Movement builds to seize Souter home
World Net Daily
07/11/05

THIS LAND WAS YOUR LAND Movement builds to seize Souter home If New Hampshire selectmen don't bite, ballot initiatives planned

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.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/souterhome.jpg
New Hampshire home of Justice David Souter

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.

Link: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp? ARTICLE_ID=45204

You know of course this is just a publicity stunt, and they're never going to do this right?

What a bunch of annoying pr*cks!  This kind of Karl Rove-esque vindictiveness is not only rotten and juvenile, it is poisonous to civility.  It makes guys like me have to fight the desire to find these Los Angeles entremanures and just bash their heads in.  I happen to know hatred and violence can only create more of the same, but I'm sick to death of these right-wing stunt monkeys coming out from everywhere!
>:(

You know of course this is just a publicity stunt, and they're never going to do this right?


They're making all the right moves and say they're serious, but I'll just have to wait and see.

What a bunch of annoying pr*cks!  This kind of Karl Rove-esque vindictiveness is not only rotten and juvenile, it is poisonous to civility.  It makes guys like me have to fight the desire to find these Los Angeles entremanures and just bash their heads in.  I happen to know hatred and violence can only create more of the same, but I'm sick to death of these right-wing stunt monkeys coming out from everywhere!

I know!  Where do these people get off thinking Souter has to abide by his own bad supreme court rulings!?  We mortals must praise Souter for knowing all.

Why just Souter?.  I say go for property of each one of them. >:(

Why just Souter?.  I say go for property of each one of them. >:(


Well not all nine of them, I say leave Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and O'Connor out of it since they tried to stop this bad ruling from taking place.

But if they seize Souter's house, I say why stop there?  Go for Ginsburg, Kennedy, Breyer and Steven's houses as well.

You know of course this is just a publicity stunt, and they're never going to do this right?


Yeah... and it's a shame that it won't get beyond the (oh so beautifully made) statement of initiating the proceedings. 

IF they do  actually manage to pull this off, though, after I recover from the shock (and the celebrating,) I will definitley have to start trying to clear a spot on my calendar to book a stay.  :)       

The point being what?  To intimidate the Court into reconsidering their decision?

Is the premise that if he ever imagined that the ruling might run counter to his own personal best interest, he might not have ruled as he did?  Hmm, I don't think I'd want justices making decisions based on their self interest anyway.

I haven't read the decision in its entirety, but I seriously doubt it would convince me.  Even so, this is a childish response and will accomplish nothing constructive (pardon the ironic pun).

The point being what?  To intimidate the Court into reconsidering their decision?

Is the premise that if he ever imagined that the ruling might run counter to his own personal best interest, he might not have ruled as he did?  Hmm, I don't think I'd want justices making decisions based on their self interest anyway.

I haven't read the decision in its entirety, but I seriously doubt it would convince me.  Even so, this is a childish response and will accomplish nothing constructive (pardon the ironic pun).


Maybe it's to make them see that they, just like us mere mortals, should be affected by their own rulings as well as the general population.

Souter made his bed, let him lay in it.

Maybe it's to make them see that they, just like us mere mortals, should be affected by their own rulings as well as the general population.



Gee, I think they know that.  ;)

Good for him.... ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;)

The point being what?  To intimidate the Court into reconsidering their decision?


That's precisely the point.  The piggies are displeased and they're squealing in their sties.  Let's put it another way--
If the Democrats had a solid lock on the other two branches of government, the Repugs would be calling the judiciary the savior of Constitutional rights against legislatures run amock.  I don't mean the Republican party of 20 or 40 years ago, I mean the christo-fascist spoiled brats running the GOP today.

The proposed museum of private property is just a vindictive stunt.  The idea in itself is completely daffy!  I'll wager the zoning laws would prohibit the building of such a museum there. 
Furthermore, if you've ever been to Weare, NH, you know it's just woods, scrub, and swamp!  It's criss-crossed with windy little roads riddled with frost heaves and potholes.  I grew up just down the road from there.  No developer in his right mind would invest in such a project Weare!  Your visitors would be squirrels, raccoons, foxes, and the occasional confused motorist stopping by to ask directions!  Even in Hillsborough County, the joke when somebody said he was from Weare was to say, "Where?  Where?"
;D :D

That's precisely the point.  The piggies are displeased and they're squealing in their sties. 


OK, and are you just going to roll over and accept it if this ever happens to you?  If somebody wants your property and you decide not to sell, do you want somebody else to come along and force you to sell it?

To me, this is a case where the wrods of Pastor Martin Niemöller really make sense.  While the reasoning is different, the point of doing nothing is all to obvious:

"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me."

At the moment, they are not trying to take your home, your business, your paretn's home, or any property that matters to you.  But if this "precident" stands, then it will not be long until "Personal Property" is only a hollow principal.  I do not care if it was a house, a vacant lot, or a garbage dump.  Nobody (including the Government) has the right to take private property away from one person and give it to another.  If that stands, then the Revolution in 1776 is nothing but a sham.  I am sure the "Founding Fathers" are all rolling over in their graves.

OK, and are you just going to roll over and accept it if this ever happens to you? 


Thanks to Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Breyer and Stevens deciding that "public use" means any public "purpose,"  we have no choiice but to roll over and accept it. 

They have successfully rendered the American Dream just that -- a dream and nothing more.  Property ownership in America is now, officially, nothing more than an illusion -- an illusion millions of Americans scrimp and scrape to achieve and/or maintain... and for what?  So that after 30 years of hard work and sacrifices to pay a mortgage, or after multiple generations of struggling to keep a home in the family or even after years of finally saving up enough for that downpayment and barely having your moving boxes unpacked, you can be forced to sell below fair market value to make way for a Super Wal-Mart.* 

*Disclaimer -- To my knowledge Wal-mart has neither obtained nor petitioned to obtain land under the new interpretation of "public use" handed down in this ruling.  I chose them as an example because they're an expanding American company whose name is a household word.

I totally agree with those opposed to this ruling, and hope Congress soon sets it aright through legislation, which it can do without an amendment.

I totally agree with those opposed to this ruling, and hope Congress soon sets it aright through legislation, which it can do without an amendment.


The problem is that it may not be possible.

This is why it is so important that the Justices of the Supreme Court need to look at the intention of the Founding Fathers, not just what was written.  Any time they decide to change something like this, it sets a dangerous precident.This is also why I am totally against "Judicial Legislation".

I take The Constitution very seriously.  It is very clear in what it outlines, and part of this is a 3-part Government.  Each one counters the other.  But more and more over the last 20+ years, the Judicial has been taking more and more power from the other 2.  We see this any time a Judge "reinterprets" a law.  Granted, sometimes it is nessicary (Brown Vs. Board Of Education).  But it seems that modern judges are doing it to try and make the Country fit their own world view.

Because this is the US Supreme Court, it may be that this "interpretation" will have to stand until either a future court overturns this decision, or until an Ammendment is made to the Constitution.  This is one of the few cases where I feel the Supreme Court has totally blown it.

OK, and are you just going to roll over and accept it if this ever happens to you?  If somebody wants your property and you decide not to sell, do you want somebody else to come along and force you to sell it?

To me, this is a case where the wrods of Pastor Martin Niemöller really make sense.  While the reasoning is different, the point of doing nothing is all to obvious:

"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me."

At the moment, they are not trying to take your home, your business, your paretn's home, or any property that matters to you.  But if this "precident" stands, then it will not be long until "Personal Property" is only a hollow principal.  I do not care if it was a house, a vacant lot, or a garbage dump.  Nobody (including the Government) has the right to take private property away from one person and give it to another.  If that stands, then the Revolution in 1776 is nothing but a sham.  I am sure the "Founding Fathers" are all rolling over in their graves.

No, I too oppose the ruling.  I also oppose right-wing dopes and their stupid stunts.  I disagree with Pat Buchanan, but I don't approve of throwing salad dressing on him.  That's not a good way to express one's opposition.  Y'dig?

No, I too oppose the ruling.  I also oppose right-wing dopes and their stupid stunts.  I disagree with Pat Buchanan, but I don't approve of throwing salad dressing on him.  That's not a good way to express one's opposition.  Y'dig?


I heard the Kimmer (local radio personality) say he saw a real poll (not an internet poll) that showed 94% of Americans had an unfavorable view of the supreme court's decision, so this cuts across all party lines.

The court did say it didn't like seizing homes for economic development and encouraged states to pass laws against it.  My opinion is now one of the best times for a constitutional amendment.

I heard the Kimmer (local radio personality) say he saw a real poll (not an internet poll) that showed 94% of Americans had an unfavorable view of the supreme court's decision, so this cuts across all party lines.

The court did say it didn't like seizing homes for economic development and encouraged states to pass laws against it.  My opinion is now one of the best times for a constitutional amendment.


We continue to agree that this discision is terrible, but I don't think an amendment is necessary.  I think, I may be wrong, that a law, passed by both houses of congress and signed by the Pres clarifying the extent of eminant domain would suffice, and I think that such a law could easilly pass both houses of Congress.  What Lil' Georgie would do is, as alwaysd, a mystery.