HB 1219: Property Rights Remedies

Patricia Evans shared this e-mail (apparently not an article) from Mark Fitzgibbons, edited slightly for format. Here's the link to HB 1219:

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?141+ful+HB1219

"
From Mark Fitzgibbons:

HB 1219 Property Rights Remedies Bill Hearing was Wednesday in the House Courts of Justice Sub-Committee: Constitutional Law...

The subcommittee no-motioned HB 1219, so they didn't vote for it or against it.  Some confusion about whether the Morris remedies bill competes, but the subcommittee clearly saw there's a problem that needs to be addressed, perhaps through amendments to the Morris bill, HB 1084: http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?ses=141&typ=bil&val=hb1084  Bob Marshall will try to amend the Morris bill, which provides remedies for unconstitutional conditions as defined in last year's Koontz case in the US Supreme Court, a good bill, but too cautious to protect most people from most zoning abuses.

HB 1219 scares the daylights out of the anti-property rights bureaucrats who wish to remain above the law. We need to keep pushing this to make lawbreaking bureaucrats know that we're coming after them.

Chairman Albo and Delegate Morris,

 

Thank you for a good hearing yesterday on HB 1219, the property rights remedies bill introduced by Delegate Marshall that has gained national attention at The Drudge Report, Fox News, CNSNews, and other media outlets.  I am of course disappointed with the no motion, but I understand that legislators may need more information.  Certainly, the general public really, really likes HB 1219 once they know what it does.

 

Following this session, I hope that I can sit down with you and others to discuss the following:

 

1.  HB 1084 was discussed at the hearing.  It is a marvelous and much-needed bill following last year's decision in the Koontz case.  Koontz was limited to a specific set of circumstances involving what Justice Alito called "extortive" conditions placed on those seeking zoning permits.

 

2.  HB 1219, which is based in some part on 42 USC 1983 and 1988, does not conflict with HB 1084, and covers other types of abuses of zoning powers.  For example, the abuses inflicted on Martha Boneta and Jay Sherrill, who both testified, would not be remedied by HB 1084, nor would the abuses inflicted on Joseph Ferguson whom I referenced (represented by The Rutherford Institute, copied) be remedied.

 

3.  Since HB 1084 applies to the permit process only, or that is how I read it, other zoning abuses still need to be remedied, including abusive ordinances that do not involve permits, or abusive enforcement of ordinances.  Martha Boneta's being charged with a violation of law for a birthday party is one example of abusive enforcement that HB 1084 would not remedy.

 

4.  42 USC 1983 and 1988 do not hamper effective law enforcement, nor would HB 1219.  Those federal statutes are used against police as well as other officials, and police certainly must act with more urgency and danger than zoning officials.

 

5.  HB 1084 addresses quite well "unconstitutional conditions" as defined by Justice Alito in Koontz, but would not overturn the 1981 VA Supreme Court decision giving local ordinances a presumption of constitutional validity.  I urge that the General Aseembly not make people such as Martha, Jay, or Mr. Ferguson spend the hundreds of thousands of dollars to litigate up through the U.S. Supreme Court before that mistake is corrected.  Local ordinances are not passed by going through the constitutional structure of two legislative chambers and threat of executive veto, and do not merit the presumption.

 

6.  There was not time to address this issue in a short hearing, but Virginia's Code is set up to allow localities to discriminate.  Below is from the outline of my speech at the Republican Advance describing how the Code delegates authority to allow localities to use subjective standards violating due process and evidentiary guarantees, which as lawyers you'll recognize is a problem.  The Code even allows courts to disregard evidence after citizens have gone through an expensive administrative appeals process.  The "local" Code had its last major modification in 1962, five years before Loving v. Virginia overturning Virginia's ban on interracial marriage.

 

Last year's "Pitchfork Protests" bringing national attention to the abuses of local land use powers against farmers in Virginia was just the beginning.  Both Martha and I have had our properties vandalized since taking on our county government and exposing their abuses.  If Koontz dealt with "extortive" conditions, we are dealing with base thuggery.

 

We will continue to take our case to the public in Virginia and nationally, and I hope that the General Assembly will act to protect citizens.  Local government "control" needs better controls.

 

Kind regards,

 

Mark Fitzgibbons

703 392 7676

 

Please read: From my outline on Virginia law delegating authority to localities:

 

5. The law

Virginia Constitution Article VII – Local Government

Section 3. Powers.   The General Assembly may provide by general law or special act that any county, city, town, or other unit of government may exercise any of its powers or perform any of its functions . . .

