Eminent Update

This is a partial transcript from "Hannity & Colmes," February 6, 2005, that has been edited for clarity.

SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: Over the weekend, at a town hall meeting where officials blocked the proposal that would seize the home of Supreme Court Justice Souter. Town officials replaced the proposal with an initiative that will instead strengthen the state's eminent domain law.

And resident Walter Bohlin made the alternative proposal. Let's take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WALTER BOHLIN, WEARE, NEW HAMPSHIRE RESIDENT: I feel the pain of the abuse of eminent domain. However, this is not the way to do it. We have other ways of redress.

We can go to the legislature and we can demand that the law be changed. And that's the appropriate way of doing it. This is a game.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: Joining us now with an update from Freestar Media is Logan Darrow Clements, is with us.

I saw your piece in The Weekly Standard where you were referred to. Why don't you explain to be everybody what this battle is about, if you could just sum it up now. Based on the Kilo decision, out of New London, it allows states to take property of innocent people for the state — for the purpose of increasing the tax base.

And people, "Let's do it to Justice Souter. He voted for this."

LOGAN DARROW CLEMENTS, FREESTAR MEDIA: What we're trying to do is put an end to eminent domain abuse. And what we want to do is have those who advocate or facilitate eminent domain abuse simply live under their own laws. That's all we're saying.

And what they think that will do is it will provide a measure of home schooling. If they live under their own laws and they can have a developer come and build something on their property, take it away from them, then they may realize that property rights absolutely need to be protected.

Furthermore, we want to keep it in the media so that legislators around the country pass laws to prohibit it.

HANNITY: I — go ahead.

CLEMENTS: Thirdly, we want mayors and town councils around the country to know if they are thinking about doing this in their city maybe we might want to build a hotel on their house.

HANNITY: Look, I love the idea, because unless it's for road or a school or a bridge that benefits everybody, I'm against the way the government, frankly, is abusing the Constitution. I don't think they have any legal authority to do this.

The Kilo decision was a bad decision. We've had people that have owned their homes for 50 plus years that have having it ripped away from them only for the purpose of building a condo and increasing the tax base.

Now, this isn't working, though, in New Hampshire. Basically, is this effort dead? Has it failed?

CLEMENTS: No, not at all. In fact, I have good news to announce. There's an election on March 14. There are five town council seats. Two of them are up for election and we have two supporters running for those town council seats.

So if they both get in on March 14, we'll have two out of the five people that support this project, and then worst case scenario we have to wait another 12 months to get a third person in.

HANNITY: the hope is, though, that if you get enough people on the town council, that you can use the eminent domain that justice Souter said is acceptable on own home and property and see how he likes to live by his own rules?

CLEMENTS: Right. We're hoping people like not just Souter but other people all around the country, mayors and town council members and judges that are in favor of having the government act as a thief, basically — I mean, the government is supposed to stop theft, not carry it out.

But when the government takes a house from one party and gives it to another private party it's acting as a thief, and it's basically reversed its role when it's done that.

ALAN COLMES: Welcome back to our show. A lot of people may be in sympathy with you but still feel it's wrong to go and specifically punish a justice for a decision that that justice made as a member of the Supreme Court or any other court, that that is not the way to god about doing it?

CLEMENTS: No. We're not punishing the justice. We're just having him live under his own law. That's not punishment. I mean, if he thinks it's punishment he shouldn't have voted the way he did.

COLMES: But I'm talking about some of the citizens of Weare said they consider it revenge, which is why they are not supporting your effort.

CLEMENTS: It's home schooling. It's a home schooling project. I'd love to do a year abroad program and take him to North Korea and Cuba and Zimbabwe so he can see what it's like, so he can see how much economic development results when people lose their property rights.

But my school doesn't have enough money to do that. So we're just going to do home schooling instead.

COLMES: Many citizens, when asked about this were saying they don't want to punish members of their community by taking away their private property doing — even if it's a David Souter, doing the same thing to him teas being done to other citizens, other private citizens and private property, all over the country.

It's wrong to do it to them, and some would say it's wrong to do to it Justice Souter, even though you don't like his decision.

CLEMENTS: Justice Souter is really doing this to himself. He passed a law that applies to every single American, including himself. And so we're just allowing him to live under his own law.

COLMES: But the town is not going for it and you're suggesting that with new elections and new town council members?

CLEMENTS: That's not exactly the case, Alan...

COLMES: Go ahead.

CLEMENTS: If I could interject. The town of Weare, as we walked around door-to-door, and we were followed with — by reporters from the "Weekly Standard," from the Associated Press, and they saw that the support for this was overwhelming.

Now, the people on this particular committee and this particular deliberative session on Saturday, managed to sabotage the will of the voters because they were afraid that this initiative was going to pass on March 14.

And they said, "We can't let it go to a vote. So they wanted to keep it away from the voters, because they knew it was going to pass. And so they sabotaged it by putting the word "not" in, and they did a disservice to Weare voters and to all of America by doing that.

HANNITY: All right, Logan. Thanks for being with us. Appreciate your time.

Remember, by the way, e-mail us your stories of eminent domain abuse at ItCouldHappentoYou@FOXNews.com. And we received hundreds of emails. And we're going to go through them. And some of you have even heard from us and may end up on the program.

Watch "Hannity & Colmes" weeknights at 9 p.m. ET!

Content and Programming Copyright 2006 FOX News Network, L.L.C. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2006 eMediaMillWorks, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon FOX News Network, L.L.C.'s and eMediaMillWorks, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.