Most of us know or have heard of someone who was forced to sell their home to make way for an urban renewal or government planned, private developer project. Horror stories abound about how an elderly couple was forced to sell and move out of their life-long home so some private developer could build a hotel, shopping center or apartment complex. There have been times when little old ladies have held the Sheriff at bay with loaded shotguns while heavy bulldozers parked on the sidelines with their diesel engines coughing and chattering away.
Does this scenario sound familiar? The gray haired old lady and her almost deaf husband have been refusing to move out of their home and defied every "court order" issued. Now it is the day of reckoning. The Sheriff has been called upon by the Court and ordered to remove the elderly couple from their home of 40 years. A gigantic shopping center and 200 condominium apartments are to be built on the site and everyone else has moved away.
This lone couple is standing in the way of progress! They have had their "day in court" and a lawyer to represent them. They are now defying a valid court order. The Sheriff would have preferred to call in a S.W.A.T. team to face the armed resisters, but he is an elected official -- the TV camera teams and newspaper reporters would make political mince-meat of him if he called in a military style operation just to remove one old couple from their home.
The couple's lawyer is standing nearby pleading with them to put down the gun and give up the house. "You had your day in court and you lost," he pleads for the hundredth time. "It is a legitimate proceeding. You don't have the right to stay here anymore. It is no longer your house."
Looking like typical grandparents, the couple is steadfast. They paid for that house and did not owe anyone a dime. How could the Court say they had to sell their home and move out just so some millionaire developer could build apartments or a shopping center?
The neighbors had already surrendered and sold their homes months ago. They did not want to move out either, but they were told they did not have a choice. Some hired lawyers and tried to fight back but, like this old couple, they lost in court and were ordered to move away from their old neighborhood, friends and memories. The neighbors were all gone and their houses razed. This couple was left alone to try and fight against a system they did not understand -- a system which seemed contrary to the rights they always felt they had as American citizens. This was a matter of principle! They did not want to move out of their house. They had not taken any money for it. This is America -- land of the free and home of the brave. They had some rights. Sound familiar?
These people knew that something was wrong with a system which could legally deny them the right to live in their own home. It was foreign to the America they had known all their lives. Even their lawyer felt there was something wrong. He didn't even charge them for his services except for filing fees. He felt sorry for the old man and woman, but the court ruled against them and it was upheld on appeal. He knew there was something wrong with this system, but he couldn't put his finger on it.
READ THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
Will the courts force you to sell your property, involuntarily, to a private entity or person for their own personal use or development?
Can the courts legally order you to sell or transfer your property to another for their private use or development?
The answer to the first question is "NO." The answer to the second is "YES." Don't be confused. The questions are similar but different. It is the manner in which a question is phrased which will allow you to determine the differences between rules and laws.
The Courts cannot force you to sell or transfer your property to another for private use unless it is enforcing a contract between you and that party. If you failed to pay your mortgage or a real lien was placed against the property, or if you had agreed to sell the property and then tried to back out, the court could order you to either pay the damages or surrender title to the property. That is enforcing an existing or implied agreement which you had entered voluntarily.
When the promoter-developer who "bought" this old couple's house started into his project, he most likely sought the assistance of local government officials. The local government applied the regulations and rules of the Federal Housing & Urban Development (HUD) Department. Under that procedure a process of implied threat and intimidation (T&I) was begun. When the couple went to a lawyer for help, he responded in what seemed like a reasonable manner. He acted as if he was dealing with an equity situation and immediately applied for a Restraining Order to prevent the government from doing what the bureaucrats had only "implied" they could do -- take the couple's house forcefully.
There are 7 volumes of CFR manuals (and more are being added) dedicated to HUD rules and regulations. The CFR rules used by HUD are more extensive than those of any other agency except for Department of Agriculture and the IRS. These regulations outline procedures the promoters and government employees must follow. It guides them every step of the way in "legally" taking a person's property from them.
The promoter who wanted possession of the elderly couple's home may have been approached by local government instead of the other way around. Sometimes local officials want to enhance their tax base for property. They feel it could be better utilized for something other than the old homes or business which have occupied the land for years. If it is a major city, chances are the local government already has a department and staff completely familiar with the HUD programs and procedures. In a small town the promoter might have to take a staff member or the mayor by the hand and lead them through the procedures outlined by HUD for "legalized property confiscation."
Whether the city announces it wants a Neighborhood Development project and seeks a developer or the promoter-developer approaches the local government, the end result is usually the same: A special government employee is appointed to work with the local government in acquiring the land and financing needed for the project.
Usually the area is researched and then designated a "Target Area." This description can have devastating effects on a community and the people who do business or live there. Such a designation causes mortgage lenders and banks to shy away from any dealings with it. Property owners who are thinking of developing or improving their own premises find they are prevented from doing so by inability to find suitable financing, opposition from zoning and building boards, and a reluctance on the part of all bureaucrats to get involved in any disputes. Permission to do just about anything is denied and if the owner wants to sell and get paid immediately, he finds the promoter isn't ready to buy yet and other potential buyers are reluctant since they think they would not be able to use the property the way they would like.
