According to the article below, the man trying to take over Supreme Court justice David Souter's New Hampshire home is a Free Stater (www.FreeStateProject.org). He's retaliating against Souter's support for eminent domain abuse in this week's Kelo vs. New London ruling.

From the Concord Monitor:
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/.../506290321/1031

'Hotel' targets Souter's home
Property rights advocates make protest personal
By MEG HECKMAN
Monitor staff
June 29. 2005 8:00AM

A letter that emerged yesterday from the fax machine in the Weare Town Hall has thrust Supreme Court Justice David Souter's beloved farmhouse into a national debate over property rights.

Souter, a longtime Weare resident, joined in a court decision last week that allows governments to seize private property from one owner and turn it over to another if doing so would benefit a community. Now, an outraged Californian wants to test the ruling - by asking Weare's selectmen to let him replace Souter's farm with a posh hotel.

"A recent Supreme Court decision. . . . clears the way for this land to be taken," Logan Darrow Clements wrote in a letter faxed to town officials yesterday. "The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare."

The letter, which included Souter's street address, was posted on conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh's Web site yesterday afternoon, spurring concerns in town about the reclusive justice's safety and privacy.

Souter was attacked last year while jogging in his Washington, D.C. neighborhood, although the police there believe it was not related to his work in the court. While most locals here know where he lives, they respect the justice's desire for solitude. Yesterday, for example, town officials blacked out his address before sending a copy of a letter about the hotel project to the Monitor.

Souter couldn't be reached by phone yesterday and had not yet returned to Weare last evening, but a few police cruisers were parked on the edge of his property.

"It was a precaution, just being protective," said Lt. Mark Bodanza.
Clements is the CEO of Freestar Media, a Los Angeles-based outfit that fights "abusive" government through a Web site, a fledgling cable show and efforts like the one in Weare. Clements, who could not be reached yesterday, plans to move to New Hampshire soon as part of the Free State Project, a group that supports limiting government powers. Thousands of Free-Staters plan to move to New Hampshire in the next few years because of its small government, few taxes and "Live Free or Die" motto. (Other members of the project stressed that Clements's hotel plans are not affiliated with the group.)

Clements's request fascinated the staff at town hall, and Code Enforcement Officer Charles Meany said he passed the letter on to the board of selectmen.

"Am I taking this seriously? But of course," said Meany, who handles building requests. "In lieu of the recent Supreme Court decision, I would imagine that some people are pretty much upset. If it is their right to pursue this type of end, then by all means let the process begin. . . . I have to allow the law to take its course."

Clements dubbed his project the Lost Liberty Hotel, and says it will include a dining room called the Just Desserts Café and a museum focused on "the loss of freedom in America." And those Bible-leaving Gideons won't be welcome. Instead, Clements wants to tuck copies of Atlas Shrugged into the night stands, giving visitors a chance to read author Ayn Rand's individualistic tome.

Souter's two-story colonial, assessed at just more than $100,000, brought in $2,895 in property taxes last year. A hotel, especially one as unique as Clements's, would likely net the town a much greater tax payment - not to mention a potential tourism boom for local businesses.

By mid-afternoon yesterday, Meany had received two more letters about the project - one from a women in Houston, Texas vowing to visit Weare if the hotel were allowed and another from a man in McMurray, Pa. pledging financial support if town leaders choose to hand Souter's land over to Clements.

Both letter writers signaled their distain for the court's ruling in Kelo vs. City of New London.The case stems from a battle between a group of Connecticut homeowners and a city government that wants to boost tax revenue by replacing a neighborhood with an office complex. The majority opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, said it was up to states, not the federal government, to craft regulations around property. Souter supported Stevens along with justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Weare's selectmen planned to review the letters at its meeting last night, and will decide how to proceed, said chairwoman Laura Buono.

"It was an interesting e-mail,"she said.

Even if the five-member board were to endorse Clements's project, zoning laws would have to be changed and the hotel would have to garner approval from the planning board. After that, the project would fall under Meany's watchful eye.

"The big thing is, you have to own the land before you deal with me," he said.

I like the free-stater's more and more everyday.

If Souter wants to give other people's homes to the government, I want to make sure his goes as well.

One of the *other* Free Staters thinks it is a bad idea to use eminent domain - even against an eminent domain enabler...and is promising to lay down in front of any bulldozer sent to Souter-thug's house!

---

From NHFree.com
For Immediate Release

NH Free Stater vows to protect Supreme Court Justice Souter's home.

Newmarket, NH, June 30, 2005 - This week, a Californian named Logan Darrow Clements sent a fax to the town of Weare, NH stating his intention to build "The Lost Liberty Hotel" on the residence of Supreme Court Justice David Souter.

Locals in the town of Weare do not yet seem opposed to the hotel. Nationwide, there has been loud support for Clements' plans, showing opposition to the supreme court's decision last week allowing the city of New London, Connecticut to use eminent domain to take homes for commercial projects that propose to "benefit" the community.

But some people strongly disagree with Clements' plans for the hotel.

Mike Fisher of Newmarket, a Gandhi admirer, believes that using eminent domain against Mr. Souter is wrong. "Even Mr. Souter does not deserve to have his home taken by eminent domain. Taking away a family's home is immoral," he said.

If the hotel project is seriously pursued, in order to protect Mr. Souter's home, Fisher vows to fast for several days, consuming nothing but water and salt, "to help my friends realize what they're doing is wrong." He also vows to stand in front of any bulldozers that threaten Souter's home, blocking them at his own risk.

On May 9, Fisher used Gandhi's civil disobedience techniques to protest business licensing in New Hampshire. After announcing he would perform an unlicensed manicure in front of the state licensing offices, he followed through with his promise, earned a brief trip to jail and received heavy regional media coverage for his viewpoint.

Fisher and Clements are both members of the Free State Project (freestateproject.org), an organization which aims to bring 20,000 liberty lovers to New Hampshire.

Taking Souter's house will not happen, no matter what.

There is a legal precident that precludes malicious intent here. Since the taking of his home would be of that malicious nature, it would be null and void, and Souter would have just recourse.

Sorry, I would like for him to meet his just results, and it sounds wonderful, but legally it will not ever happen.

Kind of like the ACLU, huh?

Signs are starting to appear at NH border crossings, underneath the ones that say "welcome to New Hampshire"

They read "except souter"

You can see one of them at www.NHfree.com

The latest on this:

The folks trying to take Souter's land for a "Lost Liberty Hotel" succeeded in their petition drive to get the issue on the ballot in his hometown of Weare, New Hampshire.

They held a rally in downtown Weare, turnout was about sixty, some driving or flying in from out of state, media coverage was moderate to heavy around New England and Fox News Channel covered it sympathetically (Hannity and Colmes).

The town selectmen voted to change the petition in such a way that it keeps the electorate from voting on the issue.

The Lost Liberty folks countered with a full page ad in the Weare Free Press.

As has previously been the case, the LLH folks are doing well at getting publicity but not well in terms of making the seizure actually happen.

Souter has continued to refuse comment on the issue, though reporters have been asking him about it.

Details and more updates are at

http://www.freestarmedia.com/index.html

Getting the message across is great! But like I stated earlier, it will be overturned, because this is a "Taking of Property", for malice. You cannot to that legally.

Don't you folks understand that?

I guess it depends on how easy it is to prove malice. If a good defense team is brought together, they can say that the grab was for financial gain only.

Don't get me wrong, I doubt this will ever happen. However, it would be nice.

It would be more than easy to prove. These people have already clearly stated that this it their objective. It is in writing. Other than get his attention, and other citizens in and around his home, that is all that this will accomplish.

And make no mistake, I would LOVE to see something very nice happen to this sorry excuse of a Justice. However, there are four more of them on the Court as well. It would be more than fitting to find out that each and every one of them lived in Karsk country, and there existed a huge sinkhole under each of their abodes, just waiting for the right moment to open up and swallow them and their "real" property with one gulp, and belch.

However, all we need is one more Origionalist appointed and confirmed on the High Court to overturn this Turkey of a ruling, along with countless other Turkeys. I would love to see the High Court made up of Four Classic Liberals, Four Federalists, and one Mongrel, to serve as a Token.

I Wholeheartedly recommend the appointment of Janice Rogers Brown as the next nominee. I can just see the Jackasses and their surrogates twisting over that one, which would be a Black, and a Woman at that. And she would be a Classic Liberal, just like Clarence Thomas.

I don't think the ruling is likely to get overturned; but that's all the more reason to do these creative outside-the-box things to fight back. thanks for the responses guys