Skip to comments.Critic tries to get Souter's home seized
Posted on 07/01/2005 6:16:48 PM PDT by Racehorse
A critic of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that governments may seize private property for economic development is suggesting the process be used to replace Justice David Souter's New Hampshire home with a hotel.
"The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare," Logan Darrow Clements wrote in a fax to town officials in Weare Tuesday.
[. . .]
Clements is CEO of Los Angeles-based Freestar Media, which fights "abusive" government. "This is not a prank," he said in a news release on the Freestar Media web site.
[. . .]
Police cars were parked at the edge of Souter's property Tuesday in response to the letter. "It was a precaution, just being protective," said police Lt. Mark Bodanza. Souter was assaulted while jogging in Washington in May 2004.
Clements' letter was given to the board of selectmen. If the five-member board were to endorse the hotel project, zoning laws would have to be changed and the hotel would have to get approval from the planning board.
"At this point, the Board of Selectmen are taking no action," chairwoman Laura Buono said Wednesday in an e-mail.
"Am I taking this seriously? But of course," said Charles Meany, Weare's code enforcement officer. "If it is their right to pursue this type of end, then by all means let the process begin."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Build it. Build it.
Hm. A hotel billed as being on land seized from a US Supreme Court justice might be an attraction to some.
I'm looking to make reservations ASAP...I hope they get it seized quickly.
You've gotta love his attitude. I think he might be enjoying this as much as I am.
funny how the MSM is just starting to catch on to this though....
They are alittle slow aren't they?
I'm amazed they didn't stuff it down the memory hole.
Oh yes! I think this one has real viability and will benefit the community greatly!
Why bother with a Hotel. If they will take the house from him and sell it to me for fair market value. I promise to pay a higher tax to the city. This should meet the criteria of the Supreme Court ruling.
hehe good stuff and an excellent idea.
I can't say whether the rest of this is true; but the RUMORS I have heard are:
1.) The hotel will be called the LIBERTY LOST HOTEL
2.) The intent is to make this a chain, with 5 hotels on each of the justice's who supported this ruling.
For now, taking Souter's property sounds good to me. What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.
I'm planning to be there in the next week or two.
"Souter's two-story colonial farmhouse is assessed at just over $100,000 and brought in $2,895 in property taxes last year."
Does that seem high to anyone else? My house is appraised at 140k and I paid around $1,000 in property taxes last year (in the deep south).
"The hotel will be called the LIBERTY LOST HOTEL"
How about the name 'The Supreme Weasel Inn'
To boot the weasel off his land via his own ruling will be sweet like sugar. Taste his own medicine this turncoat tyrant.
I still like reading it. Especially as it climbs up the mainstream ladder. I think we would all like to see justice brought to this justice.
As well it should be and acted upon. This was the worst decision the supreme court has ever passed down! If I gave my thoughts on the issue, I'd be banned from FR for graphic and descriptive language not tolerated here!
It sounds like a great way to prove a point; HOWEVER, if this is taken seriously then what is to keep the other residents from having their property seized. Instead of trying to get his land taken from him, they should be running their @$$es off trying to prevent such a ruling from ever occuring. Love him or hate him, once your neighbor's property falls, yours could be next.
In case folks want to encourage the Weare, N.H., selectmen who have the power to take Judge Souter's house by eminent domain so that it can be replaced by a higher-tax-paying hotel, here are the Selectmen's addresses.
No sales tax in NH. Everything runs off property taxes.
Thanks for your post. Bump.
I wrote an e-mail to him offering to invest in the Lost Freedom Hotel project, the day Rush & Drudge mentioned ths intiative. He was undoubtedly swamped. Great idea.
It is great to see Americans so aware of, & energized in defense of, private property rights by addressing threats, this terrible precedent (Kelo v. New London), and becoming aware of the downside of activist Judges. I have been concerned with both of these related issues for about a decade. I even had brief, separate, conversational encounters with two of the "good" Justices (Scalia & Thomas) in the Kelo case about 6 or 7 years ago re: "The Takings Clause" of the 5th Amendment designed to protect private property from arbitrary seizures, but providing for Eminent Domain for certain "public use" (NOT "public purpose") . It was clear they were anxious to see some good cases walk toward them. I doubt if they would have predicted the bizarre outcome in Kelo, though.
For those of us who are deeply concerned with protection of Private Property from improper application of Eminent Domain in contravention of the Original Intent of the Founders in the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause, I am registering a warning or a concern:
I think AG (& potential USSC Nominee) Alberto Gonzales is very weak on Private Property Rights and lacks an understanding of orignainl intent of the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause (Eminent Domain) based both upon some cases when he ws at the texas Supreme Ct. (e.g., FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000))
and, more recently and significantly, upon his NOT having joined in the Kelo case on the side of property owner. My understanding ws that he had sided with the League of Cities against Kelo while WH Counsel.
As some have frequently observed, he certainly believes in a "Living Constitution" and is NOT a strict constructionist or an Originalist, but rather tends toward the Activist side, per National Review Online and others.
He has been sharply critical of Priscilla Owen in some Texas Supreme Ct. decisions when they were both on that Ct. as Justices, and he has been quoted as being sharply criticial fo Janice Rogers Brown, including being quoted by People for the American Way in their ultra-leftist propaganda.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.