Civil Disobedience Theory

Just laws protect human rights; an unjust law is one that itself violates rights. While it is better to prevent unjust laws from being made in the first

Read more

Community Liaison Outreach
Ideas and Options

by Jean Alexander • 11/17/04

Basic Communication

Set up a Yahoo group for your community. I have FSPHomeschooling and we cover homeschooling and education issues.
Promote your Yahoo group ... on the FSP forum, in other related email lists, bulletin boards, forums, etc.
Use your FSP email address, the FSP website address, FSP slogan, link info for your group.
whichever of these works best for you -- in your email signature line.
Join email lists, bulletin boards, other forums related to your community. Comment on FSP as appropriate.
Do regular internet searches on your topic (once a week is probably enough). Share information with your communities. If a story hits a particular nerve, consider forwarding it to Publicity/Advertising for consideration for a shadow ad.
Write LTEs and other responses to articles on your community.
If you're a radio listener watch out for talk radio programs related to your community, listen to them and be prepared to call in!

Community Leaders

Write, email or otherwise contact leaders in your community. Introduce them to the FSP and, if reasonable, obtain an endorsement from them. (If an endorsement is obtained communicate with Chris about getting that posted on our website.)

Essays

Write an essay related to your community which can conclude in a demonstration of how FSP can be a solution. Essays can be posted on our website, submitted to various e-zines or magazines, etc.

Other

Create a website related to your community.
Carry FSP web cards, trifolds, etc. with you to hand to interested folk.
Join/volunteer for organizations with similar missions. For instance, Evan Nappen, our guns rights liaison, volunteers for and is on the Board of the NRA.

Conferences/Presentations

Create a list of conferences and/or groups to which presentations could be made.
Create template materials that could be used at conferences and/or presentations (In particular make a community tri-fold. Samples for gun rights and homeschooling/education attached.)
Create a community DVD that can be played at conferences, mailed to key people, etc.
Network with local groups, speakers group, and other volunteers to attend these conferences and presentations.

Approach

I look for lead ins and don't offer information completely unsolicited. I don't want to be considered a spammer. I want to target folks who are already open to the idea of smaller government and more liberty.

Eminent Domain Protester

Eminent Domain Protester 'believes Absolutely In What She's Doing'

Woman declines legal help after her arrest for refusing to leave NL City Hall

By RICK KOSTER · Features · Published on 9/21/2005 [in The Day, New London, CT]

New London— There haven't been too many would-be tenants clamoring for apartments in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood.

Lauren Ann Canario, however, is an exception.

A few weeks back, Canario, a resident of Las Vegas and member of a New Hampshire-based group committed to reducing the role of the government in society, contacted Bill Von Winkle, owner of a three-story building on Smith Street in Fort Trumbull.

"She asked if I owned a building there and, if so, did I have an apartment for rent," Von Winkle said. "I told her I did, and she said, 'I'll take it.' And she did. I was insistent that she be interested in nonviolent solutions."

Von Winkle was one of the plaintiffs in the Kelo v. New London case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court in an effort to stop the taking of private property for redevelopment in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. Although the court ruled in favor of the city in June, some of the property owners, including Von Winkle, remain adamant about not relinquishing their land, buildings and houses.

Von Winkle said others from across the country have called and expressed willingness to occupy his property in defiance of eminent domain.

"Some wanted to come to town and bring high-powered sniper rifles," he said. "Obviously, I did not respond to them. But Lauren seemed to be level-headed. She's absolutely a smart and nice person."

Canario, a member of the nonprofit Free State Project, wants to build a community bulletin board in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood where people can post concerns, Von Winkle said.

"A lot of people stop by on a daily basis to express support and see what's going on," he said. "This would be her way of allowing that to happen where everyone could see it."

Canario, 48, was charged Monday night with first-degree trespass, refusal to be fingerprinted and interfering with police after refusing to leave a City Hall stairwell after a city council meeting had been canceled. The council had been scheduled to vote on a resolution declaring no confidence in the New London Development Corp., which has been the city's agent in the eminent domain project.

Canario's bail was originally set at $5,000.

Von Winkle hired New London attorney Renee Houle to represent Canario, but he said Tuesday afternoon that Houle had withdrawn representation.

"(Canario) refused to be fingerprinted and then refused to speak to the judge," Von Winkle said, "so he raised bail to $10,000. She doesn't want any help."

Houle could not be reached for comment.

Canario's husband, Jim Johnson, who lives in Las Vegas and is also a member of the Free State Project, plans to join his wife in New London. He said by phone Tuesday that he and his wife expect to eventually move to New Hampshire. He also said that he has been unable to contact his wife after her arrest and that he read about the incident in an online story in The Day.

"I called the duty sergeant (Monday) night," Johnson said, "and they wouldn't let me talk to her. But she believes absolutely in what she's doing."

According to Johnson and Von Winkle, one of the main tenets of the Free State Project is to fight eminent domain. As described in the group's Web site (www.freestateproject.org), they are attempting to draw "20,000 libertarians" to move to New Hampshire and "exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property."

The city council's plan to consider a vote of no-confidence in the NLDC had been brought on by the NLDC sending eviction notices last week to several Fort Trumbull property owners without informing state officials or the council of that plan.

Monday's council meeting was canceled after an overflow crowd was remanded to a stairwell and attempts to hold the meeting fell into chaos. In July, the fire department found a City Hall fire escape in disrepair and then set the crowd capacity for council chambers at 49 people until repairs were made.

Von Winkle said that Canario represents 6,700 people who will come to New London to prevent through nonviolence the seizure of Fort Trumbull property by the city.

"The (process servers) will have to get through all those people to get to me. It will be nonviolent, but Canario is very serious about this issue. I don't know, she'll burn the papers," Von Winkle said. "She represents the strong feelings of a lot of people who will be here to stop the government from seizing property. This woman is not afraid of the government."

Johnson, her husband, said, "Lauren knows the law. She took the civil fight as far as she could (Monday), and she was arrested. Our idea is to go to town meetings and speak, and you hope to persuade others. Which is why she was at the meeting and what she was prevented from doing."

When asked about Von Winkle's assessment that 6,700 people will be in New London if the government attempts to take the Fort Trumbull property, Johnson said, "I don't know the exact number, but I would think there are a lot of groups like ours that will be there."

About Canario's resistance to the arrest process, Von Winkle said, "Yeah, I'm still trying to digest why she's staying in jail. She's got to come out at some point. But I definitely thought she was capable of this sort of commitment. She told me that she will absolutely be one of the people who refuses to leave the property when they try to take it. She was adamant about that."

Ã¯Â¿Â½ The Day Publishing Co., 2005
For home delivery, please call 1-866-846-9099

These media articles are maintained on a non-commercial basis by The Free State Project, a non-profit organization, for historical, educational, scholarship, and research purposes. (For information regarding "Fair Use", see US Code Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107).

Eminent Domain

Eminent Domain Abuses

As its name implies, the Bill of Rights is all about guaranteeing individual rights; exceptions are noted only for extraordinary circumstances such as war or the commission of a crime, and even then procedures must be followed strictly. Two of the

amendments specifically guarantee security in one's home, so it is strange that the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment ("... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.") implies an exception, "for public use." This loophole addresses one important difficult situation, known as the holdout problem: if a project (e.g. a road or park) requires purchasing land from many people, a very few of them may refuse to sell at the market price and "hold out" for a much higher price that would be impossible to offer to everyone. The power of Eminent Domain, as it is known in the United States, authorizes a government to forcibly purchase land at a price that is "just" (usually interpreted to mean the market rate).

Exceptions should always be questioned, and such a power does pose obvious risks:

An owner may refuse to sell not as a greedy attempt to negotiate an exorbitant price but because he or she truly values the property at more than its market value. Common examples are an elderly resident, for whom moving would be a shock, and someone for whom the home has strong sentimental value, e.g. someone who was born in the house or whose family has lived there for generations.
The property may be assessed lower than the true market value, perhaps because of a mistake or dishonesty.

