http://www.pledgebank.com/LostLibHotel Comments on 'pay to spend 7 nights in a hotel built on property seized from David H. Souter' en-gb team@pledgebank.com hourly 2 1901-01-01T00:00+00:00 http://www.pledgebank.com/LostLibHotel#comment_8555 Actually, a bill is before the Ohio legislature as we speak to limit the eminent domain powers so that this will not happen. But the Ohio Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week on the Norwood case so by the time the legislature gets done with it, it may be too late for this case. What's really appalling is that the city says it is a declining neighborhood because of the poor infrastructure! Can you believe that? They won't fix the roads and sewers AND they can take the property because of that. I don't live in the area, just heard about it from some friends recently then heard a news report on a cinci radio channel (Norwood is a city surrounded by Cincinnati). http://www.pledgebank.com/LostLibHotel#comment_8553 If that is happening in Ohio, you need to take action to change your laws. In California, we have 4 potential ballot initiatives aimed at reforming eminent domain abuse. Hopefully, only one will make it onto the ballot; not none and not more than one. I don't know what kind of provisions Ohio has for ballot initiatives. Good Luck http://www.pledgebank.com/LostLibHotel#comment_8546 hey, Ohio is trying to do the same thing in Norwood as in the Kelo case-- taking a private property for a developer. Anyone game to try it there if the Ohio supremes rule in favor of big money? http://www.pledgebank.com/LostLibHotel#comment_8522 Months later I return to see that Emma is still picking arguements with everyone on the board. Seems like the Cointelpro guys just can't leave it alone when they see original thinking going on. Gotta get a mole in there somewhere :))) http://www.pledgebank.com/LostLibHotel#comment_8090 I wish I had made it in by the deadline to sign up for a week at Lost Liberty hotel. If it opens I will do my best to have a stay in it anyway. I strongly believe that this is a necessary move to make it clear that americans won't stand for having our liberties taken away any more now than in our past. I am a disabled veteran and fought to preserve our rights not see them lost!!!!! http://www.pledgebank.com/LostLibHotel#comment_7627 On the face of it, Mr. Clements' campaign flies in the face of libertarian principle or go against the golden rule....'two wrongs don't make a right', and all that sort of thing. However, this is not just about the Kelo decision. For many years, politicians - be they judges, district attorneys, special prosecutors, councilmen, mayors, senators, ad nauseum - have been insulated or immune from the very laws the rest of us have to live by. They pass these laws without any regard to the ill effects for those without deep pockets. Well, it's time to bring those politicians down in the trenches with everyday people - make them experience the ramifications of their decisions. The laws that we ordinary mortals have to live by should apply to everyone else. Pure and simple. Many should be concerned as to the direction this country is headed in. One wonders if we just shouldn't put away the American flag and raise the hammer and sickle in its place. What is even more frustrating is the number of people who don't seem to care. The same folks who would think nothing of waiting in line all night to get tickets for a rock concert or special event are the same folks who don't vote, engage in letter-writing campaigns or any activity to make their voices heard on important matters. Regardless of any hidden agendas on Mr. Clements' part, I say more power to the people who will brave the tough January winter to help him gather the needed signatures to take Souter's land. The Supreme Court has lost its bearings and its credibility as defender of the Constitution's original intent. It's time for the American people to act. We need a second American Revolution, and this time, the enemy, sad to say, is not England. http://www.pledgebank.com/LostLibHotel#comment_6526 Bryan W, You're right on that score! Jason R definitely put the truth to the matter. And, Litl Bits: Concerning your comments above: It's not so much a matter of 'activist' jurists, as it is more the matter of trying to read something into a simple sentence that simply isn't there. Now, that might be a description of 'activist,' but not in my book. Actually, I call them as I see them: Intellectually dishonest, and they fall on all four sides of the political 'ring,' Left, Libertarian, Right, and Totalitarian. Actually, our problem – yours and mine, has more to do with the amount of power allotted by the USC to the federal government, and by extention – to state government. If government had not been given the power of ED, likely none of what we suffer would have ever come about, and that includes every external war ever waged by the US Gov., and those wars fought against the Indian Nations. But, then? Our government is patterned after what was then in existence: The British Empire. Our only =realistic= hope here, is to attempt change by the amendment process to remove those powers from =all= government. Only then will the people get the fairest deal – or no deal at all if they so desire that. The upside is that it =can= be accomplished; the downside is the matter of convincing a whole lot of people that the change is necessary to protect private property. http://www.pledgebank.com/LostLibHotel#comment_6520 Jason R. - Please don't stop posting. You have been quite eloquent in combatting Emma's erratic thinking....I would say reasoning, but I can't see real reason in her comments. You are