Thread: Movement builds to seize Souter home

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=45204


THIS LAND WAS YOUR LAND
Movement builds to seize Souter home
If New Hampshire selectmen don't bite, ballot initiatives planned
Posted: July 11, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern



Justice David Souter


New Hampshire home of Justice David Souter


© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Supreme Court Justice David Souter probably never expected his vote to permit a Connecticut town the power to seize the homes of citizens would come back to haunt him.

But it may.

An effort by a Los Angeles advertising entrepreneur to persuade the city fathers of Weare, N.H., to turn the tables on Souter by seizing his home and building a hotel on the site is gaining steam.


Logan Darrow Clements and his company, Free Star Media, are now collecting online contributions from the public to support the project.

"There's lots of work that still needs to be done to accomplish our objectives," Clements told WND. "But I am confident we can be successful. This is a way ordinary Americans can fight back – not just against Souter, but against local officials who abuse their authority and callously seize the homes of law-abiding citizens out of sheer greed."

The town of Weare has been inundated with calls in support of the proposal since WND first publicized the story of how Clements plans to turn eminent domain against one of its champions. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 two weeks ago that local towns and cities can seize homes and private businesses through eminent domain and turn the properties over to private developers for no other reason than the fact that it would result in higher tax revenues for the municipality.


"There are so many people who have come out of the woodwork to support me," Clements said. "Government has just gotten far too big and far too powerful. ... We're trying to make a larger point that we're losing freedom so fast in America that we have to stop what we're doing and take a stand and fight it."

A few days after the ruling, Clements faxed a request to Chip Meany, the code enforcement officer of Weare, seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road, the present location of Souter's home.

"Am I taking this seriously? But of course," Meany told the Associated Press. "In lieu of the recent Supreme Court decision, I would imagine that some people are pretty much upset. If it is their right to pursue this type of end, then by all means let the process begin."

Clements wants to build "The Lost Liberty Hotel" on the property as a kind of museum commemorating the lost right to private property in America.

The Kelo v. City of New London decision allows the New London, Conn., government to seize the homes and businesses of residents to facilitate the building of an office complex that would provide economic benefits to the area and more tax revenue to the city.

Though the practice of eminent domain is provided for in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, the case is significant because the seizure is for private development and not for "public use," such as a highway or bridge. The decision has been roundly criticized by property-rights activists and limited-government commentators.

The first step in the process, said Clements, is to get the Weare Board of Selectmen to vote in favor of the seizure. However, even if that action is unsuccessful, Clements says citizens in the town can and will draft a ballot initiative to accomplish the objective.

Sweet, i love it!

Pro

The funny thing is that they may actully pull it off and take his home.

Good i hope they do, do it.

Pro

This is a beautiful example of what Americans can do when they make up their minds to do something.

I hope they do it to all the SCOTUS judges. Raze all of their homes and put them out onto the streets. Maybe that will wake them up and make them realize that they aren't as powerful as they think they are.

Absolutely Dmann, I suggested to them that they open at least 5 liberty hotels.

I must say that this idea does strike a cord of justice. However, will it actually lead to justice for the Justice or will Souter win in the end?

Has anyone checked to see if Justice Souter is eager to get rid of his home? Perhaps he already has his eye on another sprawling estate and wants to move anyway. In that case, all this will do is get him a premium price for his current property and help him "move up" to a better home in which to retire.

The only value of this "taking of property" is if he doesn't want it to happen. At this point isn't it only based on a potentially faulty assumption? Has anyone evidence that he doesn't want to rid himself of his current property?

http://www.concordmonitor.com

Weare

Souter hotel proposal catches fire
Eminent domain ruling has inflamed many

By MEG HECKMAN
Monitor staff
July 13. 2005 8:00AM


The e-mails arrived with spam-like ferocity, dozens, then hundreds, at a time, begging Weare's five selectmen to seize Supreme Court Justice David Souter's homestead and allow a California activist to replace it with a would-be tourist haunt called the Lost Liberty Hotel.

