To that end we are currently encouraging the legislative body (the voters of Weare)  to apply the logic found in the Kelo v. New London , CT decision and take by eminent domain the Property of US Supreme Court Judge David Souter who owns property at 34 Cilley Hill Road in Weare NH .  His decision in  Kelo. v. City of New London CT changed the meaning of “public use” to “public benefit” in the 5^th amendment to the US constitution.

In doing so he has violated his oath of office and taken away one of our most precious Natural Rights.  It is our hope that the other branches of our state and federal governments uphold their duty to protect and defend the respective Constitutions, and remedy the recent attack on the 5^th amendment to the US Constitution and Property Rights.

February 4, 2006

In Weare New Hampshire on March 14, 2006 Vote No on Article 48.

Your right to vote on a petitioned warrant article signed by over 200 Weare Registered Voters was sabotaged by few. The Weare Board of Selectmen have done a disservice by supporting some activist voters who proposed amendments to reword the petitioned warrant article 100%.

You can still send a message and VOTE NO on Article 48 on March 14th. The completely reworded article is wrong and unconstitutional.

How ARTICLE 48 will appear:

Shall the town vote:
1) To ask its selectmen not to use their eminent domain powers to take David Souter's home for an inn.

2) To urge the governor and the Legislature to adopt a statute and/or amendment to the New Hampshire Constitution to forbid eminent domain takings that would result in transfer of land or property to private interests for economic development purposes.

Why Article 48 is wrong and you should vote NO:

The first part of the amended article asks the "town selectmen not to use their eminent domain powers". This statement in itself confirms that the Board of Selectmen actually have "POWERS" to take you home by surrendering their "power" for David Souter.

The second reason to vote NO on article 48 is because part 1 is unconstitutional in the State of NH. [Art. 10] NH State Constitution states "Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man". This clearly states that it isn't the governments task to protect individuals and ONLY act on the behalf of the people as a whole. One could speculate that this kind of language was placed into the constitution for fear of the United States could fall victim to Monarchs.

We do not say "With Liberty and Justice for Justices"; the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States clearly states that it is "Justice for ALL".

Even though Part 2 of the amended article sounds good at first read, it isn't as clear and solid in language as it should be. Part 2 should actually ask for the prohibition of taking land or property at all. There is no reason to limit it for economic purposes. This just leaves citizens open again to interpretive definitions.

Part 2 should prohibit taking of private property for the distribution to OTHER private entities PERIOD,

February 4, 2006

94 Town of Weare voters and Selectmen that attended the Deliberative Session managed to first negate the meaning of the original petition warrant article, then to completely replace it with a ad hoc resolve. The revised article "urges" the governor to strengthen New Hampshire eminent domain laws.

The Kelo v. City of New London decision removed Americans Fifth Amendment rights, and Saturday’s deliberative session has removed First Amendment rights of more than 200 Weare citizens who signed a petition article.

The opponents who amended the language of the article apparently feel that their fellow residents do not deserve the right to petition as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. “…to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”. Opponents such as Walter Bolhin who proposed the amendment conveyed an opinion that eminent domain is "just a game" as he asked to insert the word NOT into the petitioned article.

The headlines across the country read ‘Voters Decline to Take Justice Souter's House’ and similar. It is with great disservice that the media headlines do not read "Weare Selectmen afraid of Democracy". The 5000 registered Weare voters did no do such thing. The 5000 voters will not have the opportunity to decide how they would like to vote on this issue on March 14th.

The 93 detractors (less than 2% of the voters) including the five board of selectmen took it upon themselves to keep the more than 5000 registered voters from ever deciding the issue.

The new version of article #48 reads:

Shall the town vote:
1) To ask its selectmen not to use their eminent domain powers to take David Souter's home for an inn.
2) To urge the governor and the Legislature to adopt a statute and/or amendment to the New Hampshire Constitution to forbid eminent domain takings that would result in transfer of land or property to private interests for economic development purposes.

The first part of this amended article now does something that the NH Constitution prohibits. The article protects an individual from an act that the public as a whole is still subject to.

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind. June 2, 1784

Clearly the actions of the Board of Selectmen and the amendment of the article institutes security and protection of a man, Justice David Souter. New Hampshire is unique to any other State Constitution in that it grants a Right of Revolt.  
 

This by no means makes is a victory for the opposition of the Lost Liberty Inn project. The Committee for the Protection of Natural Rights will march forward and explore other avenues of our multi-pronged approach to Stop Eminent Domain Abuse!

"This basic to intermediate seminar is designed to give city, county and zoning board members, planners, engineers, architects, developers, real estate professionals and attorneys the information they need to be successful in eminent domain actions."

For $329.00 you too can learn to take citizens land under the premise of Eminent Domain. Outraged? Call NBI and tell them how you feel. 1-800-930-6182

You might find this information useful as well? The instructors of this class:

Mark P. Hodgdon, Assistant Attorney General (603) 271-1233
Morgan A. Hollis, Attorney (603) 889-5959 website
N. Jonathan Peress , Attorney (603) 230-4414  website

Outraged? Tell them how you feel!

Click Here to see the video: CHANNEL 8 NEWS

Hannity & Colmes are opponents and place awareness to the problem of Eminent Domain Abuse. Please visit the Hannity & Colmes website for more information including video clips related to the Lost Liberty Inn Project.

© 2005-2006 Natural-Rights.org
733 S. Stark Highway
Weare, NH 03281
p 603.860.8929
f 603.753.8850