Tuesday - March 01, 2005

Eminent Domain, Part II

ou folks might as well get used to it. This topic is going to be covered extensively here. What is happening in New London, CT is an abomination. Vilmar summed it up nicely yesterday with excerpts from an excellent article by Jeff Jacoby. The Supreme Court heard arguments last week and is deliberating now before delivering an opinion. Make no mistake, this will be a critical decision and will affect all of us. Here it is in a nutshell ....

■ The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution contain clauses prohibiting the federal or state governments from seizing your property without due process of law, meaning the government has to have a valid, legal reason for taking your property and has to reimburse you fairly for the theft.

■ In a 1954 decision (Berman v. Parker) the Supreme Court handed down a decision that opened up a can of worms. The decision basically said that urban blight is sufficient reason for government to condemn a piece of property and force the owner to sell the property to the government for cleanup to be put to better use.

■ However, in the fifty years since this decision, the state and local governments around the country have gradually broadened the definition of “eminent domain” as it is called to include all manner of reasons to condemn a person’s property and take it from them, at substantially lower than market value in some cases. In other words, the crooks at City Hall have gotten greedier and greedier.

■ In New London, CT, the city decided to take some property because (hold on to your hat) the property could be used for an office development that would generate more revenue for the city. In point of fact, the “office development” is only in the “wishful thinking” stage but the city wants the property now .... so they condemned it.

■ I’ve seen pictures of the property owner’s house in a recent issue of Time Magazine. Susette Kelo owns a very pretty, well-kept home. For the city to condemn this property is an affront to all sensible people in this country. It is theft, pure and simple. By government. Of a citizen’s house and home. For profit. Outrage.

I urge you to go read the Merit Briefs on this case at the American Bar Association’s web site. I cannot tell you how critical this ruling will be. In fact, I’ll just let you read the closing argument of the attorney for the homeowners in his Petitioner’s Reply Brief ....

A ruling in favor of the homeowners will not disturb the general course of development throughout the country. On the other hand, a ruling in favor of the Respondents will change the law dramatically for home and business owners. Every home and every business, everywhere in the country, will be subject to condemnation if a local government prefers some other private party’s use of the property. Or, as counsel for the NLDC (New London Development Corporation) put it recently, “We need to get housing at the upper end, for people like the Pfizer employees. . . . They are the professionals, they are the ones with the expertise and the leadership qualities to remake the city – the young urban professionals who will invest in New London, put their kids in school, and think of this as a place to stay for 20 or 30 years.” Iver Peterson, There Goes the Old Neighborhood, to Revitalization, The New York Times, Jan. 30, 2005, at A25. The condemnations in this case are an act of raw preference for one type of people, one type of housing, and higher tax dollars over the current residents. Cities may seek wealthy residents and higher taxes, but they cannot do so at the expense of constitutional rights. The ruling of the Connecticut Supreme Court paves the way for increasing use of eminent domain for private development. This Court should resist Respondents’ urging to read public use out of the Constitution and thereby fundamentally alter the rights of all property owners in the United States.

Posted by The Skipper     on 03/01/2005 at 01:10 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - February 28, 2005

Eminent Domain

his is generally a topic most Americans are unaware of.  I hope BMEWS readers do not fall into that category.

Neal Boortz rants about it frequently.  And rightly so.

The latest incident is taking place in New London, Ct. where the city wants to kick 7 homeowners out of their houses (because they do not generate enough tax revenue) in order to allow the building of hotels, condos and luxury apartments.

Eminent domain, according to the Constitution, allows the state to take a homeowner’s property when it is needed for public use.  I interpret that to mean:  putting in a highway to alleviate traffic congestion, widening a road, even schools.

But to increase tax revenue?

That’s an abomination.

Yet our Supreme Court is hearing the case now and thanks to Jeff Jacoby, who writes this article, we find out the following quotes from the Justices themselves:

When Bullock (a lawyer from the Institute for Justice) argues that New London wants to throw people out of their homes for the sake of ordinary economic development, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asks why that’s a problem. New London is depressed, she says; what’s wrong with trying to “build it up and get more jobs?” If the city could buy property on the open market and turn it over to a developer, wonders Justice David Souter, why can’t it use eminent domain to achieve the same end? Justice Stephen Breyer notes that there is bound to be some public benefit from almost any land taking. Isn’t that enough to satisfy the Constitution’s “public use” requirement?

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor presses Wesley Horton, the lawyer for New London, on whether eminent domain can really be deployed to condemn any property that could be put to better use. 

“For example, a Motel 6,” O’Connor says. “A city thinks, ‘If we had a Ritz-Carlton, we’d get higher taxes.’ Is that OK?”

“Yes, that’s OK,” Horton replies.