absolutely right! Because it was done before doesn't make it right! The Supremes - indeed all judges - are SUPPOSED to make their decisions based on CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - not on feelings. They can take precedent into account, though they (precedents) should be used only as a FACTOR - NOT a deciding one!) I can only suggest to Emma, and others who may share her views, that she re-read the Constitu-tion and some of the supporting Federalist Papers, which give us a good idea of WHY the Founders worded the Constitution the way they did. This country was founded in order that those who came here would NOT be under the thumb of government as they had been in England (and elsewhere in the "old country"). Private property was sacrosanct in their view. But our Activist judges today see the Constitution in a whole new light. Our Constitution actually forbids de-cisions based upon International Law, but present-day judges could care less. There are some who are actually working on completely re-writing the Constitution. I believe it was John Adams, but feel free to correct me - who said to the effect that no Democracy lasts forever - they always end up committing suicide. THAT is what is happening today in this country! Americans had better wake up and start protesting a lot louder if they wish to remain under Democratic rule. There are many who want no more American sovereignty - they see this Utopian "world community", in which the "elite" class will rule - and then the rest of us paeons will serve. I know how far-fetched that sounds, folks. But that is the ultimate goal of many, many loonie liberals (and even some RINOS) They are all right now jockeying for position in that ruling elite class. And we, the paeons, go about our merry way - Let's see who has the last laugh here! http://www.pledgebank.com/LostLibHotel#comment_6518 Jason R. you are absolutely right. Good comment. http://www.pledgebank.com/LostLibHotel#comment_6514 Emma wrote - "my only goal is to stop people from hurting someone, who has done NOTHING other than what he felt was his 'job'- AND done nothing that has not been done by the Supreme Court before. This was NOT a precident setting case- the precident had already been done SEVERAL times before" I realize I come to this battle late in the game. Heck, it has been a month since anyone posted. I went back to the beginning because I wanted to see what set this whole battle off. Emma, I started out fascinated by some of the things you had to say. Your eloquent writing and apparent intelligence & knowledge make a strong argument for your case. Shoot, my high school graduate-carpenter father and high school graduate bookkeeper mother don't match the education in your late fathers pinky finger. And for what I am about to say I will undoubtedly be verbally flogged by you and your supporters here, of which luckily there are not many. Emma, your facts seem to be correct, at least those of which I have some knowledge. It is your "feelings" that are disturbing. Above I grabbed some of the last things you wrote. To be honest there were many other things you wrote that I wanted to comment on. It was like watching a train wreck unfold in slow motion as I read your responses to "their" responses to your responses..... In the end though I think your comments above truly highlight the folly of your argument. You kept saying that two wrongs don't make a right. That was arguably the underlying theme of your whole message and yet in the end you blew it by bringing up precedent. I know that this was not the first time. But of all that I read, in the context you said it you opened my eyes to the error of your argument for protecting Souter and his cohorts. According to you all he did was what he "felt" was right according to things that the courts had done before..."Precedent". First, you acknowledged many times that judges aren't supposed to feel, though maybe not in those words. Politicians feel, judges interpret the law. The LAW, not precedent. You will also admit that you acknowledged that the "precedent" in this case is wrong. You said many times that eminent domain laws were bad law. Therefore precedent is "bad law". "Two wrongs don't make a right". What happens when WE THE PEOPLE get our politicians to enact laws that the Supreme Court finds to be "Unconstitutional" according to their "feelings". They overturn it. What happens in states where the poeple vote......THE PEOPLE VOTE to enact a law and the Supreme Court deletes the law as "Unconstitutional" according to their "feelings". It is exactly what will end up happening in the case of gay marriage. People in states all over the country have and/or will enact laws banning gay marriage and my bet is they will be stricken by a left leaning activist court system, all the way to the top. You keep talking about "fight it another way" or some such drivel. Last I checked there is nothing after the Supreme Court, and last I checked they have no problem striking down laws that they don't "feel" fit their reading of the Constitution. Of all the things you said from the first NOTHING stuck to me like your use of the word "nothing" in the lines I copied above. No, Souter did not act alone. I am no fool, though I am obviously younger, less educated, and less worldly than you, and even some of the poeple on this list that I agree with for that matter, but I am not stupid enough to believe that he did "nothing" wrong. When I read what you wrote above I wanted to THROW UP! God, what a disgusting point of view. Don't protect that dirty politician/judge, any more that the others. It doesn't matter if the hotel is right or wrong. The protectors of our rights....OUR