The Dillon Rule – local governments derive their power from the Commonwealth – the General Assembly

Virginia Code § 15.2-2200. Declaration of legislative intent.

. . . to encourage localities to improve the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare of their citizens . . . and the needs of agriculture, industry, and business be recognized in future growth . . . that agricultural and forestal land be preserved . . .

§ 15.2-2283. Purpose of zoning ordinances.

Zoning ordinances shall be for the general purpose of promoting the health, safety or general welfare of the public . . . (vii) to encourage economic development activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base; (viii) to provide for the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands . . .

VERY SUBJECTIVE STANDARD

§ 15.2-2255. Administration and enforcement of regulations.

. . . the governing body shall be responsible for administering and enforcing the provisions of the subdivision regulations through its local planning commission or otherwise.

ZERO STANDARDS OF DUE PROCESS, EVIDENCE IN ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT

§ 15.2-2308. Boards of zoning appeals to be created; membership, organization, etc.

. . . The board may make, alter and rescind rules and forms for its procedures, consistent with ordinances of the locality and general laws of the Commonwealth . . .

ZERO STANDARDS OF REVIEW

‘KANGAROO COURT’

§ 15.2-2309. Powers and duties of boards of zoning appeals.

. . . The decision on such appeal shall be based on the board's judgment of whether the administrative officer was correct. The board shall consider the purpose and intent of any applicable ordinances, laws and regulations in making its decision . . .

DO WE SEE A PATTERN?

§ 15.2-2312. Procedure on appeal.

. . . The concurring vote of a majority of the membership of the board shall be necessary to reverse any order, requirement, decision or determination of an administrative officer or to decide in favor of the applicant on any matter upon which it is required to pass under the ordinance or to effect any variance from the ordinance . . .

THE DECISION OF THE LOCAL ZONING BUREAUCRAT IS GIVEN THE PRESUMPTION OF LEGALITY.   WHY???

§ 15.2-2314. Certiorari to review decision of board.

. . . the court that testimony is necessary for the proper disposition of the matter, it may take evidence or appoint a commissioner to take evidence . . .

BUT

findings and conclusions of the board of zoning appeals on questions of fact shall be presumed to be correct.

EVEN BY THE TIME A CITIZEN MAY GET TO A COURT, IF HE OR SHE HAS THE MONEY TO FIGHT, THE COURT DOES NOT NEED TO TAKE EVIDENCE, AND THE BZA FINDINGS ARE PRESUMED CORRECT

--
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."  - Thomas Jefferson   "

Birthday Parties Mean Strip Clubs?

From Mark Fitzgibbons (forwarded by Patricia Evans), an explanation of how an elected official can become confused enough to confuse what has hitherto been described as a birthday party for a farmer's middle-school child with a strip club. The answer, in a word, is greed...but read the details!

"From Mark Fitzgibbons:

Virginia is now ground zero in the debate on farm and property rights

 

This past week has exposed a lot.  Rockingham Supervisor Kyger put on a show at VACo claiming the Boneta Bill would turn farms into "strip clubs"  and his daughter Katie Frazier along with Trey Davis told Martha Boneta to name names of victim-farmers, Soviet style.  Fauquier Supervisor Lee Sherbeyn was on DC Channel 9  (along with Martha), and one commenter at Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services ( VDACS ) shared Sherbeyn's view that farmers are not free to have birthday parties at farms. Fauquier County Still Wants Permits for Birthday Parties: http://fauquierfreecitizen.com/fauquier-county-still-wants-permits-for-birthday-parties/   Madge and I will be meeting someone in Fauquier who was told he needs to put 11 acres into easement for the county as a condition to get a permit, right on the heels of the Koontz decision calling such tactics extortive and unconstitutional conditions.

 

One commenter at Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services ( VDACS ) http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/ charges that supporters of the Boneta Bill are motivated by "greed."

Meanwhile, the abuse of conservation easements is just getting exposed.  This piece below at the Daily Caller shows that the issue has gone from think tank white papers to the main news.

 

The Boneta Bill has exposed a well-placed strain of opposition to rights of small farmers and farm culture, but the opposition has also exposed that right here in Virginia, there is an under-publicized movement against property rights.  So, we may as well make Virginia the center of that debate.  From Virginia Association of Counties (VACo), Piedmont Environmental Council ( PEC ), the League of Conservation Voters, etc., even Farm Bureau and Agribusiness, these organizations have met little exposure to their agendas, which use both Richmond and local government to advance them.  We don't want Richmond control, but local governments are being used to displace property rights in favor of well-heeled activist groups and private interests. 

