standing fast for liberty. Gal. 5:1
For help and support, call us at (334) 239-8987 or click here to email us.

Welcome to Freedom Yell


Words from the Rising Republics

 

WHO HOLDS TITLE TO THE HOLMAN HOUSE IN OZARK, ALABAMA?

A deed was recorded in 1982 transferring title to H. J. Mizell.

There was no proven encumbrance against the property in 2013.

Without any authority, Nathan E. Hardwick, attorney conducted a wrongful non-judicial foreclosure that accepted $296,000 of taxpayer money that was no “just compensation” that had been decided by an Eminent Domain Tribunal.

Deceived by Hardwick, the City of Ozark is occupying the property and making improvements in violation of Historical Preservation Law. The unpaid monthly rental charge is $62,500. The question is now before the U.S. Middle District Court of Alabama for adjudication.

Alabama has the most stringent taking/compensation laws.                                            

“No title is conveyed through the sale when a party who lacks a right to enforce the note proceeds with foreclosure sale.”

The US and Alabama Constitutions enacted law that forbids the taking of private property without “just compensation”. Alabama laws are the most severe. Alabama “just compensation” law was consistently ignored by all the state judicial system courts including probate court. Now what will the federal courts decide?

IGNORED: Courts in Alabama differ from the normal rule, as they have asserted that the court of equity should award damages even though no other type of relief is sought. An Alabama court stated:

     If the county through its duly constituted authorities without the consent of the landowner whose title and possession is not disputed takes or undertakes to appropriate private property for public use, a court of equity will intervene and require just compensation to be made. Id. at 137-38, 43 So. 2d at 116.

     The city had the discretion to acquire an airport or not to acquire it, to take this or that land or not to take it. It did not have the discretion to take land without paying for it. After the taking the duty to condemn became ministerial.63 Brown v. Murphy, supra note 62, at 321, 47 A.2d at 597.

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment allows federal, state, and local governments to take private property for public use under eminent domain, as long as the private landowners are justly compensated for the taking of their property

In 1985, in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, the Supreme Court held that in cases claiming just compensation for private property taken by state or local governments, the owner had to demonstrate that the case was ripe for litigation by exhausting state law remedies "first." As it turned out, however, courts also took the position that when property owners complied with this rule and sued "first" in state court, the state court decision would give rise to res judicata or issue preclusion, so the owner's claim of federal constitutional violation could never be heard in federal court under federal law. This decision has come under criticism as it denied property owners, and them alone, access to federal courts and to protection of the Fifth Amendment's Taking Clause

Under Eminent Domain law, the government can “take” private property for public use – but must provide landowners with just compensation. ... Further, if the government “leaves out” certain property or fails to provide select landowners with just compensation, landowners can sue the government under Inverse Condemnation.

Inverse condemnation is a term used in the law to describe a situation in which the government takes private property but fails to pay the compensation required by the 5th Amendment of the Constitution, so the property's owner has to sue to obtain the required just compensation.

In some states the term also includes damaging of property as well as it taking. In inverse condemnation cases the owner is the plaintiff and that is why the action is called inverse – the order of parties is reversed, as compared to the usual procedure in direct condemnation where the government is the plaintiff who sues a defendant-owner to take his or her property.

Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, No. 17-647, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with compensation for private property owners when the use of that property is taken from them by state or local governments, under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The immediate question asks if private land owners must exhaust all state-offered venues for mediation before seeking action in the federal courts. The case specifically addresses the Court's prior decision from the 1985 case Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, which had previously established that all state court venues must be exhausted first, but which has since resulted in several split decisions among circuit courts. The Supreme Court ruled in June 2019 to overturn part of Williamson County that required state venue action be taken first, allowing taking-compensation cases to be brought directly to federal court

Supreme Court

Knick petitioned the Supreme Court for writ of certiorari. Knick's petition pointed out that there was a split in how Williamson County was applied in the Circuit Courts. The Third Circuit's decision agreed with the Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits in prior case law, but was in conflict with the First, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits. Additionally, the petition referred to Justice John Roberts' denial for writ of certiorari in Arrigoni Enterprises, LLC v. Durham (2016), a case that also sought to challenge the Williamson County decision, which had been joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy. In the denial, Roberts suggested that it was necessary for the Supreme Court to review Williamson County, due to the onus it puts on property owners, but required a proper case for that review.[5]

The Court granted the petition in March 2018, with the first oral arguments heard on October 3, 2018, before an eight-member Supreme Court, as Justice Brett Kavanaugh had yet to be sworn into office. In November 2018, the Court announced it would hold a second argument before all nine Justices; while the Court did not provide a rationale, analysts believed that this indicated the eight Justices were deadlocked, thus requiring Justice Kavanaugh to take part in the case to break the deadlock.7] The second oral hearings before the full court was held January 16, 2019.

