See text below and Vote at Adult Christian Fellowship Thread 91097.
Live Free or Die. - New Hampshire State Motto.
[Activists] want [U.S. Supreme Court] 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 [of Weare, New Hampshire] in March. […]
"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 [,New Hampshire] 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."
More about both proposed and past actions against government oppression in Weare, New Hampshire, may be found below:
From a New Hampshire History Curriculum article, We Had a Riot :
[…] We Had a Riot
Background: The Pine Tree Riot - Weare, NH, April 1772 [/] Summarized by Betty Ann Sutton from History of the Town of Weare, New Hampshire
[…] No matter who owned or cleared the land, the white pines on the land belonged to the King of England. In 1772 the British Parliament and King George III made a law protecting "any white pine tree of the growth of twelve inches in diameter." There was already a law protecting the larger white pine trees. All of these laws meant that the settlers couldn't cut any white pines unless they had the Deputy Surveyor come to mark the trees with the broad arrow, saving them for [Royal Navy] masts. Then the settlers had to pay a tidy sum of money to get a royal license to cut the rest of the white pines from their own land.
[…] Benning's nephew, John Wentworth. became governor in 1766. John Wentworth soon saw how much money was being lost by not enforcing the license fees and fines for the pine tree laws in the new towns, so he instructed the Deputy Surveyors to attend to their duties.
[…] The mill owners from Goffstown paid their fines at once and had their logs returned to them. But the sawmill owners from Weare did not. They decided to be "obstinate and notorious" even though Blodget had sent them letters warning them against it.
On April 13, Benjamin Whiting, the Sheriff of the County, and his deputy, John Quigly, rode to South Weare. They came with a warrant for the arrest of sawmill owner Ebenezer Mudgett. Mudgett was the leader of the Weare mill owners. The sheriff thought that if he arrested Mudgett, the other mill owners would give in and pay their fines.
[…] Mudgett rode to Quimby's Inn at dawn and burst in on the sheriff, who was still in bed. Then more than twenty townsmen, with their faces blackened for disguise, rushed into the sheriffs room and began to beat him with tree branch switches. Sheriff Whiting tried to grab his guns so he could defend himself, but he was thoroughly outnumbered. Men grabbed him by his arms and legs, hoisted him up, face to the floor, while others continued to switch him mercilessly. Whiting later reported that he thought the men would surely kill him. Deputy Quigly was also pulled from his room and received the same treatment from another group of townsmen.
The sheriff and deputy's horses were brought around to the inn door. The soot-blackened townsmen cropped off the horses' ears and sheared off their manes and tails - ruining the value of the animals. The two men were forced to mount and were shouted and slapped down the road toward
Goffstown.[…] The rioters were very humble and submitted themselves to the grace of the court and king. They were lucky. The judges fined each of the men 20
shillings and ordered them to pay the cost of the court hearing.It was certainly a light punishment for the crimes they had committed. The small fine ordered by the judges showed that they understood why the men from Weare attacked the sheriff and deputy. The judges, like many other citizens of New Hampshire, thought the pine tree laws were oppressive and unfair. […] [My ellipses and emphasis]
(George III later decided to let the rebellious and ungrateful inhabitants of New Hampshire and several other colonies go their own way. Ridding himself of responsibility for their care in the Treaty of Paris in 1783.)
Is the Spirit of 1772 still alive in Weare, New Hampshire? Stay tuned:
From a Yahoo! AP article, Activists Seek to Evict Souter From Home :
Activists Seek to Evict Souter From Home By KATHY McCORMACK, Associated Press Writer [/] Sat Jan 21, 7:54 AM ET
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. [/] 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."
[…] "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. […] [My ellipses and emphasis]
Poll Question: Take Home from USSC Justice? | Poll Choices:
1. Yes. He took the homes of others. | 2. Yes. The Supremes have gone too far. | 3. Yes. Up with Lost Liberty Hotel! | 4. Yes. Why not? | 5. Yes. | 6. Maybe. Will consider. | 7. Up to local voters. | 8. Undecided. | 9. Never! Keep judiciary independent! | 10.Never! Activism run amuck! | 11. No. His offense official not personal. | 12. No. Impeach them instead. | 13. No. Ridiculous idea. | 14. No. | 15. Other. | 16. No comment. | 17. No opinion. | 18. This poll is worthless. | 19. This poll is of negative value.
