Should we perform the mother of all civil dis?

[d_goddard]

How would we incorporate the legislative side on something like this?

There are two required ingredients for turning any action into a pro-Freedom sentiment that can be penned into law:
1. Give the less freedom-oriented legislators a face-saving "way out"
2. Ensure the specific situation is one that generates massive support among NH natives

In my opinion, someone whose land is being taken for "public-use" eminent domain purposes is likely to garner broad popular support; more so than than any other scenario. After all, the recent constitutional amendment preventing "private use" takings passed with over 85% of the popular vote!

Make no mistake: the State's self-granted authority to take private property "for the public good" is the philosophical underpinning for a million other injustices -- including every tax of every kind. To the best of my knowledge, no state has curbed use of eminent domain for "public" purposes. Doing so in any way would spring NH to the forefront of libertarian discussion.

Moreover, any such restraints on "public good" eminent domain would be a perfect starting point for further legislation rolling back State authority -- step by step. It would also be an extremely powerful argument for any lawsuits that anyone might wish to file against the State, thus giving more options and more ways for other people to join in the effort.

I think a law (possibly even a constitutional amendment) would be passable, if it were to limit public use eminent domain takings to a specifically-enumerated list of particular authorized reasons. For example, only for the purposes of developing roads, and for critical national defense. Then they could not take your land to build a park (like the CNHT was talking about doing with Souter's house) or to build a "public-use" school or a "public-use" post office building.

[Dave Ridley]

I think I'm in agreement with you Dennis....  Defending an eminent domain target would be less controversial than defending a property tax target.  Yet it would still be a riviting conflict that would capture people's imagination.

The question then becomes...how often does the state (or the towns/cities) use eminent domain in a way that would lend itself to effective civil disobedience?   Would they have to come after a building that we could conveniently occupy beforehand, or could we defend open land?    Does anyone have a list of all the seizures currently planned or contemplated around the state?

What role might deterrance play in these matters?   Could we make headway against proposed seizures simply by sending bureaucrats copies of our resistance scenarios?  What would have happened to Tom Eaton's land in Keene if all relevant Keene bureaucrats and members of the city council had received advance copies of plans for civil resistance?

Also...I got more ideas from conversation with fellow activists yesterday. 

Other potential means of defending a property:

- calling up all the real estate companies that might conceivably try to sell it.  Inform them that the title is in dispute and that the property is occupied, that is is politically radioactive and that anyone who tries to purchase or occupy it might have a real headache on their hands.

- demonstrations outside the homes of perpetrating bureaucrats or politicians

- surveillance cameras sending a live feed that is recorded off-site.    Even if the cams were shut down in the opening moments of a seizure, they would broadcast the first images and those images would be safe. 

- Being extremely nice to authorities while resisting them!

- Setting up a ham radio station on property and running it as a sort of broadcast beacon...maybe its broadcast could be copied to the internet or to other radio stations.   

- Assuming the property is a business....urging visitors to do business with nearby businesses.

Another thought:   The ideal property to defend would also have a garage, so people could enter the building with supplies or persons, and offload them without anyone knowing whether they had in fact done so. 

[d_goddard]

What role might deterrance play in these matters?

Probably very large -- and even the very first step, a few phone calls and leaflets explaining philosophical opposition, would likely generate a good dose of local and state media attention.
After that, if (say) people are just standing around the as-yet untaken property with signs in protest... surely, the media will come.

Could we make headway against proposed seizures simply by sending bureaucrats copies of our resistance scenarios?

Almost certainly. What politician wants to be in the middle of something so unpopular, when instead he can "play the hero" by instructing the bureau to look elsewhere for land?

- calling up all the real estate companies that might conceivably try to sell it.  Inform them that the title is in dispute and that the property is occupied, that is is politically radioactive and that anyone who tries to purchase or occupy it might have a real headache on their hands.

CAREFUL with that one.... I don't recall exactly, but I am pretty sure any such action could run afoul of laws quite unrelated to the eminent domain issue. It does not play well for a nonviolent, principled group to get charged with "intimidation", especially against businesses. Simply informing them that the land was taken via eminent domain, and not stating or inferring anything else should be fine, and get the point across.

- surveillance cameras sending a live feed that is recorded off-site.

Which is fine as long as there's no audio

- Setting up a ham radio station on property and running it as a sort of broadcast beacon...maybe its broadcast could be copied to the internet or to other radio stations.

VERY cool idea! Anybody got a ham license?
Of course, dedicated bloggers would be of immense value as well.

- Assuming the property is a business....urging visitors to do business with nearby businesses.

In *theory*, this can never happen in NH, thanks to NH Const Art. 12-a

[Dave Ridley]

After a quick yahoo search the only pending eminent domain case i can find in-state is the city of nashua vs. the pennichuck water company.   is this a case worthy of intervention? Is intervention practical?  What are the chances a big publicly traded company would want such intervention? 