RIGHTS have become the thieves. It is not the law that they protect but lawlessness that they practice. When those judges upheld precedent, changed the meaning, voted their "feelings" they did the very thing you are convicting these people of doing, they commited "two wrongs"...or ten....or 100....or however many it took to get to this point. "Well, my predecessors did it so it must be right". That was his "feeling", the one he used to STEAL those peoples homes for another private citizen. Emma, I hope someone finds some economic use for your property, I fear they might find one for mine some day. Emma, I FEAR they might take my property to give to someone else. I have never feared living in my country. And I never, NEVER thought it would be the court system as the root of that fear. Emma, don't bother correcting my grammatical or spelling errors. It is 12:30am and I am tired. And unlike you Emma, this will be my last posting, I promise, even though it is only my first. I am afraid I have seen about all I care to and you don't have anything to offer but condemnation to those who would "DO" something other than write letters and march and call people. Cause we all know how effective that has been recently. http://www.pledgebank.com/LostLibHotel#comment_3412 I want to send some money. Do you take amex? if not what do I make a check out to? http://www.pledgebank.com/LostLibHotel#comment_3387 I agree. If I could afford it, I would pledge to stay there for 7 days myself! I do have family in NH (grew up there) and if and when Lost Liberty Hotel is built, I would certainly visit.....and family would definitely go to the Just Desserts Cafe! Crow anyone? http://www.pledgebank.com/LostLibHotel#comment_3386 Litl bits, You are wasting your 'key strokes' attempting to get emma to listen to reason. Her mind is made up, and it's 'cast in stone.' And, while I would agree with some of her assertions, I see the rest as as a waste of time. Suter is from N.H., and it's up to the residents of that state to make a point – by using his land in that state to drive that point home: If it's just okay to steal land from anyone for tax purposes, then the very first person in New Hamphire whose land is to be taken for that purpose should be the one person who signed-off on the idea. Suter signed-off on the majority opinion, and so therefore – and therefor – should suffer the first insult of that opinion. May the SOB find himself homeless– forever. http://www.pledgebank.com/LostLibHotel#comment_3383 I've just tuned in, but couldn't leave without commenting back to a post by Emma T. (Emma B at 22:19, Thursday 21 July) I realize this is way late, however Emma DOES need to be corrected. I have become so angered - as have so many Americans - by the spread of government and how they are taking over our lives. Justice Souter did not vote WITHIN THE LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION! The Constitution states very clearly that any eminent domain takeovers MUST be for public use, NOT to benefit individual developers - and NOT for corporations, etc. to build higher tax-producing properties. That being the case, ACLU et al can start suing to have every CHURCH, every VFW Hall, EVERY PRIVATE SCHOOL to be demolished to make way for tax-producing properties. And don't think that this is not already on the minds of many DAMNOCRATS, and SOCIALISTs in this country. I strongly recommnend to Emma T. and the rest of her cronies that you get yourself a copy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights....read through it carefully. If you are really interested in the meaning and intent of the Founders, you can also read some of the Federalist Papers. But the Constitution and Bill of Rights should be the minimum. These are easily available on the net. I downloaded both in pdf docs within a few minutes. http://www.pledgebank.com/LostLibHotel#comment_3382 It is much better to bring the court to its senses by a string of hotels than let it continue to deteriate to the point of needing to follow Federalist 28 to restore Constitutional government. http://www.pledgebank.com/LostLibHotel#comment_2549 Brian Jones-- Your teacher may have inspired you, but the nascent gift was already there. I hope you have lots of opportunity to practice; you never can tell when you'll get the chance to use it. I became a free lance editor for several authors when I became too ill to work anymore. It's "work" but very engaging. Good luck with it! PS If you get the chance to go back and thank your teacher, do so...that's sooo rewarding. My 8th grade teacher inspired me -- she is a Sister of St. Joseph and now in her 80's -- and that lasted me all these years. It's the zeal for laughter and life that makes one live so long. We still stay in contact. http://www.pledgebank.com/LostLibHotel#comment_2548 Poor Emma. Maybe we need to sing a chorus of "Nobody Knows The Troubles I've Seen." Bye, Emma. You may have the last word. Lord knows you've earned it, girl. http://www.pledgebank.com/LostLibHotel#comment_2547 Emma, The ultimate precedent is the U.S. Constitution. It is not an intellectually challenging document. It is written for the general public in the most concise, unambiguous language possible. Please tell me what part of it you find difficult and I will be happy to point out to you what the words mean. I will also be happy to point out how taking someone's property, paying them a fraction of what it is worth, and handing it over to another private party using "economic development" as the sole justification for this grand larceny disguised as proper governmental process violates the fifth amendment. Then, assuming we can come to the logical conclusion that the entire process is rotten to the core and violates our Bill of Rights, you can tell me how it is you count Souter as an innocent bystander. Maybe you think Souter can't quite comprehend the difficult words like "private", "public" or "just compensation." I tend to think differently. In fact, all this talk about the injustice of it all and concentrating on the matter at hand has really made me think hard. It has made me reconsider my commitment to liberty and I want to thank you Emma for giving me the inspiration to join the Free State Project instead of just being a volunteer friend of it. http://www.pledgebank.com/LostLibHotel#comment_2546 Dymphna, Thank you for the kind words. I never really considered that before but considering I seem to be writing one essay after another in online forums all for free, maybe I should consider checking the color of my parachute. Without going into endless details, I thank my 9th grade English teacher, Miss Alice Krumenacher. She was a dedicated teacher who took the expression, "college prep" seriously. http://www.pledgebank.com/LostLibHotel#comment_2545 Carol Anne- you bring up some very true points- And i hope you get some honest answers about your questioning of why Souter? I never did, no matter how many times i asked. And you are correct, anger never solves anything- And having fun is crucial for everyone- some people just have different 'senses of humor'. I didn't originally come to this site angry- but i cannot align myself with people who on the one hand say in effect, "it is wrong to rape", and then when someone they don't even know is raped, and a Jury finds the rapist innocent. Then someone from the group who was NOT raped, but fears rape says "I'm gonna rape that guy- HE was on the jury and let the rapist go, as a matter of fact, lets make it a GANG rape- who'll join me?" and all sorts of people line up like a hatefilled lynch mob.- and joke among themselves about how they'll do it. And i come into the middle of it all and say.... NO!- stop! if it is wrong to do- how can you justify doing it yourself? Only to have the viscious anger and hatred turned on me- Now, honestly, does that seem like adult, rational behaviour to you? it doesn't to me- i LIVE in NH- i've been in the Weare Town Offices- they don't need all this crap- I've been in several town offices- i also lost a friend who worked for the town office when an irate taxpayer went on a rampage and shot up anyone who moved in a Town Hall a few towns away from where i live, about 10 yrs ago. So, maybe i'm not all that innocent, or tolerant of the mess that is caused when you do crap like this- to folks that are just doing their job- Folks who don't need any more 'make work' or hassles. Weare isn't a city- it isn't a very big town, though it's alot bigger than mine. Believe me, it's not a joke to the Town Clerk, and to the police department, who have to pay for the media, and the 'people from away' who come to gawk, and joke, and play games. For a group who promotes freedom, and liberty, this group has cause alot of hardship for innocent bystanders in the town of Weare. but thank you for your reply Carol Anne- Dymphna, if you 'offered' help because you cared- then my expressing gratitude, and appreciation while declining your offer should not be held against me- Other wise you were not 'offering' anything - you were demanding i 'accept' your help or be villified by you- and told i was in effect 'a fool' and 'a troll' and a shriveld up prune- because i declined your kind offer.- thinking (stupid me) that i had that 'right'. I sincerly appreciated your offer, and said as much- It IS hard to live as a single mother with no one to lean on, but my 'trust' humanity is very fragile, especially strangers bearing gifts- and i've been burned too many times to 'trust' that those who offer kindness, often want blood in return- I will admit, it IS my issue- and my battle, but your demeanor towards me, since then has only proven my fear and insecurities true. And, it's Emma B Dymphna- i spelled your name wrong and you took great offense- citing my stupidity- it was not intentional on my part. i ignored your mis-spelling of my name thinking it was a slip of the finger, but it is B, not T. As for being a troll- i am not- and never have been one. My goal is not to stir the pot- or cause trouble, or "play" with people- My goal was (and IS) to try and get people to look twice at what they are advocating in this action- it was to bring a bit of 'reality' to this 'joke'- to put the human face on it- Have i failed? Clearly- do i like being treated as i have been here? maybe in some sick corner of mu subconcious i do- but consciously, my only goal is to stop people from hurting someone, who has done NOTHING other than what he felt was his 'job'- AND done nothing that has not been done by the Supreme Court before. This was NOT a precident setting case- the precident had already been done SEVERAL times before, and he was one of FIVE who ruled as he did, not even writing, or commenting on the decision. Yet HE, a man who calls my state home, is your target- chosen 'randomly' it is claimed- I'll suggest to you Dymphna, that you don't want to 'go back and look' because you know what i've said has merit- But you are a 'free person'- and if you choose to refuse to 'look back' then that is your business- Just remember, that many of us don't fear looking back, even if it is a lesson we don't really relish learning- if we don't learn from the past, we'll contunue repeating the same mistakes over and over again- i wish you well- and hope you never become the whipping boy of anyone's 'cause'- or the 'scape-goat' or'sin-eater' for your cause. Emma B