Too Good to Be True? Souter to Be Kicked In the Eminent Domain
Published June 28, 2005
You know how everyone is all up in arms about the recent Supreme Court decision regarding our property rights and how the government can pretty much tell you to go screw yourself if they want your property?
Well I just received this e-mail from a friend. I haven't been able to prove its authenticity, so I'm going to reprint it here in its entirety.
Correction ... I have found a link!
This is not a joke. Freestarmedia.com
- 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
This is not a joke. Freestarmedia.com
I hope it's not a joke. I hope they do it to the other four! Couldn't happen to a nicer guy!
- Too Good to Be True? Souter to Be Kicked In the Eminent Domain
- Published: June 28, 2005
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Politics
- Writer: Andy Marsh
- Andy Marsh's BC Writer page
- Andy Marsh's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
I've added to the link to freestar media. I hope they win!!!!!!
A visit to the Web site shows that while the letter is legit (I say that even with the knowledge that there is a Drudge link) it seems to be pretty much a publicity stunt.
They - aka the Lexington League - have a free access TV show "covering "David versus Goliath" stories of individuals challenging out-of-control governments."
Their merchandise is Cafepress.
you trying to burst my bubble TS? I'm having fun here!!!
it isn't going to happen, but it's pretty clever
do you suppose that the justices of the supreme court are like major league umpires? Once they make a decision...it's terminal?
I would add that the government has to pay you while they tell you to screw yourself
yeah...maybe so, but they only have to pay you at the $5 whore rate...not the top shelf whore rate that's stealing your property!
It's an amusing stunt, to be sure, but it makes a very necessary point- the very Justices who favored the decision could be subject to it and suffer by it. You have to wonder if they ever considered that.
The important point is that no matter who you are, there is almost always someone bigger than you- more wealthy, more connected, etc.- and the Kelo decision makes it so that a bigger investor can come along and offer a proposal to a municipality that will fatten the tax rolls ever so slightly more than the existing property owner/taxpayer.
This includes a Supreme Court Justice. It would be poetic justice if this stunt were serious.
I keep reading that it's a stunt. I understand where that's coming from but I really hope it's not. All the docs on freestar site look legit! There are actually 2 documents. One is a fax sent to the town selectmen and the other is the press release.
By the wording of the SC decision...they should be allowed to take over that property...give that asshole Souter enough money for the land so he can take the other 4 jerkoffs out to lunch to celebrate! at a McD's!
Stunt or not, I like it! Someone should do the same to the other 4 who ruled for the city.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/31724)
This is getting better...the same letter is linked on Drudge!