Kelo v. City of New London RALLY! February 20, 2005

[Kat Kanning]

What are you trying to say Lloyd??  Man, you're starting to sound like Dave Mincin!

[Russell Kanning]

PatK is starting to sound like Maynard....with the endless excuses.

[Pat K]

Thanks Russell just for that next time I will show up .
Then you will be sorry.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Thanks Russell just for that next time I will show up .
Then you will be sorry.

You can't threaten Russell by drinking all of the beer Pat. You'll have to drink all of the tea.

[Kat Kanning]

NO!!  Not all the tea!

[Russell Kanning]

Thanks Russell just for that next time I will show up .
Then you will be sorry.

You can't threaten Russell by drinking all of the beer Pat. You'll have to drink all of the tea.

I like to say "We dumped tea for less than this"....but maybe I should change it to something like....we drank too much beer for less reason

[davemincin]

What are you trying to say Lloyd??? Man, you're starting to sound like Dave Mincin!

Hey!!!  What you mean by that?? ???

Word I get, Lloyd left the Seacoast Area, because we have to many pretty gal's
coming to our meetings!

[Pat K]

Tea! God help me the Borgia's would do better.

[Kat Kanning]

Local reception and press were great!  Lots of people honking.  There was a ton of people from the press, and all I read/saw was positive.

[Kat Kanning]

Update from IJ:

Friends,

Thank you for being part of an exciting 24 hours for property rights!  We appreciate your rally planning and are thrilled about the news coverage and property rights stories that have been told around the country, as we argued Kelo v. New London today in the U.S. Supreme Court.  It's hard to tell where the Justices stand on the issues from what is said in the argument, but the hearing went very well and we are thrilled that the Court finally heard this case.  We will send out a transcript of the argument as soon as it becomes available.

Serendipitously, in another IJ case: Today, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the home of Norwood, Ohio couple Carl and Joy Gamble and rental property of Joe Horney must be protected until the Ohio courts consider their case.  This is a great victory for IJ, property rights, and most of all for our clients who have been fighting to defend their homes.  More information is below and on our web site at www.ij.org.

Onward,

Elizabeth Moser
Outreach Coordinator

Steven Anderson
Castle Coalition Coordinator

Institute for Justice
1717 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Suite 200
Washington, DC 20006
202-955-1300
fax 202-955-1329
emoser@ij.org
Litigating for Liberty: www.IJ.org

INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE www.ij.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  FEBRUARY 22, 2005

Ohio Supreme Court Protects Home From Eminent Domain Destruction

Washington, D.C.-Today the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the homes of Norwood residents Carl and Joy Gamble, as well as the rental property of Joe Horney, must be protected while the Ohio courts consider the merits of their appeal.  The homeowners, represented by the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Justice, are seeking to protect the properties from private developer Jeffrey Anderson, who is working with the City of Norwood to take the homes to try to expand his $500,000,000 empire.  Anderson had refused to give any assurance to the homeowners that he would not destroy the homes, but as a result of today?s ruling, until some future ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court, Anderson may not damage, alter or destroy the properties.

?We have felt all along that the trial court had ruled incorrectly in allowing Anderson to destroy the Gambles? home while the merits of the case were not decided once and for all,? said Bert Gall, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, which represents the property owners for free.  ?Now when we win on behalf of Carl and Joy and Joe, they will all have homes to return to.  That is the way the system should operate; the courts shouldn?t allow a developer like Anderson to destroy first and ask questions later.?

        In two separate orders, one on behalf of the Gambles, and one on behalf of Horney, the Court ruled: ?This cause is pending before this court as a discretionary appeal.  Upon consideration of appellants? emergency motion for stay of court of appeals? judgment and motion for injunctive relief, IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motions be, and hereby are, granted.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that the appellees are hereby enjoined from destroying or otherwise altering the subject property pending further order of this court.?

        Joy Gamble said, ?I am so grateful the Ohio Supreme Court heard our plea and came to our rescue.  Our home will be left standing, undamaged.  We will have a home to come back to when we win.  We?re looking forward to getting this resolved and back into our home.?

        Mrs. Gamble concluded, ?We have been under a tremendous strain because of Jeffrey Anderson, but we have accepted nothing from him-whether it was the cruise he offered us or the $2,500 in moving expenses.  We want nothing from Anderson but to be left alone to enjoy the home that is rightfully ours.?

        Earlier in the day, the Institute for Justice argued a case before the U.S. Supreme Court looking to set the outer limit on the use of eminent domain, seeking a ruling that government may not take private property for private ?economic development? and that government must have some specific use for the land it seeks to take rather than merely taking the land for speculation.

[Lloyd Danforth]

What are you trying to say Lloyd??? Man, you're starting to sound like Dave Mincin!

Hey!!!? What you mean by that?? ???

Word I get, Lloyd left the Seacoast Area, because we have to many pretty gal's
coming to our meetings!

No, I left because I couldn't handle the competition for the pretty ladies that you presented!

[davemincin]

Hey Lloyd...Expect our paths will continue to pass from time to time, and for that I am grateful!

[Lloyd Danforth]

Hey Lloyd...Expect our paths will continue to pass from time to time, and for that I am grateful!

You're probably right and you're damned lucky!

[Kat Kanning]

Some more news from IJ:

Friends,

Since many of you have called and emailed, inquiring on how the Kelo hearing went today - below are a few resources that offer a good "snapshot" view and summary of the arguments and events today.  Also included is a must-see video and news story from Minnesota, just one of hundreds of moving stories around the country this week on vigils/rallies and local property rights battles.

Visit http://www.ij.org/private_property/connecticut/nl-argument_photo.html for a few photos from the hearing, and check back often to IJ's web site and www.castlecoalition.org for more photos, the latest on IJ's property rights cases, and information on property rights efforts in your state.

A few news articles/radio spots on the hearing that give a good summary of the arguments presented:
Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45249-2005Feb22.html
NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4508927
CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/22/scotus.eminent.domain/
ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=522629
KARE 11 (Minn.) - Great video: http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=75825.

Thanks to all for helping us make this week possible!

Cheers,
Liz Moser
Outreach Coordinator
Institute for Justice
emoser@ij.org

[Kat Kanning]

The NPR story is good:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4508927