Justice Antonin Scalia: “You can take from A and give it to B, if B pays more in taxes?”

Horton: “Yes, if it’s a significant amount.”

Be afraid, people.  Be very afraid.

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 02/28/2005 at 09:29 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (14) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - February 27, 2005

Keep An Eye On This One!

The WSJ writes a great editorial on the efforts by the State Department to allow international law to trump US Constitutional law.

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 02/27/2005 at 07:30 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • United-Nations •  
• Comments (13) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - February 26, 2005

Bully For Him!!!

I am glad this guy won!  Can you imagine a woman pulling this on you:

Woman:  hey big boy!  Had a bad day at the office?  Come here and let me “unwind you.”

She pulls you close, pulls down your trousers and proceeds to kneel in front of you.  (I’ll leave the rest to your imagination.)

Woman leaves for bathroom, spits into a cup and places it in the freezer.

Two weeks later you quarrel and leave her.

She goes to the freezer, takes the contents to a fertility clinic and gets impregnated.

Two years later you get sued for child support.  And YOU LOSE AND MUST PAY!!!!!

That’s basically what happened here.

I hope he sues the shit out of her.  And I hope some judge has the decency to revoke the requirement he pay child support for a child he did not willingly create.  And then I hope the self-same judge orders her to pay him back all the child support he’s already paid in, plus interest.

Of course, her lawyer whines and says:

“There’s a 5-year-old child here.  Imagine how a child feels when your father says he feels emotionally damaged by your birth.”

No asshole, how about imaging you as a fraud?  And a despicable one at that because that’s what you are.

What say you?

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 02/26/2005 at 08:05 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • Outrageous •  
• Comments (7) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - February 24, 2005

You Can’t Have Your Cake And Eat It, Too

From the WSJ I bring you an editorial that speaks of how the media, so hell-bent on taking down an administration with their un-researched stories, falsehoods, failures to non-partisan and who in 2003 was ecstatic that John Ashcroft stepped aside in the investigation into who had leaked the name of a CIA operative to Robert Novak.

A special prosecutor was assigned and the MSM was giddy with anticipation.

Well, that special prosecutor is now going after a NY Times reporter with jail!

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!  I am laughing my ass off right now.

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 02/24/2005 at 06:13 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • Media-Bias •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - February 21, 2005

Slipping Down Another Slippery Slope

Yesterday I ranted about the Hildabeast and the motives behind some of her actions.  One of those would be to grant felons the right to vote.

We all know this is tantamount to giving criminals (the foxes) the run of the henhouse (government.) Felons are called “cons” for a reason.  They will con you with their glib talk about reform and when you are not looking either rob, kill, or maim you.

A few years ago some states came up with a 1-2-3-Life campaign that imprisoned cons for life if it was their third conviction.  All of a sudden crime started going down and liberals could not figure out why.  Maybe it was because they were screaming so much about those “poor cons” in overcrowded jails and spending so much time defending them that they couldn’t see the forest for the trees.

Now we have moonbats like these assholes who will grade a murderer on his “level of depravity.”

“Level of depravity??????”

What the FUCK!?!?  We need psycologists and psychiatrists in courtrooms now to tell us what is sick, demented, depraved, or evil?

Have I left the planet I knew and been transported to some alternative universe where people are imbeciles?

What’s next, start convicting criminals on “intent?” Give them time served for good intentions while in jail?

If none of you can see how this is a step towards the possible elimination of the death penalty then I know of no eye surgeon that can help you.

Think about it.  Someone kills someone else.  In the past if he was convicted of it in the first degree, chances are he’d get the chair/gas/rope/needle.  Now you have to measure “depravity.” In other words, if it is not depraved enough, he won’t die for it?

This is like that stupid “hate crimes” legislation.  If I hate Jews and kill one of them, will my death sentence (under existing guidelines) be more “deadly” because I killed with hate in my heart?

How fucking stupid.

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 02/21/2005 at 06:26 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - February 18, 2005

Justice, At Last!!

Back in December I posted about a story where some Christians were arrested for protesting at a homosexual “out-fest.”

Eleven Christian protesters were arrested in October 2004 for peacefully preaching at the event. Four men and 17-year-old Lauren Murch were held for trial on criminal charges, which included “riot” and “ethnic intimidation.” All five faced as many as 47 years in prison if convicted on all charges.

Videos show they did nothing wrong but still a judge said they could be prosecuted for “hate crimes.” People of Philadelphia should have been outraged but it’s easy to see the .liberalism and political correctness that’s run amuck in the City Of Brotherly Love.

But, 3 months later, we find out a different judge has thrown the whole thing out.

If I were this Christian group I’d sue the fuck out of the city and all the homo groups in Philadelphia.

