The “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act of 2023” is Stunning Legislation

The “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act of 2023” and the Legal Problems with Eminent Domain

Courtesy of DVIDS DVIDSHub

In my day job as an attorney and in my writing, I read a lot of proposed legislation and law.  But I’ve never read anything quite like this.  The “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act of 2023” (the “Disclosure Act”) is a stunning piece of proposed legislation that seeks to force the federal executive to declassify all government records relating to UFO’s and “non-human intelligence”, and asserts eminent domain over all recovered technologies and ‘non-human biological’ material. 

Frankly, since 2020 when I started following the growing scandal in Washington D.C. over this issue, I have had trouble believing it.  And rightly so.  Claims of a US Military and Intelligence agency coverup of UFO’s and the existence of extraterrestrials visiting Earth now abound in the halls of Congress, for better or worse, and for whatever ultimate purpose (CBS News). The rumors are flying.  But to date, little to no credible documentary evidence or scientific data directly proving these claims outside of the personal testimony of multiple whistleblowers and former intelligence officials, most notably among them former intelligence official David Grusch, has been offered (The Hill.) There is simply little public, non-classified evidence to prove these stunning assertions. 

But that’s not to say that there isn’t plenty of classified intelligence being hoarded by the US government, and tending to prove these incredible assertions.  And Congress now seems to believe that there is truth to these allegations and wants to share as much with the public as it reasonably can.  It also wants to seize the materials and biologics transferred by previous administrations to private contractors.  To that end, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD), Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), among others, have proposed the Disclosure Act, as an amendment to the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”).  This is as serious and bipartisan as it ever gets in Washington.

This is nothing short of extraordinary legislation (Senate Democrats.)  The proposed legislation now working its way through Congress seems to come on the heels of a long-term secret congressional investigation by the intelligence committees into allegations that the military and executive branch have been broadly concealing a multi-decade UFO crash retrieval and reverse engineering program from Congress, and illegally using Congressionally appropriated funds and resources to conduct this program without congressional oversight (Id.)  These allegations being what they are, they directly concern the fundamentals of American democracy, namely the constitutional authority of Congress to appropriate funds and conduct proper oversight of the executive branch.

1. What the Proposed Disclosure Act Does

This proposed legislation does a number of things.  First, it states clearly that credible evidence and testimony indicates that Congress and some elements of the Executive branch have not been informed of ongoing programs regarding UFO’s, non-human intelligence, and technologies of unknown origin (Disclosure Act, Section 2(4)(6)) that all records relating to what is defined as UFO’s or UAP should hold the presumption of immediate disclosure to the public (Section 2(2)) and should be immediately disclosed pending review by appropriate government agencies, and goes on to actually define, for the first time in federal statute, the term “non-human intelligence” (Section 3(12).) 

2. Eminent Domain and Initial Legal Problems 

The proposed legislation also purports to require federal authorities to “exercise eminent domain over any and all recovered technologies of unknown origin and biological evidence of non-human intelligence that may be controlled by private persons or entities in the interests of the public good.” (Section 10(a).).  

There has been some commentary about this provision in the media and what it means, but little to no serious analysis of the legal parameters here.  They’ve mostly been ignored.

First, the federal government, as part of its sovereign constitutional powers, has the right to take private property for legitimate public use without the consent of the owner (U.S. Const., Amendment V; Forest Preserve Dist. of Du Page County v. West Suburban Bank, 161 Ill. 2d 448, 204 Ill. Dec. 269, 641 N.E.2d 493 (1994).)  The Federal Constitution provides for this authority, known as eminent domain.  To the extent that one can consider UFO’s and deceased aliens anyone’s property, the government may assert eminent domain over them.  Moreover, eminent domain will almost always require a condemnation action by the government, in other words a federal lawsuit against the individuals and companies known to have the material that the government wants.  

In addition, in the event that, as Congress seems to believe, private individuals or companies actually have material meeting the definition of recovered technology or biological evidence of non-human intelligence, litigation filed by the government to recover this property would give these persons or companies the opportunity to dispute the “necessity” of the taking, and to demand that the government compensate them for the property taken.  

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires payment of just compensation for property taken by the government, providing, “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation (U.S. Const., Amendment V.; Olson v. United States, 292 U.S. 246, 255, 54 S. Ct. 704, 78 L. Ed. 1236 (1934).  Essentially, the law requires that the government pay ‘fair market value’ for the property taken, and place the owner of the property in as good of an economic position as if the property had not been taken (Id.) The "guiding principle of just compensation … is that the owner 'must be made whole but is not entitled to more’." (U.S. v. 564.54 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Monroe and Pike Counties, Pa., 441 U.S. 506, 516, 99 S. Ct. 1854, 60 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1979), quoting Olson v. United States, 292 U.S. 246, 255, 54 S. Ct. 704, 78 L. Ed. 1236 (1934).). 

This is the federal law as it currently stands.  In the context of eminent domain, the federal government is going to be required to reimburse private aerospace for something that it seems the government may have recovered and given them for free in the first place.  In addition to being a legal issue, this is also ethically questionable.  Further, if this material exists, a federal court would be required to determine its fair market value.  The valuation for reimbursement of any and all of this material would be a huge task, highly speculative and, depending on the nature of the technology and whether any advancements have been made with it, hugely expensive.  If actual evidence of biological entities is also involved here, then the valuation issue becomes even more complex.  

Overall, the eminent domain provision of this proposed legislation is sure to cause a huge amount of groundbreaking litigation, changing the legal landscape and the contours of the federal judiciary’s interpretation of the 5th Amendment’s takings clause.  The legal issues in the legislation more broadly are many and complex, and I have barely scratched the surface here.  But this is an incredible piece of legislation which I hope is passed.  The goal of transparency is laudable.  Maybe then we’ll all figure out what is really going on here.  More to come on this.

DISCLAIMER:  “The information you obtain in this newsletter is not, nor is it intended to be, a substitute for personal legal advice.  You should consult with an attorney regarding personal legal advice specific to your own situation. Further, reading, interacting with, or reposting this blog post or website in any way does not form an attorney-client relationship with Ryan Knutson, Esq. or Knutson Law Offices."