Supreme court judge might get owned on his own decision...

[ginshun]

Proceedings start to take Justice David H. Souter's house to put up a hotel


It is obviously a stunt, but it would be so awesome it it goes through that I might just pee my pants if it does.

 

[Shu2jack]

Ah, sweet, sweet justice

 

[Gemini]

Goodness. Ain't payback a bi*ch.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I hope it goes through.


The Full Notice:
============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 Café" 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
[email protected]
http://www.freestarmedia.com

 

[Shu2jack]

As I thought about this turn of events, I have to wonder;

Is "emminent domain" now going to be used as a weapon by politicians and multi-million dollar companies to bully private citizens, other politicians, small buisness, etc. around? Now if you have enough money to convince a city counsel, you can take away a person's home without any true due process. Sure it is legal, but those having their home taken away have no chance to defend against it. I am worried that we just created a new weapon for those with money to use against us.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

"Is "emminent domain" now going to be used as a weapon by politicians and multi-million dollar companies to bully private citizens, other politicians, small buisness, etc. around?"

Yup.

 

[Sam]

oh god. please please please please please let that hotel be built.

 

[TonyM.]

Most of the folks I know in NH and VT are acting like it's their birthday right now. Amazing how a little good news cheers people up.

 

[ginshun]

As I thought about this turn of events, I have to wonder;

Is "emminent domain" now going to be used as a weapon by politicians and multi-million dollar companies to bully private citizens, other politicians, small buisness, etc. around? Now if you have enough money to convince a city counsel, you can take away a person's home without any true due process. Sure it is legal, but those having their home taken away have no chance to defend against it. I am worried that we just created a new weapon for those with money to use against us.

Thats exactly what I thought about it, and there is evidence of it happening already.

Welcome to coorprate communism boys and girls.

 

[rupton]

Seems kind of suspicious. You would think the bigger news boys or bloggers or both would be all over it if there were any true legitimacy to the story. Who knows though, would certainly be ironic eh?

 

[rutherford]

Seems kind of suspicious. You would think the bigger news boys or bloggers or both would be all over it if there were any true legitimacy to the story. Who knows though, would certainly be ironic eh?

I've got 127 results from Google News on the terms: hotel souter "Lost Liberty".

The Boston Globe ran the story, and added some cool details: http://www.boston.com/news/local/ne...replace_souters_home_with_lost_liberty_hotel/

My favorite: "Am I taking this seriously? But of course," said Charles Meany, Weare's code enforcement officer. "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."

 

[shesulsa]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8406056/

 

[rupton]

Rutherford and Shesulsa. Thanks for those, it's nice to be able to cease being ignorant now

~RU

 

[Deuce]

It's an excellent way to prove a point, but if the supreme court judge loses his home, then what are the chances that the average joe can fight the same battle and win? IMO, if this hotel is built, then all sorts of companies will see this as a license to try and take whatever property they want. If emminent domain is justified in this situation, which is obviously for reasons of protest, then where is the line drawn? Will a company be able to remove a family from their home because their location is a block closer to their target area?

It would be pretty damn sweet to this judge get booted from his home though

 

[rutherford]

Well, it's not really the company that removes you from your home. It's the government that makes the choice.

It's a subtle but important distinction.

 

[ginshun]

If emminent domain is justified in this situation, which is obviously for reasons of protest, then where is the line drawn? Will a company be able to remove a family from their home because their location is a block closer to their target area?

Yup, they will.

As long as they can get the local government officials to approve it, and they pay the family "fair market value" for the property. Not that the family would have any say in the matter.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Maybe he can appeal the decision all the way up to the SC? :rofl:

 

[rupton]

Maybe he can appeal the decision all the way up to the SC? :rofl:

Now that's funny. I have this mental image of him standing on the stand or whatever they call it in the Supreme Court chambers arguing his point only to quickly throw on a robe, run behind the bench, shake his head interestingly, and sypathetically and say "uh huh, uhhhh huuuuh." Quickly rips off the robe runs from the bench back to the stand and starts arguing his point again. Repeat until done

 

[Shu2jack]

Well, he wouldn't be able to make a ruling/vote on the decision as it is a conflict of interest, but I do hope he loses his home.

I actually hope this becomes a widespread thing and happens to a lot of judges and lawmakers. Then, let someone take it to court and have the courts reverse the decision after the judges and lawmakers learned their lesson- don't screw over the private citizen in favor of big buisness, it will come back to bite you in the butt.

 

[rutherford]

Also, the procedure for arguements in front of the supreme court is a bit different from what you might expect. Actual time in front of the court goes very quickly and there isn't much in the way of sympathetic noises. Basically, you make your statement within a very small time limit, the other side makes theirs, maybe some rebuttal, and a question / answer period.

The idea is that the Supreme Court is reviewing lower court decisions. There can be houndreds and hundreds of pages of material that the justices have to review, and this means a whole lot more compared to actual face time in front of the court.