Souter's Home to a Developer??


PDA






Waitone
June 28, 2005, 02:32 PM
Limbaugh broke the story of a developer wanting to appropriate Souter's home and turn it into an hotel. Press release follows:

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

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 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
logan@freestarmedia.com
http://www.freestarmedia.com

If you enjoyed reading about "Souter's Home to a Developer??" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Nathanael_Greene
June 28, 2005, 02:38 PM
Ah, irony. I hope he does it.

Rebar
June 28, 2005, 02:44 PM
I also hope this comes to pass. Turn around is fair play, IMO.

Third_Rail
June 28, 2005, 02:45 PM
:D



Now that is poetic justice. What'll he do, go to court about it? :neener:

mete
June 28, 2005, 02:45 PM
I'd love to see it happen ,the chickens coming home to roost !!

Dave R
June 28, 2005, 03:00 PM
Yes, yes, yes. What can I do to help? These justices really, really need to see first-hand, the effects of thier rulings.

mtnbkr
June 28, 2005, 03:02 PM
If it's built, I'll do my best to spend at least one night there.

Chris

Beren
June 28, 2005, 03:05 PM
http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

Extract:

"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."

EVIL5LITER
June 28, 2005, 03:06 PM
I'll donate money and try and stay in a room.

JCUMM2
June 28, 2005, 03:06 PM
I'll Donate to that one!

hso
June 28, 2005, 03:09 PM
Seize his property for a private development that will create greater tax revenue for the community! http://www.freenation.tv/hotellostliberty2.html

Tim3256
June 28, 2005, 03:13 PM
Sadly, the proposed Hotel project will NEVER be allowed to happen, it would be far too embarrassing. Show me one example of when eminent domain has EVER been used to take land or property from the wealthy, powerful, famous, cute or politically connected. The recent ruling was designed reduce real, actual justice; not to provide poetic justice. Where have you folks been?

Mr. X
June 28, 2005, 03:13 PM
Hah Hah! :D

KnightHawk67
June 28, 2005, 03:14 PM
Hehehe,

I hope this is true, would be perfect "test case" for this crappy ruling.

:evil:

Beren
June 28, 2005, 03:21 PM
Three dupe threads merged. ;)

johnster999
June 28, 2005, 03:25 PM
Sounds great to me. Build that hotel and I'll have a reason to visit New Hampshire!

999

DarthBubba
June 28, 2005, 03:27 PM
See if someone can find contact information on the developer, maybe we can help give him some early room reservations.
It is not uncommon for hotel chains to start booking rooms at a new resort that has not yet been built in order to sway investors.
lets see if we can give him that sort of help.
Lets let Injustice Souter know that our pledge still ends with “With Liberty and Justice for All”.
And by all I mean all legal residents of these United States.

Borders,Language, and Culture Yall.

DarthBubba :fire:

R.H. Lee
June 28, 2005, 03:38 PM
Good on 'em, I hope they get it. After all, the community good far outweighs any individual claim on property. I'm sure Souter would agree.

pax
June 28, 2005, 03:40 PM
"As ye sow, so shall you reap."

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Timeless words, oh-so-appropos in this instance!

pax

Desertdog
June 28, 2005, 03:56 PM
I love the action. I bet the ones trying this could get all kinds of investers, even if they knew it would lose money.

At the same time, there are 4 more Justices whose property hasn't been gone after, yet.

Turn about is fair play.

fjolnirsson
June 28, 2005, 03:57 PM
*sniff*
(wipes eyes)
That's beautiful, man...

thereisnospoon
June 28, 2005, 04:28 PM
Hello....it looks to me like we can contact the developer right here on this link, as his name, e-mail and website are all posted in the story...apparently he owns the paper.

I say we put our money were our mouth is and send this guy pledges of donations if he can get approval....or better yet, send him money now, to get the property.

What do y'all think??? :evil:

walking arsenal
June 28, 2005, 04:34 PM
Wow, bravo, beautiful, magnificent!!

What a spectacular plan!!


Genious i say!

Desertdog
June 28, 2005, 04:49 PM
Dr. Laura said on her program she would be happy to invest in this venture.

See if someone can find contact information on the developer, maybe we can help give him some early room reservations.
This is at the bottom of the news article.
Logan Darrow Clements
Freestar Media, LLC

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

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.

TrybalRage
June 28, 2005, 04:56 PM
This is awesome, just keep it rolling.

Go after them all.

Go after the homes of their friends and families.

Make them hated among those they love and care about. I want their lives ruined :fire:

Andrew Rothman
June 28, 2005, 05:06 PM
"Live free or die" is the official motto of New Hampshire.

The town selectmen might just go for it.

NMshooter
June 28, 2005, 05:14 PM
This is exactly the sort of thing that we all need to try. :D

It should be expensive to flout the Constitution. :evil:

Joejojoba111
June 28, 2005, 05:40 PM
Anyone know if we can buy shares in this venture?

I agree with Tim, it won't happen, life isn't fair, the ruling was implicitly means to take land away from, for example, stubborn old ladies who thought several generations of inhabitance was significant.

But I want it to happen soo bad.

Flyboy
June 28, 2005, 05:43 PM
It would be my great pleasure to rent one of their fine rooms.

If I'm in town, I might even stay there.

Norton
June 28, 2005, 05:58 PM
I'll send a check to the developer, though I'm far from wealthy.

Ya know, if he would solicit $25.00 from all those incensed by this ruling, he wouldn't NEED those wealthy pro-liberty types.

Hmmm.....I hear New Hampshire is very nice in the Spring :evil:

Risasi
June 28, 2005, 06:02 PM
Pax,

Also don't forget.

The wicked are taken in their own devices....

patentmike
June 28, 2005, 06:05 PM
If the developer adds a pistol range and a chapel, there would be no stopping him. He could open 4 more developments immediately.

EVIL5LITER
June 28, 2005, 08:02 PM
If the developer adds a pistol range and a chapel, there would be no stopping him. He could open 4 more developments immediately.

I know exactly what four plots of land he would be looking at, too.

Rebar
June 28, 2005, 08:19 PM
Don't send money to the developer.

Send it to the selectmen.

Matthew748
June 28, 2005, 08:29 PM
I would be great if it happened, but it never will. The fact that it won't speaks volumes about the hypocrisy that runs rampant in our country.

Desertdog
June 28, 2005, 08:33 PM
Don't send money to the developer.
"Lost Liberty Hotel" proposed on Justice Souter's land

On Monday June 27, Freestar Media, LLC informed the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire that it wants to begin the permit process to build a hotel on the land owned by Justice David H. Souter. 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. Read Freestar's fax to the City of Weare here. Read Freestar's press release here. To learn more about the problem of eminent domain abuse see the video "Grand Theft BUILDING" below. We can not accept investments until we meet with our attorney, set up seperate entity and comply with all securities laws. However, right now you can:

1. Send an e-mail to logan@freestarmedia.com indicating your interest in getting a copy of our business plan and offering memorandum when it is ready. Include your name, address, phone number and amount of capital that you are able to put at risk. This is NOT an offer to sell securities.

2. Volunteer to help if you are a lawyer or architect or if you can dontate time to help with research on the Internet.

3. Purchase some of our merchandise by clicking on the Buy Merchandise link to the left

4. Spread word of this project by contacting the media and spreading it on the Internet.

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

armedandsafe
June 28, 2005, 09:47 PM
Anyone know if we can buy shares in this venture?

Many years ago, Jack Cortez, who owned the El Cortez hotel and casino in Las Vegas was in a bit of a financial bind. He sold shares in his operation for $5.00 each. In the late 40s, $5.00 was not insignificant. This entitled the owner of that share to call one of the glass bricks in the Main Street facade his own.

Jack made the money needed to keep the hotel running and his heirs went NUTS when he died trying to figure out what to do about the many-many-many-many owners. :D The IRS and the Commission finally decided it was just a money raising gimmick, as no deed nor bill of sale was ever registered with the Registrar. I still consider myself a part-owner of the El Cortez.

Mr. Clement, I would like to buy a brick in the new hotel. I'm offering $25.00.

Pops

Headless Thompson Gunner
June 28, 2005, 09:55 PM
Mr. Clement, I would like to buy a brick in the new hotel. I'm offering $25.00.Hell, I wanna buy a brick taken from Souter's home after they bulldoze it. I'll pay $50 per brick. You could probably fund the whole project just by selling pieces of the "Justice's" former home.

kal
June 28, 2005, 10:01 PM
This is hilarious! :what:

mtnbkr
June 28, 2005, 10:20 PM
Bought a pin. Like my Peace Through Superior Firepower pin, this will go on my camera bag. If they offer bricks of either the hotel or the Souter shack, I'd be happy to buy them.

Chris

Brett Bellmore
June 28, 2005, 10:23 PM
Hell, I wanna buy a brick taken from Souter's home after they bulldoze it. I'll pay $50 per brick. You could probably fund the whole project just by selling pieces of the "Justice's" former home.

Got that right! In fact... Maybe they ought to just condemn the house, not the land, and raise money by selling the rubble. I'm sure it would sell for more than the market value of the house sans land, so it's a legitimate act according to Souter.

He can take the money and rebuild, then they can do it all over again. LOL

Norton
June 28, 2005, 10:27 PM
These "purchase a brick" campaigns are very common on college campuses to raise money for buildings and such I can't think of a better cause than this hotel for one of these projects.

Norton
June 28, 2005, 10:31 PM
T-shirts (http://www.cafepress.com/cp/browse/No-1_Nao-1_Ntk-All_pv-thedailyshirt.25085799_N-0_Ntt-eminent+domain_D-eminent+domain)

Libertyteeth
June 28, 2005, 11:52 PM
The Castle Coalition reports that New Hampshire actually doesn't allow condemnation for private purposes. Might have to look at where the other "Justices" live, some states allow this kind of robbery (or, as the case may be, just retribution), others don't. The Supremes did say that if states want to prohibit it, they give their imperial permission.

http://www.castlecoalition.org/report/pdf/ed_report.pdf

"443 See Merrill v. City of Manchester, 499 A.2d 216, 218 (N.H. 1985). Overview
News reports revealed no reported condemnations for private parties in New
Hampshire between 1998 and 2002. This admirable restraint probably results
in part from a decision of the New Hampshire Supreme Court in 1980 holding
that New Hampshire s constitution did not allow condemnations for economic
development, 443 i.e., local governments could not take land for private
businesses on the premise that the business would create jobs and pay
taxes. One legislative attempt to increase compensation for condemned
businesses failed in 2002, but New Hampshire remains one of the best states
to own a home or business without fear of it being taken for another private
party."

beerslurpy
June 29, 2005, 12:03 AM
Teeth, that sounds discouraging, though it would be funny if the NH supreme court reversed itself based on souter's decision.

RooK
June 29, 2005, 12:23 AM
The Castle Coalition reports that New Hampshire actually doesn't allow condemnation for private purposes. Might have to look at where the other "Justices" live, some states allow this kind of robbery (or, as the case may be, just retribution), others don't. The Supremes did say that if states want to prohibit it, they give their imperial permission.

http://www.castlecoalition.org/report/pdf/ed_report.pdf

"443 See Merrill v. City of Manchester, 499 A.2d 216, 218 (N.H. 1985). Overview
News reports revealed no reported condemnations for private parties in New
Hampshire between 1998 and 2002. This admirable restraint probably results
in part from a decision of the New Hampshire Supreme Court in 1980 holding
that New Hampshire s constitution did not allow condemnations for economic
development, 443 i.e., local governments could not take land for private
businesses on the premise that the business would create jobs and pay
taxes. One legislative attempt to increase compensation for condemned
businesses failed in 2002, but New Hampshire remains one of the best states
to own a home or business without fear of it being taken for another private
party."

Wouldn't surprise me if the SCOTUS judges looked into this before they made the ruling, making sure their houses/land couldn't be affected by it due to the laws of their states. :scrutiny:

If you enjoyed reading about "Souter's Home to a Developer??" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!