 

Farmers and other property owners need protection, and since the proponents of such restrictions are showing that they can be less-than-polite and quite extremist when they are finally challenged, resorting to name calling and avoiding the merits, then Virginia will become the center of debate.  The fact that VACo pulled the farm legislation off its agenda last week when it was discovered that Martha was at the meeting shows that they believe they need to operate in darkness, and do not want this debate.  That's all the more reason why the debate must take place.

 

Mark

Green greed in the open spaces movement

http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/21/green-greed-in-the-open-spaces-movement/

Between overtures to the “ninety-nine percent,” elements of the limousine left have long managed to maintain their opulent one-percent lifestyle under the veil of green advocacy — usually at the expense of private property rights, and oftentimes, the less-privileged objects of their populist affections as well.

Terms like “open spaces” and “conservation easing” are what certain circles of progressive elites use to safeguard their progressive reputations while preserving their status as elite.
 This past week, City Council members of the southern California town of Escondido unanimously voted (Preview)

Play                   

(Show link)

Escondido City Council Voting - 08-14-13

bikermike721

Historic vote of Escondido city council to approve open space proposition of ECCHO!

(Show link)

to “conserve” former golf course property belonging to developer Michael Schlesinger as an “open space.” Schlesinger, unable to afford the annual $1 million in operational fees to sustain the golf course given its mere 125 members, decided to discontinue the business and instead use the land to develop 283 new homes.

This decision was blocked by the Council, who took it upon themselves to decide what the best purpose was for Schlesinger’s privately owned land. Though the Council’s move satisfied local residents who fancy the exclusive nature of their previously golf club-adjacent community, Schlesinger, being the rightful proprietor of the land, filed suit, finding the designation of his own land as an “open space” to be of no incidental use to him.

The Council-approved measure was titled, ironically, the “Citizens Property Rights Initiative.” San Diego Union-Tribune reporter Kirk Effinger noted the head-scratcher of a name: “Then there’s the measure’s title – ‘Citizens Property Rights Initiative.’ If I understand the premise correctly, they want the citizens of Escondido to affirm their property rights by taking away the property rights of someone else. Perfect.”

Lest there be any mistake, the Escondido Country Club & Community Homeowners Organization (ECCHO) explains that their mission is to “preserve the existing green belt” at the expense of private property is rights, because it is the “individual ‘good’ neighbor’s property rights” that “should be protected,” and “wealthy, out-of-town speculator” Schlesinger, you see, is a “’bad’ neighbor” whose rights are “not guaranteed or exclusive” (emphases mine).

ECCHO’s bizarrely illustrated standard of whose property rights are more equal than whose was apparently enough to convince a city government that it held the power to play favorites between the “good neighbors” and the “bad neighbors” and thus, whose basic rights ought to “guaranteed.”

While this game is mostly played on local turf, its players often descend from high places, with federal taxpayer funds to throw into the fight. In 2001, Senators Ted Kennedy and John Kerry pushed a land deal in Harvard, Massachusetts, setting aside $3 million of earmarked taxpayer money to buy “open space” in a plan that raised significant taxes on new homebuyers.

Tom Cotton (not the Arkansas congressman of the same name), a long-time member of the Watt Farm Committee and trustee of the Harvard Conservation Trust, helped steer a “permanent protection” of Watt Farm in Harvard as an annex of the Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge, raising $2.2 million from the Trust for Public Land to purchase 112 acres of the Cape Cod property.

As Cotton solicited funds from Harvard, Kerry and Kennedy led a delegation to acquire an additional $3 million in federal earmarks needed for the purchase. A perhaps overly excited Kerry crowed: “Much has been written about the ‘greatest generation’ that won World War II, but recently I’ve been asking people to think about what they’re going to say about this generation. That legacy will be defined by actions such as the preservation of open space.”

This sort of high-minded activism can have devastating effects on housing markets. In tandem with the efforts of Kennedy and the Cotton Club, the Massachusetts House of Representatives pushed a bill to finance the Cape land bank with transfer taxes passed on exclusively to prospective homebuyers and sellers.

