Souter's home to be taken?

[John]

Hey, maybe he would just hand it over.  You know, for the "publiK good."
He's good like that.  Right?

[John]

FSP site home page has a link to Drudge on this . . .
So far I have not seen the customary "FSP does not . . . " 

[John]

Today's Union Leader political cartoon (taken from the LA Times) is OK, but seems to be missing "our friend" mr. souter as the driver.
SPIT! David Souter SUCKS!

Maybe he will give up his NH place; he seems to like DC much better anyway.

HEY!  MR. Souter, please stay in DC since you seem to love that kind of nonsence.
SPITS AGAIN!

[Geezer]

Press Release
For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Caf?" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

# # #

Logan Darrow Clements
Freestar Media, LLC

Phone 310-593-4843
logan@freestarmedia.com
http://www.freestarmedia.com


http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

[Michael Fisher]

Does anyone in this forum live in the town of weane? With only 5 selectmen just a few people in office could accomplish the goal of stealing souters house.

If this attempt to take Souter's house is indeed a form of satire that we should laugh at instead of protesting against, then why would we actually try to make it happen?? And why did the Freestar Media person say in the press releases that he was "serious" about doing this?

From the story:  " 'This is not a prank' said Clements."

This violates ALL of our principles if it is to be pursued or even taken seriously.? ?

[AlanM]

Does anyone in this forum live in the town of weane? With only 5 selectmen just a few people in office could accomplish the goal of stealing souters house.

If this attempt to take Souter's house is indeed a form of satire that we should laugh at instead of protesting against, then why would we actually try to make it happen?? And why did the Freestar Media person say in the press releases that he was "serious" about doing this?

From the story:? " 'This is not a prank' said Clements."

This violates ALL of our principles if it is to be pursued or even taken seriously.? ?

I do not support any REAL action to take his home. You are right that this violates our principles. It is fun, (for me at least), to think of it happening, but only as a fantasy, not as a reality.

[AlanM]

Check out this presentation from the freestar site.
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

Is it still a serious option that they want to take Souter's home? I don't think so.

[FTL_Ian]

Seems like self defense against a violent thug to me.   

[jgmaynard]

This IS self-defense.

One time, I was sleeping and heard someone in my house, walking up the stairs to where my girlfriend and I were sleeping. I knew I could be injured (and God KNOWS what could have happened to her!). And, I am VERY non-violent and haven't been in a fistfight since I was in Jr. High. But, I grabbed a weapon, and confronted the intruder. I DID give him ONE chance to get out. He took it. Lucky for him.

There comes a point where one must temporarily set aside one principle to stand for another. Otherwise, you will see nothing left for which to stand. Taking one or five homes to save MILLIONS is a small price to pay for freedom.

In, IIRC, 1774, the people of New Hampshire rode a cannon up to the home of the British Governor, and told him to GET OUT of the state. No shot was ever fired, and he left. Perhaps we should do the same with driving a bulldozer up to Souter's home. Ehhh? Ehh?

JM

[jgmaynard]

Principle is great, but a frog in slowly boiling water has to JUMP OUT! Not discuss theory.

And no, this letter probably can't generate results, but some other things can, and they are under way. Patience, young padawan. More details within a week.

JM

[jgmaynard]

We could also have a march up Cilley Hill Road to Souter's home..... Below is a map of the area, as well as a satelitte image of his home. It's a dead-end street, so there is only one route to the property, and woods and properties all around it. If we stay non-violent (which we should, and will), but they try to initiate violence upon us, we could easily book into the woods. 

JM

[BarryD]

I absolutely believe that taking his home is the right thing to do. While it may be against our common "principles", this is an opportunity for real media exposure to this problem. The media that have reported on it (not the MSM unsurprisingly) understand the inherent tounge-in-cheek aspect of this event.

These SCOTUS justices are clearly not in touch with reality. I want this hotel issue to be like a Taser gun to Souter's nutsack. I want to see if he becomes as outraged as the people of New London. I want to see if this starts to go through, if CNN and the rest of socialist media cover it.

I'm fed with "us" discussing economic philosophy, quoting Jefferson and Ghandi and worrying that we might not get 20k people to move to NH by next August. Do you not see the opportunities this provides? We need protesters down in New London with FSP flags. We need to move Porcfest to the new hotel if, and when, it happens. I'm actively supporting this hotel. I've already requested to be an investor and have pledged money to the effort. I want action, not pontificating.

Sorry if this is disjointed, rambling or acerbic. Rough day at work and wanting to be in NH ASAP are to blame.

Barry

[KBCraig]

If this attempt to take Souter's house is indeed a form of satire that we should laugh at instead of protesting against, then why would we actually try to make it happen?  And why did the Freestar Media person say in the press releases that he was "serious" about doing this?

From the story:  " 'This is not a prank' said Clements."

He (Clements) might indeed be serious about it. He can't make it happen, and I'm certain he knows that, so no matter how much he might like to actually go through with it, the attempt itself is not serious.

My support for this action is strictly for publicly pointing out the hypocrisy of Souter, and how his ruling can be used against anyone, including him.

Kevin

[MSTCrowT]

Well, where does his property start?  We'd probably want to do it at the end of his driveway, and he may have a long driveway...  Can't tell from the pic.

[Pat McCotter]

http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=3537143

"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."