Comments on: RE: DIDDEN & SOTOMAYOR http://www.obamapundit.com/2009/05/28/re-didden-sotomayor-4/ analysis, comedy and general pundity re: our 44th President Tue, 04 May 2010 07:00:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Hector N. Fertig http://www.obamapundit.com/2009/05/28/re-didden-sotomayor-4/comment-page-1/#comment-24 Hector N. Fertig Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:59:46 +0000 http://www.obamapundit.com/?p=121#comment-24 I obviously can't confirm whether this really is Bart Didden or not, but the argument presented doesn't sound like an "unconstitutional taking" or "expansion of Kelo" argument. It is a question of "What constitutes the 'harm' and when did it occur?" Is it the inclusion of the property in the redevelopment plan or the extortion? It appears that both the District Court and the Court of Appeals saw the Plaintiff's claim as the former and concluded that the Statute of Limitations barred redress. If, however, the Plaintiff's position is that it is the latter, there may have been an independent cause of action, still within the Statute of Limitations, that had nothing to do with the property's inclusion in the redevelopment plan. In that case, he would likely lose his property to the redevelopment plan but might collect on the extortion claim. Was this even pursued? I obviously can’t confirm whether this really is Bart Didden or not, but the argument presented doesn’t sound like an “unconstitutional taking” or “expansion of Kelo” argument. It is a question of “What constitutes the ‘harm’ and when did it occur?” Is it the inclusion of the property in the redevelopment plan or the extortion?

It appears that both the District Court and the Court of Appeals saw the Plaintiff’s claim as the former and concluded that the Statute of Limitations barred redress. If, however, the Plaintiff’s position is that it is the latter, there may have been an independent cause of action, still within the Statute of Limitations, that had nothing to do with the property’s inclusion in the redevelopment plan. In that case, he would likely lose his property to the redevelopment plan but might collect on the extortion claim. Was this even pursued?

]]> By: Bart Didden http://www.obamapundit.com/2009/05/28/re-didden-sotomayor-4/comment-page-1/#comment-7 Bart Didden Sun, 07 Jun 2009 15:38:44 +0000 http://www.obamapundit.com/?p=121#comment-7 The issue that the district got wrong (in our opinion) was when was I harmed 1999 or 2003 when the demand for 800,000 was made? Our action was filed in under 12 weeks from the demand. How the lower court can find, without any discovery, evidence or testimony that my harm was in 1999 when the developer was given my rights, rather than when the demand was made to stop a governmental action by a payment to a private person just reeks of violations of public purpose or benefit. How could I ever have know that in 1999 I would have been a victim in 2003 is beyond any reasonable defense. The issue that the district got wrong (in our opinion) was when was I harmed 1999 or 2003 when the demand for 800,000 was made?

Our action was filed in under 12 weeks from the demand. How the lower court can find, without any discovery, evidence or testimony that my harm was in 1999 when the developer was given my rights, rather than when the demand was made to stop a governmental action by a payment to a private person just reeks of violations of public purpose or benefit.

How could I ever have know that in 1999 I would have been a victim in 2003 is beyond any reasonable defense.

]]> By: C. William Chattin http://www.obamapundit.com/2009/05/28/re-didden-sotomayor-4/comment-page-1/#comment-4 C. William Chattin Fri, 29 May 2009 14:55:21 +0000 http://www.obamapundit.com/?p=121#comment-4 Hector, I addressed most of these points in this earlier item: http://www.obamapundit.com/?p=107 -- Bill Hector, I addressed most of these points in this earlier item:

http://www.obamapundit.com/?p=107

– Bill

]]>