Winning the battle for freedom ~ By Henry Lamb

Henry tells us how a group of citizens are taking on a county government in Minnesota that was abusing or violating their Fifth Amendment property rights and eminent domain laws.

This group has been working for more than four years to protect their property rights from the insidious, freedom-eroding, comprehensive plans promoted in the name of sustainable development. They have gone about their task in an orderly, non-confrontational manner, and they are gaining the upper hand. They have become a beacon of leadership for countless other groups across the country fighting the same fight.

This is how freedom will survive: person by person, community by community, state by state, and nation by nation. The battle begins at home.

By Henry Lamb

Posted: May 01, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

The people of Houston County, Minn., have found the way to protect themselves and their property from the abuses of government-run-amok in pursuit of sustainable development.

The county adopted a comprehensive plan consistent with the goals of sustainable development, but which completely ignored the U.S. Constitution and the principles of freedom. A local citizens group tried to work with the county commissioners in the development of the county's comprehensive plan two years ago, but opposing views and a petition signed by more than 700 landowners was not considered by the plan makers.

The citizens group has now presented the county with a notice of intent to sue, based on three complaints: 1) the plan violates Minnesota's state Constitution and the U.S. Constitution; 2) the county's implementation of the plan exceeds the authority given to counties by state law; and 3) the county's actions in pursuit of the plan violate the Minnesota Constitution and the U.S. Constitution.

The notice of intent cites Dolan v. the city of Tigard, which says if the Fifth Amendment is to have any meaning, "It must include the right to prevent the government from gaining an ownership interest in one's property outside the procedures of the Takings Clause."

The document describes multiple examples of how the county exercised ownership interest in deciding how privately owned property could be used. At least 27 times, the county prevented a landowner from building a second home on privately owned parcels of less than 40 acres. In other examples, the county forced landowners to build in a location other than where the owner wanted to build.

In another example of the county's exercise of ownership interest, a landowner wanted to replace an old mobile home with a new one, on the same site where a well and septic tank were already in place. The county said no and forced the landowner to locate the new mobile home across the road on land used for crops, where a new well and septic tank had to be installed.

The 36-page notice is filled with similar examples of how the county plan violates the Constitution, the law and common sense. The county has 30 days to respond.

The landowners have extended an olive branch to the commissioners. In a separate letter to the county, the landowners' group said they would appoint a small committee to work with the commissioners to correct the defects in the plan, providing that the county would officially adopt, as the basis for the county comprehensive plan, the same resolution signed by 700 local landowners.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies!