Protest near Souter's Weare home, July 17th

[Kat Kanning]

Dave, you know he's on a dead end street that no one drives down?

[Russell Kanning]

The hotel will fix that

[Dave Ridley]

Is there a location within a half mile or so that is a fairly busy street where we could be seen by more than 2 or 3 motorists per minute?  Otherwise I'm thinking we protest ten meters away from his place. 

Also what is his address?  Need this today for out
going LTE's

Integrity even if you can't be here you can help by disseminating our news release to NH media or writing an LTE or calling talk radio about this.  thanks! 

[Dave Ridley]

Woo hoo we made the Telegraph in London yesterday !
Or at least Clements did.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/10/wjudge10.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/10/ixworld.html

A US Supreme Court Judge could lose his country farmhouse thanks to a controversial law which he himself voted to bring in.

Furious protesters are plotting to seize David Souter's $150,000 (?86,400) 19th century home and turn it into a hotel after he voted to give towns the legal right to make compulsory purchases. They view his support for the legislation as an affront to every American's inviolable right to personal property.
   
Judge Souter
Judge Souter

In retaliation, they are determined to make him pay with the loss of his home in the countryside outside the town of Weare in New Hampshire, where the official state motto is "Live Free or Die". The hotel would be called The Lost Freedom, and its restaurant, The Just Desserts.

Under the new law, a town may issue a compulsory purchase order - known in America as purchase by "eminent domain" - on a private property and pass it on to a commercial developer if it considers that the development would benefit the town and its people as a whole.

Mr Souter cast the swing vote in the unpopular 5-to-4 court decision in the case of Kelo vs City of New London, Connecticut.

Opinion polls show that 95 per cent of Americans disapprove of the ruling and believe that compulsory purchase should be used only to transfer ownership of blighted property which has become a danger to the community.

Logan Darrow Clements is the publishing entrepreneur and free-markets campaigner behind the counter-attack.

"By his own ruling, Weare the town has the justification for such an action because the hotel project we are submitting will benefit the town by creating new jobs and a higher tax revenue," he said.

According to town officials, the audacious bid has a chance of success. "As far as we are concerned, we need to take this seriously under these new rules and are setting up meetings," said Charles Meany, Weare's official in charge of planning.

He warned, however, that Mr Souter's house was in a protected rural area.

Weare, population 8,500, has five councillors, known as "selectmen", who have not so far commented. Even if they decide not to order Mr Souter to sell his house, the judge will be at the mercy of the townspeople.

"The rules are that if the selectmen say no, Mr Clements can put the plan to the town on an electoral ballot next spring," Mr Meany said.

Mr Clements, 36, who made his fortune with a business magazine called American Ventures, said: "I only announced the plan six days ago, but since then I have had 5,000 offers of help from venture capitalists wanting to put in money, to architects wanting to draw the plans."

Mr Souter, who has had his house in Weare for years and is expected to spend the summer there, might be surprised by the reaction of old acquaintances in the village.

"We just had a senior citizens' meeting, and we don't like this ruling, we don't like it at all," said June Eaton, 67.

"We can't imagine what Mr Souter thinks he is doing: he is certainly not thinking of other people, and if he loses his house, he deserves it."

A Supreme Court spokesman said that the judge had "no comment" on his ruling or its consequences.
# The US Supreme Court is tipped to lose another chief justice this week. William Rehnquist, 80, who is suffering from thyroid cancer, is widely expected to resign.

His departure will set the stage for a tumultuous struggle between liberal and conservative groups over President Bush's nomination of two new justices following the earlier resignation of Sandra Day O'Connor, a moderate voice.

[Russell Kanning]

 

[John]

I just got through and mentioned this protest on-air to the most popular Sunday-night-radio-show in the country.  Drudge.

[Kat Kanning]

Wow    Good work, John!

[Dave Ridley]

Great work John!

[Dave Ridley]

Could use some help disseminating this news release to NH media.? If possible plz let us know via this thread who you have sent the release to.

NH: Protest outside Judge Souter's house Sunday

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
7/14/05
Weare, New Hampshire

U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter lives at 34 Cilley Hill Rd. in Weare, N.H.
Why do you need to know this?  Because that's where you'll be Sunday, July
17 at 1:00 p.m, those of you who want want to take a stand against his decision to reduce
your property rights. 

Ultimately, you could say there is - or was - an unspoken contract between the people
and their government.  You don't show up at our homes with bulldozers, and we won't
show up at yours with signs.  This month, in the already infamous Kelo vs. New London
decision, the court broke that contract, with David Souter's support.  He
voted with the majority, not merely to allow but to *support* vicious land grabs
against homeowners.

It's beyond our poor power to counter every evil this man has loosed upon us.  But
we *can* rally outside his home to support the efforts of Free Stater Logan Clements,
who has turned the tables on this robed tyrant by asking the city of Weare to let
him demolish the Souter home and build a hotel in its place.   We'll have signs that say
"Give Souter the Booter!"

What:  Protest outside U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter's house
When: Sunday, July 17 1:00 - 2:00 PM
Where: 34 Cilley Hill Road, Weare, N.H.
Why: To express our opposition to Souter's ruling against property rights in Kelo vs. New London.  And to support Free Stater Logan Clements' effort to fight back.  Clements has asked the town of Weare to give him Souter's propety so he can build the "Lost Liberty Hotel" there.
Who:  Activists from NHfree.com and whoever wants to come!  Projected turnout: 15
Contacts: Dave Ridley (603) 721-1490  Backup:  Kat Dillon (603) 357-2049

[Michael Fisher]

Perhaps I should make another press release about the counter-protest to protect Souter's home from eminent domain.

[Dave Ridley]

Ive sent the release to wkbk radio, concord moniotr, union leader so far but am slo for lack of laptop

[John]

For information purposes I tried to take a neutral stance (the last time I have done so was on the issue on the Drudge show). ?However, I am not neutral.

Eminent Domain Sucks!
Those who wish to be part of a "social contract" which allowes others to determine what the best use of one's own property is will make that very clear on July 17. ?BTW, does Clements own anything?

I will stand against this madness!
Is Clements just another anti-FSP plant?

PLEASE COME OUT to Weare and stand as a "true" FreeStater!
If you are on the wrong side now; you still have time to change.

Dude, we have to get this one right!

[John]

Take away his job - not his home!

[AlanM]

Take away his job - not his home!

I agree. Impeach the Kelo 5!

[CNHT]

Woo hoo we made the Telegraph in London yesterday !
Or at least Clements did.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/10/wjudge10.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/10/ixworld.html

"The rules are that if the selectmen say no, Mr Clements can put the plan to the town on an electoral ballot next spring," Mr Meany said.

Apparently Mr. Meany has not yet figured out that the people of Weare who have the *legal* petition to take the home are not one and the same as this Clements guy. Clements CANNOT put it on the ballot by petition unless he gets a Weare resident to do it. And that's already been done by Gary Hopper, with input from CNHT...

And although I am absolutely opposed to taking of private property for any reason, I think we need to make an example of Mr. Souter...sorry Mikey.