Mediaboss Marketing

Condemnation in real estate refers to the process of the government taking ownership of private land or property for the purpose of public use or economic development. For example, a town or city may be seeking to expand or make improvements, such as for new infrastructure or buildings, that requires the full or partial use of a private property to complete the project.

Eminent domain is a law backed by the Fifth Amendment that grants the government the right to seize private property for its own use. However, the current owner of the land or property must receive "just compensation," per the Constitution.

While laws vary by state, the process of condemnation generally proceeds in this manner:

While the property owner will most likely not be able to challenge the condemnation process itself, they might be able to argue for higher compensation. It's advisable for a property owner to get an independent appraisal of the property's worth as well as consult with a real estate attorney. However, the court will only look at the fair market value of the property, not sentimental value or any other personal value the owner might wish to be considered.

Even if the property owner challenges the offered compensation, it doesn't slow down the condemnation process. Many states have "quick take" laws that favor the government in getting started quickly on construction and renewal projects. As a result, the compensation will be awarded quickly so title and ownership can be transferred as soon as possible. Any delays could result in decline in the property value, which might hurt the property owner in the long run.

Not all kinds of condemnation involves property for public use. In communities where there is a significant lack of housing inventory, the city or town might use the power of eminent domain to secure property to build more housing, like apartment complexes and condos.

Additionally, not all condemnation proceedings involve seizing the full property, nor is the seizure permanent. For example, part of an owner's private land might be seized to widen a roadway -- they can remain on their property, but they're being compensated for part of it by the government. Or there might only be an easement rather than a full transfer of property ownership; for example, construction crews need access to private property to install plumbing used by the new building.

In situations where properties are unkempt or deteriorating, the town or government agency may condemn the property in order to remove the blight and foster community renewal by renovating or building something new. Eminent domain might be used to secure the property without approval of the owner. In this case, a property owner can avoid condemnation through regular maintenance of the property and land.

Regardless of the circumstances, if you own a property for which the government has issued a notice of condemnation, get a private appraisal and retain legal counsel. Condemnation is not a process any property owner should take on alone if you want to ensure you're being offered just compensation for your real estate investment.

View original post here:
What Is Condemnation in Real Estate? - Motley Fool

On Monday, an attorney with the Justice Department asserted in federal appeals court in Washington D.C. that the government can kill US citizens without judicial review on the basis of the state secrets privilege.

Attorney Bradley Hinshelwood was arguing before the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in a case brought by Bilal Abdul Kareem, a US citizen, and Ahmad Muaffaq Zaidan, a Pakistani-Syrian. The two journalists are challenging their placement on the US kill list, compiled by the government at least since the early years of the Obama administration, to carry out extrajudicial political assassinations.

Kareem claims he was targeted for death by the US government while he was in Syria reporting on the civil war there. He says that his interviews with Al Qaeda-linked militants resulted in his being placed on the kill list. In June and August of 2016, he maintains, the US targeted him five times, including a drone strike involving a US-made Hellfire missile.

The government has refused to release any information regarding the two journalists on grounds of national security and the state secrets privilege in relation to alleged national security questions.

In 2019, the FBIdenied a Freedom of Information Actrequest from WSWS International Editorial Board Chairman David North on similar state secrets grounds. The FBI declared that acknowledging whether it had records on North would threaten national security and foreign intelligence. The FBI also refused to admit or deny whether it had placed North on anylists.

During the hearing, Attorney Bradley Hinshelwooddeclared that the government had the power to target and kill alleged national security threats, including US citizens, and that planning or committing such acts was not reviewable by the courts.

The bald assertion of the governments unlimited right to murder its own citizens evidently stunned Circuit Judge Patricia Millett, part of a three-judge panel hearing the case. She asked Hinshelwood, Do you appreciate how extraordinary that proposition is? She went on to paraphrase his claim as giving the government the power to unilaterally decide to kill US citizens.

Kareem says that soon after the assassination attempts, a Turkish source told him he had been placed on a US target list at the Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, where American drones are launched.

