Crawford Countian

The Crawford Countian was born out of the need to combat a long standing relationship between the existing liberal local newspaper and local politicians

[DavidJose @RealDaveCares4u]

Going live in about 1 hr and 45 minutes Set a reminder for my upcoming Space! https://t.co/nxnqhu4ANu

[Crawford Countian @oggydog]

@JarrinJackson Thank you, sir. It's of particular interest to me because the local city is suing the local county to force them to do a tax reassessment in front of a county "judge". So much foolishness by our local servants, all in the name of money.

[Crawford Countian @oggydog]

@JarrinJackson Thanks very much for your time, Jarrin. Very much appreciated. I have to go but if you have 1 more question to hit me with, I'll dig in to it and keep digging. Thanks again. God Bless

[Crawford Countian @oggydog]

@JarrinJackson Local govt took property for a walking trail. Didn't pay the owner anything. That, to me, would be for a public use. Taking someone's home to sell at a profit to someone else doesn't seem like public use as expressed in the 5A.

[Crawford Countian @oggydog]

@JarrinJackson The 5A says taken for public use, not for failure to pay taxes. Does public use encompass every scenario? If they foreclose and resell, how is that "public" use?

[Crawford Countian @oggydog]

@JarrinJackson That was not argued. But that's the question. He's saying what happened to Pung was likely unconstitutional. But if their job is to look to the Constitution first, isn't he admitting that none of them did that? Can they only decide what's argued in front of them if its a statute

[Crawford Countian @oggydog]

@JarrinJackson Thomas wrote that what Isabella County did was likely unconstitutional. Which goes back to the question. Don't Article 3 judicial court justices have discretion to look at the case and say something unconstitutional happened despite what stupid attorneys decide to argue?

[Crawford Countian @oggydog]

@JarrinJackson Thomas wrote that what Isabella County did was likely unconstitutional. Which goes back to the question. Don't Article 3 judicial court justices have discretion to look at the case and say something unconstitutional happened despite what stupid attorneys decide to argue?

[Crawford Countian @oggydog]

@JarrinJackson Pp. 4–11.
(a) For hundreds of years, English and American law have allowed the seizure and sale of property as a tax-collection method, provided that the government return any surplus proceeds to the debtor. Federal statutes from the early days of the Republic applied this rule

[Crawford Countian @oggydog]

@JarrinJackson 1. The proper baseline for measuring “just compensation” following
a tax sale is the auction sale price, not the property’s hypothetical fair
market value, at least when the sale is fairly conducted in light of the
country’s history of tax sales.

[Crawford Countian @oggydog]

@JarrinJackson Thomas did, but he then moved to the "just compensation" clause and fair market value again. Then agrees with the idea of tax foreclosures being viable. He concurred with the holding.

[Crawford Countian @oggydog]

@JarrinJackson You say that's the 1st thing they should look at. The Constitutions. In the "judicial" courts, not the legislative tribunals. I agree.

[Crawford Countian @oggydog]

@JarrinJackson Pung's argument was not sufficient notification.

[Crawford Countian @oggydog]

@JarrinJackson Alito starts with the 5th amendment takings clause but doesn't mention Due Process of Law regarding taking property. Thomas does address that later but Alito bypasses that and jumps in to the surplus from a foreclosure. It was all about fair market value. Did pung argue wrong?

[For Such a Time - Remedy for the People! JillJ☺️ @mommadj75]

@RealHickory Those darn “effects” be protected by Contract with our servants. And no agent of government has the authority to violate guaranteed rights. We The People must stand and preserve our blessings of liberty! See the state constitutions for the foundational law of the land!