What is Penichuck's standing and popularity in the community?  Are their hands more or less clean? How easy or difficult would it be for the city to shut them down? 

they have been fighting this thing since 2002   
I haven't heard any bad things about the company.

[error]

What if we do the audio recording out of state?

[David]

When the gov't tries to take something or fine someone, they usually send a letter.  When it becomes clear they, the target will not respond, then they threaten them.  Eventually they will arrest them.  Nonviolent resisters cannot stop them.  But, we can anticipate their likely cources of action and plan accordingly. 
In your first scenario, Jane essentially provoked them.  She has the moral right to do so, because the state legalized theft on items for sale.  But I am concerned about losing the moral high ground as this will be percieved as a provakatation.  Even though he later decided not to, when Russell was planing on asking the irs agents to quit, he at one time stated he would turn over the tables of the tax collecters.  This was seen as a threat of violence among some of our allies, and had it been more widely known, may have been seen as a threat to the general community.  However, it does allow us to influence the variables such as media and the likelyhood and timing of the arrest.  the outlaw manicurist is the best precedent for this. 
However, if Jane makes a declaration that she will not be charging sales tax on the item she sells, or property tax on her store, a strong case can be made that she was not willing to be a tax collecter for the gov't, and that if she is arrested, then the gov't has clearly commited violence against her.  This action can be publicized, but she will not be able to control the timing of her arrest.  The most important thing then needs to be a general readiness that it can happen at anytime, and the plans that go into play.  Russells most recent arrest for not having proper gov't papers demonstrates this.
The activist being arrested is the most powerful player in the whole scenario.  Why?  Because in a most direct way they cost the gov't time, embarrasment, labor, and money.  I realize many will object to costing the gov't money because it is stolen.  But  the gov't will steal it no matter who they arrest, or for how long.   I am a great fan of the polite non cooperation that goes on and those who have done these things have my respect.  The refusal to speak, be fingerprinted, or in Laurens case even walk, give info to the courts, or cooperate with the courts.  This creates direct costs to the arrestees in frustration, and time.  And by being overtly polite and nonviolent, you can hopefully deprive them of an excuse to beat you. 
So far there have been various levels of not cooperating with the courts.  Lauren has the most complete level of non cooperation, with Russel both refusing to cooperate with the courts, the arresting officers, and sometimes the jail.  Dave, refused to fill out gov't self disclosure forms, or pay the fine that he believes is unjust.  But otherwise cooperating, and is a pro at being completely nonthreatening even while being threatened.  Mike Fisher did the closest to the fictional Jane in that he illegally manicured for profit, at the front lawn of the cosmotology licensing board.  To my knowledge, he cooperated fully with the court. 
I stated the activist is the most powerful player.  The second reason is he/she largely sets the tone and direction of the protests and to some extent the level of support.  The moral high ground must be set by the activist himself.  If you want any level of support, you have to do things that potential supporters will admire.  Ed Brown is morally right to defend himself.  And by not seeking out the police or feds, he has maintained some moral high ground.  But in todays gov't right or wrong, gun fear society, I question weather he will have a groundswell of support if the feds waco-ize him.  A lot of it has to do with weather or not the public can emphasize with you or not. 

[money dollars]

Anybody got a ham license?

Doesn't Seth have one?

[David]

Quote from: DadaOrwell on Today at 09:15 AM
- calling up all the real estate companies that might conceivably try to sell it.  Inform them that the title is in dispute and that the property is occupied, that is is politically radioactive and that anyone who tries to purchase or occupy it might have a real headache on their hands.
CAREFUL with that one.... I don't recall exactly, but I am pretty sure any such action could run afoul of laws quite unrelated to the eminent domain issue. It does not play well for a nonviolent, principled group to get charged with "intimidation", especially against businesses. Simply informing them that the land was taken via eminent domain, and not stating or inferring anything else should be fine, and get the point across.

The letter should be very clear in its writting that it is not a threat, but that it is unethical to sell or auction land that was stolen and that the owner will continue occupying the land periodically.  The goal, is specifically to make the title uncertain, by making the land radioactive in a sense.  I believe this is vital in any dispute involving a tax or licence issue, issues the gov't has no right to impose on property owners.

[thinkliberty]

Anybody got a ham license?

I have a ham license... it is just a tech license but I could upgrade pretty easy as needs be.  I have studied for both the general and extra class... I just haven't gone in to take the test.

However you are not allowed to "broadcast" radio shows with a ham license.

[Dave Ridley]

probably we could get the job done with cell phones anyway.   ham would be useful if cell phones became unreliable I guess; and I assume they could still be used to get the word out.