Foreword to the German edition of David Norths Quarter Century of War

Johannes Stern, 5 October 2020

After three decades of US-led wars, the outbreak of a third world war, which would be fought with nuclear weapons, is an imminent and concrete danger.

In August, Kareem and a British citizen, Tauqir Sharif, were seized by the radical Islamist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in Syrias Idlib Province. He remains in HTS custody.

Kareems case was dismissed last year by US District Court Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, who sided with the Trump administrations invocation of the state secrets privilege to withhold information from Kareem on national security grounds.

Trump administration lawyers argued that disclosing whether Abdul Kareem was on the kill list could allow him to evade capture, and risked revealing the existence and operational details of alleged military and intelligence activities directed at combating the terrorist threat to the United States.

In response to that ruling, Kareems counsel, Tara J. Plochocki, explained, For the first time ever, a United States federal court ruled that the government may kill one of its citizens without providing him the information necessary to prove that he is being wrongly targeted and does not deserve to die. The US government could have provided this information but chose not to, and the court found that the governments assertion of national security trumps his right not to be killed.

In Mondays hearing before the appeals court, Plochocki said, Whether its in a parking lot in the United States or abroad in Syria, the government has claimedfor the first time ever in this casethat it has the unfettered and unreviewable discretion to kill US citizens at will.

Hinshelwood dismissed Plochockis statement as speculation, citing the intense fighting that was taking place in Syria in 2016. He said, In all of these circumstances, he [Kareem] is not even the only person present, much less is there anything to suggest that hes actually the target of any of those specific attacks.

A second judge on the panel, Karen Henderson, a George W. Bush appointee, appeared to side with the government, calling Kareems claims of being targeted for assassination a spectacular delusion of grandeur.

The Trump administrations despotic assertion of the right to kill people, including US citizens, without any judicial review is a continuation and extension of powers asserted and acted upon by the Obama administration. In 2011, the US assassinated Anwar al-Awlaki and another US citizen, Samir Khan, in a drone strike in Yemen. Two others were also killed in that strike. Two weeks later, al-Awlakis 16-year-old son, also a US citizen, was assassinated in another drone strike while eating dinner at an outdoor restaurant in Yemen.

In 2017, the Trump administration killed al-Awlakis eight-year-old daughter as part of a murderous military raid in Yemen that left at least eight women and seven children between the ages of 3 and 13 dead.

Two lawsuits filed by al-Awlakis father, one challenging his sons placement on the Obama administrations kill list before he was assassinated and another challenging the governments right to kill US citizens without due process, were dismissed by federal courts on the basis that the courts cannot interfere with the executive branch in the exercise of wartime powers, or where national security concerns are raised.

In rubberstamping the right of the president to kill US citizens, the courts have abandoned the basic constitutional framework of the separation of powers, under which the courts are supposed to act as a check on the executive branch.

In March of 2013, Obamas attorney general, Eric Holder, defended the assassination of Awlaki in testimony before Congress and refused to rule out targeted assassinations of American citizens on US soil.

A year earlier, Holder made a mockery of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, which declares that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, when he stated, Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.

Holders arguments, as the World Socialist Web Site explained at the time, had fascistic implications:

Holders pseudo-legal arguments in favor of military tribunals and assassinations bear more than a passing similarity to Nazi jurisprudence. Under legal doctrines developed by Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt, whose ideas enjoy growing interest and influence in Americas legal academia, national security and military urgency can justify a state of exception, under which basic democratic rights can be abrogated, the rule of law suspended, and the executive branch granted exceptional powers.

The Trump administration, in keeping with its fascistic politics, is asserting in more categorical terms the authoritarian logic of the policies adopted by previous administrations and supported by both parties of American imperialism.

Read more:
Justice Department attorney tells appeals court the government can kill US citizens without judicial review - WSWS

A federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump authored something just shy of a dissent in a federal immigration case while invoking the pop singer Meatloaf and one of his better-known songs.

I suppose one might argue that two out of three aint bad, U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke wrote. But even Meatloaf would find fault with our [immigration precedent] rule.

