors with a sensible cause" into "dangerous paramilitary fruitcakes barricaded inside their compound and refusing to negotiate" just about as fast as the local SWAT can put their boots on.
It'll turn from "grassroots protestors with a sensible cause" into "dangerous paramilitary fruitcakes barricaded inside their compound and refusing to negotiate" just about as fast as the local SWAT can put their boots on.
xd9fan
Member
so true
its amazing how they just keep pushin' it.....
Sam Adams
Member
Cosmoline & Buzzknox
The prior owners won't pay a dime if they're bankrupt from fighting New London and from paying "rent" to the bastages. Also, "bankrupt" means that the "bankruptcy estate" has no money - it doesn't touch retirement accounts, irrevocable trusts or life insurance annuities, so long as it cannot be proven that someone put money into one of those instruments with the knowledge that they'd be bankrupt. It also doesn't cover gifts to loved ones, with the same proviso. Further, if there are prior debts to others, the city/EPA would be last in line to get anything. Creative people (especially when aided by lawyers) can figure out lots of ways to make a person indebted to another, quite legally (and, no, I'm not talking about being indebted to the lawyers for large legal bills - though that'd undoubtedly be a part the fact situation).
Changing gears somewhat, wouldn't it be a hoot if the properties of those on the City Council who voted for this turned out (maybe months or years later) to have large amounts of toxic waste on them? I advocate nothing - I just think it'd be a hoot.
Bottom line - there are lots of ways that New London and those who perpetrated this arrogant theft of property may end up regretting it. Again, without advocating anything in particular (or anything illegal in general), such regrets are limited only by the creativity of those victimized (and by "chance").
The prior owners won't pay a dime if they're bankrupt from fighting New London and from paying "rent" to the bastages. Also, "bankrupt" means that the "bankruptcy estate" has no money - it doesn't touch retirement accounts, irrevocable trusts or life insurance annuities, so long as it cannot be proven that someone put money into one of those instruments with the knowledge that they'd be bankrupt. It also doesn't cover gifts to loved ones, with the same proviso. Further, if there are prior debts to others, the city/EPA would be last in line to get anything. Creative people (especially when aided by lawyers) can figure out lots of ways to make a person indebted to another, quite legally (and, no, I'm not talking about being indebted to the lawyers for large legal bills - though that'd undoubtedly be a part the fact situation).
Changing gears somewhat, wouldn't it be a hoot if the properties of those on the City Council who voted for this turned out (maybe months or years later) to have large amounts of toxic waste on them? I advocate nothing - I just think it'd be a hoot.
Bottom line - there are lots of ways that New London and those who perpetrated this arrogant theft of property may end up regretting it. Again, without advocating anything in particular (or anything illegal in general), such regrets are limited only by the creativity of those victimized (and by "chance").
Rich K
Member
:banghead: :banghead: 
ravinraven
Member
Here's a thing to remember:
Just because the Dishonorable Five on the SCOTUS used the corrupt old stratagem of deliberate misinterpretation as an excuse to abdicate their duty to protect your rights to your property that right does not disappear. It is still there and can only disappear if amended out of the constitution. All the SCOTUS has done is grant immunity from criminal procedings to government thugs who wish to steal your land. The protection of this right or any other right that the SCOTUS has abandoned is NOW the duty and the RESPONSIBILITY of the people. The people either have to put a stop to Property Piracy and other rights abortions or lay down and die.
The people can come up with criminal procedings that government thugs are not immune to.
The question is: How much longer to we wait?
There is a good site called www.ij.org that might represent a good starting place. It is the site of the Institute for Justice. There is a lot of information about Property Piracy actions.
The thieving fools of the New London City Council should never be allowed to forget lthe damage they have done to America. Neither should any other government thugs.
ravinraven
Just because the Dishonorable Five on the SCOTUS used the corrupt old stratagem of deliberate misinterpretation as an excuse to abdicate their duty to protect your rights to your property that right does not disappear. It is still there and can only disappear if amended out of the constitution. All the SCOTUS has done is grant immunity from criminal procedings to government thugs who wish to steal your land. The protection of this right or any other right that the SCOTUS has abandoned is NOW the duty and the RESPONSIBILITY of the people. The people either have to put a stop to Property Piracy and other rights abortions or lay down and die.
The people can come up with criminal procedings that government thugs are not immune to.
The question is: How much longer to we wait?
There is a good site called www.ij.org that might represent a good starting place. It is the site of the Institute for Justice. There is a lot of information about Property Piracy actions.
The thieving fools of the New London City Council should never be allowed to forget lthe damage they have done to America. Neither should any other government thugs.
ravinraven
- Status
