Divine Justice? Judge may lose home to compulsory purchaseFollow

This seems like a very British thing to do actually, so very amusing to see americans taking the same pissy attitude with bad laws

Clicky



Very amusing that one of the judges who passed a law that can be easily abused by industry should find local residents using the law to claim his own house

I would love to see the outcome of this. And I would love to know what the judge said when he found out that his own law was enabling people to take his house from under him!

Oh dear .. still laughing.

It will be more amusing if he appeals the decision when its passed and the presiding judge throws his case out based on the precedent he has now set.

Lets just hope he doesn't forget his towel...

It's hard to get a 2000yr old building when you keep knocking down the 200yr old ones.

Old Plymouth (The Barbican) is a bit like that with the added bonus of having a Pub every third building or so..

Well, unless it burned down somewhere around 1871.

There are some more articles on this (including the original proposals) here:
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.

# # #

I think this article warranted more than just an edit to the last one. Not sure if you guys have seen it or not... haven't been on here in ages :) Let's hope I don't get addicted again...

http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/05/news/economy/eminent_domain_katrina/

Other sources are saying the city has no plans to use Eminent Domain, but who knows... kind of scary :(

Very amusing that one of the judges who passed a law that can be easily abused by industry should find local residents using the law to claim his own house
------------------------------------------------

first a little lesson in government.

Judges do not PASS laws. they only interpet and uphold them.
Legislators pass laws.

now a recent history lesson about this mess.

the law in question was passed in response to the California wild fires a few years back. in it, the federal government effectively handed any and all authority dealing with land back to the individual states.

in this law, they also pout in wording that virtually striped any and all public input into any decision the state makes concerning this land. they did this to bypass tree huggers crying about the state selling logging rights in protected forests to..."thin"....them for fire controll.

the purpose was to let California and all other states manage their land as they saw fit. this would make way for letting California to "thin" forests as they saw fit to controll future fires.

what it effectively did was strip any and all protections YOU have concerning ANY and ALL land use decisions adn turned that power over to state government.

they can take YOUR property any time they want and sell it to a for profit developer ANYTIME they choose under imminent domain laws now.
-----------------------------------------------------

back to this post now.

the Judge DID NOT have ANYTHING to do with the passing of this law. nothing. legislators from this addministraition passed the law at the federal level.

the Judge is bound by law to uphold this law. he has no choice.

the idiots trying to take his property are truly idiots. the people they need to go after are the republican LEGISLATORS who passed this law, not the judge sworn to uphold it.

if they want the LAW changed, they need to attack the people who make laws, not the people sworn to uphold them. they need to attack the republican legislators who passed this law stripping you of any and all of YOUR property rights and giving them to whichever lobbiest ponies up enough money to stick in the govenors coffers.

it boggles my mind when i see stupid stuff like this. i guess its american though. i mean al-queda in afganistan attacked us, so lets invade Iraq. same stupid crap handed to you by the same band of thugs, and people still cant figure out who is to blame yet.

we are getting exactly what we deserve.

Wait a god da[/b]mn fu[b]cking minute! I have to go find it but I remember when this passed the majority who passed it where liberals not republicans. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05175/527821.stm

Um... No. The whole national forest thing had *zero* effect on this eminent domain case. The case you are looking at is specific to national parkland. It has nothing to do with a local city government deciding to take land from private citizens and give it to other private interests in the hopes that more revenue will be generated as a result.

I'm not sure of the political makeup of the New London, Conn. city council (I did some quick looking, but didn't find anything that listed off the members, much less their party affilitations). However, I think it's silly to equate local politics with national politics. Locally, it's as easy to find members of either party that'll make decisions you disagree with. I'm not aware of very many people who actually vote along or care about party lines when voting for local city positions (since that's a really dumb reason to vote someone in IMO).

In any case, the significant issue in this case isn't the specific city government who tried this. It could have been any locality that tried it, and been made up of any political combination. That's all irrelevant. What matters is that the decision by the Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of the eminent domain in this case was so obviously and blatantly placed along political "left/right" lines.

Justices on the Left, without exception, believed that the eminent domain was constitutional in this case. Those on the Right, without exception, believed that it was unconstitutional. One moderate (Kennedy) sided with the Liberal justices (Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer) and gave them a majority in the 5-4 ruling, with the other moderate (O'connor) siding with the 3 Conservative Justices (Thomas, Rhenquist, and Scalia) in the minority opinion.


The screaming by Liberals on this ruling is kinda strange considering it was the Justices following their own political ideologies that caused it to happen.

But hey! Let's not allow Bush to appoint a conservative justice to the court, because we might get someone who'll take away our rights or something. Sheesh!


Ever consider that you're just on the wrong side of the whole "freedom and liberty" thing and just don't know it?

Godwins!