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 02/18/2005 at 06:33 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • Religion •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - February 16, 2005

About Frikkin’ Time

Class law suits may soon be a thing of the past. At least how we know them to be today.

If this bill passes the Senate, there will be no more local wrangling and “jurisdiction picking” to ensure a good outcome.  They will all have to go straight to federal court--as it should be since most of the time the suits represent people not from one state but all states.  BRAVO!!!!

About time!!  Lawyers, of course, are now pissed.

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 02/16/2005 at 06:50 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Music To My Ears

Finally, a judge a judge with BIG BRASS BALLS!!!!  Nominate this guy for the Supreme Court!!!

Judge Tatum has ordered several Hispanic women to either learn English within 6 months or lose their kids.

He’s done this on several occasions so far.

Of course, the panty-waists and liberal apologists for irresponsibility are all lining up attacking the judge calling his rulings unconstitutional.  They go on to say:

“Tatum’s order could not be fulfilled because she has a sixth-grade education level and six months is not long to learn the required amount of English.

I daresay the judge himself, an educated man, could not learn to speak Spanish to a fourth-grade level in six months,” he told the Times. “He gave her an impossible task.”

Now, I want you all to go back to when you were in the 6th grade.  You spoke your own languages pretty well didn’t you?  I further assume you could read a fourth grade text book.  After all you were in 6th grade so even if your education at that level was dumbed down it would imply the level at the fourth grade would be even more dumbed down.  So of course you could have read that book.

Now explain to me why this woman could not?

Of course, for those of us with intact cranial functions we see right through this disguise of the left.  They realize with an incredible degree of certitude that if this woman does NOT learn English she will NEVER be able to be successful here in the US.  And that is what the left wants.  More stupid, ignorant, poor, impoverished people who will depend on the “GOVERNMENT” to take care of them.

See what I mean about apologists?  Any little excuse.  Any straw to grasp on to.  Anything.  So long as their client NOT be responsible for her actions.

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 02/16/2005 at 06:38 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - February 15, 2005

Bottom Feeders Arrive

Q: What’s the difference between a lawyer and a maggot?
A: None

Flashback to Chrismas, 2004. An earthquake is triggered somewhere in the Indian Ocean. The National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) which operates buoys and sensitive detection devices in the Pacific Ocean to protect America’s shores, picks up the echo of the undersea quake thousands of miles away ....

NOAA geophysicist Stuart Weinstein was on duty Christmas Day when he saw that there had been a major earthquake. Colleague Barry Hirshorn raced to the center to join him. Common sense told them there would be a tsunami. But with no measuring equipment in the Indian Ocean, they were unable to detect it. Even worse, they had no idea who to call and warn in the region.

NOAA scientists are developing new technology that will not only improve the Pacific warning system, but could make a global tsunami warning system more affordable. Current cost estimates are in the billions. NOAA’s tsunameters cost $250,000 a piece to put into the ocean.

From National Geographic: Next month more than 50 nations will meet in Brussels, Belgium, to finalize plans to link up each country’s environmental antennae—a fleet of orbiting satellites and other Earth observation technology.

Earlier this month the Bush administration announced plans to expand tsunami detection and warning capabilities as part of the GEOSS program.

“This plan will enable enhanced monitoring, detection, warning and communications that will protect lives and property in the U.S. and a significant part of the world,” announced John H. Marburger III, President Bush’s science advisor.

“World attention has been focused on the vulnerability of those near the edge of oceans, and we have the responsibility to respond,” Marburger added. NOAA will deploy 32 new Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunami (DART) buoys, extending coverage throughout the entire Pacific and Caribbean basins. DART buoys record sea surface heights, with data transmitted via satellites.

Now we come to the real kick-in-the-nuts part of this little bedtime story. The lawyers have arrived in full force and are set to blame the United States, and particularly NOAA, for not doing enough to warn the fat, bloated European tourists who were sitting on the beaches around the Indian Ocean when the recent tsunami hit. So now, the US and NOAA have to waste thousands, if not millions, in a lawsuit to defend our government and our technology from being blamed for not being omniscient and all powerful.

The suit will be filed on behalf of 15 Austrian and four German victims of the disaster.

The targets are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Washington and its Hawaii-based tsunami warning centre; the Accor group of hotels where some of the victims stayed; and the Thai government.

The NOAA is accused of having registered the earthquake but failed to alert Indian Ocean countries of the impending tsunamis as the Hawaii centre covered only the Pacific.

C’mon, admit it! You just knew these bottom-feeders would get in there eventually didn’t you? Well, there’re here and already filing suit in a New York court this week.

