Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Supreme Court justice faces boot from home?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
SofaKingLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-31-05 12:59 PM
Original message
Supreme Court justice faces boot from home?
Supreme Court justice
faces boot from home?
Developer wants 'Lost Liberty Hotel' built upon property of David Souter

A private developer contacted the local government in Supreme Court Justice David Souter's hometown in New Hampshire yesterday asking that the property of the judge – who voted in favor of a controversial decision allowing a city to take residents' homes for private development – be seized to make room for a new hotel.

Logan Darrow Clements faxed a request to Chip Meany, the code enforcement officer of the town of Weare, N.H., seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road, the present location of Souter's home.

Wrote Clements: "Although this property is owned by an individual, David H. Souter, a recent Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. City of New London, clears the way for this land to be taken by the government of Weare through eminent domain and given to my LLC for the purposes of building 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."

The Kelo v. City of New London decision, handed down Thursday, 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, this 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.

According to a statement from Clements, 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 in each room, guests will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged," the statement said.

Clements says 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."

Souter has claimed Weare as his home since he moved there as an 11-year-old boy with his family.

"This is not a prank" said Clements. "The town 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 says his plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise additional capital for the project.

While Clements currently makes a living in marketing and video production, he tells WND he has had involvement in real estate development and is fully committed to the project.

"We will build a hotel there if investors come forward, definitely," he said.

Clements is the CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, which is dedicated to fighting "the most deadly and destructive force on the planet: abusive governments," the website states.

The activist says he is aware of the apparent conflict of someone who is strongly opposed to the Kelo decision using it to purposely oust an American from his property.

"I realize there is a contradiction, but we're only going to use it against people who advocated" the Kelo decision, Clements told WND. "Therefore, it's a case of retaliation, not initiation."

Clements says some people have already offered to put money into the project.




http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45029
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
davidinalameda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-31-05 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. hasn't this fool being doing this for a while now?
and why doesn't he go after the other 4 justices as well

why just Souter?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SofaKingLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-31-05 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. I don't know. This is the first I've heard of it.
Edited on Wed Aug-31-05 01:11 PM by SofaKingLiberal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-31-05 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. He proposed it a day or two after SCOTUS released their
ruling. It's been kicking around for a while.

Why just Souter? Maybe because that's where the guy's living these days. Ex-politicians (mostly failed politician) from California.

But I think I remember reading a reason--whether the argument could be made most nicely for Souter's property, or the guy disliked Souter's reasoning especially much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dogmudgeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-31-05 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
2. Quote: "This is not a prank"
At least we finally have a situation in which conservatives' love of cheap irony may actually accomplish something worthwhile.

--p!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-31-05 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
3. Heh heh heh.... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-31-05 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
4. Good for him! Perhaps this move will force the Supreme Court
To revisit this POS ruling they handed down, and overturn it.

Not so pleasant when it's YOUR home that private developers are going after, eh Dave?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chicagiana Donating Member (993 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-31-05 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Yes but ...
... will Souter have to recuse himself if his case comes before the court????

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shireen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-31-05 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
5. sweet! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moderator DU Moderator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-31-05 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
9. SofaKingLiberal
Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
copyrighted news source.


Thank you.


DU Moderator
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 07:53 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC