Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Rules in Property Takeover Case
The New York TImes ^ | April 26, 2006 | David Stout

Posted on 04/26/2006 6:13:11 PM PDT by HoosierHawk

WASHINGTON, April 26 — The Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 3, today that Arkansas state officials were wrong to take away the home of a Little Rock man for nonpayment of real estate taxes.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; US: Arkansas
KEYWORDS: eminentdomain; emminentdomain; littlerock; ruling; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-70 next last

1 posted on 04/26/2006 6:13:14 PM PDT by HoosierHawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: HoosierHawk

Well, was the guy hiding from the taxman, or was he somewhere else in a normal and proper way?


2 posted on 04/26/2006 6:17:58 PM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

He was living elsewhere.


3 posted on 04/26/2006 6:19:39 PM PDT by HoosierHawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HoosierHawk
Amusing Roberts Comment Alert:

"There is no reason to suppose that the state will ever be less than fully zealous in its efforts to secure the tax revenue it needs," Chief Justice Roberts wrote. "The same cannot be said for the state's efforts to ensure that its citizens receive property notice before the state takes action against them."

Heh.

I like the decision, even though Roberts recruited only the Court libs to his position and my usual pals disagree.

Interesting lineup on vote...
Joining Roberts: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer. Dissenters: Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy. (Alito arrived after the case was argued.)

4 posted on 04/26/2006 6:23:10 PM PDT by M. Thatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HoosierHawk

Well, if he was not hiding under assumed identity, then finding him ought not have been a problem. Couldn't the state request a copy of hius federal tax return and find it from there? They knew his SS#, right?


5 posted on 04/26/2006 6:24:37 PM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

hius=his. Adjacent keys.


6 posted on 04/26/2006 6:25:25 PM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: M. Thatcher
Sounds like a good base for a future case that RETURNS stolen property to Japanese-Americans.

Gonna' make Los Angeles look like Rochester, Fur Shur!

7 posted on 04/26/2006 6:27:16 PM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: M. Thatcher

Great Roberts quote.

I too thought the libs would side with the state.


8 posted on 04/26/2006 6:29:06 PM PDT by HoosierHawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: M. Thatcher
Amusing Roberts Comment Alert:

"There is no reason to suppose that the state will ever be less than fully zealous in its efforts to secure the tax revenue it needs," Chief Justice Roberts wrote. "The same cannot be said for the state's efforts to ensure that its citizens receive property notice before the state takes action against them."

I like it. ;-)

9 posted on 04/26/2006 6:31:51 PM PDT by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HoosierHawk

So, does Robert E. Lee get his property back (Arlington Cemetary?)


10 posted on 04/26/2006 6:33:46 PM PDT by patton (Once you steal a firetruck, there's really not much else you can do except go for a joyride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HoosierHawk
I too thought the libs would side with the state.

As soon as I saw "Souter," I figured it was an attempt to counteract the bad political consequences (i.e. the New Hampshire "we're-gonna-take-your-house,-David" movement) of the recent eminent domain vote.

11 posted on 04/26/2006 6:34:16 PM PDT by M. Thatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: HoosierHawk

Any decision that makes it more difficult for the government to screw us is a step in the right direction.


12 posted on 04/26/2006 6:36:06 PM PDT by FierceDraka ("I am not a number - I am a FREE MAN!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FierceDraka

Amen.


13 posted on 04/26/2006 6:36:45 PM PDT by HoosierHawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: HoosierHawk

The libs would apparantly be tired of the death threats that came out of Kelo.


14 posted on 04/26/2006 6:38:01 PM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: patton

No, Robert E. Lee doesn't because his forfeiture occurred pursuant to charges of treason. On the other hand, the constitution says there is no attainture of blood, so his son got the property back when Robert died, and the US Government paid him for the property.


15 posted on 04/26/2006 6:39:10 PM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FierceDraka

Agreed!


16 posted on 04/26/2006 6:48:51 PM PDT by Frank_2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: HoosierHawk

"Like the first letter, the second was also returned to the Commissioner marked “unclaimed.” Ibid. Flowers purchased the house, which the parties stipulated in the trial court had a fair market value of $80,000, for $21,042.15. Record 224. Immediately after the 30-day period for postsale redemption passed, see §26–37–202(e), Flowers had an unlawful detainer notice delivered to the property. The notice was served on Jones’ daughter, who contacted Jones and notified him of the tax sale. Id., at 11 (Exh. B).
Jones"

LOL!


She refused to tell Mr. Jones of the certified letters from the tax department, but when the eviction notice came she sure saw to it that he was informed!

This ruling makes no sense though. Due process was undeniably served- if the Supreme Court thinks other states' procedures are better than Arkansas' then they should seek the repeal of the Tenth Amendment- by the Constitutional methods, not fiat.


17 posted on 04/26/2006 6:52:08 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GSlob
He was living elsewhere.

He wasn't hiding, he was just very negligent of his responsibilities.

I can understand why Scalia and Thomas were in opposition to this. The guy created this problem through his own irresponsibility.

I'm happy that this seems to strengthen individual property rights. However, this guy should have to pay his taxes as well as appropriate late fees and fines to cover the results of his negligence.

It's likely that this ruling will mean that the local government will have to somehow compensate him because his home ended up being sold for under market value. That means the rest of the taxpayers in the area end up getting screwed because this guy created a problem through negligence.
18 posted on 04/26/2006 7:06:05 PM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

I beg your pardon?


19 posted on 04/26/2006 7:09:14 PM PDT by patton (Once you steal a firetruck, there's really not much else you can do except go for a joyride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: patton
That's an historic fact. Robert E. Lee forfeited property for commiting treason against the United States. His son reacquired that property because his father was the criminal, not him.

The US government then purchased the property from the son.

This is common knowledge.

20 posted on 04/26/2006 7:11:38 PM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-70 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson