Souter's Home to a Developer??

[Andrew Rothman]

"Live free or die" is the official motto of New Hampshire.

The town selectmen might just go for it.

 

[NMshooter]

This is exactly the sort of thing that we all need to try.

It should be expensive to flout the Constitution.

 

[Joejojoba111]

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]

It would be my great pleasure to rent one of their fine rooms.

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

 

[Norton]

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

 

[Risasi]

Pax,

Also don't forget.

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

 

[patentmike]

If the developer adds a pistol range and a chapel, there would be no stopping him. He could open 4 more developments immediately.

 

[EVIL5LITER]

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]

Don't send money to the developer.

Send it to the selectmen.

 

[Matthew748]

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]

Don't send money to the developer. Read their statement.

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 [email protected] 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]

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. 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]

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]

This is hilarious!

 

[mtnbkr]

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]

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]

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]

T-shirts

 

[Libertyteeth]

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]

Teeth, that sounds discouraging, though it would be funny if the NH supreme court reversed itself based on souter's decision.

 

[RooK]

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.