BROADSIDES

June 29, 2005

The Hotel Souter
This is beautiful:

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 Cafe" 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

When Souter and four other justices took it upon themselves to amend the Constitution's 5th Amendment and destroy the concept of private property, little did they expect that one of them would, within a few days of their illegal ruling, personally face the consequences. As it stands now, the votes of just three people stand between David Souter and possession of his home.

"Just Desserts" indeed.

B. Sides @ 2:32 PM

June 23, 2005

This Land Is Your Land ... NOT!
Now that five Supreme Court justices have hiked their legs (well, in Ruth Bader Ginsburg's case, squatted) on the private property rights of every American citizen, it's time for each state to, in effect, nullify the ruling in Kelo et al v. City of New London.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides a hodgepodge of protections to American citizens from overreaching governments. Unlike other amendments, the Fifth Amendment limits on power are not directed solely at Congress. In other words, these limits blanket all levels of govenment -- national, state and local. Have a look-see:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

That last phrase concerns eminent domain and is at the heart of the Kelo case. Normal people know that eminent domain means that a government can force a private property owner to sell his land to the government at fair market value if it is needed for a taxpayer-funded public project -- roads, dams, airports, schools, water treatment plants, etc. With the Kelo ruling, five justices -- Stevens, Souter, Breyer, Ginsberg and Kennedy -- expanded the definition of "public use" to include private commercial development. Just how profiting from a private business enterprise qualifies as a "public use" of property, the Supreme Court majority doesn't quite explain. As of today, a city or a state or Congress can take someone's home or other property so someone else can privately profit from it.

In effect, the Kelo ruling relegates every private property owner to a mere tenant on his own land subject to eviction any time a private, for-profit enterprise seduces officeholders and bureaucrats.

Not only is this ruling obviously unconstitutional, it as, as Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said in her dissent, "perverse." (Memo to Sandy: Kelo is as perverse as your upholding McCain-Feingold on the grounds that it's only a "marginal" infringement of free speech.)

How should we defend ourselves against this latest act of judicial tyranny? I've heard all kinds of chatter on television and radio from lawyers and other experts who maintain that the matter is closed. That most certainly is wrong. One option (and a dubious one at that) is a constitutional amendment. This would take years to come about and it would be a rather redundant amendment since it would basically say, "The Fifth Amendment means what it says."

The best and fastest way to nullify this latest constitutional heresy is for Americans to pressure their elected local and state representatives to outlaw this ghastly and unconstitutional application of eminent domain. Just because the Supreme Court ruled that local governments have the authority to use eminent domain to seize private property for commercial use doesn't mean that local governments are powerless to prohibit such a practice.

Before the concept of private property is reduced to a mere technicality, voters should contact their state legislators and demand that they enact a law forbidding the use of eminent domain for anything other than taxpayer-funded projects.

And if that doesn't work, well ... maybe we can pressure the cities in which Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg reside to seize their homes for construction of low-income housing.

B. Sides @ 10:39 PM