In what the Boston Globe defended as a “fair and comparatively modest assessment,” a one percent “fee” was levied on real estate transactions with the first $100,000 exempt. That means the surcharge on a $500,000 transaction would be $4,000. This format was a counter-alternative to Gov. Paul Cellucci’s solution of using $30 million from the Massachusetts open space fund to purchase the land.

Though he would boast of his “ongoing effort to protect open spaces … and preserve the environment” as “a major success,” Kennedy apparently discounted how its implications risked derailing a vulnerable housing market. (Not unlike derailing an Oldsmobile into a tidal channel.)

“I’m not sure of [the Globe’s] definition of modest,” decried President Jerome Rappaport, Jr. of the Greater Boston Real Estate Board, “[B]ut to me, a $4,000 tax placed on me, the home buyer, is not modest, especially if I’m the only one being asked to fund a program that will benefit everyone who is already in the community I’m seeking to enter.”

Calling it a “discriminatory, elitist approach” by land bank proponents “to tax others for a program they want,” Association of Realtors President Richard Dils added, “While the wealthy might agree … that an additional $4,000 sales tax on a $500,000 home at closing time might not seem like much, a 1 or 2 percent tax imposed on young low- and middle-income buyers or on elderly, fixed-income sellers could severely limit their ability to enter the housing market.”

As economist Thomas Sowell wrote of the “disparate impact” of similar government-mandated “open spaces” on housing prices in post-1970s Northern California:
“Behind much of the lofty and pretty talk are some ugly and selfish realities. People who already own their homes in an upscale community pay no price for making it hard for others to move into their community. On the contrary, the value of the homes they already own shoots up when they restrict the supply of new homes…In other words, they can keep out the less affluent people — or, as they put it, ‘preserve the character of the community’ — while benefiting themselves economically in the name of green idealism.”

These local cases of private property rights being quietly stampeded in the name of “green preservation” may seem to have limited consequences, combined they pose great risks to rights all Americans deserve to have protected, and the precedent they set is troubling.

"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."  - Thomas Jefferson "

Boneta Update

Patricia Evans' e-mail included the full text of Mark Fitzgibbons' report on the VACo meeting. It seems to have been a rather lively meeting. If you have trouble using the Fauquier Free Citizen link below to read the full story, please e-mail Salolianigodagewi @ yahoo for a plain text copy:

"Things turned histrionic and nasty" After the Countycrats learned Martha Boneta was at the meeting, Larry Land of VACo announced that the scheduled discussion of farm legislation, including the mystery “Strawman Bill,” would not take place.  These are events further proving the need for farmers to have remedies against counties, as provided in the Virginia Farm Rights Protection Act.  Some, not all, Countycrats cannot be trusted with holding, and are unfit to hold, power with the force of government...

"That Woman" ( Martha Boneta ) Exposes VACo’s Hidden Agenda and More

http://fauquierfreecitizen.com/that-woman-exposes-vaco-hidden-agenda-and-more/

The Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) cancelled its so-called review of farm legislation after the Countycrats learned “that woman” was at its meeting at the Richmond Marriott Friday.

The Countycrats must be very afraid to speak about their farm agenda in front of “that woman.”

--

"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."  - Thomas Jefferson

Virginia Farm Rights Protection Act

Patricia Evans forwarded the full text of Mark Fitzgibbons' comments but I think they deserve to be read at their original site:

"Please read the text of the Virginia Farm Rights Protection Act from Mark Fitzgibbons posted below, Creating New Chapter 3.2 to Title 3.2, AGRICULTURE, ANIMAL CARE, AND FOOD

The Solution for Everyone: The Virginia Farm Rights Protection Act Explained

http://fauquierfreecitizen.com/the-solution-for-everyone-the-virginia-farm-rights-protection-act-explained/

We respectfully present the Virginia Farm Rights Protection Act to the On-Farm Activities Working Group, and the Virginia general public.

"

[Right. Please use that link to view the Fauquier Free Citizen web page. If your browser can't get the page to open, e-mail this web site, salolianigodagewi @ yahoo, and we'll send you a plain-text copy.]

"

Text of the Virginia Farm Rights Protection Act

Virginia Farm Rights Protection Act   http://fauquierfreecitizen.com/text-of-the-virginia-farm-rights-protection-act/

Creating New Chapter 3.2 to Title 3.2, AGRICULTURE, ANIMAL CARE, AND FOOD.
§ 3.2-310. Definitions.

