*Conn. Supreme Court Takes Away Private Property*

[joegvb]

On March 3 2004 the Connecticut Supreme Court decided that if private property oned by a person would serve the community in better ways than just being privately owned, the government can force the property owner to sell the property to the government at whatever the governments fair price is. The only reason the government has to give is that it will help better the community.

This is the same thing the government can do in war time. They can buy your property from you if it is necessary for them to build a military base on your property. But this is only in wartime.

What the heck is that?! This is taking away private property rights from the people. Even if you don?t live in Connecticut, who's to say your state is not next. How can the people of Connecticut just sit by and watch this happen. This is violating our constitutional rights.

Just to give you a scenario on this: A contractor comes up to your uncle who owns 200 acres right outside of Hartford, he says that he would like to buy the land from your uncle. Your uncle refuses saying this land has been in his family for three generations. He plans to retire to the land and build a home there and live out his years. He tells the contractor no and don't come back. The contractor then goes into Hartford and talks to some politicians in town. He tells them the story and they say well what the heck do you want us to do? He tells them about the new ordinance/law passed about private property. They still don?t really show much interest in the contractor. He then says that he plans to build a shopping mall, condos, and small apartments. He tells them that this will create 200-300 jobs and help the tax revenue. He then tells them that the increased tax revenue will help them do projects in their district, and help when it comes re-election time. Music to the politicians ears. They then condemn your uncles land and force him to sell it at a huge loss (as it always is when the government buys land)to your uncle. Thus the saga ends or should I say starts over for the next victim.

That's a story about what that law can effect.

Do you want that happening? I could go up to Connecticut today and propose that we should condemn this old mans property (all that he has in the world) and say it is for the good of the community that we do this.

More from me later,

JOE

[Zeebadee]

There's nothing new about this. Cities, towns, and states have been abusing the power of eminent domain for years. Got a commercial operation that needs some space in town? As long as it will contribute to the town's tax base, the politicians will find you some land to build on.

[suijurisfreeman]

joegvb,
>This is violating our constitutional rights.< Are "rights" derived from the constitution? Or should a "citizen" have the reasonable expectation that their public servants won't violate their natural, inherent and inalienable rights which are suppose to be protected by the Bill of Rights/Constitution? I don't claim any rights under any constitution.

[joegvb]

Then I ask you, suijurisfreeman, what rights do you have? According to you, and how you intend to look at the constitution you have none. I would think long a hard about this, before i said it.

[suijurisfreeman]

joegvb,
I am not a party to any constitution, I did not sign any constitution, I did not swear an oath to support any constitution. Therefore my natural, inherent and inalienable rights are not derived from nor dependent upon any constitution. I have never registered to vote, therefore I have never voted, I am not a member of the "body politic". I have never given my consent to be governed. I make absolutely no claim of US citizenship and yes I was born in a hospital in Indiana 55 years ago.
When I read the unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America I see, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." When I read the Bill of Rights of Kentucky's Constitution I see, "All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain and inalienable rights ...." If I'm free by nature and have certain and inalienable rights why would I need a piece of paper to give me that which I already have?
Have you ever looked up the definition of the words, free, freedom, liberty, natural rights, civil rights, political rights in a law dictionary?

[mooseboy84]

i dont understand why this is such a shock to you. Asset forfeiture laws, imment domain and even homesteading have been on the books for years and all used to take property from people. theres nothing new of what happened in this coutrtoom. welcome to reality.