Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/21/2006 7:11:35 AM EDT

CONCORD, N.H. - Angered by a
U.S. Supreme Court ruling that sided with a Connecticut city that wanted to seize homes for economic development, a group of activists is trying to get one of the justices who voted for the decision evicted from his own home.
ADVERTISEMENT

The group, led by a California man, wants Justice
David Souter's home seized for the purpose of building an inn called "Lost Liberty Hotel."

They submitted enough petition signatures — only 25 were needed — to bring the matter before voters in March. This weekend, they're descending on Souter's hometown, the central New Hampshire town of Weare, population 8,500, to rally for support.

"This is in the tradition of the Boston Tea Party and the Pine Tree Riot," organizer Logan Darrow Clements said, referring to the riot that took place during the winter of 1771-1772, when colonists in Weare beat up officials appointed by King George III who fined them for logging white pines without approval.

"All we're trying to do is put an end to eminent domain abuse," Clements said, by having those who advocate or facilitate it "live under it, so they understand why it needs to end."

Bill Quigley, Weare deputy police chief, said if protesters show up, they're going to be told to stay across the street from a dirt road that leads to Souter's brown farmhouse, which is more than 200 years old. It isn't known if Souter will be home.

"They're obviously not going to be allowed on Justice Souter's property," he said. "There's no reason for anybody to go down that road unless they live on that road, and we know the residents that live there. The last time (Clements) showed up, they had a total of about three or four people who showed up to listen to him."

Clements, of Los Angeles, said he's never tried to contact Souter.

"The justice doesn't have any comment about it," Kathy Arberg, a Supreme Court spokeswoman, said about the protesters' cause.

The petition asks whether the town should take Souter's land for development as an inn; whether to set up a trust fund to accept donations for legal expenses; and whether to set up a second trust fund to accept donations to compensate Souter for taking his land.

The matter goes to voters on March 14.

Clements said participants planned to meet at Weare Town Hall on Saturday morning and divide into teams to go door-to-door to get more petition signatures. He also wants to distribute copies of the Supreme Court's decision, Kelo vs. City of New London, to residents.

The court said New London, Conn., could seize homeowners' property to develop a hotel, convention center, office space and condominiums next to Pfizer Inc.'s new research headquarters.

The city argued that tax revenues and new jobs from the development would benefit the public. The Pfizer complex was built, but seven homeowners challenged the rest of the development in court. The Supreme Court's ruling against them prompted many states, including New Hampshire, to examine their eminent domain laws.

State Rep. Neal Kurk, a Weare resident who is sponsoring two pieces of eminent domain legislation in New Hampshire, said he expects the group's proposal to be defeated overwhelmingly.

"Most people here see this as an act of revenge and an improper attack on the judicial system," Kurk said. "You don't go after a judge personally because you disagree with his judgments."


Neal Kurk = Tory. Tories need to experience the joys of Tar & Featherings. So do Supreme Court Justices who take what little the poor have and give it to the rich.

Link Posted: 1/21/2006 7:12:49 AM EDT
this happened a few weeks after the scotus ruling, I wonder if there's any updates

and yes, tar and feather is in order.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 7:15:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
this happened a few weeks after the scotus ruling, I wonder if there's any updates

and yes, tar and feather is in order.


This is the update. They are in New Hampshire this morning getting signatures for the petition.

It's in the article, amigo.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 7:16:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
this happened a few weeks after the scotus ruling, I wonder if there's any updates

and yes, tar and feather is in order.


This is the update. They are in New Hampshire this morning getting signatures for the petition.

It's in the article, amigo.



must have missed it, need more coffee
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 7:20:30 AM EDT
I have no problem with seeking revenge on a personal level.
Everyone needs to be held accountable for their decisions...

Let them seize his home and build a fucking casino for all I care...
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 7:21:08 AM EDT
This is BS.

Here in AZ we got people DELIBERATELY building and buying homes in the path of our new freeways in order to get the huge payouts for the State.

Mabye in the Rust Belt- where no one WANTS the property- things are different, but here the only people being victimezed by emminent domain are us tax payers.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 7:26:00 AM EDT
It will never happen. That judge is laughing at it all, I'm sure.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 8:04:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/21/2006 8:12:07 AM EDT by napalm]

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
this happened a few weeks after the scotus ruling, I wonder if there's any updates

and yes, tar and feather is in order.


This is the update. They are in New Hampshire this morning getting signatures for the petition.

It's in the article, amigo.



must have missed it, need more coffee




Good idea, brb.



ETA:

Okay, I'm back.

Yeah, fuck the bastards. Take their shit and see how they like it. If ol' Neal Kurk the fuckwit has a problem with it then I guess he just needs to use the system and campaign against eminent domain.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 8:16:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Stormtrooper:
It will never happen. That judge is laughing at it all, I'm sure.



No doubt. There are 2 classes of people in this country. Those with power and those who have none.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 8:16:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/21/2006 8:17:45 AM EDT by m193]

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
This is BS.

Here in AZ we got people DELIBERATELY building and buying homes in the path of our new freeways in order to get the huge payouts for the State.

Mabye in the Rust Belt- where no one WANTS the property- things are different, but here the only people being victimezed by emminent domain are us tax payers.



Might as well get something back if you have the opportunity.

Do you take a tax deduction for your mortgage interest or for your children? What about the people that don't have those? They're having to foot the bill for your luxuries.

BTW, I hope they take Souter's property.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 8:17:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Bill Quigley, Weare deputy police chief, said if protesters show up, they're going to be told to stay across the street from a dirt road that leads to Souter's brown farmhouse, which is more than 200 years old. It isn't known if Souter will be home.

"They're obviously not going to be allowed on Justice Souter's property," he said. "There's no reason for anybody to go down that road unless they live on that road, and we know the residents that live there. The last time (Clements) showed up, they had a total of about three or four people who showed up to listen to him."





Oh, so now you can't walk on certain roads without a good reason??
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 8:30:33 AM EDT
Hope they win. ED is communism to the core.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 8:40:32 AM EDT
The court said New London, Conn., could seize homeowners' property to develop a hotel, convention center, office space and condominiums next to Pfizer Inc.'s new research headquarters.

The city argued that tax revenues and new jobs from the development would benefit the public. The Pfizer complex was built, but seven homeowners challenged the rest of the development in court. The Supreme Court's ruling against them prompted many states, including New Hampshire, to examine their eminent domain laws.


So does that mean we could take over the White House ? Lets see, right now the White House
does not generate any tax revenue, make the White House into a hotel for some Katrina
low lifes, the money that is spent for rent from FEMA goes back to the tax payers, after these
shitheads destroy the place it would give jobs to the local contractors for the repairs (more
money from FEMA going back to the public) then after the repairs are done sell the rooms
as individual apartments for the elderly and get the money from Medicare (more money back
to the tax payers) for their rent. Is'nt this what they mean by the eminet domain law ?
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 8:40:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Stormtrooper:
It will never happen. That judge is laughing at it all, I'm sure.



There is no chance. When the vote is held, all those liberals will side with Souter.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 9:53:59 AM EDT
Those guys should go to a low level: Convince the liberals that the city could take their property to build a gun factory, gun shop, gun range, etc. If we can't get it out of their minds, we should try to use it to our advantage.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 9:59:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
This is BS.

Here in AZ we got people DELIBERATELY building and buying homes in the path of our new freeways in order to get the huge payouts for the State.




You've never actually had any land confiscated by the state through eminent domain, have you?
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 10:01:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Midnight-Sniper:

Originally Posted By Stormtrooper:
It will never happen. That judge is laughing at it all, I'm sure.



There is no chance. When the vote is held, all those liberals will side with Souter.



I lived in Weare for 6 years and just moved out past August. There are still alot of "back wood" folk that live there. While I agree it probably will not get the passing votes, I think it will get more than people think.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 10:01:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
This is BS.

Here in AZ we got people DELIBERATELY building and buying homes in the path of our new freeways in order to get the huge payouts for the State.




You've never actually had any land confiscated by the state through eminent domain, have you?



his name should let you know of his ignorance
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 10:10:42 AM EDT
I'd like to see some grass roots folks that had their property stolen get the financial backing of a merger of Bill Gates and Donald Trump.

Justice David Souter - and the others - we're buying your house to build a combo casino/computer factory...

Payback is a bitch.


How in the fuck can these judges look at themselves in the mirror every morning?
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 12:51:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Backstop:
How in the fuck can these judges look at themselves in the mirror every morning?


Tar.

Feather.

Repeat as necessary.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 1:09:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/21/2006 1:24:52 PM EDT by Combat_Jack]

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
This is BS.

Here in AZ we got people DELIBERATELY building and buying homes in the path of our new freeways in order to get the huge payouts for the State.

Mabye in the Rust Belt- where no one WANTS the property- things are different, but here the only people being victimezed by emminent domain are us tax payers.



This is eminent domain on behalf of developers. Imagine that someone wanted to put up condos, but your house was in the way. Since the condos will create jobs and tax revenue, the .gov takes your land and gives it away...
Top Top