[Dave Ridley]

OK...I'd like to update the above scenario, the one with which we started this thread.

Rather than a defiance of some tax, rather than a pre-scheduled "civil provocation" on the State House grounds...

Let's assume that this supreme act *is* a defense of some property that is about to be seized through Eminent Domain.

In all likelihood, this would be a property belonging to someone we don't know.  But for discussion let's work with what we do know.  Let's assume the property we are defending is Murphy's Tap Room.   Let's say the City of Manchester, in our scenario, wants to build a parking garage there.   

The first things that would happen presumably is the delivery of some notice to owner Keith Murphy.  Let's say the notice is delivered on May 1, 2008.   

The first lines of defense, of course, would be just the kinds of things Dennis alludes to.  By May 3 the word is out, at least among our core activists.   The first article in the Union Leader appears May 4.  By May 10 city officials have received a few phone calls and e-mails, and there has been one micro demonstration outside Manchester City Hall.   On Sunday May 11 there is a scheduled support-demonstration outside Murphy's Tap Room.  It draws five sign-waving activists, a dozen new customers and a new article in the Union Leader.   It informs hundreds of passing motorists about the problem. 

By Tuesday  May 12th several officials have received a copy of the scenario we have written up for resistance.  It is kindly worded but gives them a complete sense of the depth of and tenacity of opposition they're likely to face if they move forward.

On Wednesday May 13 there is a scheduled demonstration outside city hall; it draws seven people but no mainstream media attention.   They stand on the Elm Street side and are seen by hundreds more motorists.   One of them plasters twenty flyers around the innards of city hall, then attempts to hand one to the city manager. 

On Friday the 15th most of the relevant Manchester officials experience their first silent demonstration related to the issue.  By now the relevant perps have received dozens of phone calls and e-mails.   Sign makers have designed a 5 x 10 billboard of sorts which appears on the side of Murphy's restaurant for motorists to see.  It reads:

Murphy's will
Never surrender 
savemurphys.com

And, of course, it draws all kinds of curiosity and new business. 

At this point, the sympathetic media attention also begins to affect Keith's second campaign for State House, as well as co-owner Carol McGuire's first go at it.  Each of them get more volunteers and donations.  They vow if elected, they will support legislation further restricting Eminent Domain by cities.   Such legislation is promised by several sitting reps, who rally to his aid.   They hold a joint news conference announcing this, at the Legislative Office Building.  Unlike most such news conferences, this one is visual.  Activists stand behind the sympathetic reps holding a SaveMurphys.com sign.  The reps join together to hold a kitchen knife, which they use to saw an "Eminent Domain" sign in two. 

Keith starts to become a sort of Suzette Kelo figure, and gets a lot of calls from curious reporters.   By now the story is running on WMUR, in the Herald, the Sentinel and the Monitor. 

On June 1, the city has shown no signs of backing off, so activists up the ante.   Three of them appear inside Councilman Hypothetical?s law office, holding signs that say:

Dear Hypo:
Plz Leave
Murphy Alone
(So we can return the favor)

Hypo's name and those of the other perps now appear with extensive entries in our increasingly active bureaucrat database.

The most interesting parts of this resistance would come later of course...to be continued!  (maybe) 

[Russell Kanning]

in most cases .... if you wait for a victim to show up .... they will be too scared to stand up to the government.
in the case of murphy's taproom .... I cannot see them posting a sign that says "we will never give up" .... they would just give up

for planning purposes it makes sense to choose a big current and future evil and get together the volunteers and do it up big

for appeal and other reasons ... it works to wait for an evil to get press coverage and then jump in and help .... it is harder to plan and the victims might not be ready for our kinds of help .... but it is easier to get people on your side.

why not choose an evil to stand up against and see how many and what kinds of volunteers we can line up?

or I guess jump on something that comes up in the news.

[Dave Ridley]

how about we combine the two russellideas... Wait for an appropriate eminent domain case to hit the news.   In the meantime, try to find out who is ready to do what.  Build a "reaction force" that lies dormant until needed.

Meanwhile game out all our forseeable defenses, and all of the government's forseeable offenses.  Send out copies of our discussion to bureaucracies, for deterrant effect.

However I get the impression ED is so rarely used here that we might have a long wait if this is our issue.  And we might have to sift through ten or more ED cases to even find one where the victim was ready to really fight.

Also I'm surprised no one has had anything to say about the Pennichuck situation and my questions about that, above.   I don't think I've ever heard any of us say a thing about it.   Why no outrage over Nashua's handling of this?   

Certainly in this case we can at least say that Pennichuck is fighting, long and hard.   And all over the papers.

[error]

It doesn't have to be eminent domain, does it? There are all sorts of other issues to get active for as well.

[Russell Kanning]

I agree. Eminent domain is not as pervasive as id cards, taxes.....