The case is stylized as Sanchez Rosales v. Barr and concerns two Mexican nationals who broached the idea of applying for green cards with a non-attorney notario named Carlos Lewis. After that, Lewis filed asylum applications without consulting his clients and they were both ordered to appear for an immigration hearing in 2014.

Lewis advised them not to attend that hearing and they were ordered to be deported. Effectively, the duo followed their advocates legal advice and suffered the consequences for that error.

A motion and appeal of the deportation proceedings were timely filed and each was subsequently rejected by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Lewis, the plaintiffs insist, helped craft each of those failed attemptshimself failing to note his initial advice to not attend the hearing that prompted the deportation order in the first place.

After obtaining proper legal counsel, Israel Sanchez Rosales and Maria Antonia Martinez Hernandez Sanchez were finally able to mention that Lewis advised them against attending the original hearing. But the BIA again rejected their motionclaiming the plaintiffs had been unable to show that they were prejudiced by ineffective assistance or fraud and that they also failed to show their return to Mexico would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship for their . . . children. Notably, the couples children are U.S. citizens and live in the United States.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in the couples favorfinding that the BIA made a clear error of law.

We conclude that the BIA erred by treating Petitioners failure to show prejudice caused by the alleged ineffective assistance as a basis for denying their motion to reopen proceedings, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves noted. A showing of prejudice is not required when ineffective assistance leads to an in absentia order of removal.

Choe-Groves, a Barack Obama-appointed judge, actually sits on the U.S. Court of International Trade but was sitting by designation here.

While not a strictly a more typical dissent or concurrence, VanDyke signed off dubitante in order to doubt the holding in the case.

The majority opinion correctly concludes that circuit precedent compels our result in this case, he began, before citing the relevant precedent and admitting that it controls. I write separately because that precedent is silly and well illustrates our courts nasty habit of muddying immigration law and holding the BIAan appellate bodyto stilted standards to which we would never subject ourselves.

VanDyke went on to note that the Ninth Circuits immigration jurisprudence on Fifth Amendment issues is somewhat all over the place because the precedents are based on an out-datedrepealedlaw and a similar case that runs counter to the decision the court reached. He also cited another fairly recent Ninth Circuit decision on similar questions that reached the exact opposite decision.

Heres a tidy summary of those cases:

To sum up, a dubious and incomplete picture of BIA precedents was ratcheted into a rule supposedly meant to replicate exactly what the BIA was doing. Now, were applying that rule to reverse the BIA for not doing the thing they apparently did so often we decided to do it, too. And we have to apply it even though this court in Singh-Bhathal rejected an ineffective assistance claim indistinguishable from the one in this case. As my colleague remarked about another anomalous rule in a different corner of our immigration law, the rule our panel is forced to apply in this caselike so many of our courts immigration precedents is dumb, dumb, dumb.

This type of absurdity is regular fare in our immigration cases, he opined. Our circuits immigration jurisprudence is a hot mess. Its sharply at odds with the text and purposes of immigration law.

In an unforced fit of judicial realism, however, VanDyke spoke one of the tell-tale secrets about how U.S. judges actually interpret the law:

[O]ur jurisprudence betrays the nasty habit of acknowledging only those precedents that support the needs (and desired result) of the momentthat being to overturn the BIA.

VanDyke was nominated for the lifetime judgeship in September of 2019. A controversial series of reports ensued after the American Bar Association rated him not qualified and cited evidence that VanDyke might not be fair to persons who are gay, lesbian, or otherwise part of the LGBTQ community. Conservatives called that a political drive-by shooting, and VanDyke tearfully denied the accusation of bigotry during confirmation hearings. VanDyke was then confirmed by the U.S. Senate in December of 2019.

[image via screengrab/YouTube]

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

Read this article:
Trump-Appointed Judge Almost Dissents and Cites Meatloaf While Criticizing Silly Precedent in Unusual Opinion - Law & Crime

I have lived in six U.S. states during my long lifetime, living for years on the East Coast, in the Midwest, and on the West Coast.

I moved to California two years ago and can testify that it is the most socialistic, government-controlled state in the country.

Recently, though, numerous rays of constitutional rights have shown through: the constitutional right to the privacy of contracts, the right to private property, and the right of all people against discrimination.