The Court issued its judgment on June 21, 2019. In its 5–4 decision along ideological lines, it vacated the Third Circuit's judgment and remanded the case to the lower court. The decision overruled the portion of Williamson County decision that required those seeking legal action for takings-compensation to seek state litigation first, finding that the original decision was poorly reasoned. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, writing that "A property owner has an actionable Fifth Amendment takings claim when the government takes his property without paying for it." The opinion emphasized that unfair compensation when private land is taken is constitutional violation, and thus ripe for the federal court system. Justice Clarence Thomas joined the majority, and in a separate opinion, wrote "Stare decisis does not compel continued adherence to this erroneous precedent." Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent and expressed concerns that by eliminating the need to bring such takings-compensation cases to state courts first, it could require federal courts to become involved in understanding complex state law issues.[8] Kagan's decision also expressed concern that Knick along with other recent Court decisions such as Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt shows a trend that the current Court is ready to ignore long-standing precedent and overturn past rulings. Justice Stephen Breyer had expressed similar concern in his dissent with Hyatt.

Words from the Rising Republics

 

The internet declared that $75,000 in 1912 is adjusted to the same value in 2019, $1,940,152.

J.D. Holman of Ozark, Alabama spent $75,000 in 1912 for construction of his residence at 285 East Broad Street in Ozark, AL. The cost of renovation in the 1980s, including an addition of a 60% increase in usable space, was made for only $3,759,216. The effective renovation cost does not include the $173,000 per year in maintenance and operation expenses.

The City of Ozark performed its sovereign powers as a public entity and took the property without making any “just compensation” for the taking of private property for public usage. The City of Ozark did surrender public taxpayer funds to Nathan E. Hardwick, a convicted felon, as the only bidder at a simulated foreclosure auction. The auction was necessary in order to give the appearance that it was legal to pay only 6% of the property’s “appraised value”, especially on property that had no proven encumbrance and in no default. The lawful rental cost for the last eight years has risen to millions.

“No title is conveyed through the sale when a party who lacks a right to enforce the note proceeds with foreclosure sale.”

The US and Alabama Constitutions enacted law that forbids the taking of private property without “just compensation”. Alabama laws are more severe.

Courts in Alabama differ from the normal rule, as they have asserted that the court of equity should award damages even though no other type of relief is sought. An Alabama court stated:

     If the county through its duly constituted authorities without the consent of the landowner whose title and possession is not disputed takes or undertakes to appropriate private property for public use, a court of equity will intervene and require just compensation to be made. Id. at 137-38, 43 So. 2d at 116.

     The city had the discretion to acquire an airport or not to acquire it, to take this or that land or not to take it. It did not have the discretion to take land without paying for it. After the taking the duty to condemn became ministerial.63 Brown v. Murphy, supra note 62, at 321, 47 A.2d at 597.

The old adage that one cannot fight City Hall has proven merit. No court of equity exists in Dale County. The tragedy is that the values of similar items have increased from 1912 to 2019, 25.8 times. The value of the dollar continues to decline. What is even worse in that there has been a similar free fall of integrity. “Legal Plunder” is now the rage.

“There is now no condemnation”, that is just the way it is.



The Declaration of Independence canceled any notion that kings ruled by Divine Right. The Prince of this World could only offer bondage. God gave each of his creation the opportunity to be free simply by accepting His plea, a free gift or remedy provided the remedy was accepted, from the heart, within a specified length of time. After death, one who refused the free remedy has an eternal hell to pay.

The Constitution granted freedom governed through “public Law”. Since 1933, all Americans are today governed by “public policy”. Rid yourself of “default thinking” and embrace “future based thinking” where freedom alone prevails.

DECLARE FREEDOM FOR YOURSELF
RECORD YOUR OWN “FREEDOM CHRONICLES”.
LET THE WORLD HEAR YOUR SHOUT

“FREE AT LAST. FREE AT LAST.
THANK GOD ALMIGHTY.  FREE AT LAST”.