The recent Supreme Court case of Kelo vs. New London has put Eminent Domain in the news. A developer wanted to turn 90 residential acres in New London, Connecticut into commercial real estate, and persuaded the city to help obtain it from the current residents (one of whom was an 87-year-old woman who had been born in her house). The city invoked Eminent Domain under the questionable justification that the developed property would provide greater tax revenue, and thus would constitute "public use". The Supreme Court decision in favor of New London has been largely condemned by people on both the left and right (how could anyone support taking old people's houses and giving them to a heartless corporation?), but its implications are more subtle.

The result was in some ways a surreal inversion from a parallel universe: the left-wing justices, who normally oppose federalism, did not hold that government necessarily has the power to use Eminent Domain for this wider purpose, merely that the US Constitution does not forbid it. State and local governments are thus still able to enact stronger guarantees. The conservative justices, who normally support a stricter interpretation of the Constitution and favor federalism, voted in the direction of increasing individual rights, yes, but via a decrease in the states' power.

The long-term result has been cheering to both federalists and champions of individual liberty, as many individual states and cities have responded by taking action to enact laws and ordinances restricting eminent domain to prevent future New London-style abuses. Perhaps states can be trusted to do the right thing after all? People can always vote with their feet to places like New Hampshire, where takings for commercial purposes are prohibited.

For more information: Institute for Justice • Castle Coalition • Reason Public Policy Institute

...and Responses

Two clever projects have sprung up to draw attention to the Supreme Court decision in Kelo vs. New London. Both aim to take the houses of the very Supreme Court Justices that created the new unjust expansion of Eminent Domain, using their own opinions against them. Both projects have involved some participants in the Free State Project, though some other Free-Staters have denounced this method of protest or retaliation as itself unjust. The Free State Project takes no position on the projects themselves, though our position on Eminent Domain is derivable from our Statement of Intent.

Constitution Park

The Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers is promoting a project to seize the New Hampshire homes of Justices Souter and Breyer in order to build a "Constitution Park". The decision will be made by a vote of the townspeople.

More Links: Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers

Lost Liberty Hotel

In the wake of Kelo v. City of New London, private developer, Logan Darrow Clements, has applied to take possession of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Souter's New Hampshire residence for the purpose of building "The Lost Liberty Hotel," featuring the "Just Desserts Cafe," and a museum dedicated to the loss of American freedom.

Clements discussed the Lost Liberty Hotel on Fox TV's "Hannity & Colmes" on 7/22/05, and gave a nice mention of the FSP. Also appearing was a Weare resident who supported Clements.

Here are video clips:

	Windows Media (wmv)	QuickTime (mov)
FSP mention	2.8 mb	3.4 mb
Full segment	8.3 mb	10.1 mb

"It Could Happen to You!" – Hannity & Colmes follow the Lost Liberty Hotel story. Watch these interviews with FSP participant Logan Darrow Clements:
15 Dec 2005 • 16 Dec 2005

In January 2006, the Lost Liberty Hotel effort will sponsor a rally in Weare, NH, to gather signatures from Weare residents.

Issues in the News

The Free State Project is a nonprofit corporation with a single, very narrow mission: to encourage 20,000 libertarians and liberty-minded individuals to move to New Hampshire, so that they might then exert some measure of influence in reducing the role of government and increasing the sphere of civil society.

We purposely avoid defining any particulars about the forms this influence might take, because libertarians are a diverse lot. The FSP itself performs no change activism of any sort.

While the FSP takes no stand on any specific issues, what our position would be if we were to take a vote could probably be derived from our Statement of Intent, which concludes thus:

"...I will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property."

As activists, FSP participants occasionally find themselves in the news, where the FSP might be mentioned. These people are generally *not* representing the FSP, and in fact other FSP participants may disagree with them completely. This is in fact the case in two recent controversies, Civil Disobedience and Eminent Domain.

Here is a list of issues, with pages that provide descriptions and resources for further study:

Issues	Strategies
Drug Prohibition	Policy Formation
Educational Freedom	Non-Voting
Eminent Domain	Non-Enforcement
Industrial Hemp	Civil Disobedience
Marriage Freedom	Fully-Informed Juries
National ID	Voting System Reform
Property Rights
Regulation
Second Amendment
Social Security
Taxation

Informed Juries

Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA)

Note to Links participants - if you feel your link has been improperly categorized, please email us at info@freestateproject.org. Thank you!

Issue Center