As used in this chapter, “Farm Commerce” means any operation devoted to the bona fide husbandry, production and commerce of crops, or farm animals or fowl, or their fiber or feathers; things grown agriculturally from the earth and harvested such as fruits and vegetables of all kinds, herbs, nuts, edible fungi, tobacco, nursery, floral products, and seeds; meat, dairy, and poultry products; the production and harvest of products from silviculture activity; and their byproducts or value-added products.  “Farm Commerce” shall be construed broadly to include the commerce of farm-to-business and farm-to-consumer sales.  “Farm Commerce” shall include equine and other farm animal activities, husbandry-related events, and farm-related events.  For purposes of this chapter, the creation, use, and commerce of items such as art, crafts, pottery, literature, artifacts, furniture, food, beverages, natural oils and soap, honey, spun fiber, woven items, handmade jewelry, and other items that are traditional to Farm Commerce, reflect its culture, or are beneficial to the health, safety and welfare of farmers, their families, guests and property, are “Farm Commerce.”  On-farm services that are traditional to farms, agriculture and husbandry are “Farm Commerce.”  For purposes of this chapter, “Farm Commerce” shall not include any activity or the sale of any item prohibited by the Code of Virginia, except that no cap or limitation on revenues from Farm Commerce shall apply.  Items covered by this chapter grown or raised at the farm or on the farmer’s property, even if preserved, prepared, processed, canned, jarred, wrapped or packaged off-farm, are “Farm Commerce.” There shall be a rebuttable presumption that on-farm preparation, preserving, processing, canning, jarring, wrapping or packaging of items covered by this chapter are “Farm Commerce,” not industrial or manufacturing.

§ 3.2-311. Farm Commerce rights; restrictive ordinances.

A.  Farm Commerce shall be by right, and no county or locality shall adopt any ordinance that requires that a special exception or special use permit be obtained for any Farm Commerce activity in an area that is zoned as an agricultural district or classification.

B.  No county or locality shall enact zoning ordinances that would unreasonably restrict or regulate Farm Commerce in an agricultural district or classification unless such restrictions bear a direct and clearly articulated relationship to the health, safety, and general welfare of its citizens.  The burden shall be on the county or locality to articulate and establish the direct relationship to the health, safety and welfare of its citizens.

C.  No local ordinance regulating noise arising from activities and events at farms shall be more restrictive than that in the general noise ordinance.

D.  Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit any county or locality from requiring compliance with Title 54.1 for Professions and Occupations.

§ 3.2-312.  Constitutional rights.

A.  Any ordinance of a county or locality directed at persons, property or activities protected under this chapter that violates or unreasonably restricts the free exercise of rights guaranteed by the Virginia or United States Constitutions, shall be null and void; and any enforcement action of a county or locality against persons, property or activities that violates or unreasonably restricts such rights shall be deemed a violation of this chapter.  The burden of establishing the constitutionality of any ordinance or enforcement action, and the reasonableness thereof, shall be on the county or locality.

B.  For persons, property and activities protected by this chapter, (i) no county or locality may institute an administrative or other legal action except upon oath and affirmation of at least one individual; (ii) any administrative or other legal proceeding to enforce a county or local ordinance shall commence only with due process of law, and opportunity to confront witnesses; (iii) any investigations shall comply with the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and (iv) no county or locality may assess a fee for any administrative hearing or adjudication of first impression or on appeal in any administrative proceeding.

Sec. 3.2-313.  Remedies.

A.  Any county or locality that violates this chapter shall be liable to aggrieved persons in amounts equal to the fines and/or penalties that the county seeks to impose on such aggrieved persons, plus actual damages and attorneys fees.

B.  Any county or locality that willfully violates this chapter, or whose interpretation or enforcement of ordinances willfully operates in violation of this chapter, shall be liable to the aggrieved person for special treble damages, plus attorneys fees.

C.  Any official or employee of a county or locality who willfully violates this chapter, or whose interpretation or enforcement of duties willfully operates contrary to this chapter, shall be personally liable to aggrieved persons in the amount equal to the fines and/or penalties that such county official or employee seeks to impose on such aggrieved persons, plus actual damages and attorneys fees.

D.  The Attorney General shall establish a website where persons, including employees of counties or localities, may report violations of this chapter.

E.  No county or locality may take disciplinary actions against any employee for, or as a result of, reporting violations of this chapter.  Any county or locality that violates of this subsection shall pay the aggrieved person’s damages, including attorneys fees.