If ever a person felt like the victim of an attacking enemy force, this would be it. The government, instead of operating in a manner to protect your individual and property rights, is actually preventing you from full enjoyment and use of your real estate. The property owners begin to feel that being a Target Area means they are going to be "bombed out" any day.
Because of all this, the property values in the area are depressed and this is used as justification to re-designate it a "blighted area" and appoint a committee of citizens to study and suggests ways to improve the community. The citizens group becomes the buffer. Special government employees enter the picture and along with local bureaucrats, they "guide" the committee into accepting and adopting a project which would revitalize and enhance the area. Some of the citizens display the typical human trait of greed. They can see that if the project goes in, the property they own across the street will quadruple in value. They are quick to agree to any such shopping center or complex the city might suggest. They ignore the face that their neighbor might be tricked to move out of their family home.
The CFR manuals for HUD are insistent that no project can be instituted unless there is a Citizens' Advisory board or committee. This is HUD's way of shifting the blame if anyone says HUD is being dictatorial and abusive of its agency. They simply blame the Official Citizen's Advisory Committee. All the Regulations, in all the CFR manuals, hold that any action by a citizen either by making application or appealing a decision supposedly gives credence to the authority and validity of the previous actions taken by that agency.

Now, back to the scenario of the developer vs. one old couple:
When the elderly couple's young lawyer did what seemed appropriate and filed for a Restraining Order in a Court of Law, he gave credibility to the claim of the HUD project that it was for the Public Good or that there was "compelling government interests." The Court, finding that the government had no authority and had taken no illegal action to do that which the lawyer was claiming, assumed the litigants were in court VOLUNTARILY. Since they were Volunteers, the Court could now decide by using the Rule for "Public Good" in the matter rather than according to the Constitution and Law.
The Rules of HUD, the LAWS of Congress and the U.S. Constitution prohibit the forceful taking of property for Public Good, so there could be no "implied threat." When the lawyer filed to restrain the government from doing something it was already prohibited from doing, the lawyer sprang the trap, ensnared his clients in the system and made the court a BINDING ARBITRATOR. When the couple allowed the lawyer (an officer of the court) to file such an action, they agreed to abide by the findings of the Court. Under those rules, when a party is in court Voluntarily, the Court can rule for Public Good, rather than individual rights, just the same as Public Use.
If the city had been planning to build a public park or a highway or street, they could rightfully use Eminent Domain and have the property condemned. This would be a legal action. The only matter which could properly be argued would be the price to be paid. The property would be for PUBLIC USE --- not PUBLIC GOOD! There are even limitations on the eminent domain procedure, such as the government having to prove a real need for the project with no viable alternatives.
But this couple did not want to volunteer for Public Good. They were rightfully concerned with their own well-being and they wanted to live out the remainder of their lives in the house they owned, paid for and where they had lived for 40 years. How could the court rule for Public Good? Because they (via the lawyer) VOLUNTEERED!
When the action was filed in the Court the couple had most likely lost the battle. The lower court might refuse to be tricked into applying the rules to take the couples home and decide in their favor, but the Rule of Stare Decisis (Chapter 15) is at work and the developer and city could easily appeal the matter. Eventually the HUD position would be upheld by a higher court and the couple would be forced to sell their home for the public good because they had volunteered.
It is the legal maxim; Volenti Non Fit Injuria -- If someone volunteers, they cannot claim injury. The Courts have many rules which are designed to confound not only the average citizen, but causes many lawyers to walk out of the court room scratching their heads in amazement. They do not understand what really happened or why they lost the battle!
The couple and all of their neighbors could have remained in their homes if they had done NOTHING! The words and phrases, so carefully coined by the manipulators, are designed to stampede the people to file an action. The voluntary action gives the HUD people some legitimacy; that means the HUD rules have the force and effect of law and eventually the property owner will lose. The SECRET OF POWER over your property is to "do nothing" -- the hardest thing of all. Let the developer or city actually file a legal action in the Courts (they have no grounds) and then challenge the basis for the suit and the jurisdiction of the court. Make no motions which will grant any validity to the claim. Preface all responses and appearances with that all important qualifier word, "SPECIAL" (Chapter Two) and make sure that it includes the statement that you are not volunteering for public good or acknowledging jurisdiction or compelling government interests. Make sure that any papers served are actual "Court Orders" signed by a Real Judge!
Don't get cute in dealing with these people and think you can hold out for the top dollar while all those around you are being tricked into selling. Plans for a commercial development can be altered to include a little public park FOR PUBLIC USE, where your property is located. That would be a different fight. Get the picture? Your best protection is in being united with your neighbors. Let everyone know how to resist the land grabbers.
When a Target Area development was being planned for one community, and after several years and millions of dollars was spent by HUD, I gave the following letter to property owners who attended a meeting called by a Citizens Advisory Committee. It was enough to make the City and HUD officials reconsider their position. Here is the letter:

"The U.S. Constitution secures your right to private ownership of your property. Any time two or more persons conspire to threaten or intimidate any citizen in the exercise or enjoyment of that right, those people are in violation of U.S. Criminal Code (Chapt.13) Sect. 241, and subject to a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment of not more than 10 years, or both.
Section 242 of the U.S. Criminal Code provides for similar penalties when using the color of law to fraudulently deprive people of their rights and property.
Any city employee or elected official or developer who conspires, plots and schemes with others to attempt to convince citizens that the law will allow the city to involuntarily condemn their property for public good and hand it over to another private citizen for development, may be violating Section 241 and 242 of the U.S. Criminal Code.
Citizens beware! You are being sucked into Voluntarily going along with such proceedings. If you do anything which makes it appear that you are volunteering for "public good," then the city may condemn your property via the courts. You are NOT REQUIRED to volunteer for public good in a Free Nation.
Courts do not have jurisdiction over you and your property except as provided for in the Constitution, or if you voluntarily grant jurisdiction. Eminent domain can only be used for PUBLIC USE (parks, streets, highways, etc.). If you or your lawyer instigate an action in the courts, you are voluntarily giving the court authority to act as a binding arbitrator and you are agreeing to abide by the rules of the Court. The rules of the court (which lawyers, as officers of the court are required to abide by) are that when Constitutional Rights are not violated, the court will rule for PUBLIC GOOD. If you volunteer to go into court or you do not challenge the court authority, you are considered to have volunteered and therefore your rights cannot be violated by a ruling for PUBLIC GOOD!
If you feel you must attend meetings which are being used to circumvent the Constitution, then preface your appearance and any statement with the fact that it is "not to be construed as participation or consent to legitimacy of purpose of the meeting."
Remember--If you think something is not fair, there is a good possibility that you are Right! If you challenge the people who want to take your property or that of your neighbors, you will be told that "you don't understand the situation." Don't believe it! The Constitution has not been changed regarding Eminent Domain -- it still reads; in part, in the Fifth Amendment: "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Obviously, if it cannot be taken for public use without "just" compensation and due process, it certainly cannot be taken for private use or public good under any such circumstances.
Due process means following the laws -- not rules of the court. Unless the land is being taken for public use, it cannot be taken unless you consent to abide by the rules of the courts.
Anyone who conspires with another to violate your rights, by trickery, or fraud, may be subject to criminal and civil liability under existing Federal and State Racketeering Laws (RICO).

After restating the information verbally at the meeting, a spokesman for the HUD project immediately challenged the advise I had given the audience. He suggested that since I was not a lawyer, the people should go to an attorney and then "have their day in court" or "request condemnation proceedings."
You already know about the "day in court trick." Condemnation is something else. You can "request" that condemnation proceedings be initiated by the city. You cannot be forced into it, for such a purpose, but you can REQUEST (volunteer) for it. Of course, there are some tax advantages in having your property condemned. The technical name is INVERSE CONDEMNATION -- your lawyer should be able to tell you what it means and how it works, but you still have to volunteer for it.
A few weeks after the confrontation and notice, the daily newspapers printed several articles about how the developer was dropping out "because no contract was offered" and he could not raise needed financing. With all the tax free bond issues and government secured loans available (very low interest rates) this was really a pitiful excuse used for public consumption to avoid having everyone realize why the project was being killed. A few more weeks passed and the city announced the project was put on hold (after five years and $5 Million was spent). A month later a few businessmen were encouraged to petition the city to abandon the plans and permit them to get on with their individual development of their own properties. The city and HUD happily complied! They saved face and could continue with their legal theft programs in other areas where the people were not so well informed.
If someone approaches you to see if you are willing to sell and you suspect it may be a ploy of a HUD endorsed project, you must qualify any discussion with "I am not opening negotiations with you at this time. If you or your client wants to submit an offer to buy my property, I might take it into consideration. But this shall not be construed as a solicitation of an offer or an opening of any form of negotiations."
It may sound cumbersome, but without it, even a discussion could be construed as "opening negotiations." According to HUD's CFR rules, if you open negotiations, after six months they can claim to have a legal cause of action to take you to court and get a valid court order to force you to sell your property.
Always remember, bureaucrats seldom speak "off the cuff." Their words are carefully chosen and phrased, (See Chapter 5). The biggest users of these rules and regulations are hospitals, insurance companies, banks and major hotel developers.
Anyone who wants to use such rules can pick up a copy of the CFR manuals for HUD and find a way to secure all kinds of funding and methods to legally steal their neighbor's house. Within those pages you will find all the rules you need to carry out your project. If, on the other hand, you do not want some developer taking your house, DO NOTHING (unless an actual lawsuit is filed)! That is the secret of power over HUD rules. They cannot use their rules to force you out of your property unless you volunteer.
(See "More Tricks" - Chapter 19)