These rights were protected by the outcomes of three citizen referendums, not by government.

Constitutional right to privacy of contracts

Article 1, Section 10, of the United States Constitution declares that no state shall enter into any law impairing the obligation of contracts.

Contracts are mutually agreed-upon private exchanges; when I agree with a contractor to pave my driveway, we exchange my money for his labor and materials.

In California this issue came into focus with Assembly Bill 5 and Proposition 22.

Rideshare drivers wanted to retain their individual freedom as independent contractors, but the state government tried to deny this freedom of contract between drivers and paying customers and mandate that drivers be treated as employees subject to state labor controls and union obligations.

TheWall Street Journalreports that when a poll asked 1,000 on-demand drivers whether they would prefer to be full-time employees instead of contractors, only 15 percent of respondents said theyd prefer full-time.

This is supposed to be a free country, but the state government doesnt see it that way. California voters, on the other hand, defended freedom.

Voters approved Proposition 22, which classifies app-based drivers as independent contractors, instead of employees, thereby protecting the freedom of drivers to continue entering into voluntary contracting arrangements.

The right to private property

Proposition 21 sought to expand local governments authority to enact rent control on residential property. That coercion would have trampled private owners rights to their rental properties.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states an individual shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If approved, Prop 21 would have amounted to a taking that required just compensation. If the state government was going to mandate rent control, it should have proposed to reimburse property owners for their financial losses, but it didnt.

In their wisdom, though, California voters rejected this proposition.

The right of all against discrimination

Proposition16 was deceptively titled and described on the November ballot, stating it would have Allow[ed] diversity as a factor in public employment, education, and contracting decisions.

In reality, the proposition would have authorized public employers, educators, and contractors to discriminate and treat people unequally in the name of advantaging others purely on the basis of their race or sex.

But the 14th Amendment states in part: government may not deny to any person the equal protection of the laws. This means that you cannot discriminateagainstanyone orforanyone. All must be treated equally.

Court checks governors powers

There is one other legal matter that should be cited here, related to Californias constitution of California. During the pandemic Gov. Gavin Newsom has unilaterally locked down literally anything he wishes, whenever he wishes, and for however long he wishes.

For this he was sued for exceeding his authority. The judge of the state Superior Court, County of Sutter, ruled on Nov. 2 that the governor unconstitutionally exercised legislative powers by unilaterally amending, altering, or changing existing statutory law or making new statutory law. The judge added that the governors executive order improperly amended existing statutory law, exceeding the governors authority and violating the separation of powers.

California State University students are now mandated to take a course on ethnic studies. Maybe, instead, the course should be on the U.S. Constitution to fend against bad government proposals.

Ronald L. Trowbridge, Ph.D., is a policy fellow at theIndependent Institutein Oakland, Calif. He was appointed by President Reagan to the United States Information Agency and later became chief of staff for U.S. Chief Justice Warren Burger.

Excerpt from:
Rays of constitutional rights shine through in California - OCRegister

From Judge Ezra Friedlander's opinion, joined by Judge Paul Mathias, in R.W. v. J.W., decided by the Indiana Court of Appeals Friday:

R.W. appeals from the entry of a permanent protective order against him, contending that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the petition for an order of protection filed by J.W., a woman with whom he was in a romantic relationship, and by finding that there was sufficient evidence to support the legal conclusion to issue the order. We affirm.

To sum up the evidence before the trial court and in the words of the trial court, "[s]ome time between August 10th and September 11th the matter blew up and all of the parties involved, [K.B.], [R.W.] and [J.W.] were saying nasty things to each other, back and forth imploring the other to leave them alone." [K.B. was an acquaintance of J.W., and an ex-girlfriend of R.W.] The evidence and inferences therefrom supporting the issuance of the protective order in favor of J.W. was that K.B. was with R.W. after his relationship with J.W. soured. When they were together, R.W. had shared with J.W. his plans to send the video of a nude K.B. to the man she was then dating. A part of the plan involved creating a new account on social media through which to reach that man at work. J.W. counseled against R.W.'s plan.

R.W. left a threatening voicemail for J.W., which made J.W. feel threatened and terrified. R.W. made several attempts by various means to contact J.W.'s husband. During a period of time where K.B. was with R.W. in Chicago, she [presumably K.B.-EV] downloaded semi-nude and nude pictures of J.W. from R.W.'s password-protected phone. She then sent them to J.W. and R.W. with her own disparaging commentary about what was depicted, further adding commentary purported to be from B.O. {a man with whom J.W. had previously had a sexual relationship}.

R.W. contacted J.W. to inform her that "somehow" K.B. had come into possession of those photographs. He did nothing to stop any action by K.B. despite this awareness. K.B. feigned sympathy for J.W., adding that she did not want those photographs to come into the hands of J.W.'s four young sons or husband or be disseminated to her children's school and through the City of Valparaiso even though "someone" had told her that those actions were a possibility.

Just prior to the hearing set for the Illinois protective order, J.W. discovered that a Bumble account had been created with her email address containing pictures of her, one of which she had only sent to R.W. and the other of which had to be taken down from the account. The words used in that account to describe J.W. bore a striking similarity to the language used by K.B. when discussing her theory that J.W. had herpes and that her behavior was trashy or tramp-like.

At the hearing on J.W.'s protective order request, R.W. refused to answer 32 separate questions pertaining mostly to how K.B. came into possession of the pictures of J.W. that were meant only for R.W. and the creation and existence of the Bumble account, citing his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. "Although the refusal to testify in a civil case cannot be used against the one asserting the privilege in a subsequent criminal proceeding, the privilege against self-incrimination does not prohibit the trier of fact in a civil case from drawing adverse inferences from a witness'[s] refusal to testify."

The trial court correctly found from the evidence and the inferences from the evidence that "there is no evidence that R.W. tried to stop or block [K.B.'s] harassment or stalking behavior utilizing or threatening to use the photos against [J.W.]," and correctly concluded that "like [K.B.], [R.W.] was engaged in bringing harassment to bear on [J.W.]" There was more than sufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings of fact which, in turn, support the conclusions of law in favor of granting J.W.'s petition for a permanent protective order against R.W.

And here's Judge Terry Crone's concurrence:

I agree with the affirmance of the protective order against Rafer Weigel, but I write separately because I respectfully disagree with my colleagues' decision to refer to Weigel by his initials instead of his name.

No statute, court rule, or court policy entitles Weigel to anonymity. In fact, pursuant to the Rules on Access to Court Records adopted by the Indiana Supreme Court, Weigel's name is presumptively accessible to the public. See Ind. Access to Court Records Rule 4(A) ("A Court Record is accessible to the public except as provided in Rule 5."). Some of the stated purposes of those rules are to "[c]ontribute to public safety" and "[p]romote governmental accountability and transparency[.]"These overlap with the stated purposes of the Civil Protection Order Act, which was enacted by the Indiana General Assembly "to promote the: (1) protection and safety of all victims of domestic or family violence in a fair, prompt, and effective manner; (2) protection and safety of all victims of harassment in a fair, prompt, and effective manner; and (3) prevention of future domestic violence, family violence, and harassment."

As described in lurid detail above, Weigel threatened and publicly humiliated J.W., who sought and obtained a protective order against him. Weigel has challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting that order. If we had ruled in his favor, he could have petitioned to expunge all records relating to the protective order pursuant to Indiana Code Chapter 34-26-7.5. But since we have affirmed the trial court's determination that Weigel harassed J.W., I can think of no principled reason why this Court should shield his identity from the public.

Indeed, naming the perpetrator of such depraved acts could only contribute to public safety, promote governmental transparency and accountability (by this Court and by any law enforcement agency that might have occasion to enforce the protective order, respectively), and prevent future harassment of J.W. and others.

For a media account of the underlying scandal, see the Chicago Tribune (Sophie Sherry); Weigel had been a Chicago TV news anchor.

Go here to read the rest:
Indiana Judges Disagree: Should Targets of Protective Orders Be Pseudonymous? - Reason