F.  The Attorney General of Virginia (i) shall have authority to institute legal proceedings in the courts of the respective county or locality, and (ii) may intervene in any proceeding, to enforce this chapter against any county or locality.

Sec. 3.2-314.  Effective date.

This chapter shall become effective July 1, 2014.

--
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."  - Thomas Jefferson"

Mark Fitzgibbons on Confidentiality

Forwarded by Patricia Evans:

"

Please write to Congress and forward this information to your media contacts.  Also, if you have information that can help, send it to Free Speech Coalition’s Dick Dingman at  freespeech@mindspring.com,  (703) 356-6912, or Mark Fitzgibbons at   mfitzgibbons@americantarget.com,   (703) 392-7676.  Let them know if you wish to keep the information and source confidential, or whether they can use that information as examples.

 

MEMO

 

RE:              Another Illegal Attempt to Silence Critics of Government

 

FROM:          Mark Fitzgibbons

 

Please join the Free Speech Coalition in exposing and stopping the states from requiring the filing of names and addresses of donors as a condition for nonprofit organizations to ask for contributions and support.

 

My attached letters to the House and Senate committees investigating IRS abuses of advocacy organizations and their donors follow on to the marvelous Free Speech Coalition’s July 23 letter explaining that the California and New York Attorneys General are violating federal law about confidentiality of large donors.

 

CA and NY now tell nonprofits that register to solicit contributions that they must file their Form 990 Schedule B showing names and addresses of their largest donors.  The FSC letter asks Congress to investigate and stop this illegal conduct before it spreads to other states.

 

My attached August 1 letters add a few points, including news that broke this week involving Lois Lerner, the “on-leave” head of IRS Exempt Organizations who hid behind the Fifth Amendment when called before Congress.

 

To protect the privacy of their large donors, some advocacy organizations are choosing not to register to solicit contributions in California and New York. 

 

My letters explain the First Amendment right to ask for contributions, and how effective advocacy depends on it.  So, besides the CA and NY AGs openly attacking First Amendment rights, some advocacy organizations are forfeiting revenues.

 

Advocacy organizations choosing to register have been told by state bureaucrats that their donor information will be kept “confidential.”

 

Notwithstanding the fact that these state offices are breaking the law, “trust us” hasn’t worked. 

 

My letters also show just some of the extensive collaboration between the National Association of State Charitable Officials and Lois Lerner.  The unlawful demands for donor information by the CA and NY AGs seem to smack of Lois Lerner’s approach.  It was reported this week that Ms. Lerner may have broken the law by disclosing confidential tax information in an FEC matter involving the American Future Fund.

 

We now have brave people across the country exposing and fighting the atmosphere of fear and intimidation caused by unlawful government conduct.

 

Please write to Congress and forward this information to your media contacts.

 

Also, if you have information that can help, send it to FSC’s Dick Dingman at  freespeech@mindspring.com,  (703) 356-6912, or me at   mfitzgibbons@americantarget.com,   (703) 392-7676.  Let us know if you wish to keep the information and source confidential, or whether we can use that information as examples.

 

Thank you.

 

Mark Fitzgibbons

President of Corporate Affairs

American Target Advertising, Inc.

 

P.S.  Both the IRS and states have disclosed confidential tax information, not just about opponents of the Obama administration, but even about everyday Americans such as Martha Boneta.  Martha is the “Pitchfork Protest” Virginia farmer who took on her corrupt county government and a local environmental group (on whose board sits Hillary Clinton’s close friend, former IRS Commissioner Peggy Richardson).  Martha was then audited by the IRS, but a county official knew about the audit before Martha did.  That is probable cause of illegal conduct.

 

P.P.S.  If you haven’t read them, Free Speech Coalition’s July 23 letters are attachments to my letters below

--
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."  - Thomas Jefferson"

Mark Fitzgibbons on Independence Day

From the Fauquier Free Citizen:

http://fauquierfreecitizen.com/on-a-foundation-of-these-principles/

The trouble with writing good Independence Day pieces is that everybody's too busy watching fireworks, going to the lake, going to Town Festivals, grilling, and generally partying, to read them. This web site's U.S. readership is down by more than half, and the comments look as if FFC is having the same effect.

Oh, well. I didn't plan to come to the computer center today, but had to take an injured cat to the vet, so here I am, noticing that youall are on vacation. (Sigh.) Enjoy it. The work of all us longsuffering underpaid computer nerds will be here when you come back...