For more than two weeks, Logan Clements has championed his plan, explaining online and in person that it's not a prank but a test - and protest - of the recent Supreme Court decision allowing local governments to seize private property from one owner and turn it over to another, if doing so would benefit a community.

Thousands of people have latched onto Clements's idea, spawning a Web-based crusade to topple Souter's farmhouse on the southern edge of town.

Town hall is politely taking phone calls and letters, explaining that Clements must submit a formal building plan before officials can get involved. Meanwhile, all the attention on the judge's home - including numerous postings that include his address and, in one case, a satellite map of his neighborhood - have local police keeping a close eye on the area.

Souter's office declined to comment on the plan this week and an e-mail from Clements explained that he would be unable to return most media inquiries until he raised enough money to hire clerical staff. But type "Weare" and "Lost Liberty Hotel" into the Google search engine and your computer will spit back about 40,000 hits. Yes, there are misconceptions, such as the frequent assumption that Weare has a city council, but many bloggers are itching to experiment with what the court's ruling allows, preferably in Souter's hometown.
---ADVERTISEMENT---

"Let's all send letters to the Weare, NH city council telling them we would love to take a vacation there when the Lost Liberty Hotel is completed. Fall colors are amazing in that part of the country," one person wrote on a discussion board at the GeorgeWBush.org Web site.

The board of selectmenhas received thousands of e-mails in the last couple of weeks, but it can't take any action until Clements crafts an official building plan, said chairman Laura Buono. In casual discussions, however, selectmen were dubious about the plan.

"It seemed like the board wasn't interested in taking anyone's property," she said, adding that Souter's land is ill-suited to a hotel. "They've definitely made the statement they've set out to make, but if you look at it, it's an 8 acre parcel. . . . It's not going to support a hotel. It's maybe a good area for a bed and breakfast, but that's not really going to do the job they hope it to do, in my opinion."

Still, Clements remains undaunted. He appeared last night on Court TV and has been a regular visitor to chat rooms and Web sites with a Libertarian bent. Clements is the CEO of Freestar Media, a Los Angeles-based outfit that fights "abusive" government through a Web site, a fledgling cable show and efforts such as the one in Weare. Clements is also one of thousands of people planning to move to New Hampshire soon as part of the Free State Project, a group that supports limiting government powers.

Freestar's Web site includes daily updates on the project and, coming soon, Lost Liberty Hotel merchandise. Visitors are asked to help drum up cash to hire lawyers and a developer by purchasing ads on the site or to offer menu options for the Just Desserts Café (Anyone for "Eminent Romaine Salad with a side of your neighbor's house dressing" or a "Takeover Turkey Club?")

For some, it's a half-joking idea that points to what they say is the absurdity of the court's ruling. Others see it as a serious business venture tinged with political revenge. But at least one member of the Free State Project thinks the whole thing is a bad idea.

Mike Fisher, a Newmarket resident who was recently arrested for performing a manicure without a license, vowed to protect Souter's home even if it means standing in front of bulldozers.

"Even Mr. Souter does not deserve to have his home taken by eminent domain," Fisher wrote on NhFree.com. "Taking away a family's home is immoral."

------ End of article

By MEG HECKMAN

Monitor staff

Originally Posted by Steve

I must say that this idea does strike a cord of justice. However, will it actually lead to justice for the Justice or will Souter win in the end?

Has anyone checked to see if Justice Souter is eager to get rid of his home? Perhaps he already has his eye on another sprawling estate and wants to move anyway. In that case, all this will do is get him a premium price for his current property and help him "move up" to a better home in which to retire.

The only value of this "taking of property" is if he doesn't want it to happen. At this point isn't it only based on a potentially faulty assumption? Has anyone evidence that he doesn't want to rid himself of his current property?

As far as I can tell, he is not speaking to the media or anyone else, but you can see it will be a fight if the town selectman are saying that the property isnt good enough for a hotel. He will not get premium price if the land is taken, he should get what the folks in New London, CT got.