Q: What do you call a bajillion lawyers sunbathing on the beach when the next tsnuami hits?
A: I don’t care, just tell me where I can buy a ticket to watch.

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/15/2005 at 11:38 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - February 14, 2005

This Is Wrong!  Wrong! Wrong!

A Marine Lt., fearing for his life, shoots two terrorist Iraqis.

The panty waisted, politically correct crowd now want to charge him with murder in the first degree.

Read what he did here and why he did it.

Remember Lt.Col. West, who was also charged in that incident of having put a pistol up to the head of a captured Iraqi in order to get him to divulge information about other terrorist plans?  Ands how the cowardly fuck spewed info and saved American lives?  Remember how the Colonel basically got drummed out of the Army for this? 

Now go read his lawyer’s take on what is going on with the Lt.

He says:

“It sets a terrible precedent for Marines, who have to make life-or-death decisions in the field, facing terrorists who follow no rules or laws of war,

No!!!  Really?  Terrorists don’t abide by the Geneva Convention?  Who’d a thunk it?

Further, the lawyer adds:

“If the officer made a mistake, that should end the matter. Mistakes are made in war. It sounds like Marine prosecutors are trying to justify their jobs by creating a case where there should not be one.”

This is sheer madness, I tell you, and does nothing to reassure our soldiers in the field that they will be held blameless in the heat of battle.

Torture is one thing.  Abuse is another.  Indiscriminately shooting innocent people is another altogether different thing.

But when dealing with terrorists, we need to re-write the rules of war:  all’s fair.  Shoot to kill.  No mercy.  No quarter.

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 02/14/2005 at 06:59 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • Military •  
• Comments (7) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - February 13, 2005

Lawyer, Liar .. Pants on Fire

A Charlotte, NC lawyer purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars, then insured them against fire, among other things. Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of these great cigars and without yet having made even his first premium payment on the policy, the lawyer filed claim against the insurance company.

In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were “lost in a series of small fires.”

The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason that the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion.

The lawyer sued and WON! (Stay with me.) In delivering the ruling, the judge agreed with the insurance company that the claim was frivolous. The judge stated nevertheless that the lawyer “held a policy from the company in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure them against fire, without defining what is considered to be unacceptable fire” and was obligated to pay the claim. Rather than endure lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000 to the lawyer for his loss of the rare cigars lost in the “fires.”

NOW FOR THE BEST PART...

After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON!!! With his own insurance claim and testimony from previous case being used against him, the lawyer was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property and was sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000 fine.

This is a true story and was the First Place winner in the recent Criminal Lawyers Award Contest.

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/13/2005 at 12:22 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - February 11, 2005

HOLY CRAP!!

This broad is butt-ugly.

Not having access to TV news and not really digging around for images I never saw this before but thanks to Mr. Minority I was able to get a picture of that hag-bitch lawyer recently convicted for helping terrorists.  I posted about it earlier today.  See it here.

Prepare yourselves!  This could cause you to spew so strap on a puke bucket.

Bitch oughtta shave, too!

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 02/11/2005 at 04:46 PM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • Terrorists •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

HOT DAMN!! GREAT NEWS!!!

That slimy lawyer bitch who was accused of

“smuggling messages of violence from one of her imprisoned clients—a radical Egyptian sheik—to his terrorist disciples on the outside.”

has been convicted for her crimes.

Of course, she started crying.  Saying it was not her fault.

And of course, her leftist America-hating pukebag supporters were outside chanting, “Hands off Lynne Stewart!”

Some defense lawyers saw the case as a government warning to attorneys to tread carefully in terrorism cases

Well, DUH!!!  Hit me with a cluebat!  Of course, you morons!  They are terrorists.  They have NO RIGHTS as far as I am concerned.  They gave them up when they began their assault on innocent people.  If you support them, if you associate with them, if you are part of their group---you are guilty.

I think what sealed her fate was when she pulled a Ward Churchill and:

“testified on her own behalf...saying she believed violence was sometimes necessary to rid society of evil—even in America.”

Well, fuck you, bitch!  I hope you rot in hell after you die!!

In another story we find that this skuzzy, pus-bag bitch had clients who:

included mobsters and political radicals.  (S)he (said she) was being prosecuted for her role as an outspoken lawyer. She says she never intended to promote terrorism.

Well guess what?  She’s a liar.  Strike one was being a lawyer.  Strike two was defending scumbags.  Strike three was attempting to pull the wool over our eyes to say she never “intended” to promote terrorism.  Her profession alone tells me she is smarter than that.  She knew DAMN WELL what she was doing.

I also hope they put her in a cell with that piece of shit raghead.  She’d deserve it.

Posted by Ranting Right Wing Howler     on 02/11/2005 at 06:59 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner