I'm listening to the Porc411 message that just came into my email. It appears that several agents from the Treasury Department are harassing the folks that live there. It appears that it has something to do with the Browns. I think they are suggesting that they suspect people there of threatening violence. Crazy, I know, as Error is not the violent type from what I can tell.
Last I knew, he was at Alec Mullers place.
Someone should get over there...
They are asking all kinds of nosy questions.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on October 05, 2007, 01:54 PM NHFT
Someone should get over there...
I'm on my way to check it out, but I'm on foot, about 20-30 minutes away.
I'm not there, but I'd suggest to anyone who goes:
"I invoke my right to remain silent"
and
"Am I free to go?"
I was just there. They were questioning Michael, I didn't catch exactly what about, then I was asked the following in sequence by a man who refused to identify himself:
* What's your name
* Are you carrying a weapon
* Do you live here
* Are you just visiting
* Stand away from the house
It looked very similar to a search warrant being executed though I didn't see anyone inside.
Yes, 412 Central. I'd still be there if my laptop's battery was better (@ Taproom)
Just called, left a nice message, if he has a normal answering machine, then the gov guys heard it.
Thanks ArcRiley.
Listening to porc 411 right know they are asking for
were abouts for Dave Ridley and Ron Jacobs.
i just heard from Ivy, that everyone from Porc manor got arrested, and "others" are trying to get the word out. Be carefull folks. If you think they want you in connection with the browns, RUN! I know a few are doing so now.
Sources say that everyone in Porc Manor got arrested.
Their badges say treasury department and they are asking
who has been down to IRS buildings.
They want to know if there are guns in the house.
People keep asking if their under arrests or being detained.
They say no but your are not to move.
Now they are asking about NHFREE.COM
It's not illegal to own guns, it's not illegal to demonstrate and pass out flyers. It's not illegal to be a member of a forum, even though the forum is subvertive of the regime.
Sounds like you're in desperate need of several people with cameras and sound.
They are pissed about the "last 12 months"
Of online chatting!
Their saying this is a warning.
Petty tyrants hate organized opposition.
Who was there? What's our casualties?
That would explain why he asked if I lived there.
"you know what has been going on at the browns"
Phil: "There are a whole bunch of people here now at the Freedom Frat House. We got about 7 people in plainclothes talking to Michael. ... Um, Yeah"
Michael: "What's up?"
Phil: "Not much. What's up with you. What can I do for you?"
Michael: "Actually let's stay outside."
Phil: "OK"
"if any body gets hurt because of any thing posted on the
the internet their ......."
It got garbled and now nothing
are they arrested? Ivy told me they were arrested.
The Porc411 message doesn't mention any arrests.
The phone was hung up I think.
Yeah, it cut off real quick
Someone please fwd me this message from porc411, I can transcribe. arcriley@gmail.com
thanks, from what Ivy said, they were in police custody. I know Ivy lives down the street from Porcmanor
Quote from: ArcRiley on October 05, 2007, 02:22 PM NHFT
Someone please fwd me this message from porc411, I can transcribe. arcriley@gmail.com
done
-Nat
Sent
Quote from: Beth221 on October 05, 2007, 02:23 PM NHFT
thanks, from what Ivy said, they were in police custody. I know Ivy lives down the street from Porcmanor
Ivy asked anyone with updates to contact her at 401 556 1782 text message or voicemail would be awesome she said.
-Nat
Here is a three-minute version of the full 15 minute audio. This contains most all of the essential conversations that could be amplified for easier hearing:
http://freetalklive.com/files/411-2007-10-05-A.mp3
Removed, per Phillip's request.
she is on her way home, and expecting to find the feds waiting for her.. her room mate, the 5th supporter is far from there, i have been in contact.
she is not going back home alone, she is bringing an escort.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on October 05, 2007, 02:35 PM NHFT
Here is a three-minute version of the full 15 minute audio. This contains most all of the essential conversations that could be amplified for easier hearing:
http://freetalklive.com/files/411-2007-10-05-A.mp3
thanks ian, you are the man
I'm on the phone with Phil, who made the Porc411 call. No arrests were made, no warrants were executed, no cops entered the house.
They are definitely interested in nhfree.
I think this means it's time to USE THE CHICKEN TO MEASURE IT!!!
That's right, I said USE THE CHICKEN TO MEASURE IT!!!
Quote from: Beth221 on October 05, 2007, 02:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: FTL_Ian on October 05, 2007, 02:35 PM NHFT
Here is a three-minute version of the full 15 minute audio. This contains most all of the essential conversations that could be amplified for easier hearing:
http://freetalklive.com/files/411-2007-10-05-A.mp3
thanks ian, you are the man
I second that thank you Ian for editing and amplification.
Quote from: rancemuhamitz on October 05, 2007, 02:44 PM NHFT
I think this means it's time to USE THE CHICKEN TO MEASURE IT!!!
That's right, I said USE THE CHICKEN TO MEASURE IT!!!
That's seems a bit drastic, doesn't it.
I'd say "GOOSE IS A FLYBOY"
I'm not sure we're ready to do the chicken measuring. I think the Goose is a flyboy, too.
There was a lot more going on in the background I'd like to be able to decipher. I'm just glad the call went through though.
Intimidation FUD and thuggery knows no bounds. :-\ "don't bust my balls" hah!
All is OK here now. I posted a summary on the main Ed Brown thread. Meet us at Murphy's tonight if you can.
This all sounds so FOWL
Ivy,
Thanks for calling me. I don't have your cell phone number, so can't call back. I'll be over to Murphy's when I get back from Boston; leaving in a bit...
Hope Rob's all right...
Go to hear, error, thanks for the update from the horse's mouth. :icon_pirat:
Just called Ivy. Ivy apparently had some trouble with her truck, right on Elm Street, and had her car towed over to the Elm Street Auto place, right across from Murphy's. It's 500 or 501 Elm St. or something like that. She needs someone to go over and pick it up / tow it away from there, by 5PM tonight or they're going to hold it until Monday they said. If anyone in Manchester can help her out, she's at 401.556.1782.
Quote from: error on October 05, 2007, 02:48 PM NHFT
All is OK here now. I posted a summary on the main Ed Brown thread. Meet us at Murphy's tonight if you can.
i missed you man! glad everyone is ok.
great job on the porc 411 phil
you guys are my heros!
They are at Murphy's Taproom right now, I was just questioned about who I was visiting at 412 and what screenname I used. I told him repeatedly that I was refusing to answer any questions, he said he could just get a supena so why am I being an ass, I went inside the taproom and they followed.
I alerted one of the employees to get Keith from upstairs, they're talking to him right now.
ehh ivy and her car troubles. she called me with more info, but then got another call, the call was lost, awaiting her call.
anyone help her out with her truck? I know she cant afford the fee's for her car being arrested all weekend...
I spoke with our friend rob, he is fine. he called to let me know what was going on, and only talked for 20 seconds or so.
Did I hear them ask if he is a Ron Paul supporter? Is that grounds for arrest/harassment now?
The same cop who approached me from 412 who's wearing a black teeshirt and grey vest just approached me in the taproom. Here is a muddled transcription which I had to type live, all of it was him talking:
I'm here to prevent violence from happening
freestateproject people have made statements that they're willing to take action that is not of a peaceful nature.
We were not there harrasing them, we were there to enlist their help
We dont want to see anyone get hurt or anyone going to prison for
life.
We're not trying to harrass you guys, that's all.
My name is Ed.
Me: What's your last name ed?
Ed: If you're not going to answer my questions I'm not going to answer yours.
They remain at Murphy's taproom hanging out and talking to people, they appear to be asking everyone who walks in if they're part of the free state project. Keith just came out from the back with two of them.
Quote from: rancemuhamitz on October 05, 2007, 03:01 PM NHFT
Did I hear them ask if he is a Ron Paul supporter? Is that grounds for arrest/harassment now?
Well, I suppose they want a president who is not likely to reduce the size of government. I'm sure they don't want someone who could cut their positions. :P
No, we're not going to use violence. We're going to vote :D (and run for office, etc)
Quote from: shyfrog on October 05, 2007, 03:10 PM NHFT
No, we're not going to use violence. We're going to vote :D
Exactly!!! I've never initiated violence and don't plan to start now.
I'll be at Murphy's as soon as I get back from Boston. Thanks for the heads-up, Arc.
ZAP. I won't Aggress.
I think they left. It was hard to track who was with who and because of their questioning other people at the bar are talking about it.
I'm headed to 412 now.
hello all,
Everything is well at the frathouse. I was informed the the porc call was illegal and do not want a transcript printed. I also request that people please deleate the audio. Now, that is simply because i had not asked if they could be recorded. I realize what im asking may be hard but the people behind the badges would like that, and so would i. I would please neither play or transcribe any part of the message threw any form of media im sure someone from the house will be more then happy chat and tell you more
Police lie. Never forget that. They are not your friends. In the eyes of the law we are ALL guilty, we just haven't been caught yet. Don't talk to them, especially if they can't tell you why they are there or what they are doing. Simply by being present, implicates that a crime or potential crime, is being committed.
People are giving away way too much information to these guys. Use your right to remain silent. The "treasury department" has obviously been monitoring all of our online activity and I wouldn't be surprised if it's more than that. BTW, the treasury dept is not a petty tyrant, they are the feds and what I would call the big boys.
You can record who ever you want. You don't have to ask for permission. You only need permission to use it in court.
Be careful guys.
Quote from: supperman15 on October 05, 2007, 03:16 PM NHFT
I was informed the the porc call was illegal and do not want a transcript printed. I also request that people please deleate the audio.
Wise move, sir. I have followed this request and removed Ian's link from every place I had posted it, and deleted the Porc411 .WAV file from my computer.
Please note that, to the best of my knowledge (and I am not a lawyer)
THE TRANSCRIPT WOULD NOT BE ILLEGAL, and in my opinon would be of inestimable value here. Please reconsider the bit about transcription.
Lastly... I hope when we go to kill the stupid "wiretapping" law (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lviii/570-a/570-a-2.htm) next time, every single Porc helps in the effort (last time Dada was the only one who did).
Quote from: shyfrog on October 05, 2007, 03:10 PM NHFT
We're going to vote :D (and run for office, etc)
You got your past tense confused with the future tense, shyfrog ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GpZ5sbZOSs
I'm sure it was because you were so rudely interrupted while you were placing a phone call... I mean you were so busy "busting people's balls" I'm sure you just forgot to hangup.
I have yet to hear the voices of error and phil on porc411 telling us they are ok...
Quote from: d_goddard on October 05, 2007, 03:24 PM NHFT
Quote from: supperman15 on October 05, 2007, 03:16 PM NHFT
I was informed the the porc call was illegal and do not want a transcript printed. I also request that people please deleate the audio.
Wise move, sir. I have followed this request and removed Ian's link from every place I had posted it, and deleted the Porc411 .WAV file from my computer.
Please note that, to the best of my knowledge (and I am not a lawyer) THE TRANSCRIPT WOULD NOT BE ILLEGAL, and in my opinon would be of inestimable value here. Please reconsider the bit about transcription.
Lastly... I hope when we go to kill the stupid "wiretapping" law (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lviii/570-a/570-a-2.htm) next time, every single Porc helps in the effort (last time Dada was the only one who did).
Quote from: shyfrog on October 05, 2007, 03:10 PM NHFT
We're going to vote :D (and run for office, etc)
You got your past tense confused with the future tense, shyfrog ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GpZ5sbZOSs
yes yes... we ARE voting, running for office, AND winning.
interesting point, all we have is essentially an anonymous online identity.
Please keep the transcripts.
Further, anyone who was involved, and those that witnessed anything, Write down what you heard and saw as quickly as possible before the memory fades. This may be very important if the enforcers decide to continue their harrassment.
Wow, I (didn't) just listened to the (never happened) message and now I see why he wanted you to delete it. They out right threatened you for posting things online. I wouldn't want a recording of me (allegedly) threatening people in an official capacity while I worked for the Fed either.
Recording stuff in public; Its like those pictures of Jennifer Aniston sunbathing topless in her back yard or Pam Anderson and Tommy Lee having sex. Any person who works in the public eye is free to be filmed and recorded. Don't give in man. He is strong arming you but also don't forget, he can make your life miserable even though he is completely wrong. ...And keep records of everything!
i spoke with Ivy, the feds knocked on her door, as they were leaving out the back, she was on her way to murphies to work. they told her via someone else that they, the feds want to know about Rob, but if she didnt talk to them then they would have to "rethink" things with her..
I hope they feel good trying to scare a single working mother.
she did agree to talking to them.
another note, anyone hear from Dada???????? is he amung the missing?
are there people at murphies?
another note to my other notes, (i got a lot to say!) anyone know about that lady who I met a few weeks ago at Taproom tuesday, tall, blonde, named Diane? who is she???
anyways, The feds are here! The Feds are here!!
:glasses7: :glasses7: :glasses7:
Quote from: enloopious on October 05, 2007, 03:20 PM NHFTThe "treasury department" has obviously been monitoring all of our online activity and I wouldn't be surprised if it's more than that.
:o
Ok, it was me buying that Claw Foot Tub on ebay and buying and selling all those baseball cards!!!! They caught me red handed! Hmmm, I wonder if that's on my "permanent record".... actually thinking about it, if they had a file somewhere with all my online transactions it would be quite funny because I buy some weird stuff. (I was outbid on the ghost in a jar though http://www.reason.com/news/show/33606.html )
Quote from: enloopious on October 05, 2007, 03:37 PM NHFT
Any person who works in the public eye is free to be filmed and recorded.
I'll say this only one and briefly:
you're wrongI've been watching this topic VERY CLOSELY in New Hampshire and the Attorney General does not agree with you. Do a search for "Michael Gannon" to see more details.
Now let's keep this thread free of anything but stuff pertinent to the events of today.
Thanks.
Quote from: supperman15 on October 05, 2007, 03:16 PM NHFT
hello all,
Everything is well at the frathouse. I was informed the the porc call was illegal and do not want a transcript printed. I also request that people please deleate the audio. Now, that is simply because i had not asked if they could be recorded. I realize what im asking may be hard but the people behind the badges would like that, and so would i. I would please neither play or transcribe any part of the message threw any form of media im sure someone from the house will be more then happy chat and tell you more
Please call FTL as close to 7p as possible.
On the event,
Several officers came to the house, error was out getting groceries. I didnt know they were officers so i called porc. What they were interested in was saving lives. People have made threats, in sincerity or in frustration. these threats of violence are being taken seriously. We must remember that while we may not like or agree with the job that they do they are people, and as such no violence should be done to them. While i was being questioned i was treated with respect and dignity, but with the sincerity of someone trying to protect the life of a friend and neighbor. If any anger comes out on the recording for those who have heard it, please realize that the soul and the eyes behind it were genuine ed to do no harm but simply prevent any harm.
This may seem ridiculous, for those who have met the people living in the house, that we would wish anyone harm. But remember confirmation bias and for an instant put yourselves in their shoes and think what you would do if someone threatened you or your friends and family. Everyone becomes suspect, and that paranoia works for neither side. Yes many of us have chosen to use our 2nd amendment right to protect ourselves and family, but we also know that a gun is a tool that can be used for anything, and their conformation bias is one that makes them think those wepons may be used against them. We need to chaing this bias, and the only way to do that is to peacefully comunicate with them and everyone else. We are not killers, we are not murderers, people who believe in liberty wish no harm. We must foster this ideal, and shun the ideas of violence, and channel that frustration into peace and liberty.
They dropped the case against Michael Gannon because they know that a Federal Court of Appeals has ruled that there is a First Amendment right to record the police as they go about their official duties and publish those recordings.
They may think it's illegal in New Hampshire to record the cops, and it may take money and effort to prove them wrong, but they are, in fact, wrong. An unconstitutional law has no force or effect.
Quote from: shyfrog on October 05, 2007, 03:31 PM NHFT
I have yet to hear the voices of error and phil on porc411 telling us they are ok...
i just spoke with error.
Quote from: mvpel on October 05, 2007, 03:59 PM NHFT
They dropped the case against Michael Gannon because they know that a Federal Court of Appeals has ruled that there is a First Amendment right to record the police as they go about their official duties and publish those recordings.
They may think it's illegal in New Hampshire to record the cops, and it may take money and effort to prove them wrong, but they are, in fact, wrong. An unconstitutional law has no force or effect.
So they drop the case because they don't want this specific law to get challenged in court and shot down, specifically. As long as it's on the books,
ultimately unenforceable or not, it can intimidate some people into following it.
Heading back to Manchester from Boston now...
Quote from: mvpel on October 05, 2007, 03:59 PM NHFT
An unconstitutional law has no force or effect.
You make a very convincing case that seatbelt laws are unconstitutional.
I agree with you; but I will assume the Head Goon's Office (http://doj.nh.gov/) has more immediate relevance than the Constitution, at least until the law is changed, or the courts nullify it.
ill call in tonight as close to seven as i can
is ivy ok? how does she seem?
Wow. I just got home and have been playing catch up on what's been happening. This is incredible. I understand confirmation bias, but that anyone could read what gets talked about here and seriously consider this a violent movement is still a little hard to swallow. Really makes me wish Ed and Elaine hadn't done what they did. Not because they were wrong to not pay income taxes or that I think they should be in jail, but because absolutely nothing good has come out of the whole fiasco. :-\ The thought that they're considering the FSP as a whole "violent" is particularly disturbing, both for what they could do and how it could scare people off.
I'll be keeping you all in my thoughts, and I wish I could do more. :-\
One thing about recording, though. If I'm not mistaken the law only requires that you inform them, not that you get their consent. Practical, on-the-ground considerations are of course the most important thing, but the more recordings of police encounters the better.
Quote from: d_goddard on October 05, 2007, 04:12 PM NHFT
Quote from: mvpel on October 05, 2007, 03:59 PM NHFT
An unconstitutional law has no force or effect.
You make a very convincing case that seatbelt laws are unconstitutional.
I agree with you; but I will assume the Head Goon's Office (http://doj.nh.gov/) has more immediate relevance than the Constitution, at least until the law is changed, or the courts nullify it.
Seatbelts are not "unconstitutiona" per se, but are rather the "PUBLIC POLICY" that the majority of the socialists elected to our government choose.
"PUBLIC POLICY" has its orgins in "CORPORATE GOVERNMENT" where constitutional "RIGHTS" are unwittingly contracted away by the sheeple when they enter into a contract with the "CORPORATE GOVERNMENT". Then Article One, Section 10 takes over and the sheeple are compelled to perform to the terms of the contract into which they entered, knowingly, willingly and intentionally. Check Hosea 4-6 for a prod to your gray matter.
If it was illegal to record cops, people, etc then how would stores be able to have video surveillance systems and not get arrested? Not being able to record something is like saying it never happened. That you didn't see it. It's like saying that you are required to lie, or better yet, convince yourself that it never happened. Isn't that thought crime?
It is just a small step away to say that seeing or hearing something is illegal. If you see something happen and want to share what you saw, there should be nothing to stop you...
Sorry, I am a reporter and I can't stand censorship or self-censorship.
Is Rob OK?
Quote from: supperman15 on October 05, 2007, 03:16 PM NHFT
hello all,
Everything is well at the frathouse. I was informed the the porc call was illegal and do not want a transcript printed. I also request that people please deleate the audio. Now, that is simply because i had not asked if they could be recorded. I realize what im asking may be hard but the people behind the badges would like that, and so would i. I would please neither play or transcribe any part of the message threw any form of media im sure someone from the house will be more then happy chat and tell you more
I have pulled it down from my server, per your request.
rob is ok, i spoke with him minutes ago.
Thanks, Beth...that is good news.
680-436-350-724-106-43-617-378-787
875-731-521-214-51-161-504-162-848
421-426-279-550-372-617-150-713-182
903-803-67-738-235-530-508-173-293
150-450-361-697-949-719-862-828-312
126-266-724-510-87-310-627-543-895
419-696-518-675-204-563-152-817-461
905-343
Quote from: sandm000 on October 05, 2007, 06:49 PM NHFT
680-436-350-724-106-43-617-378-787
...
That was ...
cryptic
...HUT, HUT, HIKE!
That's the yellow chicken decoder, right?
"It is therefore easy to see why authority frowns on friendship. Every
real friendship is a sort of succession, even a rebellion. It may be a
rebellion of serious thinkers against accepted claptrap or of faddists
against accepted good sense; of real artists against popular ugliness
or of charlatans against civilised taste; of good men against the
badness of society or of bad men against its goodness. Whichever it
is, it will be unwelcome to the Top People. In each knot of friends
there is a sectional "public opinion" which fortifies its members
against the public opinion of the community in general. Each therefore
is a pocket of potential resistance. Men who have real friends are
less easy to manage or "get at"; harder for the good authorities to
correct or the bad authorities to corrupt. Hence if our masters, by
force or by
propaganda about "Togetherness" or by unobtrusively making privacy and
unplanned leisure impossible, ever succeed in producing a world where
all are Companions and none are Friends, they will have removed
certain dangers, and will also have taken from us what is almost our
strongest safeguard against complete servitude.
--C.S. Lewis
Four Loves (1960)
Quote from: Ogre on October 05, 2007, 07:01 PM NHFT
That's the yellow chicken decoder, right?
Purple Goose
2007 10 5
Just thank goodness everyone is okay for now. There were a lot of rumors flying around today, though, which wasn't terribly useful. Certainly got my heart racing a lot more than if the initial reports were just "Some Federales wanted to talk to us." I mean, I still probably would have gone to check out if everything was okay . . . but it's a little more harrowing to think everyone's been arrested.
Turns out the only story is that the Federales wanted to make sure they weren't going to get shot at now that the Browns were arrested. The whole business with the hit list Ed made, threatening several of the marshals and their "bloodlines." It seems like they've got a list of people very active in supporting Ed Brown, and they want to check and make sure no one's going to get violent. Of course, they do it in the most intrusive way possible. But they didn't raid any houses, didn't start arresting people. It's just really scary to know a Federale is after you, because you never know what's going to happen once they find you.
It shows their lack of knowledge and fear that they went after some of the most peaceful people in the entire state.
Oh, and red, red dog 117:
vra}@bhDN"O!>(HPBLcLNOAa( B"hMCbSKdQLa9@F1H& vUy}1
(pX&r}egs>ob76!@RNYreaP'8a'g9]h->Yko?yEl+-mar;I;+1
lqS2N4%Qj@p7A[vsd3Ujd>Yea}Ag+>omUbsuH"!!J0 itaMSX?
tx.bbwqKiLf[4a)ShXb!{]40bSDX,0%3u$f/=.!jJHX3@?Qzq9
!@G?8ydOhqe]E4M2P'/2JAf(4h=x&7@qcMlSH(],Nrb.DIy+i?
X;UuKdn78Hd2FR-?B@+3"Qo0[0";W&&0C}XCG=/jO6lvb/=Ygz
+U7$jeHch1hHU2N]lX*0p3+O -xP=4&Rz&5i/[q9l)-#,A1N>!
kpV
"The Pearl is in the River (http://imdb.com/title/tt0083254/)"
Quote from: Ogre on October 05, 2007, 07:45 PM NHFT
It shows their lack of knowledge and fear that they went after some of the most peaceful people in the entire state.
Oh, and red, red dog 117:
vra}@bhDN"O!>(HPBLcLNOAa( B"hMCbSKdQLa9@F1H& vUy}1
(pX&r}egs>ob76!@RNYreaP'8a'g9]h->Yko?yEl+-mar;I;+1
lqS2N4%Qj@p7A[vsd3Ujd>Yea}Ag+>omUbsuH"!!J0 itaMSX?
tx.bbwqKiLf[4a)ShXb!{]40bSDX,0%3u$f/=.!jJHX3@?Qzq9
!@G?8ydOhqe]E4M2P'/2JAf(4h=x&7@qcMlSH(],Nrb.DIy+i?
X;UuKdn78Hd2FR-?B@+3"Qo0[0";W&&0C}XCG=/jO6lvb/=Ygz
+U7$jeHch1hHU2N]lX*0p3+O -xP=4&Rz&5i/[q9l)-#,A1N>!
kpV
I don't speak Perl
Quote from: d_goddard on October 05, 2007, 07:53 PM NHFT
"The Perl is in the River (http://imdb.com/title/tt0083254/)"
Geek typo. ;D
Quote from: picaro on October 05, 2007, 07:26 PM NHFT
"It is therefore easy to see why authority frowns on friendship. Every
real friendship is a sort of succession, even a rebellion. It may be a
rebellion of serious thinkers against accepted claptrap or of faddists
against accepted good sense; of real artists against popular ugliness
or of charlatans against civilised taste; of good men against the
badness of society or of bad men against its goodness. Whichever it
is, it will be unwelcome to the Top People. In each knot of friends
there is a sectional "public opinion" which fortifies its members
against the public opinion of the community in general. Each therefore
is a pocket of potential resistance. Men who have real friends are
less easy to manage or "get at"; harder for the good authorities to
correct or the bad authorities to corrupt. Hence if our masters, by
force or by
propaganda about "Togetherness" or by unobtrusively making privacy and
unplanned leisure impossible, ever succeed in producing a world where
all are Companions and none are Friends, they will have removed
certain dangers, and will also have taken from us what is almost our
strongest safeguard against complete servitude.
--C.S. Lewis
Four Loves (1960)
That is very appropriate. 8)
Quote from: enloopious on October 05, 2007, 03:20 PM NHFT
People are giving away way too much information to these guys. Use your right to remain silent.
Do you think the thugs believe this?
Lauren was silently dragged off to jail.
Quote from: d_goddard on October 05, 2007, 03:47 PM NHFT
Quote from: enloopious on October 05, 2007, 03:37 PM NHFT
Any person who works in the public eye is free to be filmed and recorded.
I'll say this only one and briefly: you're wrong
I think it is right for me to film a government worker ... and make fun of them.
I can composite a Bozo hairdo on them. ;D
i've been videotaping and editing most of the day...
here's part one of my report on the events here at 412 Central as well as what happened to Ivy at Muprhy's.
http://youtube.com/ridleyreport
there were also events connected to lauren which I will upload asap
Quote from: RattyDog on October 05, 2007, 04:48 PM NHFT
I've just left Murphies now. The law men have left after speaking with Keith and Ivy at length. At the moment, a few of us are still there and more have called and said they were on the way. I will be back there later.
Just made it here about half an hour ago. Fucking MBTA...
Quote from: d_goddard on October 05, 2007, 07:53 PM NHFT
"The Perl is in the River (http://imdb.com/title/tt0083254/)"
BHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Quote from: DadaOrwell on October 05, 2007, 08:34 PM NHFT
i've been videotaping and editing most of the day...
here's part one of my report on the events here at 412 Central as well as what happened to Ivy at Muprhy's.
http://youtube.com/ridleyreport
there were also events connected to lauren which I will upload asap
This is a classic! More, more, more!
btw, http://whatreallyhappened.com/ (http://whatreallyhappened.com/) has this forum linked on his main page dated Oct. 5, 2007!
You guys are making history!
There was a porc 411, I believe from Ivy
it was hard to make out, but I think the Feds want to talk to
someone, with in 24 hours or they will arrest them.
Maybe some younger person who hasn't been listening to machinery
for a long time could make it out better.
If someone could please pass along to Ivy that Peter saw the fire trucks, had a nice dinner, and is sleeping soundly now, I'd appreciate it.
Good on you, Mrs&Mr P.
Quote from: mvpel on October 05, 2007, 09:29 PM NHFT
If someone could please pass along to Ivy that Peter saw the fire trucks, had a nice dinner, and is sleeping soundly now, I'd appreciate it.
Message received. Ivy's with us at Murphy's at the moment. She's fine now. She asks that you bring him here tomorrow to the MVP meeting. Thanks.
Quote from: Sheep Fuzzy Wool on October 05, 2007, 09:03 PM NHFT
You guys are making history!
Dude, the NH Freedom movement has been making history for several years now.
This is just one more item that will be on the timeline, decades from now...
Quote from: DadaOrwell on October 05, 2007, 08:34 PM NHFT
i've been videotaping and editing most of the day...
here's part one of my report on the events here at 412 Central as well as what happened to Ivy at Muprhy's.
http://youtube.com/ridleyreport
there were also events connected to lauren which I will upload asap
Every thought of subtitling/closed-captioning these videos? Bloody impossible to watch them at Murphy's...
I just want you guys to know that all the roommates who were home at the time are my heroes for refusing to let them in without a warrent. Good on ya!:love4:
<<This is a classic! More, more, more!>>
request taken under advisement...and granted!
part 2:
http://youtube.com/ridleyreport
Great work as always, Dave.
these videos are great! i can't get out much, being mr mom from 3:30-midnight every day :) and working all morning, so it's good to at least be up to date as to what's happening. keep em coming!!!
Quote from: DadaOrwell on October 05, 2007, 10:27 PM NHFT
<<This is a classic! More, more, more!>>
request taken under advisement...and granted!
part 2:
http://youtube.com/ridleyreport
Dave, can you get me a 150 x 85 banner for the Ridley Report? I want to promote it on the front page of FreeKeene.com.
Has anyone heard of the practice of Scientologists of declaring someone Fair Game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology))?
Isn't this what the Marshalls have done to anyone related to the Browns, as witnessed by their interrogations today?
Keep up the great work Dada. Seeing your videos has solidified my determination to at some point get up to NH. I haven't got the slightest clue when that might be, much less if I'll ever be able to actually live there, but "Helping the Porcs" is officially at the top of my must-do list. Just being able to watch from afar, even if I can't do much yet, is a godsend.
These next few years are going to be... interesting, I suspect.
Well, it's no surprise supporting the Browns turned into a clusterfuck, but I'm glad all of our people are OK. Doesn't sound like y'all are out of the woods yet, though.
We're all safe for now, though tomorrow is another day.
Quote from: error on October 06, 2007, 01:09 AM NHFT
We're all safe for now, though tomorrow is another day.
Hope I see you all at MVP tomorrow. Including the feds, whom I'm sure are reading this—come by and see that freestaters are mostly a peaceful bunch.
Seems to me like feds going around to the people they think are going to start shooting...seems like they're trying to goad them into doing something.
Quote from: mvpel on October 05, 2007, 09:29 PM NHFT
If someone could please pass along to Ivy that Peter saw the fire trucks, had a nice dinner, and is sleeping soundly now, I'd appreciate it.
i sent you a PM.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on October 06, 2007, 05:08 AM NHFT
Seems to me like feds going around to the people they think are going to start shooting...seems like they're trying to goad them into doing something.
Not advocating it, but they really should be careful. If they run across the wrong person and start poking around, they may end up getting shot. Like I said, I don't wish that on them, but they are putting their lives at risk if they end up messing with one of the violent militant types.
There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware
I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind
I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, "Hooray for our side!"
It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away
We better stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, now, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
-Buffalo Springfield
For What It's Worth
great song
Quote from: RattyDog on October 06, 2007, 06:35 AM NHFT
Who knows what they're trying to do, Kat....it's scary to think of what motivates a person to dedicate their lives to enforcing such murderous, bogus and opressive laws....they could be up to anything.
Once again RattyDog sums it up perfectly. I am so proud that you are one of us.
Same for Bald Eagle. Wow -- that song seems as if it were written with this very day in mind.
Yesterday's events have only served to steel my resolve to stand up to the tyranny in our midst, and especially to never again contribute one cent to the salaries of those who engage in agression and intimidation tactics -- no matter what they do to me in retaliation.
If they pay me a "friendly" yet unwelcome visit, I will not answer their questions or comply with any of their uncalled for arbitrary demands. They have a choice. They can do what's right and leave me alone, or they can do me wrong by taking away what little "freedom" I have. I am prepared to be dragged to their concrete cage against my will to let them expose themselves for who they are and inspire those on the sidelines to likewise step forward and "just say NO" to evil.
"There you go man
Keep as cool as you can
Face piles of trials with smiles
It riles them to believe
That you perceive the web they weave
And...keep on thinking free!"
Moody Blues
"On The Threshold Of A Dream"
WTF!!!!!!!!!!!??????????? :o
Glad to hear it didn't escalate. It is rather inspiring that you guys stuck together and it's good to hear calmer heads prevailed; personally, I think that your unity is a much more scary thought for them.
If anyone is looking for rational on the part of the feds it's likely to be an exercise in futility; the whores of Babylon are completely delusional to begin with.
It seems like to me that someone is feeding false information to the Feds. I wonder who, because even on this forum, I've looked for search keys to thread posts suggesting acts of violence on government personnel related to the capture, and/or arrest of the Browns. Nor can I say I've found any significant discussion on the forum so far. I'm betting they're just being sent on a wild goose chase by some hotshot investigator in their department and I feel sorry for them wasting their time (when the treasury department does actually have other things to worry about like counterfeit notes and etc). Anyways, I just wanted that to be said because I think sooner or later, we'll get to see who's behind the turning of these 'wheels.'
-- Brede
Quote from: Kat Kanning on October 06, 2007, 05:08 AM NHFT
Seems to me like feds going around to the people they think are going to start shooting...seems like they're trying to goad them into doing something.
I wonder if they visited anyone who has given any indications of violence? None of the people they were reported to visit yesterday have expressed any interest in violence.
Quote from: srqrebel on October 06, 2007, 09:02 AM NHFT
Once again RattyDog sums it up perfectly. I am so proud that you are one of us.
and in verse no less . .
I hope that Rob
wherever he is
is safe and fed
and using his head.
RattyDog
Quote from: Kat Kanning on October 06, 2007, 05:08 AM NHFT
Seems to me like feds going around to the people they think are going to start shooting...
No, I got he strong impression they seriously think that because someone owns a gun that they're going to use it. Remember in some parts of the country.. of course anyone at 412 could have walked out open carrying and denied any illegal order to disarm themselves.
Then again nobody in 412 should have volunteered to leave the house. We need more education on how to deal with police, including some situational roleplay. The ACLU has some great resources for this.
Quote from: ArcRiley on October 06, 2007, 01:41 PM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on October 06, 2007, 05:08 AM NHFT
Seems to me like feds going around to the people they think are going to start shooting...
No, I got he strong impression they seriously think that because someone owns a gun that they're going to use it. Remember in some parts of the country.. of course anyone at 412 could have walked out open carrying and denied any illegal order to disarm themselves.
Then again nobody in 412 should have volunteered to leave the house. We need more education on how to deal with police, including some situational roleplay. The ACLU has some great resources for this.
I wouldn't advise provoking these guys by doing an open carry while they are surrounding a house. It may be your legal right, but you could also end up seriously dead because these feds are incredibly paranoid. I also wouldn't get in their faces while open carrying. Call me overly cautious or a lover of life . . . These are the same agencies that shot and killed a woman holding a baby because her husband got entrapped in an ATF sting.
Dave "Anchorman" Ridley is a great example of how to remain calm and safe while asking legitimate questions of aggressive authoritarians. We should all heed his example.
Quote from: ArcRiley on October 06, 2007, 01:41 PM NHFT
We need more education on how to deal with police, including some situational roleplay. The ACLU has some great resources for this.
When I move to NH, I would love to participate in situational role play. Surely there are people with knowledge and/or experience who can suggest good ideas for how to act in tough situations. But also it would be good to practice, to "try it out" and see what methods work best for me, and to see if what I think is a good idea, actuallly
is a good idea.
The video BUSTED is awesome and highly recommended.
http://www.flexyourrights.org/busted
[youtube=425,350]<object width="425" height="353"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yqMjMPlXzdA&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yqMjMPlXzdA&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="353"></embed></object>[/youtube]
Quote from: EJinCT on October 06, 2007, 10:24 AM NHFT
If anyone is looking for rational on the part of the feds it's likely to be an exercise in futility; the whores of Babylon are completely delusional to begin with.
Maybe they feel guilty about sitting around pushing papers at a desk. They think to themselves, "hey, the taxpayers are paying us to do something, let's go do something!" Doing something is better than doing nothing, right? (so goes their logic.)
Going out and hassling people who have never even heard of any of this and have no idea what's going on is apparently a great time for federal agents. I got to watch several of them enjoying themselves doing just that to one of my roommates whose biggest crime was cooking lunch.
Ok, there are several things that don't make sense to me. Maybe the whole story wasn't posted so it sounds funny but maybe you guys could help me out. I live in... uh, Canada (so leave me alone feds) and I think there is a lot more to this story than has been posted. Maybe you guys can help me understand a little better.
Why did they find your house using GPS?
Why is the Treasury Department looking for, what can only be called, Thought Criminals?
Are Ed and Elaine part of the FSP or just friends?
What was the FULL reason, or the suspected hidden reason, for the Treasury being there?
Was the alleged "Hit List" posted on this site and if so, how many feds do you think it takes to filter through all of the hundreds of posts per day? Is there a team dedicated to doing it or are they relying on Carnivore type software?
Glad to hear everyone is okay. From up here in Canuckistan what happened looked like an attempt to incite, but not to enjoy beating people, but to increase their budget. My guess is the treasury department wants a bigger budget so its hired retards go out and try to provoke people so an incident occurs which justifies bigger guns, tanks, dogs, helicopters etc. Or perhaps they were yelled at for not having enough results and were told to go out and make some up. Those boys sure do like their toys, sort of like us rednecks with our big trucks, you know, the bigger the toy the smaller the *enis. You should not incite violence, the best way to get rid of the government is to ignore it, ignore it's rules, ignore it's regulations, ignore the losers who work for it. If millions of people did this then those tossers would no longer be getting a pay day from the tax payer.
Quote from: enloopious on October 06, 2007, 04:44 PM NHFT
Ok, there are several things that don't make sense to me. Maybe the whole story wasn't posted so it sounds funny but maybe you guys could help me out. I live in... uh, Canada (so leave me alone feds) and I think there is a lot more to this story than has been posted. Maybe you guys can help me understand a little better.
Why did they find your house using GPS?
Why is the Treasury Department looking for, what can only be called, Thought Criminals?
Are Ed and Elaine part of the FSP or just friends?
What was the FULL reason, or the suspected hidden reason, for the Treasury being there?
Was the alleged "Hit List" posted on this site and if so, how many feds do you think it takes to filter through all of the hundreds of posts per day? Is there a team dedicated to doing it or are they relying on Carnivore type software?
Haha, I like that last one. Imagine a leak from the friendly neighbourhood FBI office, detailing the 'NHFree anarchist cell Task Force'. ::)
Yea, we need a task force for NHfree people chief!
why? Well alot of reasons but the worst is they make
fun of us online!! If we don't quash it here, The
next thing you know they will walk up to us in
public and ask us to pull their fingers!
Ed and Elaine are not part of the FSP.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on October 06, 2007, 06:55 PM NHFT
Ed and Elaine are not part of the FSP.
Indeed. A point that you might want to make to any Feds when they're asking "Are you part of the Free State Project?".
Quote from: enloopious on October 06, 2007, 04:44 PM NHFT
Why did they find your house using GPS?
Who said anything about them finding the house with GPS? 412 Central St is easily found repeatedly all over these forums. I've never seen a geotag for the house posted.
Quote from: enloopious on October 06, 2007, 04:44 PM NHFT
Why is the Treasury Department looking for, what can only be called, Thought Criminals?
Apparently they believe someone has made threats to use violence against some government offices which concern them, and they thought the best way to handle this was to go out in "plain clothes", refuse to properly identify themselves to anyone, blatantly lie to everyone they talked to, in an effort to elicit our "cooperation".
All in all, I give them a C for social engineering, only because a few people got riled up and volunteered information they shouldn't have, and an F for their overall investigation.
Quote from: enloopious on October 06, 2007, 04:44 PM NHFT
Are Ed and Elaine part of the FSP or just friends?
Neither. They happen to be friends with a few members of the FSP. Many of us agree with their message but refrained from getting involved due to their manner of handling themselves (ie, pledging to use deadly force to avoid arrest)
Quote from: enloopious on October 06, 2007, 04:44 PM NHFT
What was the FULL reason, or the suspected hidden reason, for the Treasury being there?
Suspected hidden reason: only the treasury dept guys have actually spent time reading this stuff, and the federal marshals were brought along since they were scared someone would pull a gun on them.
Quote from: enloopious on October 06, 2007, 04:44 PM NHFT
how many feds do you think it takes to filter through all of the hundreds of posts per day?
It would only take one to read all the postings on here in near realtime.
History shows that any group even the least resistant or vocal on government policy gets at least one federal agent, usually from the FBI. For a long-term history on this look up "COINTELPRO". Freedom of information act has given us tons of documentation on their tactics.
But this isn't the FBI, this is the US Treasury Dept. Their interest in the FSP likely spawned from googling the Browns and finding "sticky" threads on NHFree about them with over a thousand posts. Their interest will fade in time.
As far as the others, just keep in the back of your mind that we do have at least one federal agent living in New Hampshire posing as a porcupine. He'll operate by pointing fingers and trying to create divisions/factions, he may suggest the use of bombs or assassinations as a way to achieve political goals, and he may even seem like just a crazy to us.
It doesn't matter, and paranoia doesn't help us, so we simply ignore any such finger pointing, remove people from the group who advocate the initiation of force to achieve political goals (or hell anyone talking about building bombs), and in general foster a social environment inhospitable to disruptive infiltration.
Hopefully they learned their lesson with Earth First! and don't repeat what they did to Judy Bari (http://www.judibari.org/). No planting bombs in porcupine's cars, m'kay?
Agreed. :-\
Quote from: ArcRiley on October 06, 2007, 08:36 PM NHFT
But this isn't the FBI, this is the US Treasury Dept. Their interest in the FSP likely spawned from googling the Browns and finding "sticky" threads on NHFree about them with over a thousand posts. Their interest will fade in time.
I don't think so ... since many of us openly refuse to pay income taxes. We are not going to stop anytime soon, and we are a threat to their power.
QuoteAre you part of the Free State Project?".
Correct answer is: No, the FSP is just a bus. Once you get to NH, you get off the bus. >:D
QuoteNo planting bombs in porcupine's cars, m'kay?
Great, so now I have to return all that stuff I bought from home depot? ;)
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 06, 2007, 09:08 PM NHFT
I don't think so ... since many of us openly refuse to pay income taxes. We are not going to stop anytime soon, and we are a threat to their power.
I'm not aware of any of us, including yourself, refusing to pay taxes who have an income above the threshold of having to file, much less having to pay anything were they to file.
Absolutely no offense intended, in fact I envy you for this, but you're going to be living in a hole in the ground. C'mon. Any IRS auditor claiming you had hidden assets would be laughed at.
This is actually a commonly practiced form of tax resistance and wholly respectable. Still, legal, and boy don't they wish they could jail us for refusing to work? Give 'em 20 years they'll have government-run sweatshops for anyone earning under 14k/year to contribute their share of "taxes" through slave labor.
20 years? They're doing things like that already.
Quote from: ArcRiley on October 06, 2007, 10:07 PM NHFT
Still, legal, and boy don't they wish they could jail us for refusing to work? Give 'em 20 years they'll have government-run sweatshops for anyone earning under 14k/year to contribute their share of "taxes" through slave labor.
Um, don't give them any good ideas, they're watching. :(
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5444126196608526282
Quote from: error on October 06, 2007, 11:00 PM NHFT
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5308304825947519702
"Video not available"
It will be soon. Be patient.
Quote from: rancemuhamitz on October 05, 2007, 03:01 PM NHFT
Did I hear them ask if he is a Ron Paul supporter? Is that grounds for arrest/harassment now?
Can anyone confirm if the agent did or didn't ask this question?
If he did, then he engaged in "political activity" in violation of the Hatch Act. The automatic penalty for violating the Hatch Act is firing. A
unanimous vote by the Merit Systems Promotion Board can reduce that to a
minimum of 30 days (unpaid) suspension.
http://osc.gov/ha_fed.htm
Quote from: error on October 06, 2007, 11:00 PM NHFT
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5308304825947519702
Great video error. Thanks for posting it and showing some of their verbal and mental tactics. I think it could help people learn how to act when talking to the Fed's without actually having to go though the experience personally.
I'm going to re-upload it. I think the format off the camera is a little bizarre and it choked so I'm re-encoding it first. Give it a couple of hours.
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/10/07/marshals-investigate-potential-threats-to-the-nation/
i am glad to hear that Rob is around. I have gotten a chance to know Rob, and I just think he is great. I could sit and chat with him for hours! Plus, to watch him with Ivy's son, he is a good roll model for that little guy. Can't get more trusting than that, leaving a toddler in a persons care. When he helps a person out, he dedicates his whole heart into it, after watching him help Ivy with her move here in RI, driving a car back, packing an unpacking, and fixing her truck yesterday! I have never heard him speak personally about what the feds thought he was going to do, or not do. I have heard him on Badnariks radio program, and he does not sound like a man to start on Mr. Browns questionable list. The ONLY person in the flesh I have heard make threats was Ed. I have witnessed Rob help so many free staters out now, with work around their house, and so much more. If I needed a handy man, Rob would be the first I would call. Ivy is my "bff" and when she asked me about Rob as a room mate, I could not think of one bad thing to say.
Sometimes being behind a keyboard makes things come out harsher than intended. Like I know a few times I have said "omg, Dan (my bf) I could KILL you!" but its meant in good fun. If you dont know the person IRL, its hard to sometimes understand how they come across the computer. I invite the feds to contact me, if they need more "character building" on Rob, but I doubt they will call me, Because I have ONLY good things to say about him .
Quote from: ArcRiley on October 06, 2007, 10:07 PM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 06, 2007, 09:08 PM NHFT
I don't think so ... since many of us openly refuse to pay income taxes. We are not going to stop anytime soon, and we are a threat to their power.
I'm not aware of any of us, including yourself, refusing to pay taxes who have an income above the threshold of having to file, much less having to pay anything were they to file.
Absolutely no offense intended, in fact I envy you for this, but you're going to be living in a hole in the ground. C'mon. Any IRS auditor claiming you had hidden assets would be laughed at.
I guess you don't really know me very well. For many years I have made money in a traceable way by the stinkin government ... at levels that they would normally want me to pay taxes on. I have never heard from the feds about this money, but the state of California has demanded money from me ... that I never responded to. I stopped paying and filing in 1998. I have been that much more free from January of 99 til now. :)
Now that I have burned my SS card and had my license cut up by a nazi ... I no longer work as an accountant and make small amounts of money. I would rather make large amounts of money ... and still not pay any taxes.
Caleb Johnson makes money and openly refuses to fed taxes on it. There are many more. I don't know all of their situations. There are many wonderful tax protestors who purposely make small amounts of money .... but there are a growing number of people are taking a different path.
I am purposely building an earth sheltered home for comfort and economy. Bill Gates already built his. We just need to convince him to stop paying taxes. He must fund one day a year of Iraqi killing all by himself. :)
I think you should stop paying taxes in whichever way is most comfortable to you.
that is really rotten ... the way those DC thugs harassed our people here in The Shire. Ivy should not be treated like that.
These government protectors sure are doing their job.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 07, 2007, 09:30 AM NHFT
that is really rotten ... the way those DC thugs harassed our people here in The Shire. Ivy should not be treated like that.
These government protectors sure are doing their job.
i hope they have trouble at night sleeping, knowing that they treated a single working mother of 2 like that.
*ohh, did i just threaten a fed with not sleeping? Pish posh!
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 07, 2007, 09:25 AM NHFT
I think you should stop paying taxes in whichever way is most comfortable to you.
That's a good statement.
I have never, in this life, paid a red cent in federal income tax, and it has all been entirely legal. If anyone feels likewise morally obligated to refrain from "feeding the beast" but is worried about the beast bearing it's teeth at you for it, get in touch with me privately. It's actually easier than you'd think.
Quote from: ArcRiley on October 07, 2007, 09:55 AM NHFT
I have never, in this life, paid a red cent in federal income tax, and it has all been entirely legal. If anyone feels likewise morally obligated to refrain from "feeding the beast" but is worried about the beast bearing it's teeth at you for it, get in touch with me privately. It's actually easier than you'd think.
Are you selling something? ;)
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 07, 2007, 09:25 AM NHFT
Quote from: ArcRiley on October 06, 2007, 10:07 PM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 06, 2007, 09:08 PM NHFT
I don't think so ... since many of us openly refuse to pay income taxes. We are not going to stop anytime soon, and we are a threat to their power.
I'm not aware of any of us, including yourself, refusing to pay taxes who have an income above the threshold of having to file, much less having to pay anything were they to file.
Absolutely no offense intended, in fact I envy you for this, but you're going to be living in a hole in the ground. C'mon. Any IRS auditor claiming you had hidden assets would be laughed at.
I guess you don't really know me very well. For many years I have made money in a traceable way by the stinkin government ... at levels that they would normally want me to pay taxes on. I have never heard from the feds about this money, but the state of California has demanded money from me ... that I never responded to. I stopped paying and filing in 1998. I have been that much more free from January of 99 til now. :)
Now that I have burned my SS card and had my license cut up by a nazi ... I no longer work as an accountant and make small amounts of money. I would rather make large amounts of money ... and still not pay any taxes.
Caleb Johnson makes money and openly refuses to fed taxes on it. There are many more. I don't know all of their situations. There are many wonderful tax protestors who purposely make small amounts of money .... but there are a growing number of people are taking a different path.
I am purposely building an earth sheltered home for comfort and economy. Bill Gates already built his. We just need to convince him to stop paying taxes. He must fund one day a year of Iraqi killing all by himself. :)
I think you should stop paying taxes in whichever way is most comfortable to you.
SFW completely understands the sentiment. However, perhaps a simple adjustment within the approach may garner a wider support. You are not refusing to pay taxes. In fact, you volunteer with check book and pen in hand to pay legal taxes. All you need is for the government to show you the law. The undisputed law. You are not a tax protester nor a tax evader. You simply want to abide by the U of s Constitution, and wish for our government to do the same.
In general when you say you are a tax protestor, the public believes you are anti-government, anti-american, etc., etc., etc. It should be clear that you support the Constitution. :)
No, it still says it's five minutes. I think Google is broken. I'm going to try something else later.
Quote from: Sheep Fuzzy Wool on October 07, 2007, 10:09 AM NHFT
SFW completely understands the sentiment. However, perhaps a simple adjustment within the approach may garner a wider support. You are not refusing to pay taxes. In fact, you volunteer with check book and pen in hand to pay legal taxes. All you need is for the government to show you the law. The undisputed law. You are not a tax protester nor a tax evader. You simply want to abide by the U of s Constitution, and wish for our government to do the same.
In general when you say you are a tax protestor, the public believes you are anti-government, anti-american, etc., etc., etc. It should be clear that you support the Constitution. :)
SFW if that is the way you are going to approach the situation fine but I do like Ian's argument that by saying "there is no law" get you in to the legal mambo jumbo world but if you take the principled stance that taxes on your labor is nothing more then a form of slavery and if a law is not right you should not obey it. I am not saying I know there is a law and I am not a lawyer and no practically nothing about the "legal system". I have made the argument to a few people that taxes are slavery and after a discussion they began to agree with me. I know I am not the best person to be throwing stones in a glass house because I have not left the plantation, yes I still pay taxes mostly because of the line of work I am in companies entrust me with sensitive information and if they do not believe I am trustworthy I probably would not have the employment that I currently hold. If I could find a company that did not care if I paid income taxes I would probably then step off the plantation. This is one reason why I joined the FSP because I would think that with FSP members there would be a better chance of finding that company.
SFW even if I do not think your approach is the way that I would approach the issue I would still support you for not paying income taxes.
Quote from: ArcRiley on October 07, 2007, 09:55 AM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 07, 2007, 09:25 AM NHFT
I think you should stop paying taxes in whichever way is most comfortable to you.
That's a good statement.
I have never, in this life, paid a red cent in federal income tax, and it has all been entirely legal. If anyone feels likewise morally obligated to refrain from "feeding the beast" but is worried about the beast bearing it's teeth at you for it, get in touch with me privately. It's actually easier than you'd think.
Yeah, I am envious of you. I have tried for years and years to resist the mob but they just hijack my paycheck w/o telling me they are going to do it. I think the best way to go about this is finding a "friendly" job. I tried filing the legal pleadings requesting my
Ivy, I have to tell you that it gets easier to talk to feds every time you do it. I am going to court right now on three different court issues and the first time I was as nervous, or more so, than you sounded in the video. Now I am actually looking forward to busting this cops balls. He lied on his official police report and I got him. The only out he has is not to show up. If he does, he is caught perjuring himself on his official police report.
Few people properly understand the psychology of dealing with cops. Your normal person will enter fight or flight mode. This is wrong. The easiest way to deal with them is to pander to their egos: "Did I do something wrong? I am so sorry. How can I help? No sir, I just can't remember anything that has ever happened, anywhere, ever. How can I help?" If it works for all of those in office, why not for us too?
You want to make it sound like their goals are your goals while telling them nothing. I could be wrong and it would be a terrible shame but its worked for me so far.
Quote from: enloopious on October 07, 2007, 10:58 AM NHFT
Yeah, I am envious of you. I have tried for years and years to resist the mob but they just hijack my paycheck w/o telling me they are going to do it. I think the best way to go about this is finding a "friendly" job.
As was just stated, you simply make your W4 exempt from employer witholding.
Next challenge, since they know how much you earned, is putting yourself under the taxable limit. Talk to me privately about achieving this. No I'm not selling anything, just sharing wisdom best left off these forums.
Quote from: enloopious on October 07, 2007, 10:58 AM NHFT
Few people properly understand the psychology of dealing with cops. Your normal person will enter fight or flight mode. This is wrong. The easiest way to deal with them is to pander to their egos: "Did I do something wrong? I am so sorry. How can I help? No sir, I just can't remember anything that has ever happened, anywhere, ever. How can I help?" If it works for all of those in office, why not for us too?
Don't pander.
Cop at door, you answer and ask who (s)he is, they identify themselves as bla, "do you have a warrant?", if they answer no you close the door and do not answer it again. If they persist you call the police to report harassment.
They do not have the right to order you out of your home without a warrant. They do not have a legal right to detain you without probable cause, if they ask you to do so it is a request which you can choose to deny their request.
Why? There is only one reason for them to talk to you if they don't have a warrant; to obtain evidence for arresting you or someone else, so practice your 5th amendment right against self incrimination by refraining to talk to them at all.
If they threaten to arrest you, claiming they have the ability to do so at that point, call them on their bluff. If they really could they already would have at that point as they'd prefer to "question" you in handcuffs. Further, then it's on record for wrongful arrest and you have a legal case against them.
If arrested first words out of your mouth, ONLY words out of your mouth, "What am I being charged with" and "I wish to speak with an attorney". It is illegal for them to interrogate you once you've said the latter of these words.
OK, the fixed video is up.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5051485608492801705
Quote from: error on October 07, 2007, 11:38 AM NHFT
OK, the fixed video is up.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5051485608492801705
i know i listened to it yesterday, but is the sound messed up? on purpose?
Crap. If it isn't one thing it's another.
i was not sure if it was suppose to sound like a faint alvin and the chipmonks!
Quote
As was just stated, you simply make your W4 exempt from employer witholding.
Next challenge, since they know how much you earned, is putting yourself under the taxable limit. Talk to me privately about achieving this. No I'm not selling anything, just sharing wisdom best left off these forums.
Ok, i'll send you a pvtmsg.
Cops and Feds are two different beasts. These guys sounded like they were actually concerned with preventing violence (which is good) but they lied, threatened, and tried to intimidate Ivy (which is bad.) If I can see that in 3 mins of video, living 10,000 miles away in Mexico (so leave me alone feds) then I can only imagine the lies I didn't see... or hear.
I have gotten out of traffic tickets using the "pander" attitude. I have never gotten out of them using the fight or flight mentality. It is worth noting that your attitude should change if you have contraband. For those situations, where the cop seems aggressive and intent on searching the vehicle, I (accidentally) lock the keys in the car. Of course I make sure to drive to a safe place to park (trust me, they will follow you) so the car is not towed and I "call someone." (after the cops leave I use the key copy I have hidden.)
Of course you never consent to any searches but I have had the cops come in to my house w/o my consent. They said that they heard a woman being beaten (cops lie?) and after searching and finding nothing they left me feeling raped. I filed an official complaint with the PD but yeah, nothing happened. I printed out copies of the Constitution and delivered them to the station and told the sgt "you should actually read the document you swore to uphold." Of course this just makes me more of a target... but what ever.
Come home? I haven't gone anywhere! I've been screwing with your video all day. Now I know why Dave doesn't like to edit. What a royal pain.
Nice to know you don't shower with your clothes on Ivy. ;D
That would be weird even among this group.
Oh yeah, you are totally right Ivy, don't let it affect your life AT ALL.
The one thing that would scare the "man" the most is, not if we all went out and protested, but if we all went out and protested wearing the same exact outfit. That involves a level of organization that in and of itself will cause the "man" to freak. If every person went out wearing CRAZY clothes etc, it wouldn't even cause them to flinch (insert example link here) but if everyone wore black suits with sunglasses and a brief case, they would REALLY take notice.
PS, msg sent ArcRiley.
I think it's finally fixed.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5444126196608526282
Quote from: ivyleague28477 on October 07, 2007, 04:12 PM NHFT
I just got up from a nice afternoon nap (we've been trying to wind down over here), and I got into the shower (yep, I was just wet and nekkid... still a little wet even ;)), I got to thinking.
I believe it is vital right now for each and every one of us to get back to what is the normalcies of our every day lives. If we, in one action, stand together and say "Notice, you have had no effect on my life what so ever. You do not scare me. You do not intimidate me. I will not run. I have nothing to hide. It is you who are in the wrong here Mr. Federal Agent, not I." it will be a more powerful statement to them if we all go running scared like cockroaches away from the light.
That being said, I also want to recommend a wonderful book I read about 5 years ago. It is called "How to turn the other cheek and still survive in today's world." It is written by a christian author, but do not immediately discount it because of that. It outlines the non-aggression principle in a wonderful way.
I was speaking with someone at Murphy's the other night that suggested Jesus was a political radical - I would agree. As he stood in the face of danger, under the threat of bodily harm to himself and those around him, as they slapped him across the face he looked those fu*$@rs straight in the eye, stood up straight, and simply turned the other cheek. In doing so, he said "Notice, I am not afraid of you at all. Notice I will not retaliate, but also notice, I will not back down."
Here's to not backing down... come home error.
I always thought that if they would have smacked the second cheek old J H Christ would have opened up a can of martial arts on there roman but (you know what he really learned in those "lost years")
I have been thinking as well and have come to the same conclusions. Encounters like these shouldn't make us want to stop, they should simply remind us that there is much work to be done.
Quote from: supperman15 on October 07, 2007, 05:39 PM NHFT
I always thought that if they would have smacked the second cheek old J H Christ would have opened up a can of martial arts on there roman but (you know what he really learned in those "lost years")
As told by Biff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamb:_The_Gospel_According_to_Biff%2C_Christ%27s_Childhood_Pal)? ;D
Quote from: error on October 07, 2007, 05:31 PM NHFT
I think it's finally fixed.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5444126196608526282
Giving them information only feeds them. They are not going to become your buddies because peaceful people give peaceful and truthful answers. They (the man wearing the Wal-mart vest represents who?) were telling the young lady she was lying. This is the reason the 5th Amendment exists.
Quote from: Sheep Fuzzy Wool on October 07, 2007, 06:07 PM NHFT
Quote from: error on October 07, 2007, 05:31 PM NHFT
I think it's finally fixed.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5444126196608526282
Giving them information only feeds them. They are not going to become your buddies because peaceful people give peaceful and truthful answers. They (the man wearing the Wal-mart vest represents who?) were telling the young lady she was lying. This is the reason the 5th Amendment exists.
So I guess you have a video of yourself, dealing with the
feds, were you are perfect and you will post it right?
Quote from: Pat K on October 07, 2007, 06:21 PM NHFT
Quote from: Sheep Fuzzy Wool on October 07, 2007, 06:07 PM NHFT
Quote from: error on October 07, 2007, 05:31 PM NHFT
I think it's finally fixed.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5444126196608526282
Giving them information only feeds them. They are not going to become your buddies because peaceful people give peaceful and truthful answers. They (the man wearing the Wal-mart vest represents who?) were telling the young lady she was lying. This is the reason the 5th Amendment exists.
So I guess you have a video of yourself, dealing with the
feds, were you are perfect and you will post it right?
Sharing observation is the only purpose to the comment. Learning from the event.
It was not to criticize. She did what most people would do. A young mother is of course going to be concerned and it is great she was able to film the matter and have it posted. Surely the agent Wal-mart vest and other will be reprimended to have asked her those questions by their superiors.
It is astonishing that this was even allowed to be recorded. Some people live in states where officers would have grabbed the camera and cleaned the slate....or even been more abusive.
No ego is perfect, but thanks for your comment.
O-K just checking.
the wallmart smock .... that's what it was ... I was trying to remember what the guy reminded me of .... he would really be a rotten greeter at wallymart
"Welcome to the US empire
I just came up from DC to detain and question patrons
What did you know and when did you know it?
Do you know about fed judge hit lists?
How many times have you read Unintended Consequences?
Why are you getting nervous? I am not trying to alarm you ... I just have a job to do.
I would like to meet your friend tomorrow.
Never mind ... tomorrow is Saturday ... I can't let my job interfere with my 3day weekend."
Quote from: Sheep Fuzzy Wool on October 07, 2007, 10:09 AM NHFT
SFW completely understands the sentiment. However, perhaps a simple adjustment within the approach may garner a wider support. You are not refusing to pay taxes. In fact, you volunteer with check book and pen in hand to pay legal taxes. All you need is for the government to show you the law. The undisputed law. You are not a tax protester nor a tax evader. You simply want to abide by the U of s Constitution, and wish for our government to do the same.
In general when you say you are a tax protestor, the public believes you are anti-government, anti-american, etc., etc., etc. It should be clear that you support the Constitution. :)
But I don't support the constitution, so most of those ideas do not represent my thinking.
I refuse to pay taxes. I do not wait for them with checkbook in hand. I am a tax protester. I am anti-government. :)
Quote from: error on October 07, 2007, 04:14 PM NHFT
Come home? I haven't gone anywhere! I've been screwing with your video all day. Now I know why Dave doesn't like to edit. What a royal pain.
Have you ever done linear analog editing?
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 07, 2007, 08:14 PM NHFT
Quote from: Sheep Fuzzy Wool on October 07, 2007, 10:09 AM NHFT
SFW completely understands the sentiment. However, perhaps a simple adjustment within the approach may garner a wider support. You are not refusing to pay taxes. In fact, you volunteer with check book and pen in hand to pay legal taxes. All you need is for the government to show you the law. The undisputed law. You are not a tax protester nor a tax evader. You simply want to abide by the U of s Constitution, and wish for our government to do the same.
In general when you say you are a tax protestor, the public believes you are anti-government, anti-american, etc., etc., etc. It should be clear that you support the Constitution. :)
But I don't support the constitution, so most of those ideas do not represent my thinking.
I refuse to pay taxes. I do not wait for them with checkbook in hand. I am a tax protester. I am anti-government. :)
O-K. Just checking. :glasses7:
Quote from: FTL_Ian on October 07, 2007, 08:26 PM NHFT
Quote from: error on October 07, 2007, 04:14 PM NHFT
Come home? I haven't gone anywhere! I've been screwing with your video all day. Now I know why Dave doesn't like to edit. What a royal pain.
Have you ever done linear analog editing?
Ha! No kidding! I do
not miss those 3/4" and 1" linear systems! Even the highest tech linear systems were little better than splicing film.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on October 07, 2007, 08:26 PM NHFT
Quote from: error on October 07, 2007, 04:14 PM NHFT
Come home? I haven't gone anywhere! I've been screwing with your video all day. Now I know why Dave doesn't like to edit. What a royal pain.
Have you ever done linear analog editing?
Oh god, I used to do that in high school. I enjoyed the process, but it got very long and very tedious. Spending 10 hours in a row in an overheated editing bay is a little tough. I stopped being involved in that around the time that the studio got a nonlinear digital editing system (probably 5 years ago); I hear that's a lot easier.
Quote from: ivyleague28477 on October 07, 2007, 08:18 PM NHFT
I know I probably said more than what I should or needed to have said. HOWEVER, I thought it important to have the video posted, at the very least, to use it as a training tool for all of us to know what not to say or how to respond better in the future... and I also know I did the best I could at the time under the threat I felt to myself and Rob without any type of training or prior experience in these matters. I'm sure everyone knows and understands that.
Don't second guess yourself, or allow anyone else to shake you regarding what you did. You did damn well, all things considered. Could it have been handled better? Yes--provided you had prior training and preparation, provided you didn't need to worry about Peter, provided you weren't worried about what might happen to Rob and others, and provided you had some notice it was coming before you did.
Will you do better next time (if anything similar happens in the future)? Probably. But you came out ok, Peter came out ok, Rob and everyone else came out ok. You can't ask for much more than that. And to add icing to the cake, you got some training and experience (even if it was damn scary and uncomfortable), we all got a bit of a wake-up call, you got video evidence of some of the tactics used by the fedgovgoons, and we all get to sit around here doing after action reviews about what happened without having to worry about anyone who was hurt or arrested (in this particular case).
Incidentally, in a fight, you've got to realize that the prize is keeping what you have--not winning something you don't have. If you win, you live. If you lose, you die. It ain't pretty, it ain't fun, but it's true. If you make it out reasonably intact, be thankful, and chalk it up as one more victory, and a learning experience. And don't let any armchair generals cheat you out of your victory.
And of course, the feds didn't make themselves any friends this time. They've succeeded in irritating and scaring folks, but they damn sure didn't make any of us like them any more than we did before. And they've caused many of us to become more aware of their tactics, and how to counter them. We win, folks. It ain't a big and glamorous victory, and it damn sure didn't win us the war. But it did win us a small skirmish. It strengthened us, strengthened our resolve, and strengthened our preparation. I almost feel sorry for the poor bastards. Almost.
Quote from: ThePug on October 05, 2007, 05:00 PM NHFTReally makes me wish Ed and Elaine hadn't done what they did. Not because they were wrong to not pay income taxes or that I think they should be in jail, but because absolutely nothing good has come out of the whole fiasco. :-\ The thought that they're considering the FSP as a whole "violent" is particularly disturbing, both for what they could do and how it could scare people off.
Well, that kind of puts the blame on the Browns. If you feel they are responsible, then okay. If not though, we can't bow to this act of aggression. Not even in the mind. Somebody stood up to the bully. Bullies thrive on the threat of force and the reputation of the same. If they feel either were undermined, they respond in the only way they know how: the threat of force. Not exactly what you'd expect to see from people claiming their presence is to ensure non-violence.
Quote from: Spencer on October 06, 2007, 01:53 PM NHFTI wouldn't advise provoking these guys by doing an open carry while they are surrounding a house. It may be your legal right, but you could also end up seriously dead because these feds are incredibly paranoid. I also wouldn't get in their faces while open carrying.
Again, we need to keep the finger pointed where it belongs. Including in our mind, and in our words. Open carrying is a passive activity. It is ineligible for descriptors such as "provoking" or "in their faces." If they have an issue with citizen carry, they can relocate to one of the many countries that share their views of victim disarmament or they can remain in this country and take up an occupation that doesn't require them to take an oath to the Constitution. If somebody exercises their right despite the threat of force and is wrongfully injured or killed in the process, the dog will get put down that much faster. It's not a sexy image, but it IS living free or dying.
Quote from: enloopious on October 07, 2007, 12:21 PM NHFTOf course I make sure to drive to a safe place to park (trust me, they will follow you) so the car is not towed
Of all the opportunities I've had to figure this out for myself, it never occured to me. Thank you for sharing your superior tactic.
I'm sorry you lot are being chased after and badgered this way. Any entity not seeking for a reason to proceed can see full well that nothing concerning any of the parties involved is violent. Did any of these feds feel the slightest bit inclined to remind the judge that he had due process to adhere to and a Constitution he was sworn to uphold so that they wouldn't have to waste their time chasing ghosts? Probably not. Which is exactly the problem when we don't point the finger at the responsible.
I've never liked the "die" part of "live free or die." :-\
"Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils."
Slavery, for instance, would be one such thing.
"Live free or don't" just doesn't cut it
Quote from: error on October 07, 2007, 10:38 PM NHFT
"Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils."
Slavery, for instance, would be one such thing.
I've studied the lifestyle of slaves in the American South extensively, and I think I'd take that over death.
Are we free now?
Quote from: Braddogg on October 07, 2007, 10:24 PM NHFT
I've never liked the "die" part of "live free or die." :-\
Quote from: Braddogg on October 07, 2007, 10:42 PM NHFT
Quote from: shyfrog on October 07, 2007, 10:40 PM NHFT
"Live free or don't" just doesn't cut it
Why not?
You have to remember the rest of the quote: "Death is not the worst of evils".
live free or get maimed?
live free or else?
live free or live dead?
live free or don't?
live free..cuz.
live free or...whatever.
:-\Kola
I know not what course others may take, but as for me...
...give me liberty or give me death
I mean, I get the romantic notions here, but do you mean it? Are we free? Do we have liberty?
Quote from: Braddogg on October 07, 2007, 10:50 PM NHFT
I mean, I get the romantic notions here, but do you mean it? Are we free? Do we have liberty?
Have you run away from the plantation yet?
Quote from: error on October 07, 2007, 10:52 PM NHFT
Quote from: Braddogg on October 07, 2007, 10:50 PM NHFT
I mean, I get the romantic notions here, but do you mean it? Are we free? Do we have liberty?
Have you run away from the plantation yet?
I don't get it . . . .
How much of your life do you allow the government to run? How much of your money do you allow them to take from you?
Quote from: error on October 07, 2007, 10:55 PM NHFT
How much of your life do you allow the government to run? How much of your money do you allow them to take from you?
I think you're changing the topic. My question was, Are you free? Do you have liberty?
Actually, it's exactly the same topic, and the same question, slightly rephrased.
Liberty is not an end, it is a means.
Liberty requires CONSTANT fighting and struggle against that which (and those who) wish to strip it from us bit by bit.
The moment we become complacent in our situations, whatever they may be, we lose a little bit more of that liberty.
There are times to sit back and enjoy the fruits of your labor. There are times to gather with friends and celebrate life and all the good things we strive for. But there is a blackness that surrounds every waking (and sleeping) moment, looking for ways to seep in and dismantle the foundations of liberty.
I prefer to live as a free man, struggling to keep that freedom, than to settle into a "comfortable" position of servitude to the state.
Quote from: error on October 07, 2007, 10:58 PM NHFT
Actually, it's exactly the same topic, and the same question, slightly rephrased.
So if I stopped paying taxes, I'd be free?
I think you're right, Lou, but that's not "give me liberty or give me death." It's "Give me liberty, or I'll fight for more." It's "Live free or try," not "Live free or die."
Quote from: Braddogg on October 07, 2007, 11:04 PM NHFT
I think you're right, Lou, but that's not "give me liberty or give me death." It's "Give me liberty, or I'll fight for more." It's "Live free or try," not "Live free or die."
No...it is Live Free or Die
Because in the end, I'll die, if it comes to that, in order to ensure that freedom for generations to come.
The wars being fought currently are not worthy of that death.
If (when) it comes here. Then it will be.
Call it romantic. It is what it is. You got kids? Didn't think so.
If you stopped paying taxes, you'd be freer.
Quote from: Braddogg on October 07, 2007, 11:01 PM NHFT
Quote from: error on October 07, 2007, 10:58 PM NHFT
Actually, it's exactly the same topic, and the same question, slightly rephrased.
So if I stopped paying taxes, I'd be free?
False Premise
Quote from: shyfrog on October 07, 2007, 11:08 PM NHFT
Quote from: Braddogg on October 07, 2007, 11:04 PM NHFT
I think you're right, Lou, but that's not "give me liberty or give me death." It's "Give me liberty, or I'll fight for more." It's "Live free or try," not "Live free or die."
No...it is Live Free or Die
Because in the end, I'll die, if it comes to that, in order to ensure that freedom for generations to come.
The wars being fought currently are not worthy of that death.
If (when) it comes here. Then it will be.
Call it romantic. It is what it is.
How much freedom do you have to lose before you'll pick up a gun and die?
QuoteYou got kids? Didn't think so.
Non sequitur.
Quote from: error on October 07, 2007, 11:09 PM NHFT
If you stopped paying taxes, you'd be freer.
But it's not "Live freer or die." The suicidal mantra is "Live free or die," and I don't think the government will let us live free . . . .
Quote from: ancapagency on October 07, 2007, 09:07 PM NHFT
Quote from: ivyleague28477 on October 07, 2007, 08:18 PM NHFT
I know I probably said more than what I should or needed to have said. HOWEVER, I thought it important to have the video posted, at the very least, to use it as a training tool for all of us to know what not to say or how to respond better in the future... and I also know I did the best I could at the time under the threat I felt to myself and Rob without any type of training or prior experience in these matters. I'm sure everyone knows and understands that.
Don't second guess yourself, or allow anyone else to shake you regarding what you did. You did damn well, all things considered. Could it have been handled better? Yes--provided you had prior training and preparation, provided you didn't need to worry about Peter, provided you weren't worried about what might happen to Rob and others, and provided you had some notice it was coming before you did.
Will you do better next time (if anything similar happens in the future)? Probably. But you came out ok, Peter came out ok, Rob and everyone else came out ok. You can't ask for much more than that. And to add icing to the cake, you got some training and experience (even if it was damn scary and uncomfortable), we all got a bit of a wake-up call, you got video evidence of some of the tactics used by the fedgovgoons, and we all get to sit around here doing after action reviews about what happened without having to worry about anyone who was hurt or arrested (in this particular case).
Incidentally, in a fight, you've got to realize that the prize is keeping what you have--not winning something you don't have. If you win, you live. If you lose, you die. It ain't pretty, it ain't fun, but it's true. If you make it out reasonably intact, be thankful, and chalk it up as one more victory, and a learning experience. And don't let any armchair generals cheat you out of your victory.
And of course, the feds didn't make themselves any friends this time. They've succeeded in irritating and scaring folks, but they damn sure didn't make any of us like them any more than we did before. And they've caused many of us to become more aware of their tactics, and how to counter them. We win, folks. It ain't a big and glamorous victory, and it damn sure didn't win us the war. But it did win us a small skirmish. It strengthened us, strengthened our resolve, and strengthened our preparation. I almost feel sorry for the poor bastards. Almost.
Well put, Mike. They got absolutely nothing out of the entire incident, and we all know more about their tricks and tactics and will all be better-equipped to deal with them next time. I pointed out at least twice to Ed Brown supporters to not be so loose in showing how they operate, what they're up to, and who's involved (COMSEC and OPSEC), and it looks like the Treasury goons are in need of the same advice. :P
Quote from: Braddogg on October 07, 2007, 11:12 PM NHFT
Quote from: shyfrog on October 07, 2007, 11:08 PM NHFT
Quote from: Braddogg on October 07, 2007, 11:04 PM NHFT
I think you're right, Lou, but that's not "give me liberty or give me death." It's "Give me liberty, or I'll fight for more." It's "Live free or try," not "Live free or die."
No...it is Live Free or Die
Because in the end, I'll die, if it comes to that, in order to ensure that freedom for generations to come.
The wars being fought currently are not worthy of that death.
If (when) it comes here. Then it will be.
Call it romantic. It is what it is.
How much freedom do you have to lose before you'll pick up a gun and die?
Won't know until it happens. The goal, however, is to NOT die.
The goal is to live free. And I'd rather die moving toward that goal, than to live under involuntary servitude.
Quote from: dan_sayers on October 07, 2007, 10:07 PM NHFT
Quote from: Spencer on October 06, 2007, 01:53 PM NHFTI wouldn't advise provoking these guys by doing an open carry while they are surrounding a house. It may be your legal right, but you could also end up seriously dead because these feds are incredibly paranoid. I also wouldn't get in their faces while open carrying.
Again, we need to keep the finger pointed where it belongs. Including in our mind, and in our words. Open carrying is a passive activity. It is ineligible for descriptors such as "provoking" or "in their faces." If they have an issue with citizen carry, they can relocate to one of the many countries that share their views of victim disarmament or they can remain in this country and take up an occupation that doesn't require them to take an oath to the Constitution. If somebody exercises their right despite the threat of force and is wrongfully injured or killed in the process, the dog will get put down that much faster. It's not a sexy image, but it IS living free or dying.
Very well stated, Dan.
Welcome to the nhfree forum! I look forward to welcoming you home to NH soon :)
Quote from: shyfrog on October 07, 2007, 11:21 PM NHFT
Quote from: Braddogg on October 07, 2007, 11:12 PM NHFT
How much freedom do you have to lose before you'll pick up a gun and die?
Won't know until it happens. The goal, however, is to NOT die.
The goal is to live free. And I'd rather die moving toward that goal, than to live under involuntary servitude.
The parallels between slavery in the Old South and the current system are uncanny. The Master must approve of formal marriages, The Master can decide what job you can have, The Master can decide what you can buy, The Master can tell you not to go somewhere. There were thriving economies among slaves on Southern plantations. The Master would give their slaves spending money if they worked beyond the regular workload. Interestingly, some slaves in the Old South, especially in the 1800s, did not work on their master's property. Some were leased outright to others for the year, and, most interestingly, some were told to go find work themselves and return with the money they earned. I suppose one difference now is that The Master only provides food, housing, job training, and doctors for those who can't pay it themselves. Everyone else is allowed to keep enough to pay for those things and for the little extras that slaves used to get from their masters.
Don't get me wrong, it still sucked a lot harder than what we've got now. But dying would suck a lot more. I don't know about your religious beliefs, but maybe I think this way because I'm an atheist and am convinced that this life is all we have.
Maybe this life is all you get and there's nothing beyond it, but even so, what good is it to just live on the rations of gruel and salt pork the master provides for you and to spend your days under the whip? What sort of life is that? What impact are you making? What good have you done?
Seizing your freedom not only gives you the opportunity to improve your own life, it gives hope to those still on the plantation who haven't yet gathered up the courage to run away.
And if there's nothing after death, then the only thing that will follow is your memory in the hearts and minds of others. I would rather be remembered as someone who stood up and refused to be a slave any longer. And even if it costs me my life, it's worth it.
Quote from: Braddogg on October 07, 2007, 11:35 PM NHFT
Quote from: shyfrog on October 07, 2007, 11:21 PM NHFT
Quote from: Braddogg on October 07, 2007, 11:12 PM NHFT
How much freedom do you have to lose before you'll pick up a gun and die?
Won't know until it happens. The goal, however, is to NOT die.
The goal is to live free. And I'd rather die moving toward that goal, than to live under involuntary servitude.
The parallels between slavery in the Old South and the current system are uncanny. The Master must approve of formal marriages, The Master can decide what job you can have, The Master can decide what you can buy, The Master can tell you not to go somewhere. There were thriving economies among slaves on Southern plantations. The Master would give their slaves spending money if they worked beyond the regular workload. Interestingly, some slaves in the Old South, especially in the 1800s, did not work on their master's property. Some were leased outright to others for the year, and, most interestingly, some were told to go find work themselves and return with the money they earned. I suppose one difference now is that The Master only provides food, housing, job training, and doctors for those who can't pay it themselves. Everyone else is allowed to keep enough to pay for those things and for the little extras that slaves used to get from their masters.
Don't get me wrong, it still sucked a lot harder than what we've got now. But dying would suck a lot more. I don't know about your religious beliefs, but maybe I think this way because I'm an atheist and am convinced that this life is all we have.
I'm motivated by the thought that others are also motivated by liberty and living free from the "shackles" of tyranny. If this life is all there is, then I'll make every second count as best I can knowing there are others who feel the same and work toward the same goal of individual freedom and choice. It helps to ensure that younger generations will be taught the same principles and will continue that thread long after I'm worm food. So it doesn't matter whether you believe in God or an afterlife. The life that is HERE and NOW will continue into infinity (barring complete annihilation) regardless. That is why I am here in NH. This is why I teach my children to be responsible for themselves and to value learning and discovery and liberty. There is quite a bit of selfishness in my approach despite the fact that I am a firm believer in "God". "I" want my family, friends, and others who embrace the ideals of liberty to live forever. Pass it on man...Live Free or Die: Death is not the worst of evils.
Quote from: Braddogg on October 07, 2007, 11:12 PM NHFT
QuoteYou got kids? Didn't think so.
Non sequitur.
That is not a non sequitur -- it follows perfectly: If you had children, wouldn't you would love them enough to give up your life if need be, in order to secure their freedom? But those of us who have never had children don't tend to think of those things on our own. :)
The way I have always understood "live free or die": As long as one has hope for achieving freedom, there is reason to live. If one was trapped in totalitarian conditions with no hope for escape, it is more desirable to die than to live under such conditions.
Personally, I would also much prefer death to the extremely unfree condition of being tortured into betraying my conscience.
20 plus years and counting. :icon_pirat:
They aren't torturing people with my money.
Quote from: kola on October 07, 2007, 10:46 PM NHFT
live free or get maimed?
live free or else?
live free or live dead?
live free or don't?
live free..cuz.
live free or...whatever.
:-\Kola
Live and let die?
Ultimately, one can only live free if their mind is free from attachment. Our attachments create a shorter life span because we suffer when we can not have this or that, which creates stress, ages the body and you die.
So, the truth of "Live Free or Die," is gainig control over one's own mind. The more people who achieve this, will then create a collective freedom. If we do not do this, we can be controled like animals through our attachments. In addition to this, the means to free the mind, is through enquiry, first into "who am I," then ask questions of those who seem to have the control (the one with the gun, the badge, the handcuffs, the piece of paper with your name on it, etc., etc., etc.).
Simple truth, when it comes to ignorant man's law, if you are asking questions, you are winning. If you are answering questions, you are losing.
Natural law says we are each sovereign and no one has jurisdiction over anyone else. Our collective realization of this will bring an automatic colapse of the entire legal system as we know it. The very nature of man's legal system is such that you must voluntarily give jurisdiction to another man, in order for him to have it. It is our fear (a result which comes from attachments) of incarceration or death, or lack of money, or whatever else the mind might create, which allows us to willingly give away jurisdiction. The good news is it appears people are gradually waking up to their own sovereignty and it is just a matter of time until critical mass (the hundreth monkey) is realized.
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
Several people, even reporters, have indicated a concern that I, too, am in danger of abduction by Washington. This based partly on the fact that Treasury Department agents asked for me by name when they came to Porcupine Manor while I was gone. The other concern has to do with the fact that I have been quoted so frequently in media articles about the Browns, as well as the fact that Federal operatives have singled out independent media guys like Riley and Melton.
If the Federal probing against possible violent threats degenerates into a full-fledged witch hunt, and unquestionably peaceable persons like myself begin disappearing from the scene, it seems wise to weigh appropriate responses. After some thought, I've settled on a course of action I intend to take if arrested by surprise in connection to the Brown case...or in *probable* connection to the same.
Hunger strikes historically do not seem to have that much effect on government or media in the U.S., so it's necessary to do something more novel. As matters stand currently, my plan is to initiate a liquid-free fasting regimen. Call it a hyperfast. The goal of such an endeavor would be to draw attention to the fact that a witch hunt has developed and discourage it from spreading.
If someone can vanish...who has made so many fact to face efforts to discourage violence on both sides...then the situation is no longer an Ed Brown situation. It is a crisis in which every American is potentially at risk...and my most treasured friends would be next on the list.
A hyperfast would presumably put me on a course which would result in either the torture of a feeding tube regimen, or death itself within a week. I do not know how long I could take it, but I would do my best to take it to its end. Hopefully, like Lauren's Plainfield arrest, it would change the dynamic of the unfolding situation.
I have been planning this for a while but was keeping it mostly to myself so as not to bluster. However bringing it up in advance seems necessary in order to ensure that it does not happen in the dark. In any case I would probably *not* try to do something like this as part of an unrelated act of civil disobedience....only if I get swept up, or believe I have been swept up, in a Brown-related witch hunt.
As this situation unfolds, there is a need for restraint on the part of authorities. But there is also a need for cool-headedness on the part of freedom lovers. Fortunately the type of assault Monier's boys are thought to have carried out does not seem to be the kind that would trigger much vengeful passion. I would be surprised if there really is a revenge attack....but I still think a lot about that great Mike Fisher quote: "When you use violence on the government, it just gets bigger."
So it is essential that we not let that happen.
History indicates that a person seeking to influence his allies *can* make an impact with traditional fasting. The Mahatma did it, on an astronomical and absolute scale. I don't have his abilities or notoriety...but maybe I could have some impact.
So in the event of a revenge violence attack against government officials, connected specifically to the Brown case, I will initiate a water-only fast. I'll continue it until such attacks stop or I am in the dirt, whichever comes first. I may not have any influence over Washington taser-jockeys but I have a little influence over parts of the freedom movement. I guess I might as well use it, or lose it.
I don't intend to fast against folks purely defending their property, only against revenge violence.
I think we have all gotten a glimpse of our growing capabilities these last twelve months, and the various potent but pacific means at our disposal for achieving pro-liberty change...a type of change that could ultimately benefit even the most vicious of our adversaries. We must use those peaceable means, and no other kind, for as long as they are at our disposal, and let no misdirected freedom lover take them from us.
Let the authorities be the ones who do all the threatening and tasering.
http://digg.com/political_opinion/U_S_Marshals_Failure_to_Protect_Federal_Judges
Dada,
Isn't there someway to stop this before/if it happens? Can I help?
Quote from: RattyDog on October 08, 2007, 09:52 AM NHFT
I think that "living free" means striving everyday for freedom, in small ways and big. I think that the "or die" speaks to a situation where striving for freedom in any big or small way is no longer possible.
I mean, when these words were uttered....it was freedom being fought for, a reminder of why we must fight, not an observation on how fucking great it was to be free, you know? They weren't free. It was..."well, guys, we're here, we gotta fight because if we don't we can pretty much count on remaining slaves to the King forever, this is our land, our place...we could die today, but there are worse things than death." The Death is not to be emphasized *over* the Freedom. The ultimate goal is to live free.
Live Free or Die....because the thing worse than death, is to live in a world where a person can't fight to be free.
Well said and I concur.
Quote from: raineyrocks on October 08, 2007, 10:01 AM NHFT
Dada,
Isn't there someway to stop this before/if it happens? Can I help?
Pass the story on to family, friends, associates, co-workers, talk-show hosts, local news reporters; etc... The more exposure it gets the better the chances of a non-threatening solution IMO.
Quote from: RattyDog on October 08, 2007, 09:52 AM NHFT
I think that "living free" means striving everyday for freedom, in small ways and big. I think that the "or die" speaks to a situation where striving for freedom in any big or small way is no longer possible.
I mean, when these words were uttered....it was freedom being fought for, a reminder of why we must fight, not an observation on how fucking great it was to be free, you know? They weren't free. It was..."well, guys, we're here, we gotta fight because if we don't we can pretty much count on remaining slaves to the King forever, this is our land, our place...we could die today, but there are worse things than death." The Death is not to be emphasized *over* the Freedom. The ultimate goal is to live free.
Live Free or Die....because the thing worse than death, is to live in a world where a person can't fight to be free.
We live under a government far more oppressive and evil than King George's. It's harder to strive to be free from government now than it ever was under King George. As a white adult male of Protestant descent, I am FAR less free now than John and Samuel Adams were. I mean, blacks, women, and children are more free, but that didn't occur until the twentieth century.
That's why I can't say "Live free or die, man; death's not the worst thing around." I mean, Lauren is sitting in jail because she doesn't have travel papers. Earlier she did time for trying to sit on a porch, and earlier for trying to attend a town committee meeting. Dave and Russell have done time for handing out flyers. The Browns are in jail for not paying the mafia its protection money. Michael's being harassed for running an anti-government blog. Rob was hunted down because he's a blow hard on Internet forums.
Don't get me wrong, I'm striving for freedom ("I want to break free" (http://youtube.com/watch?v=EVYgRPfC9nQ), great video by Queen), but the way in which I'm doing it doesn't allow anyone else (government or otherwise) to interfere with my attempts. Otherwise, I'd just be totally paralyzed with anger.
I mean, if someone else thinks "Live Free or Die" works as a rallying cry for how they want to live, I won't stop them, of course. I just don't see how that could lead to anything other than immense personal unhappiness on a very fundamental level, so I'm not going to subscribe to it.
From http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html
"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
-- Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775
Very few shots have yet been fired, but as far as I'm concerned, our war has also already started. I pray that massive civil disobedience will stop the tyrants, but peaceful means rarely stop an amoral enemy, and I see no reason to think our enemies in this fight have any sense whatsoever of morality. The reason we have the right to keep and bear arms is to keep the government always afraid of violent revolution. But if we say up front that we'll never use those arms, they're not going to fear us at all. Self defense is a right and a duty, though I didn't become fully aware of that until I had kids.
See Walter Mitty's Second Amendment (http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=1874) by Jeff Snyder. I highly recomend his book, Nation of Cowards (http://www.amazon.com/Nation-Cowards-Jeff-Snyder/dp/1888118083/), on the ethics of gun control, which includes the Walter Mitty essay.
Quote from: error on October 08, 2007, 09:48 AM NHFT
http://digg.com/political_opinion/U_S_Marshals_Failure_to_Protect_Federal_Judges
Did anyone else read that? It looks like Ed is not in Federal Prison. So what does that mean? The only other possible alternative is one of the torture camps. That sure sounds like worse than death to me although I guess there is always the possibility of death there too.
The phrase "give me liberty or give me death" was not written as a choice, one or the other. Those who were of that era knew that there will always be people who desire power. So long as people crave positions of power there MUST be people for them to control. Power is control. Control is the definition of evil. Allowing evil to grow and fester is not good, especially for those you love.
Future generations will live in the world we leave. My kids, your kids, my brothers kids, etc. Do I want them to live in a world in which they live or die at the pleasure of the ruling class. Do I want them to live in a world where the elite decide if they are worth more than dirt?
There is no living a little bit free. You either demand ALL of your freedom or you don't get it. Nobody is going to hand you something you don't ask for. If you ask and they don't give it to you then you MUST go out and take it. The ruling elite know this already and they count on us NOT knowing it.
While people still crave positions of power there will never be peace.
Quote from: Bill St. Clair on October 08, 2007, 12:17 PM NHFTSelf defense is a right and a duty
Yep. And physical acts committed for the purpose of defense are not violence. If somebody lays a hand on you when you've done nothing to earn it, to pull away, however harsh, is not violence. If they increase the level of violence and you increase the level of resistance, you're guilty of no violence. Non-violence is a noble credo and one that should be sought after as a first resort. However, just as it is with ununiformed criminals, those who use force against their countrymen only understand the language of force. "It does the sheep no good to preach the goodness of a diet of grass, if the wolves are of a different mind." -Terry Goodkind
QuoteIf someone can vanish...who has made so many fact to face efforts to discourage violence on both sides...then the situation is no longer an Ed Brown situation. It is a crisis in which every American is potentially at risk...and my most treasured friends would be next on the list.
Here's a historical quote and citation. It looks as though this is where our gov is headed,
in the footsteps of Nazis:
First They Came for the Jews
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
- Pastor Martin Niemöller, a German minister imprisoned
at Dachau during WWII for opposing the Nazi party.
Dachau was the first concentration camp set up by the Nazis in 1933. The first prisoners were political opponents of the regime, communists, social democrats, trade unionists, and occasionally members of conservative and liberal political parties. The first Jewish prisoners were sent to the Dachau concentration camp because of their political opposition. In the following years new groups were deported to Dachau: these included Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, members of the Jehovah's Witness, and priests. In the wake of the November pogrom alone, the so-called Reichskristallnacht ("The Night of Broken Glass"), more than 10,000 Jews were sent to the Dachau concentration camp.
Quote from: enloopious on October 08, 2007, 12:20 PM NHFT
Quote from: error on October 08, 2007, 09:48 AM NHFT
http://digg.com/political_opinion/U_S_Marshals_Failure_to_Protect_Federal_Judges
Did anyone else read that? It looks like Ed is not in Federal Prison. So what does that mean? The only other possible alternative is one of the torture camps.
::)
Ed is not yet in a federal prison, because the teleporter hasn't yet been invented. He is in one of the many jails that contract with the U.S. Marshals. When the marshals are going to a federal prison, they'll pick Ed up and drop him off. He will wait there until the next weekly bus run, then move closer to his destination. He may have to spend the night in a couple of different prisons along the way.
Ed has been tentatively designated to a prison in the Northeast Region. I don't know if he will actually be assigned there, but chances are good that he will. Until he actually arrives at his destination, that destination is not public information. The national locator service will give out all public information if you call them at (202) 307-3126.
Oh, KB, you government apologist. :P
Quote from: KBCraig on October 08, 2007, 03:02 PM NHFT
Ed is not yet in a federal prison, because the teleporter hasn't yet been invented.
I disagree. Tesla and Einstein worked on it.
If we can just figure out how those socks teleport
out of the dryer................
Quote from: Pat K on October 08, 2007, 04:01 PM NHFT
If we can just figure out how those socks teleport
out of the dryer................
You've been looking in the wrong place all along. It happens in the WASHER. Remember Star Trek? Blue Bubbles?
I think it may be the synergy of the washer and dryer that
does it.
Maybe you ought to rethink Gen. Stark's statement.
"Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free."
You ought to get busy living or get busy dying. -Shawshank Redemption
Live free or die.
Quote from: Pat K on October 08, 2007, 04:01 PM NHFT
If we can just figure out how those socks teleport
out of the dryer................
And.....how they chose which one of the pair goes.
For those interested, background information regarding the U.S. Marshal Service can be found on wikipedia at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marshals_Service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marshals_Service)
Earlier in this thread, someone asked if there was actually a federal law making it a crime to lie to a federal officer. The applicable statute appears to be 18 USC 1001 which reads in pertinent part:
Quote18 USC 1001. Statements or entries generally
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both....
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001001----000-.html (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001001----000-.html)
I believe this is what Martha Steward was ultimately charged with, and spend 5 months in jail for, several years back while under investigation by the SEC for insider trading. You'll note, she wasn't convicted of insider trading, what she was actually being investigated for, but rather making false statements to a federal investigator.
Given that enforcement agents will seek to use anything you say against you, this is compelling reason to refuse to answer their questions absent a court order or other special arrangements to do so. Even the most innocent statement can be misconstrued as an attempt to mislead or conceal by an overzealous enforcer. As such, I'd prefer to not have a jury making a determination on whether or not I'll be spending the next 0-8 years behind bars because something I said on the spur of the moment, under threat by inhospitable agents, turned out to not be completely accurate under the microscopic lens that agents of the federal government can bring to bear against targets of interest.
If a target of interest doesn't say anything, there's obviously no statement that can be misconstrued as a lie. This in turn forces agents to decide just how much time and effort they want to spend to legally compel a target to make a statement. Procuring a court order takes time and the agent in turn is required to make truthful statements to a judge justifying the order. This application for a judicial order becomes part of discovery during any legal proceedings that may arise after the fact and anything an agent says to justify an order can of course be used against him.
Agents obviously aren't interested in following the formal process for compelling statements from targets of interest if they can get away with it because of the extra effort required and the potential liability they face if they make false statements to secure the warrant/order. This is why the preferred modus operandi is to show up without warrants or court orders and attempt to 'convince' a target of interest to talk voluntarily. After all, talking to a federal investigator absent a court order to do so represents a voluntary waiver of one's rights.
Additionally, as this article shows:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/06/appeals_court_r.html (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/06/appeals_court_r.html)
Enforcers aren't bound by the same legal limitations that mere individuals are. Courts generally consider it perfectly acceptable for an enforcement agent to lie to suspects to coerce them into incriminating themselves and/or implicating others. This is why some of the Marshals who showed up the other day had no problem with falsely insinuating that folks who refused to voluntarily cooperate with them, would either be arrested on the spot or further detained. In at least one case, they lied about the right to record them as well.
Other points to consider. The U.S. Marshals indicated they've been concerned about potential violence related to the Brown case for over a year. As such, they've had twelve months to take action on any credible evidence of an impending illegal act. The fact that they showed up in the local community without warrants or court orders indicates they had no compelling evidence related to anyone they interrogated or were seeking information on. This conclusion is further bolstered by the fact that they failed to meet with Rob after he returned to the community and made himself available to the Marshals.
As such, this was clearly a fishing expedition designed to rattle some cages and place the community on notice that it's being watched....
One thing the community may want to consider is finding an attorney or two who can be reached during times of crisis like this. Perhaps there are a few liberty minded attorney's in the area who would be willing to be on call/retainer for future incidents. Folks could carry their cards around with them and tell enforcers who want to talk with them to talk to their attorney instead.
One of the cards I keep in my wallet is from Marc Victor who represented me after I was stopped at a joint task force roadblock (Feds and local police) in Southern Arizona and arrested for refusing to show ID on demand. See:
http://checkpointusa.org/roadblock/roadblock.html (http://checkpointusa.org/roadblock/roadblock.html)
The back of his card reads:
Quote"I refuse to consent to any search whatsoever. As such, I do not consent to a search of my premises, my person, my immediate location or any vehicle or effects. I hereby exercise my rights as enumerated by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article Two of the Arizona Constitution. I demand to have an attorney present prior to and throughout any questioning at all. Additionally, I wish to consult with my attorney prior to any discussion with law enforcement officers on the subject of waiver."
Anyway, I want to thank you all for showing the rest of us what a liberty-minded community can look like and how it responds to encroachments on the liberty interests of any of its individual members.
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on October 08, 2007, 05:02 PM NHFT
Quote from: Pat K on October 08, 2007, 04:01 PM NHFT
If we can just figure out how those socks teleport
out of the dryer................
And.....how they chose which one of the pair goes.
::) Everybody knows they play Sock, Paper, Scissors...
Quote from: Checkpoint on October 08, 2007, 05:11 PM NHFT
One thing the community may want to consider is finding an attorney or two who can be reached during times of crisis like this. Perhaps there are a few liberty minded attorney's in the area who would be willing to be on call/retainer for future incidents. Folks could carry their cards around with them and tell enforcers who want to talk with them to talk to their attorney instead.
[/quote]
Evan Nappen. FSPer, highly skilled lawyer, one of the best 2nd amendment and defense lawyers around.
http://evannappen.com though it's out of date (He's living in NH now, though he does a lot of NJ work still...)
[youtube=425,350]gA_hNrsj2bY[/youtube]
how on earth can a lawyer help stop the fed thugs?
some of the poor guys in gitmo have highfalootin lawyers
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 08, 2007, 09:30 PM NHFT
how on earth can a lawyer help stop the fed thugs?
some of the poor guys in gitmo have highfalootin lawyers
Sometimes they know magic incantations which, when uttered at the right time and place, cause the fed thugs to stop what they're doing and leave people alone. Sometimes they write their magic spells down on goddamned pieces of paper instead, and it has the same effect. In this way they're certainly useful. Though sometimes it doesn't work. And the fed thugs have their own magicians.
Quote from: error on October 08, 2007, 09:35 PM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 08, 2007, 09:30 PM NHFT
how on earth can a lawyer help stop the fed thugs?
some of the poor guys in gitmo have highfalootin lawyers
Sometimes they know magic incantations which, when uttered at the right time and place, cause the fed thugs to stop what they're doing and leave people alone. Sometimes they write their magic spells down on goddamned pieces of paper instead, and it has the same effect. In this way they're certainly useful. Though sometimes it doesn't work. And the fed thugs have their own magicians.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bIV4KLCmJ98 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=bIV4KLCmJ98)
There's some, uh, unusual vehicular activity outside here tonight.
Quote from: error on October 08, 2007, 09:54 PM NHFT
There's some, uh, unusual vehicular activity outside here tonight.
Put shrubbery at the door and windows.
Hmm. Preferably cacti.
Maybe a medieval protest at a local government building would chase them away. This may catch the bought media's attention. Could bring national attention.
Just a suggestion. Wishing everyone to be safe.
Quote from: error on October 08, 2007, 09:54 PM NHFT
There's some, uh, unusual vehicular activity outside here tonight.
define unusual
hmmm, i wonder what would happen if we started burning people in effigy. It is cathartic as hell, and the wave length of flame light attracts the eye like nothing else.
Quote from: supperman15 on October 08, 2007, 10:19 PM NHFT
hmmm, i wonder what would happen if we started burning people in effigy. It is cathartic as hell, and the wave length of flame light attracts the eye like nothing else.
That could be the definition of unusual......
Unusual means cars with out of state plates which don't belong in the neighborhood cruising back and forth.
Quote from: error on October 08, 2007, 10:25 PM NHFT
Unusual means cars with out of state plates which don't belong in the neighborhood cruising back and forth.
Lost tourists?
Quote from: error on October 08, 2007, 10:25 PM NHFT
Unusual means cars with out of state plates which don't belong in the neighborhood cruising back and forth.
Massholes? This three-day weekend is when all the tourists come up to go sightseeing, for the fall foliage in particular. Mark Warden and I went up north this afternoon and the tourist towns (Conway, Franconia Notch, &c.) are full of Massachusetts plates, with a smattering of Rhode Island and other states.
We don't generally get lost tourists around here. Or lost anybody...
Quote from: DadaOrwell on October 08, 2007, 09:47 AM NHFT
Several people, even reporters, have indicated a concern that I, too, am in danger of abduction by Washington. This based partly on the fact that Treasury Department agents asked for me by name when they came to Porcupine Manor while I was gone. The other concern has to do with the fact that I have been quoted so frequently in media articles about the Browns, as well as the fact that Federal operatives have singled out independent media guys like Riley and Melton.
As a member of the media, you are in as much danger as myself or Gardner. That is to say, I think the likelihood of your arrest/abduction is very small. As we know well in Keene and as they are learning in Manchester, being the media is a critical aspect of achieving popular acceptance for the ideas of liberty. Our role is to shine light on the violence of the state. In doing so we will attract attention both positive and negative. Because we control the message, we will attract more positive than negative, which will serve as an inherent protection from state attack.
There is still a risk, in which case I'm glad you're thinking about the things that you will do in the case of being kidnapped by the government people.
Quotemy plan is to initiate a liquid-free fasting regimen. Call it a hyperfast.
This sounds very dangerous. You are far more valuable alive than dead in some government jail; I beg you to reconsider.
Whatever you decide to do, you may want to consider giving login information to a trusted compatriot for the youtube Ridley Report account, so others can post videos there about your arrest/abduction, should it happen.
especially this time of night. all the ones i have seen have seem quite preoccupied with other things then the street, and i haven't seen any familure faces.
QuoteQuotemy plan is to initiate a liquid-free fasting regimen. Call it a hyperfast.
This sounds very dangerous. You are far more valuable alive than dead in some government jail; I beg you to reconsider.
At the very least, please reconsider a food fast as opposed to a liquid fast. With a liquid fast, there just wont be enough time for folks to organize and spread the word far enough for there to be a critical mass response. There's too much inertia in the system.
As you indicated, you wouldn't last much more than a week on a liquid fast but a food fast would provide anywhere between 30 and 50 days for concerned individuals to get the word out and organize effectively.
Robert Schulz, chairman of the We The People Foundation, used this form of protest quite effectively in 2001 regarding the legality of the federal income tax. He fasted for 29 days in Washington D.C., if I remember correctly, before a Congressional representative agreed to setup a meeting with the DOJ and IRS to discuss issues surrounding the legality of the income tax. Even though the federal agencies eventually pulled out of the agreement to attend a hearing, the hunger fast itself was quite effective at drawing attention to the issue.
For a protest of this type to work however, a critical mass of people need time to hear about and absorb the implications of the issue at hand. A week just isn't long enough for that to happen.
Three minutes without oxygen, three days without water, three weeks without food. Not entirely accurate, but an easy way to remember.
Quotehow on earth can a lawyer help stop the fed thugs? some of the poor guys in gitmo have highfalootin lawyers
A lawyer by him/herself can't. Nonetheless, lawyers are one of many resources that can be brought to bear in assisting with raising the stakes for any particular fed thug - just like video cameras, audio recording devices, signs, the media, the internet, protest marches, demonstrations, etc. An attorney can provide expert assistance (depending on the attorney since not all are created equal) on one particular battlefield and as such shouldn't be overlooked.
While it's definitely not right, the fact of the matter is, most enforcers will treat an individual better and be less likely to engage in overt illegal action if they think that individual knows their rights AND has the ability/willingness to hold them accountable in a court of law. That normally means the involvement of an attorney at some level. The effect is similar to the effect many folks who videotape or record enforcers experience. When an enforcer knows a record is being made of their actions, they (usually) behave better than they would otherwise.
Attorney's certainly aren't the end all but understanding their utility as a mitigating force in any encounter with fed thugs can make a big difference in the outcome of any particular encounter.
I found The Bill of Rights - A User's Guide (http://www.amazon.com/Bill-Rights-Users-Guide/dp/1930810083/ref=sr_1_3/102-4726523-9181713?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191930980&sr=8-3) to be very useful. It describes various court cases that have fortified, or eroded, each of the rights laid out in the first 10 amendments to the US constitution.
In many cases, peaceful demonstrators were able to curtail the efforts of police and legislation by bringing their cases to court. If I recall correctly, in none of those cases did the affronted citizens attempt to represent themselves.
I crashed overnight here in keene so am not at 412...not sure if anything unusual is going on.
PM I just sent to margot at the Monitor...in response to a message she sent.
----
Hmm...i think i just sent you an reply but am not sure it took
anyway, I was saying i'd be honored if you'd like to do a story about the Report. I shoot stories maybe five days a week. I shot three yesterday but that's abnormal.
also I do want to make sure you understand my position regarding Rob and the Browns. I consider myself an opponent of hurting them....not a supporter. Kind of like the early iraq war dissidents were against bombing Saddam, but didn't support him. I used to consider myself a Brown supporter. But that changed in roughly June 07, when I determined that there was overwhelming directevidence he had made threats of I type I could never justify. That turned me into an opponent of hurting the Browns, rather than a supporter. Maybe it is a subtle difference to some, but I considered it an important distinction and posted a message about it on the main thread around July. I also included a note to Ed, for what little it was worth, urging he rescind the threats.
Anyway, to hurt or jail people, even questionable people, Washington under its current funding mechanisms must raid the wallets of innocents, partially enslaving them, and that is never right.
I feel roughly the same way about Rob, opponent of caging him rather than a supporter of him. Though he seems to be a decent guy once you subtract the internet blowhard stuff. I am using what influence I have with him to make him a believer in nonviolence. I don't know any better way to do that than to do nonviolent stuff which proves effective and hopefully puts threat makers on both sides to shame.
I suppose it depends on how you approach it. If you were to sue claiming a civil rights violation and try to get a big monetary settlement for yourself out of the feds, I can see how that could be viewed as someone playing the victim. But if you approach this as trying to use the NHCLU to rein in the feds to make sure they don't do this to someone else, to teach them a lesson, I think it would be a good idea.
And perhaps if you do seek a monetary settlement, you could donate a chunk of it for the various freestate projects going on: the Ron Paul campaign, Dave's video work, Lloyd's scholarship fund he's always pestering us about ;), and so on.
The bosses of these federal agents are going to give them a loose leash until a lawsuit is launched in response to their activities.
IANAL, but it seems like your (and others) civil liberties were violated, and the NHCLU is the best organization to tackle that issue.
If there are no repercussions to their actions they'll continue harassing others. Working with the NHCLU is not playing victim, it's making a stand for freedom.
Quote from: enloopious on October 06, 2007, 04:44 PM NHFT
Ok, there are several things that don't make sense to me.
...
Why is the Treasury Department looking for, what can only be called, Thought Criminals?
...
What was the FULL reason, or the suspected hidden reason, for the Treasury being there?
BATF[&Ex] (http://www.atf.treas.gov/) is in Treasury - they are "Treasury Agents." They cover illegal firearms and explosives. Presume their involvement was to do a firearms bust. Remember BATF (Treasury Agents) were the ones who shot up the Branch Davidians (http://www.carolmoore.net/waco/) (even though they had a warrant). When the Davidians out-gunned them, they called in FBI and the HRT goons, like Horiuchi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lon_Horiuchi).
I kind of figured it was the ATF, BATF or BATFE. They just keep adding letters to their acronym to make themselves feel more important.
Alex Jones is covering this:
http://infowars.com/articles/ps/browns_armed_feds_question_bloggers_in_brown_case.htm
Yep. I got a call from Alex Jones' producer inviting me onto his show. Unfortunately I didn't check it until it was too late to get on the show for today. So maybe I'll be on tomorrow.
Quote from: JustUs on October 09, 2007, 01:44 PM NHFT
Quote from: enloopious on October 06, 2007, 04:44 PM NHFT
Ok, there are several things that don't make sense to me.
...
Why is the Treasury Department looking for, what can only be called, Thought Criminals?
...
What was the FULL reason, or the suspected hidden reason, for the Treasury being there?
BATF[&Ex] (http://www.atf.treas.gov/) is in Treasury - they are "Treasury Agents." They cover illegal firearms and explosives. Presume their involvement was to do a firearms bust. Remember BATF (Treasury Agents) were the ones who shot up the Branch Davidians (http://www.carolmoore.net/waco/) (even though they had a warrant). When the Davidians out-gunned them, they called in FBI and the HRT goons, like Horiuchi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lon_Horiuchi).
Once, a person, reliable source, once told me the person had the IMF (individual master file) decoded that the person had requested from the
IRS...it was found they had the person listed as an arms dealer in the virgin islands....very far from the truth of the matter (had no guns ever and had never visited the virgin islands, or done business in the virgin islands). That is said how the thugs label, to collect from. Through some paper work, and time, the person was able to get them off the person's back. This is true. I do not know if it works for others.
@Mr. Ridley: I must say first of all that I'm not intimately detailed with the subject matter at hand. I only made it through the first 40 pages of the Browns' main thread before my desire to know the outcome got the best of me. I am familiar with some of the aftermath; Of Brown supporters being systematically singled out and haloed. I've seen all of the Ridley Report, which is the extent of my familiarity with Mr. Jacobs.
That said, I have a question. I agree in non-violent resolution. However, consider the following. If you walked into a local business and arbitrarily said, "I've got a gun," you would probably be charged for what would be construed as an act of aggression. Alter the circumstances and now you're in your home and you hear an intruder. It is a natural reaction, in an effort to de-escalate and end the situation, to say, "I have a gun." This is not violence, it is self-defense. Should they choose to continue the onslaught and you're forced to shoot them, you are still innocent of violence.
Again, I know not of the details of Mr. Jacobs's "internet blowhard stuff." But it seems to me that to let armed thugs with organized intent to raid your home (as Mr. Brown appears to have done), "I've got a gun," is not violence. I look up to the freedom movement in NH and would like it if you could elaborate your stance on this in case there's a lesson in there I can benefit from. Thank you for your time and all your efforts.
Quote from: dan_sayers on October 09, 2007, 03:23 PM NHFT
Again, I know not of the details of Mr. Jacobs's "internet blowhard stuff."
Perhaps a couple of examples of Rob's posts will help.
Quote from: PowerchuterQuote from: Russell KanningHey Rob .... you have been to Ed's place in the last week or two. For all the folks reading from long distance ... what were your impressions of the mood of the place?
I was there with the group from the Liberty Forum which included a former presidential candidate...
We had a very good meeting with Ed...sort of a "Knights of the Round Table" deal...
I know we all have our "good days" and our "bad days" and the Browns are no exception...
Personally, for what we're up against...I'd say we've all been doing pretty good "mood-wise"...
And...
Speaking strictly for myself and no one else...
It's my personal belief from what I have read, heard, and witnessed...
If anyone moves against the Browns and/or any of their many supporters...
Unintended Consequences will be activated...
Go ahead...read the book "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross!
Good to hear from you Russell!
and
Quote from: Powerchuter
The Browns have had visitors and well-wishers from all over the world...
This situation is "bigger" than you could imagine...
And the jack-booked thugs and their criminal elite warlord masters who pretend to be our "government" know it...
In the tradition of Waco and Ruby Ridge, these murdering bastards may advance and do harm to us, but we will never forget and never forgive for these trespasses...
We have warned them repeatedly...
And now the time has come to stand our ground and do battle...
One shot, one kill...aim small, miss small...
Claire Wolfe may have been right when she said, years ago, that it was too soon to shoot the bastards...
But that isn't true anymore...
And they know it...
They fear us more than we fear them...
If you've never read "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross then you should get it today!
Read it...learn it...live it...
Otherwise you'll all be dogs licking your master's boots...
Semper Fidelis Porcupines!
Quote from: Sarah on October 09, 2007, 02:58 PM NHFT
SFW, there is a reliable set of IMF decoding files here somewhere... umm... where'd I put it? Many of those "VI petroleum exporter" or "arms dealer" stories were disseminated by sellers of decoding 'services,' and weren't actual correct readings of the IMF or BMF.
caveat emptor, as usual. :-\
That could very well be. It was conversation from someone who was not trying to sell anything.
Yet it is quite interesting the ATF wearing Wal-mart vest were in town questioning peaceful locals. ;D
I warned the radicals about what happened last week. If you threaten these people they will respond.
I think the threat of violence did help to make the thugs make a choice of doing this with as little violence as possible. The Brown supporters got arrogant because they thought the numbers of people watching were actually caring about what happened to them. Not to say that the federal agents themselves didn't sympathise with them to a point.
As I said before, there is a lot of people on the public dole that would burn our cities to the ground if we all stopped paying our illegal taxes so the criminals in Washington can redistribute it.
I suspect that our Govoner had something to do with keeping this crap non violent.
I feel that the Feds are feeling kind of embarrassed that they had to bow to the State of New Hampshire and they are now getting a kind of retribution to the "We the People" who made it impossible for them to kill the Browns and get away with it. Never forget that they fired shots at the Dog Walker. They initiated force first.
I had a dream and I was going to post it the night the Browns got canned. It was me putting the cuffs on Ed and Elaine rite before an assault, there were heles flying around and they were about to "go". I brought them to the head Fed and said. Here they are, there is no need for violence, it's over.
The fed said. Do you think, after all the money spent on surveillance and hassling these people that we are just going to let this incident close without filling at least 2 body bags?
In my dream I looked over and there were 2 bags unzipped and ready for bodies.
I hope the "Brown Supporters" with big mouths and big tempers can make nice with the feds and the feds can eat some humble pie.
I for one am a little concerned about the attention that the feds are giving to some of the peace loving people on this sight. I hope they try to understand that their strong armed tactics are only reaffirming to the people that do not like them and are sitting on the fence on this issue being discussed here in this thread the distrust and the loathing of any authority. If they keep threatening people for not braking any laws the people on the fence will decide. What the people decide for now is up to the feds. Will they continue to do what they do best or will they back off and be nice? I guess time will tell.
In closing, Non violence is the answer. We can train for war, we can arm ourselves but we have to understand that we should not fight amongst ourselves. This goes for any radicals that just want to "bring it all down man". The feds would like nothing more to be tracking down bad guys that want to kill me and you not killing me and you. These robots can be people too. Just don't hit their search and destroy button! :o
grasshopper wrote:
<<The feds would like nothing more to be tracking down bad guys that want to kill me and you not killing me and you. These robots can be people too. Just don't hit their search and destroy button!>>
+1
Ya, that is kind of ahhhhh....
Um, I guess if robot can get orders to stomp puppies with a smile on its face, they'll still be stomping puppies.
Hey, where the farg is Murfies? Is it by the circle or downtown?
A little late but see here.
http://www.murphystaproom.net/ (http://www.murphystaproom.net/)
Quote from: grasshopper on October 09, 2007, 07:07 PM NHFT
Hey, where the farg is Murfies? Is it by the circle or downtown?
494 Elm (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=494+elm+st.,+manchester,+nh&ie=UTF8&ll=42.985578,-71.46291&spn=0.001852,0.003422&t=h&z=18&om=1), right across from Verizon Arena.
Google maps puts the green arrow in the wrong place, by about a block.
The old dancing bear? In front of the Gataway? Crap I drove by there for an hour after work today. The place rite across the street from the bank?
I'm ticked off!
I guess I need glasses.
http://mvdg.wordpress.com/2007/10/09/libertarians-gone-wild/
I guess this guy thinks some of us have gone too far. I hope we haven't ruined it for him. ;)
Quote from: grasshopper on October 09, 2007, 04:55 PM NHFT
I for one am a little concerned about the attention that the feds are giving to some of the peace loving people on this sight.
The feds would like nothing more to be tracking down bad guys that want to kill me and you not killing me and you.
I am expecting attention from the feds ... our movement is poking the beast. When you dare to say "no" ... it forces them to do something, which reveals their true character.
They think some of us are the bad guys ... or maybe they know we are. We are the threat to the state. I know they are the bad guys. Their job is to protect the government ... that is what they are paid to do.
Quote from: richardr on October 09, 2007, 04:11 PM NHFT
Perhaps a couple of examples of Rob's posts will help.
Quote from: Powerchuter
We have warned them repeatedly...
And now the time has come to stand our ground and do battle...
One shot, one kill...aim small, miss small...
Claire Wolfe may have been right when she said, years ago, that it was too soon to shoot the bastards...
But that isn't true anymore...
And they know it...
They fear us more than we fear them...
If the Feds had just been straight up and said, "we're looking for Ron Jacobs, aka 'Powerchuter' on the forums", most of us old-timers would likely have simply shrugged and said, "Oh yeah, the guy we had to kick off the forums. Yeah, I figured this might happen eventually."
Don't take it bad, Ron, it's no more surprising than hearing that Russel has been thrown in jail for something trivial.
When the cops or FEDS show up at your door, "just to ask questions", it's helpful to have this there to greet them :)
http://www.target.com/Come-Back-Warrant-Doormat/dp/B00020O572/sr=1-1/qid=1191983113/ref=sr_1_1/602-5167401-6408621?ie=UTF8&index=target&rh=k%3Acome%20back%20with%20a%20warrant&page=1
I'm now officially gonna drive the extra 40 miles to go to target, instead of wally world.
on the same note, in the near future i will have a no trespass sign that even the feds are afraid of. i will post on here when i get it. parents had it up and us marshals swore up and down they never went past it, in court.
Quote from: slimpickens on October 09, 2007, 10:44 PM NHFT
I'm now officially gonna drive the extra 40 miles to go to target, instead of wally world.
on the same note, in the near future i will have a no trespass sign that even the feds are afraid of. i will post on here when i get it. parents had it up and us marshals swore up and down they never went past it, in court.
Heh, not implying that Target is a less sinister organization than the "W" store, but Target.com is the only place that I've been able to find this priceless object. It even comes comes with laughing and high praise from my defense attorney, Evan Nappen :) who recommends that that we greet any cops or feds with a slammed door!
Quote from: Insurgent on October 09, 2007, 09:28 PM NHFT
When the cops or FEDS show up at your door, "just to ask questions", it's helpful to have this there to greet them :)
http://www.target.com/Come-Back-Warrant-Doormat/dp/B00020O572/sr=1-1/qid=1191983113/ref=sr_1_1/602-5167401-6408621?ie=UTF8&index=target&rh=k%3Acome%20back%20with%20a%20warrant&page=1
Hah. I'll pass it on to the landlord :D
Quote from: Insurgent on October 09, 2007, 09:28 PM NHFT
When the cops or FEDS show up at your door, "just to ask questions", it's helpful to have this there to greet them :)
http://www.target.com/Come-Back-Warrant-Doormat/dp/B00020O572/sr=1-1/qid=1191983113/ref=sr_1_1/602-5167401-6408621?ie=UTF8&index=target&rh=k%3Acome%20back%20with%20a%20warrant&page=1
Quote from: slimpickens on October 09, 2007, 10:44 PM NHFT
I'm now officially gonna drive the extra 40 miles to go to target, instead of wally world.
Target.com has no connection to their retail stores, other than the name. They sell just about anything from anywhere, much like Amazon.
The un-welcome mat is from High Cotton (http://highcotton.com/highcotton/). We have one of theirs that is a play on the "Message from God" billboards:
"Don't make me come out there. --Dog"
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Feds+seek+Brown+sympathizers&articleId=f54a0d4f-3f36-47ef-abd1-af92810fe583
Feds seek Brown sympathizers
By SCOTT BROOKS
New Hampshire Union Leader Staff
Manchester – Federal marshals are combing New Hampshire and other parts of the country for Ed and Elaine Brown sympathizers suspected of plotting violence in retaliation for the Plainfield couple's arrest last week.
In Manchester, marshals have questioned several members of the Free State Project, a group of small-government activists that includes some of the Browns' most ardent supporters. In one interview that was videotaped and posted online, an agent identified one Free Stater, Rob Jacobs, 42, of Manchester, as a potential threat.
"There's been a lot of talk about once Ed and Elaine Brown were arrested, there was going to be this retaliation," the agent told Jacobs' roommate, Sharon "Ivy" Ankrom, during the filmed interview. "When I've asked people, 'Put yourself in my shoes. Who do I need to be concerned about? Who might actually do something violent?' And they all say Rob."
Jacobs denies being part of any plot to exact revenge for the Browns' incarceration. In an interview yesterday, he said he has been in contact with the agent since last Saturday and has agreed to answer questions.
"Their question as to whether I am a threat to anybody is met with a stern answer: No," Jacobs said.
The federal agent's interview at Murphy's Tap Room, a downtown bar frequented by Free Staters, was conducted Friday, one day after U.S. marshals infiltrated the Browns' home and brought the couple into custody.
Ed and Elaine Brown were convicted in January for refusing to pay federal taxes on $1.9 million of income between 1996 and 2003. The two refused to go to prison and spent the ensuing months holed up in their Plainfield compound.
In that time, Ed Brown made repeated threats against any agent who would come for him and said he had a "hit list" containing the names of more than 50 people whose lives would be in danger if something happened to him.
U.S. Marshal Steve Monier, who masterminded the Browns' apprehension last Thursday, said federal agents are reviewing any threats to government officials and are interviewing people throughout the country as part of an ongoing investigation.
"We are continuing to monitor the threat environment," Monier said. "We'll follow those threats where it goes, and we'll take appropriate action."
Monier confirmed the video on Google is authentic. He asked the New Hampshire Union Leader to refrain from publishing the agent's identity because it could prompt more threats.
The 13-minute clip focuses mostly on the agent's face as he tells Ankrom why he wants to talk to Jacobs and asks her to tell him where he is. At one point, the video shows, the agent tells her, "I need to gauge to myself, 'Is Rob a threat to people that we're in charge of protecting?'"
Jacobs said he supports the Browns' cause and has visited their home many times in the past year. He said he has never seen Ed Brown's supposed hit list and said he does not know anyone who might be planning to harm government officials.
Ankrom, 30, a hostess at Murphy's, said she filmed the agent and asked a friend to post the video online because she wanted Jacobs and other people who might be wanted for questioning to know the marshals were looking for them.
Two other members of the Free State Project -- roommates Phillip Allen, 22, and Michael Hampton, 35, of Manchester -- said a marshal came to their door last week to ask questions, including whether they know anyone who has threatened to commit violence because of the Browns. Both said they did not.
"I think taxation is slavery," Allen said yesterday. "But I'm not going to shoot anybody."
Keith Murphy, owner of Murphy's Tap Room and a member of the Free State Project, said many Free Staters who already have come to New Hampshire supported the Browns' crusade against the federal income tax. They were turned off, however, as Ed Brown's rhetoric became increasingly violent and after he told reporters all of the world's problems are the fault of Freemasons and Jews.
"We are 'small L' Libertarians," Murphy said of the Free Staters. "We believe violence is inherently wrong. It's not in our nature."
Four people linked to the Browns were arrested last month and have been held on federal felony charges. None was a member of the Free State Project, Monier said.
Elaine Brown is being held at a minimum-security prison in Danbury, Conn. Her husband still was waiting to be transferred to prison yesterday.
Authorities have said the tax evaders could face more charges.
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/10/10/we-do-battle-with-words-not-guns/
error,
When they come to load you into a cattle car and transport you to the ovens, I'm sure your words will stop them. Just as they stopped the other Nazis sixty years ago.
There is a time for defensive violence. I hope everybody here recognizes that time when it comes. Carrying a gun that you will never use is not only worthless, it's dangerous.
My time will be if they attempt to kidnap me for one of their malum prohibitum non-crime "crimes", kidnap my son to send him away to be killed in the latest US-created hell-hole, or routinely impede my travel with stop-and-search on the roads near my home. Those are acts of war, and I'll treat them as such.
Quote from: KBCraig on October 10, 2007, 01:24 AM NHFT
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Feds+seek+Brown+sympathizers&articleId=f54a0d4f-3f36-47ef-abd1-af92810fe583
Feds seek Brown sympathizers
"We are 'small L' Libertarians," Murphy said of the Free Staters. "We believe violence is inherently wrong. It's not in our nature."
Man you Manchester Free Press guys are getting scooped by the UL ... and you had inside info (am I pushing you guys hard enough ;) )
these reporters just don't get the little stuff .... how can you be a "small L" Libertarian? I don't see any small llllllls
By the way ... the Keene Free Press will never print something against your will ... like your age (Ivy looks 23 to me)
... unless you work for a terrorist organization like the feds.
Quote from: Bill St. Clair on October 10, 2007, 07:22 AM NHFT
error,
When they come to load you into a cattle car and transport you to the ovens, I'm sure your words will stop them. Just as they stopped the other Nazis sixty years ago.
There is a time for defensive violence. I hope everybody here recognizes that time when it comes. Carrying a gun that you will never use is not only worthless, it's dangerous.
My time will be if they attempt to kidnap me for one of their malum prohibitum non-crime "crimes", kidnap my son to send him away to be killed in the latest US-created hell-hole, or routinely impede my travel with stop-and-search on the roads near my home. Those are acts of war, and I'll treat them as such.
it will be interesting to see what "words" you use when the feds come to "talk" to you. Seems like most gun toters back down both in word and deed. Strong words that are actually backed up by nonviolent action sure beat just talk. Guys like error actually do what they say. :)
Quote from: d_goddard on October 09, 2007, 09:00 PM NHFT
If the Feds had just been straight up and said, "we're looking for Ron Jacobs, aka 'Powerchuter' on the forums", most of us old-timers would likely have simply shrugged and said, "Oh yeah, the guy we had to kick off the forums. Yeah, I figured this might happen eventually."
Don't take it bad, Ron, it's no more surprising than hearing that Russel has been thrown in jail for something trivial.
as a semi-old-timer myself .... if the feds asked me about Rob ... I would say that Rob is my friend and they are not. I support Rob ... not the feds, just like I support Ed and Elaine. I don't think Rob supports killing and torture with fed income taxes either. :)
Rob was not kicked off of this forum for threatening the feds .... if we did that many others would have had to go. He was questioning my nonviolent standing and making uncomfortable comments and wouldn't stop when asked to. My family is more comfortable on this forum now that we don't have to read those sorts of things. It is kinda like asking a house guest to stop. If he was kicked off other forums I don't know about it.
That "Russel" character should be jailed just for having a funny spelled name.
Thats where that small l came from!
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 10, 2007, 07:35 AM NHFT
Quote from: d_goddard on October 09, 2007, 09:00 PM NHFT
If the Feds had just been straight up and said, "we're looking for Ron Jacobs, aka 'Powerchuter' on the forums", most of us old-timers would likely have simply shrugged and said, "Oh yeah, the guy we had to kick off the forums. Yeah, I figured this might happen eventually."
Rob was not kicked off of this forum for threatening the feds .... if we did that many others would have had to go. He was questioning my nonviolent standing and making uncomfortable comments and wouldn't stop when asked to.
Can't say I'm surprised really, he seemed like an extremist to me and I can see how his comments could be viewed as violent/aggressive. Heck, he didn't like my opinion on a topic and stated I should be drug off by the feds and never heard from again. ::) Not exactly non-aggressive IMO, and definitely not someone I would want to be associated with.
Rob had been asked to tone down his violent rhetoric. He didn't do that. Then he posted that he wanted to kill everyone who had ever initiated force against someone else but that first he wanted to take their children and shoot them too, forcing their parents to watch. I don't really think he means those things, as borne out by his current actions, but he puts us all in danger by his words, so I kicked him off here. The danger he puts us in, too, has been borne out by recent events. I like Rob, and he'd be welcome back here if he'd do what I asked and tone down the violent rhetoric.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 10, 2007, 07:25 AM NHFT
it will be interesting to see what "words" you use when the feds come to "talk" to you. Seems like most gun toters back down both in word and deed. Strong words that are actually backed up by nonviolent action sure beat just talk. Guys like error actually do what they say. :)
I've already posted my script: Name, city, state, non-consent to search, that's all you're gonna get from me. Am I free to go? Bye.
But you're right, as Ed & Elaine discovered. Talking is a lot easier than acting. You guys are doing great work. I just wish you'd let the feds know that there's a limit to what they're allowed to do before they suffer the consequences of their actions. That's what the Second Amendment is for. As it is, they know they can do whatever they want, and all they'll ever get from you is words. Sticks and stones, doncha know.
But at least somebody got them scared. Good. They should quake in their boots every time they open their front doors. There's no Constitutional authority for ANY federal police force. There are only a handful of federal crimes listed in the Constitution, and no authority to create more. They violate their oaths every time they go to work.
Well, I'm makin' a list, and checkin' it twice, gonna find out who's naughty and nice. Li-ber-ty is comin' to town.
The "Agent Provocateurs" are popping up all over the place...hmm
I never said I expected my one man war to be successful. Though I can hope that my death will stiffen a few spines. Whatever. I don't live my life for anybody but myself and my loved ones. I will not survive being caged, so I'd rather die on my feet, hopefully taking a few of my kidnappers with me. Your mileage obviously varies. I didn't ask you to join me. Only pointed at my lines in the sand.
And I didn't say what was on my list, did I? Maybe I'm giving out medals. I gave one to to Linda Hamilton (http://billstclair.com/LindaHamilton/), before the goons drove her to suicide. Mostly, I was just having fun. I do that a lot.
Quote from: shyfrog on October 10, 2007, 09:10 AM NHFT
The "Agent Provocateurs" are popping up all over the place...hmm
bingo!
Kola
I don't believe Bill St. Claire is an agent provacateur, neither is he a part of our movement.
What about KBCraig's comment on the Hatch act? Is there evidence that the feds asked about political support?
Quote from: Kat Kanning on October 10, 2007, 09:28 AM NHFT
I don't believe Bill St. Claire is an agent provacateur, neither is he a part of our movement.
I don't believe he's an agent, either.
Nonetheless, he's gone over the line with posts that clearly intimate violence, and he thinks he's bing cute.
I hereby officially petition for redress of grievances. Bill St. Clair has tarnished our nonviolent group too many times, and suffered no consequences. And consequences are necessary to learn and to grow.
For his growth, and our peaceable assembly, I beseech Kat and Russ to ban him from the forum, at least temporarily.
someone plz pm me if you have any information about when the meeting will be held between rob and the treasury folks. remember my phone is basically down. and post the message on this thread....maybe on the calendar also
Quote from: Bill St. Clair on October 10, 2007, 08:49 AM NHFT
Well, I'm makin' a list, and checkin' it twice, gonna find out who's naughty and nice. Li-ber-ty is comin' to town.
Quote from: shyfrog on October 10, 2007, 09:10 AM NHFT
The "Agent Provocateurs" are popping up all over the place...hmm
Since no one can locate the notorious hitlist that the feds were supposedly after on Friday, now they have to manufacture one after the fact.
To a man with a hammer everthing looks like a nail.
This whole fascination with the armed revolt is frustrating to say the least.
Bill I'm disappointed, you have a family and presumably are interested in making a better future for them.
The only successful revolutions in recent history (that I'm aware of) have been nonviolent.
Some folks seem more interested in masturbation than taking on the work of effecting change.
For folks that want to actually do things that can bring about positive change
REVOLUTION, Ya Say Ya Want A (http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=8273.0)
Some people just like to talk smack. Talk is cheap. Cheap talk isn't worth the oxygen needed to process such drivel.
Even as a "militant" firearms owner, the last thing I hope I ever have to do is discharge my firearm, even in a defensive manner.
Talk has gotten us to the place we are now.
I posted my concerns and warnings in the past about this kind of nonsense.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on October 10, 2007, 10:53 AM NHFT
Talk has gotten us to the place we are now.
So is that good or bad? :-\
I'm of the opinion that it takes action to initiate change; "talk" w/o action is just a waste of oxygen IMO.
Quote from: Bill St. Clair on October 10, 2007, 08:49 AM NHFT
Well, I'm makin' a list, and checkin' it twice, gonna find out who's naughty and nice. Li-ber-ty is comin' to town.
dude your not Santa, and unlike Santa the Liberty movement is a very real thing, its not coming to town it is hear. And you have freedom of association but so does everyone else on this forum, and i think you can see what talking like a violent crazy person is getting you in this little free market.
I know its crazy, and scary, but the fright or flight place is not a good place to be. You know your lines in the sand, great, but no on is crossing them, and if your passionate about them you need no one else's permision, so take this energy that your expending shooting off at the mouth and cultivate it. use it so that that line of yours never gets crossed
The feds should be much more worried about the people who aren't shooting off their mouths about it, but rather making plans and preparations silently and cunningly, plans which are intended to come to their attention only in the moment that they come to fruition, rather than on a public message board.
Quote from: mvpel on October 10, 2007, 11:37 AM NHFT
The feds should be much more worried about the people who aren't shooting off their mouths about it, but rather making plans and preparations silently and cunningly, plans which are intended to come to their attention only in the moment that they come to fruition, rather than on a public message board.
THE FEDS INNER DIALOGE RESPONDING TO THIS POST
A Play by: Supperman15
FED RIGHT BRAIN:
"this is why we need brain reading guns, and more small laws to just arrest people on if we suspect that some day they may hurt someone by falling out of a tree on them. This is why we need totalitarianism... We cant give you things and respect your rights at the same time, so the only thing to do now is get inside peoples heads.
FED LEFT BRAIN:
"you know what would be cool to if we could just implant a button so that if they thing the wrong things we can just shut them off"
FED RIGHT BRAIN:
"No, THAT may be taking it to far, that may be unconsti.... I like it! lets do it!"
The End:
Depressing as it is, you have a point. :(
Quote from: Powerchuter
And now the time has come to stand our ground and do battle...
One shot, one kill...aim small, miss small...
One other thing I've never been able to figure out is why he uses a female avatar over on the FTL BBS.
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?action=profile;u=2952
Quote from: shyfrog on October 10, 2007, 09:10 AM NHFT
The "Agent Provocateurs" are popping up all over the place...hmm
The sad part is that this is very likely true.
In all likelihood both the FBI and the DHS have "agent provocateurs" in our midst without any other agencies (ie federal marshals) knowing their real identities, or worse, even the undercover agents knowing who each other are as they're from different divisions. They're just lurking like trolls throwing these escalating comments back and forth making us all look as bad as they are.
Pointing fingers at individuals does no good, especially as the feds themselves are the first to point fingers and try to turn us against each other. This is why I'm pointing out behavior, not any individual.
Someone posts about killing/shooting
anybody, kick them off the boards immediately.
Someone shows up to a meeting or social gathering talking about killing/shooting anyone, you turn away from them and exclude them from discussion.
In both cases they are either a federal agent trying to entrap easily radicalized liberty-lovers or our own peers who need a reality check as to what constitutes socially responsible behavior. Turn them out. Don't call them a fed, at most someone should take them aside privately and explain how they might adjust their behavior. When they change their behavior welcome them back in.
Feds won't bother adjusting their behavior. Such an procedure will make it clear that they will not succeed in their mission and they'll leave never to be heard from again. A few crazies will too. It's often hard to tell the difference, trust me I know from experience on that one, but the people we want who just shot their mouth off without thinking about it will adjust and we'll become a stronger group as a result.
Quote from: d_goddard on October 10, 2007, 11:51 AM NHFT
Quote from: Powerchuter
And now the time has come to stand our ground and do battle...
One shot, one kill...aim small, miss small...
One other thing I've never been able to figure out is why he uses a female avatar over on the FTL BBS.
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?action=profile;u=2952
That's Margot Sanger-Katz, Concord Monitor reporter extraordinaire. And she, on NHTeaParty, has a picture of him as her avatar. I think it's pretty sweet :)
Re: Bill St. Claire - as far as I know, he's a good guy. I'll do the same for him as I did for Rob and first ask him to tone down the "let's go shoot the bastards" talk. Bill, you're welcome to say whatever you want, but not necessarily on my property. The purpose of this website is not to start violent revolution. I don't want that to happen. If you'd like to encourage other people to start violent revolution (since you don't seem to be doing it yourself), please do it elsewhere. Thanks.
Margot is using a picture of Rob for her avatar, so I guess turnabout is fair play.
Quote from: RattyDog on October 10, 2007, 08:47 AM NHFT
Don't worry about us, Uncle Russ...it's smooth sailling over here! Things are going well.
:Leaving_in_a_jet_plane____by_ :Leaving_in_a_jet_plane____by_
Are you going to come to our meeting on Saturday? Everyone is welcome...even if you just want to rubber neck and laugh at our plan, we'd be glad to see you!
this saturday we will be at firecracker joes .... otherwise it would be good to listen in on your meeting. I am not saying you should do anything different ... just that you should do it now. :) Otherwise you guys could just write stories for our paper. ;)
Going back into lurk mode. It was fun. Really. Let me know a lot more about what all y'all are made of.
Quote from: Bill St. Clair on October 10, 2007, 08:49 AM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 10, 2007, 07:25 AM NHFT
it will be interesting to see what "words" you use when the feds come to "talk" to you. Seems like most gun toters back down both in word and deed. Strong words that are actually backed up by nonviolent action sure beat just talk. Guys like error actually do what they say. :)
I've already posted my script: Name, city, state, non-consent to search, that's all you're gonna get from me. Am I free to go? Bye.
But you're right, as Ed & Elaine discovered. Talking is a lot easier than acting. You guys are doing great work. I just wish you'd let the feds know that there's a limit to what they're allowed to do before they suffer the consequences of their actions.
So what do you do when the fed guy says "you are free to go as soon as you answer a few more questions"?
The feds have already hit my limit. I just don't use any violent actions against my enemies. I do not help them and I actively oppose them. If we withdraw our consent ... they all lose their jobs. :)
Quote from: shyfrog on October 10, 2007, 09:10 AM NHFT
The "Agent Provocateurs" are popping up all over the place...hmm
I haven't seen too many of them. I see a lot of gun cleaners. I don't think they are paid by the government. They really believe they should wait for the government to come to their doors and while they wait ... they will threaten.
BTW, I don't believe the choice is only between words and guns. Governments absolutely must have the cooperation of most of the people, and if they don't have that, they cease to exist. Noncooperation is very powerful - and you don't have to shoot anyone!
Quote from: Bill St. Clair on October 10, 2007, 09:12 AM NHFT
I never said I expected my one man war to be successful. Though I can hope that my death will stiffen a few spines. Whatever. I don't live my life for anybody but myself and my loved ones. I will not survive being caged, so I'd rather die on my feet, hopefully taking a few of my kidnappers with me. Your mileage obviously varies. I didn't ask you to join me. Only pointed at my lines in the sand.
You question nonviolent methods because you don't think they will individually work.
Almost every gun toter I have met makes many lines in the sand ... and never actually makes a stand. It is easy to talk about future activity.
It is a fine line to ban people from a site. A difficult choice, indeed.
What if some of the words written are from hackers (agents) into someone's account?
Divide and conquer is the method. When people fear, it is easy to manipulate us all.
Quote from: ivyleague28477 on October 10, 2007, 11:07 AM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 10, 2007, 07:22 AM NHFT
(Ivy looks 23 to me)
Russell Kanning I LOVE YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;D
Hey ... my wife reads these boards ... agent provocateur
Quote from: RattyDog on October 10, 2007, 11:52 AM NHFT
Please explain to me how and why this woman put her hands on your son?
Why are these people playing games??
They are evil. That is why we are fighting them. Rob is not groveling ... so they reveal their true nature.
woa what is this about ivy's son being grabbed by an agent? I'm not sure if will be able to do it but someone should call the union leader reporter who just did a story on ivy...and tell them about this. try to get this in the press post hastie.
soon as i can catch up i will try to do it but that may be a bit so dont wait for me to do it
well there is some press....
Heather Hamel from WMUR-TV just stopped by the house. They are wanting to do a story on everything. I declined as of yet, they are encouraging anyone wanting to talk to contact them and her contact information is...
Heather Hamel
News Reporter
603-641-9009
I may be willing to talk to them but not alone.
Quote from: d_goddard on October 10, 2007, 11:51 AM NHFT
Quote from: Powerchuter
And now the time has come to stand our ground and do battle...
One shot, one kill...aim small, miss small...
One other thing I've never been able to figure out is why he uses a female avatar over on the FTL BBS.
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?action=profile;u=2952
The photo is a picture of the reporter at the Concord Monitor who posts often on this forum. Rob uses it as his avatar on nhteaparty as well. Maybe he hopes she'll find it intimidating. I find it ugly.
Quote from: error on October 10, 2007, 12:31 PM NHFT
Margot is using a picture of Rob for her avatar, so I guess turnabout is fair play.
She only started using his photo months later.
Quote from: RattyDog on October 10, 2007, 01:50 PM NHFT
Isn't there any real crime out there for you to be concerned with?? I'll tell you what, while you're in Manchester doing nothing, why don't you look into the gang shootings that have been going on in my neighborhood?
We asked the same question as to why police were enforcing asinine ordinances about riding bicycles on the sidewalk and sidewalk chalking while it took them over a half hour to respond to an armed robbery at 6pm when the cop shop was a block away, long after the robber was gone.
A former cop of that city responded, "because trying to stop an armed robbery could get you shot, but you need to look like you're doing something, so we enforce laws about people who are not likely to use violent force against us".
They know very well nobody is going to shoot them. I believe I saw quite a few people open carrying last night, if they felt any of us were violence-prone they wouldn't have been there.
So basically the feds we had at Murphy's last night were too scared to do their real jobs so they stalk and harass us instead. We're safe, the latin kings are not.
It's stuff like this (and David Friedman's books) that transmuted me from a Libertarian into an anarcocapitalist.
If the protection service really had competition for customers, we'd get better customer service.
What's so surprising about that?
If you haven't yet checked the UL article (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Feds+seek+Brown+sympathizers&articleId=f54a0d4f-3f36-47ef-abd1-af92810fe583), or refreshed the page to see all the comments, you should. There are some idjits throwing rocks in our general direction, but there are also natives speaking up in support.
One of the advantages of being a night owl is that I often get the first comment on news articles. (Lancaster is "home", even while I'm in Texas. ;) )
Quote from: Kat Kanning on October 10, 2007, 12:30 PM NHFT
Re: Bill St. Claire - as far as I know, he's a good guy. I'll do the same for him as I did for Rob and first ask him to tone down the "let's go shoot the bastards" talk.
I never saw any such talk.
I AM seeing the word violence being thrown around an awful lot. So we need to sit down and agree: Is self-defense violence? I don't believe it is and most of the people using the word are speaking as if defending yourself IS violence.
Part of the reason this concerns me is my outsider's viewpoint. I see people on here claiming with their real name that they pay no federal taxes. Feds aren't after them. So why were they after Mr. Brown? I'm sure it's possible that the amount was just so large because of his wife's business. Being post-9/11 and post USAPATRIOT Act, I'm more inclined to believe it was because they believed he was a member of a militia and/or because he was well armed. They find ways of taking the resolute citizens out one at a time because they know without COUNTERforce, we cannot stop them.
Before I get too much farther, I'd like to share my non-violence credentials to spare us all the waste of time of being marginalized as an Agent whatever for feeling a bit differently than somebody else: I've been in three self-defense situations. Even though twice I've had to point my gun at another human being to spare myself, I've never put my finger in the trigger guard. Because just as others know and hold onto, I don't WANT to shoot anybody. That said, if I remain in harm's way after letting my assailant know I am willing and able to defend myself, I might have to.
I think it's great that this group is so committed to non-violence. I'm NOT impressed with the way the group seems to exclude members that don't feel exactly as they do. I agree with Sarah that people might be walking on egg shells as a result of recent events. Which I am respectful of. I've been through the grinder myself, but not quite like what some of you have been put through. I can only imagine the toll it might take on you.
Like it or not, Mr. St. Claire's positions were true. Having a gun and being unwilling to use it IS dangerous. I believe Natalie asked why. It's because you risk becoming the victim of your own firearm. In either of the situations I had drawn, had I not shown with my attitude, body language, voice, and eyes that I was fully capable of following through, they might have prersued. It's happened before. Police are trained to approach every situation as if a weapon is present because there always is; THEY bring it.
Mr. St. Claire's other statement was that the Second Amendment was designed to enable us to protect ourselves against tyranny. Law enforcement of all stripes have been using this country's terrorist scare to amass more and more power. Which they bring to us in the all too familar methods of force and intimidation. Some (myself included; I'm on video doing exactly this) would rather try to work through it with words and from within THEIR system that THEY don't even abide by. That's your right to choose. That doesn't alter the truth of Mr. St. Claire's statements.
Again, I can only imagine what you lot are going through out there. But it's the scoffConstitutional federal agents that are in the wrong here. Not Mr. Jacobs and not Mr. St. Claire. Don't let THEM obfuscate your own non-violent resolve or otherwise blur your vision by tricking you into turning on one another. There's right and then there's wrong. Being contrary to one's own beliefs does not make one wrong. Violating the laws of this land, its citizens, due process, and all of our civil rights, does. Like it or not, it's the people that speak as if they will act that keeps our domestic enemies at bay. The Ridley Report is already rich with examples of civil servants that are willing to overstep their bounds until they realize they might meet consequences (being filmed and all).
If somebody disagrees with you, you are welcome to speak with them in an attempt to influence. Wielding force against them, if only to shove them on the other side of an imaginary line, is against the mantra of non-violence. We cannot forget that this paradigm is not new. Prior to the Revolutionary War, there was much dissidence. Many spent large amounts of time and effort trying to peaceably secure and defend their liberties. I commend and support and hope to join those who believe in non-violent resolution. I hope these people remain amenable to the POSSIBILITY that one day, defending our liberties with our arms may become necessary. Please don't willfully thin out our numbers just because some people are more willing to than others. Remember, if somebody said similar WORDS about one of us, law enforcement would do nothing. This is merely an arching of their backs to intimidate those towing the line into behaving as THEY would have you, and not as you might decide as an intelligent adult.
Sorry for length. Last time I was here, the thread was several pages younger.
Quote from: dan_sayers on October 10, 2007, 02:41 PM NHFT
I AM seeing the word violence being thrown around an awful lot. So we need to sit down and agree: Is self-defense violence? I don't believe it is and most of the people using the word are speaking as if defending yourself IS violence.
The problem is there are people who take the position that the income tax (or <your least favorite gov't program here>) is already "violence" of a sort. So these fucktards are saying "we did't start it.. but we'll finish it!" ::)
Quote from: dan_sayers on October 10, 2007, 02:41 PM NHFT
I'm NOT impressed with the way the group seems to exclude members that don't feel exactly as they do.
I'm fairly confident that most of the posters here disagree with just about everything I post, and yet here I am.
They simply draw a very clear line at violence which I applaud.
Wasn't it Ayn Rand who said that the best way to stop the juggernaut is NOT to throw yourself in front of it?
Quote from: dan_sayers on October 10, 2007, 02:41 PM NHFT
I think it's great that this group is so committed to non-violence. I'm NOT impressed with the way the group seems to exclude members that don't feel exactly as they do.
If you are a member of the free state project, then you have agreed not to initiate force. If you break this then you are not part of us. This is equally true with the Libertarian Party. Your actions exclude you from us, that exclusion ends when you choose to change your behavior.
Some people attempt to twist this, stating that violence has already been made by such and such action, and that shooting people or blowing up buildings is the appropriate answer. It is not. It does not matter if those people posting this stuff are feds or not, they are not part of us.
In another possible reality, where we include those people in the grouping of "us", turns us all into crazy bombing people in the eyes of the world and undermines the reasons we've picked up our lives and moved to this state. This is why I refuse to associate myself with anyone advocating, much less using, violence as a strategy or "response".
As far as self-defense goes, unless you're using a firearm in direct defense of your life, such as someone with a gun shooting at you or others, there are non-lethal/non-violent ways to protect yourself. In most cases, where you have someone shooting at you, that reality has only come to pass because you have allowed it to reach that point.
Those who advocate violence blind themselves and create those very realities they advocate as inevitable.
As some of you know, Mike Rivero has a radio show a few hours a week.
I am sure he would like to interview some of the people being harrassed.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/ (http://whatreallyhappened.com/)
Write him. Get this word out before the instigators attempt to divide the whole community!
So as to not waste the energy rehashing stuff that has been covered ad nauseam.
Forum Policy
(http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=8809.msg154634#msg154634)
@Dan_Sayers
I don't think too many FSP members would say that you shouldn't use defensive force to defend yourself and your family. The thing is, as we've seen from the past, most anti-gov't agents are infiltrated and discreted by gov't agents joining and then initiating violence. It's been done over and over and over again (http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=11280.msg0;topicseen#new). We need to make sure that it's clear that we don't support that so that this kind of thing can't happen to us.
Why was Rob banned? Well, first, remember that this site is not a "general FSP site." It belongs to Russell Kanning so it conforms to his political views, which aren't necessarily the views of the FSP members in general. Second, as mentioned above, when this site becomes a place where people talk about killing gov't agents and such, discrediting the FSP becomes that much easier.
Obviously, most (myself included) believe that killing a gov't agent who isn't immediately threatening your life is wrong. It's wrong to use violence against someone who's not using it against you. I carry a gun and am ready to use it...but I will NOT be the first person to threaten violence in any situation...I will only use it to protect myself.
Lastly, killing gov't agents is NOT the way to make change. It's not helpful. Timothy McVeigh didn't bring me any new freedom that I'm aware of. Do I support the right of revolution? absolutely! Am I ever going to be a one-man revolutionary team?? Absolutely not!
Are we in agreement?
The feds inflicted violence first against the Browns.
IMO, any "violent" act from the Browns (against the Feds) was self defense.
ie..you watch someone shoot your 5 yr old daughter. You come to her aid (but too late) but in the process you fight with the killer and choke him to death.
Was killing the killer wrong? AND are you now a VIOLENT criminal?
Kola
Quote from: kola on October 10, 2007, 03:39 PM NHFT
The feds inflicted violence first against the Browns.
IMO, any "violent" act from the Browns (against the Feds) was self defense.
Ok, but that kind of conversation is pointless. It doesn't get us anywhere. We all know we'll protect ourselves. Talking about killing people is NOT HELPFUL (http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=11280.msg0;topicseen#new).
Quote from: d_goddard on October 10, 2007, 02:57 PM NHFTThe problem is there are people who take the position that the income tax (or <your least favorite gov't program here>) is already "violence" of a sort. So these fucktards are saying "we did't start it.. but we'll finish it!" ::)
I haven't seen anybody speaking of force against governement policies. I've seen people speak of COUNTERforce against unprovoked force leveled upon them. There's a difference.
Quote from: ArcRiley on October 10, 2007, 03:29 PM NHFTIf you are a member of the free state project, then you have agreed not to initiate force.
Wouldn't somebody have to be talking about INITIATING force for your comment to at all be relevant? I think I've been both clear and consistent that I'm not talking about INITIATING force. In fact, I've been effortfully trying to help others understand the difference so that we're not pushing our brothers aside without reason.
Quote from: ArcRiley on October 10, 2007, 03:29 PM NHFTAs far as self-defense goes, unless you're using a firearm in direct defense of your life, such as someone with a gun shooting at you or others, there are non-lethal/non-violent ways to protect yourself. In most cases, where you have someone shooting at you, that reality has only come to pass because you have allowed it to reach that point.
Your first sentence is not unlike saying a rapist has to have his penis inside a girl before she can legitimately fight back. Your second sentence is not unlike saying it was her fault for wearing a short skirt. Having been a victim of traumatic violence and forced to sit and watch the very people I thought I could count on treat me, the victim, as if I was guilty, I find that highly offensive.
Quote from: ArcRiley on October 10, 2007, 03:29 PM NHFTThose who advocate violence blind themselves and create those very realities they advocate as inevitable.
Not a single person has yet advocated violence. Just the same, i'd like to countpoint by stating that those who advocate giving the assailant what he wants without resistance create those very realities where even more people are forced to make that choice because attackers survey the landscape and find that many more and softer targets.
Factoring OnGard4Liberty's input into the above analogy, we are also expected to believe that if your rapist is a federal agent, it is against wrong to defend yourself.
I offer my apology. Perhaps it was in bad taste to try and have such a debate during a time when so many are actively being shaken up by the very people who are using force to force docility and compliance. I never know how to respond when people see things in my words that aren't even there. I just know that no matter what we're talking about, being divided is never a path to achieving our goals. I will perpetually attempt to join people together, particularly when they really are marching to the same drummer and the march is one as fabulous as the freedom movement.
The job of these feds is not to protect us, it's to protect the government.
Quote from: dan_sayers on October 10, 2007, 04:04 PM NHFT
Factoring OnGard4Liberty's input into the above analogy, we are also expected to believe that if your rapist is a federal agent, it is against wrong to defend yourself.
That's not what I was saying. Let me clarify. You should protect yourself when you face imminent danger...but thinking that you're going to change the system through violence is absurd. Unless and until there's an active revolution in this country (which would be a-ok with me), violence is useless. Further, although there is violence inherent in the system, I would view it as morally wrong to use deadly force against gov't agents at this point.
If any person was raping a family member, or threatening to, (what the law calls "imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury"), I would use deadly force in defense. That goes for anyone, no matter if they work for the gov't or not. That's far different than going around and saying, "Federal agents rape women. We should start mowing them down."
Quote from: ArcRiley on October 10, 2007, 11:53 AM NHFT
Someone posts about killing/shooting anybody, kick them off the boards immediately.
Someone shows up to a meeting or social gathering talking about killing/shooting anyone, you turn away from them and exclude them from discussion.
Why wasn't this same standard applied to the Brown's by those who supported them?
Quote from: RattyDog on October 10, 2007, 01:50 PM NHFT
It is just so unprofessional...you know? Is he a person of interest, or not?
This is what they do.
They have revealed themselves to the manchester gang ... it really makes you think about not paying their salaries... doesn't it. :)
Quote from: RattyDog on October 10, 2007, 01:50 PM NHFT
Isn't there any real crime out there for you to be concerned with?? I'll tell you what, while you're in Manchester doing nothing, why don't you look into the gang shootings that have been going on in my neighborhood?
It is all a game for them. They bully people ... they get money. People complain.
Fredrick Douglass said that people get the amount of tyranny they will put up with.
We are turning it around. They can sense a tremor in the walls of the empire.
It is fun watching you guys in Manchester shake them up and rally together. :)
Quote from: OnGard4Liberty on October 10, 2007, 03:46 PM NHFT
Quote from: kola on October 10, 2007, 03:39 PM NHFT
The feds inflicted violence first against the Browns.
IMO, any "violent" act from the Browns (against the Feds) was self defense.
Ok, but that kind of conversation is pointless. It doesn't get us anywhere. We all know we'll protect ourselves. Talking about killing people is NOT HELPFUL (http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=11280.msg0;topicseen#new).
Do not put words in my mouth. I did not say anything about "killing people", you did. But since YOU brought it up and for the records, IMO justifiable killing is acceptable when personal life is threatened.
I was speaking in regards to the "violence" (not your term "killing people") that the feds used by shooting at Mr Riley and later when firing around the house. As far as your quote; "we all know we''ll protect ourselves", that could or could not involve "killing people". Fatass Monier made a quote that the Browns case is NOW "more than just a tax issue" because of Ed's actions but Ol Fatass and others tend to forget that he and his band of goons provoked the whole shabang. Ed was protecting his family, his home and his property.
Lets not forget... Ed and Elaine have harmed no one. I think the most aggressive thing Ed has done towards the goons is yelled at them with a bullhorn and the possibility that he sent some traps. To my knowledge, bullhorns and animal traps to not KILL people.
Kola
All the below, cut and pasted from http://whatreallyhappened.com/ (http://whatreallyhappened.com/) this evening.
Feds seek Brown sympathizers http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Feds%20seek%20Brown%20sympathizers&articleId=f54a0d4f-3f36-47ef-abd1-af92810fe583 (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Feds%20seek%20Brown%20sympathizers&articleId=f54a0d4f-3f36-47ef-abd1-af92810fe583)
Federal marshals are combing New Hampshire and other parts of the country for Ed and Elaine Brown sympathizers suspected of plotting violence in retaliation for the Plainfield couple's arrest last week.
Posted Oct 10, 2007 03:49 PM PST
Category: DICTATORSHIP
"Suspected of plotting?"
Since when is it a crime to THINK about violence?
Quote from: kola on October 10, 2007, 09:06 PM NHFT
Do not put words in my mouth. I did not say anything about "killing people", you did. But since YOU brought it up and for the records, IMO justifiable killing is acceptable when personal life is threatened.
Sorry for putting words in your mouth...I was speaking generally, using your quote as a spring board. We're agreed on force being justified in defense of your life.
Quote from: EthanAllen on October 10, 2007, 07:00 PM NHFT
Why wasn't this same standard applied to the Brown's by those who supported them?
First - the Browns were not part of the free state project.
So
everyone understands I'll repeat - the Browns were not, at any point, part of the free state project. Ever. To the feds reading this, do you understand that fact, now, after you've throughly humiliated yourselves?
The Browns, at no point, were organized officially or unofficially with the various NH-based groups with a majority of membership from people moved to NH via the free state project.
Up until they threatened violence they did have some free staters supporting them. They had many more non free staters supporting them. When they threatened to use violence in defense of arrest that support from those people was withdrawn to a large extent.
So - reality check - it was. When the Browns were arrested they apparently had very few supporters left.
Quote from: KBCraig on October 10, 2007, 02:36 PM NHFT
If you haven't yet checked the UL article (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Feds+seek+Brown+sympathizers&articleId=f54a0d4f-3f36-47ef-abd1-af92810fe583), or refreshed the page to see all the comments, you should. There are some idjits throwing rocks in our general direction, but there are also natives speaking up in support.
One of the advantages of being a night owl is that I often get the first comment on news articles. (Lancaster is "home", even while I'm in Texas. ;) )
Nice comment KB. Is it just me or does it seem weird that all of the derogatory statements about free staters are posted by people who are unwilling to provide their last name? hmmm :-\
Quote from: ArcRiley on October 10, 2007, 09:37 PM NHFT
First - the Browns were not part of the free state project.
So everyone understands I'll repeat - the Browns were not, at any point, part of the free state project. Ever. To the feds reading this, do you understand that fact, now, after you've throughly humiliated yourselves?
The Browns, at no point, were organized officially or unofficially with the various NH-based groups with a majority of membership from people moved to NH via the free state project.
Up until they threatened violence they did have some free staters supporting them. They had many more non free staters supporting them. When they threatened to use violence in defense of arrest that support from those people was withdrawn to a large extent.
So - reality check - it was. When the Browns were arrested they apparently had very few supporters left.
I think they fully understand this point. They do not even associate (verbally) those that are currently under surveillance with the FSP. They state they are only investigating individuals, no more. It was repeated in the Monier interview still available on wmur.com.
The media lies to mention the FSP, and of course we are. The inference is there, hanging in the air.
But it is to our advantage as I just wrote to my local meetup group who keep asking for updates:
It is likely the only common thread amongst the vast diversty of free state project participants that the initiation of violence is seen as particularly abhorrent.
First it works to disarm those investigating members. Our hope is that the message starts to sink in: initiation of violence is everywhere nowadays, and deserves constant reflection.
Quote from: ArcRiley on October 10, 2007, 09:37 PM NHFT
The Browns, at no point, were organized officially or unofficially with the various NH-based groups with a majority of membership from people moved to NH via the free state project.
Chris was searching on some very old threads and mentioned she'd found a thread, way pre-trial, where Kat was going to invite Ed and Elaine to come to a meeting of Concord Porcs. I don't think that ever happened, nor do I think they were ever at any of the other Porc meetings (Keene?)
Associating them with the FSP would be like saying Governor Benson was an FSPer: a pretty big stretch no matter how you slice it.
Quote from: ArcRiley on October 10, 2007, 09:37 PM NHFT
Quote from: EthanAllen on October 10, 2007, 07:00 PM NHFT
Why wasn't this same standard applied to the Brown's by those who supported them?
First - the Browns were not part of the free state project.
So everyone understands I'll repeat - the Browns were not, at any point, part of the free state project. Ever. To the feds reading this, do you understand that fact, now, after you've throughly humiliated yourselves?
The Browns, at no point, were organized officially or unofficially with the various NH-based groups with a majority of membership from people moved to NH via the free state project.
Up until they threatened violence they did have some free staters supporting them. They had many more non free staters supporting them. When they threatened to use violence in defense of arrest that support from those people was withdrawn to a large extent.
So - reality check - it was. When the Browns were arrested they apparently had very few supporters left.
Let's be specific. Many people here still believe that the Brown's would be justified in using force in self-defense because they believe the income tax is theft.
A few people here still supported the Brown's after he and some of their supporters said that they would avenge any violence perpetrated upon them by possibly going after family members of federal employees in revenge.
Many people here don't believe there is a law requiring the payment of income taxes.
I believe there is a law but income taxes are immoral because they violate the absolute right of self-ownership - but not all types of "taxes" do. The only morally defensible position is non-violent, civil disobedience like Lauren is engaging in were you willingly suffer the consequences of an immoral law in order to raise public awareness to somehow change it. Anyone who resists the detainment by violence after violating the law is acting immorally themselves.
Quote from: EthanAllen on October 10, 2007, 10:16 PM NHFTLet's be specific. Many people here still believe that the Brown's would be justified in using force in self-defense because they believe the income tax is theft.
This was not my understanding at all. My understanding was that he was vehement about trespassers. Anybody coming to arrest him would have to first trespass. He did not observe any arrest warrant because he was not afforded due process. That was my understanding.
Quote from: richardr on October 10, 2007, 03:03 PM NHFT
Quote from: dan_sayers on October 10, 2007, 02:41 PM NHFT
I'm NOT impressed with the way the group seems to exclude members that don't feel exactly as they do.
I'm fairly confident that most of the posters here disagree with just about everything I post, and yet here I am.
They simply draw a very clear line at violence which I applaud.
Agreed. Remain respectful, don't set up the forum to be accused of violence, then life online is good.
Violence against the gov't only makes it stronger for the same reason that
war is the health of the state.
+1
:D Well, I finally got to murphys yeaterday. I met the bar tender and 2 other patrons, nice people. I had this English beer 5.2 % that knocked my dick in the dirt and a Bud and sat for an hour or so and shot the shit. I took off around 4 ish.
I asked if there were porqs there or if there were any free staters presant and got funny looks. I left, i didn't want to get people nervous, I'm a new face so I didn't want to push it.
About the Fed picking up your child. Press charges! Period. Next time any of those assclowns touch anything or anyone, scream bloody murder, If they bump you ask them if that was an assault and inform them the next time it happens you'll call the police, call the police and press charges. You don't know if that fed is a pervert. You do not know if the feds have warrents, if they touch anything, call the cops, press charges. If they hasstle the patrons of Murphys, call the cops and complain, have them thrown out for anti social behavior. If they get in your face, sit down and call the cops. Do not be assaulted in any way shape or form. If they want to play nice offer them a drink but do not put up with any bullshit. A crime is a crime. If you'd be thrown in a cell for doing something agressive, the fed can be thrown in jail for the same actions.
"Please, help, I gotta calm down" >:( This is why I pray to god. God can protect me from this stuff.
Quote from: ivyleague28477 on October 11, 2007, 07:40 AM NHFT
Perhaps I'm preaching to the choir...
I am one of the few at the very heart of this controversy and am feeling intense amount of stress because if it, yet I am even more concerned with what is occurring right here on this board.
I feel like there is a lot of fighting occurring right now. I feel this is EXACTLY what the Feds are looking for. I feel most of the events since the Brown arrest have not necessarily been because some of us supported them and they are searching for potentially violent Brown supporters. On the contrary I feel our current harassment is because they know only some of us supported the Browns in their entire stance, they know as a group we do not advocate violence, they know the entire issue is a sensitive one, and they know we have been divided in the past on the same issue (i.e. they know of Rob and others being 'kicked off' this forum for speaking of or advocating for violence).
I feel they specifically targeted us in order to stir up the hornets nest and divide us now because we are becoming more and more united in this fight towards realizing liberty in our lifetime! We are gaining a momentum and it is scaring them. God forbid if Ron Paul get elected - they will be out of jobs. God forbid we do away with this large federal government - they will be out of jobs! Hell, I'd imagine if enough information about the work of some of these agencies were made public enough and the tide in this country changed enough, many of these Marshals and other government workers could be tried for treason!!! Of course they are terrified!
I ask you all... no, I beg of you. Please stop any fighting or bickering. I don't think it is necessary to "clarify" on issues such as whether or not the Browns were or were not FSPers at the cost of unity of the group. I don't think it necessary to 'clarify' on any view at the cost of unity of the group - if people need to know what we stand for it is right there, easily found on the FSP site.
:clap: :grouphug: ;D
Quote from: Kat Kanning on October 10, 2007, 05:40 PM NHFT
The job of these feds is not to protect us, it's to protect the government.
:clap:
Whoa... Kat's karma just now was 1040 and Russell's was 666 :o
Fixed both ;D 8)
Quote from: OnGard4Liberty on October 10, 2007, 03:38 PM NHFT
I carry a gun and am ready to use it...but I will NOT be the first person to threaten violence in any situation...I will only use it to protect myself.
:clap:
Quote from: ivyleague28477 on October 11, 2007, 07:40 AM NHFT
Perhaps I'm preaching to the choir...
I am one of the few at the very heart of this controversy and am feeling intense amount of stress because if it, yet I am even more concerned with what is occurring right here on this board.
I feel like there is a lot of fighting occurring right now. I feel this is EXACTLY what the Feds are looking for. I feel our current harassment is because they know only some of us supported the Browns in their entire stance, they know as a group we do not advocate violence, they know the entire issue is a sensitive one, and they know we have been divided in the past on the same issue.
I feel they specifically targeted us in order to stir up the hornets nest and divide us now because we are becoming more and more united in this fight towards realizing liberty in our lifetime! We are gaining a momentum and it is scaring them.
Ancient battle tactics, divide and conquer.
That is one of the main reason I do not engage in debate with posters who advocate/initiate, violence/aggression. It serves no purpose but to divide my attention; and even should one present a sound rebuttal to these antagonistic views it is likely to serve no purpose; for many that take such an outlook are fearful and narrow minded to begin with and will only believe that which they want to.
Ignore button works much better to silence agitators anyway. ;)
IMO, the majority of contributing members on this board share a similar view about appropriate responses; it's just a few griefers and troublemakers that make it seem much worse than it is.
Quote from: EJinCT on October 11, 2007, 09:15 AM NHFT
Quote from: OnGard4Liberty on October 10, 2007, 03:38 PM NHFT
I carry a gun and am ready to use it...but I will NOT be the first person to threaten violence in any situation...I will only use it to protect myself.
:clap:
Quote from: ivyleague28477 on October 11, 2007, 07:40 AM NHFT
Perhaps I'm preaching to the choir...
I am one of the few at the very heart of this controversy and am feeling intense amount of stress because if it, yet I am even more concerned with what is occurring right here on this board.
I feel like there is a lot of fighting occurring right now. I feel this is EXACTLY what the Feds are looking for. I feel our current harassment is because they know only some of us supported the Browns in their entire stance, they know as a group we do not advocate violence, they know the entire issue is a sensitive one, and they know we have been divided in the past on the same issue.
I feel they specifically targeted us in order to stir up the hornets nest and divide us now because we are becoming more and more united in this fight towards realizing liberty in our lifetime! We are gaining a momentum and it is scaring them.
Ancient battle tactics, divide and conquer.
That is one of the main reason I do not engage in debate with posters who advocate/initiate, violence/aggression. It serves no purpose but to divide my attention; and even should one present a sound rebuttal to these antagonistic views it is likely to serve no purpose; for many that take such an outlook are fearful and narrow minded to begin with and will only believe that which they want to.
Ignore button works much better to silence agitators anyway. ;)
IMO, the majority of contributing members on this board share a similar view about appropriate responses; it's just a few griefers and troublemakers that make it seem much worse than it is.
Oh yeah EJ, well I totally disagree with everything you've said! Just kidding! ;D
Quote from: raineyrocks on October 11, 2007, 09:24 AM NHFT
Oh yeah EJ, well I totally disagree with everything you've said! Just kidding! ;D
Even if you had disagreed, it's ok, I don't feel threatened by someone that has a different perspective than I do. 8)
Ivy, I know it is disturbing to watch the constant debate, but overall, it is reasonably civilized, and respectful. After a while, it usually works itself out. It is distressing to watch, I know, but it will work itself out. It always has every other time. :)
I'm surprised no one else mentioned this. In ohio it is legally (I think) kidnapping to take someones child from where they are supposed to be, to somewhere else. That gov't person did. I assume someone was watching him, and the fed lady just picked him up and took him inside. The standard may be malicious intent, which other than to identify you, it doesn't appear malicious. Btw, did she even bother to ask who was watching him before she picked up your son?
Quote from: dan_sayers on October 10, 2007, 11:05 PM NHFT
Quote from: EthanAllen on October 10, 2007, 10:16 PM NHFTLet's be specific. Many people here still believe that the Brown's would be justified in using force in self-defense because they believe the income tax is theft.
This was not my understanding at all. My understanding was that he was vehement about trespassers. Anybody coming to arrest him would have to first trespass. He did not observe any arrest warrant because he was not afforded due process. That was my understanding.
We are either a system of laws based on equality in the eyes of the law or we are a system of men with guns making up our own rules (law of the jungle).
The only moral position to an immoral act from the state is non-violent, civil disobedience. Too many people here do not understand this position. Those that do became pawns/shields in the Brown case for those that don't. If the Browns had used violent self-defense claiming they were protecting against trespassers against agents lawfully trying to apprehend them, then they would be acting immorally.
I'd say we have a system of men with guns very selectively choosing which laws to enforce and on who they want to enforce them on. This has the same impact as men making up the law as it suits them.
Quote from: David on October 11, 2007, 11:01 AM NHFT
I'd say we have a system of men with guns very selectively choosing which laws to enforce and on who they want to enforce them on. This has the same impact as men making up the law as it suits them.
The salient question though is how to respond.
The two options are:
1. work within the political/legal system (ex. NHLA).
2. non-violent, civil disobedience (ex. Lauren & Russell).
There is no option for men with guns making up their own rules outside of the state.
The 3rd option is to evaporate from the system.
Kola
Option #2. I'm not in any hurry to get arrested, but it is just a matter of time till it happens.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on October 10, 2007, 12:30 PM NHFT
Re: Bill St. Claire - as far as I know, he's a good guy. I'll do the same for him as I did for Rob and first ask him to tone down the "let's go shoot the bastards" talk. Bill, you're welcome to say whatever you want, but not necessarily on my property. The purpose of this website is not to start violent revolution. I don't want that to happen. If you'd like to encourage other people to start violent revolution (since you don't seem to be doing it yourself), please do it elsewhere. Thanks.
Hey, come on now. I know Bill St. Clair, and I've read what he's posted here. I do not see him saying, "let's go shoot the bastards." I do not see him advocating violent revolution, either.
QuoteI'd rather die on my feet, hopefully taking a few of my kidnappers with me. Your mileage obviously varies. I didn't ask you to join me. Only pointed at my lines in the sand.
What he's saying is a long way from what you're hearing, in my estimation.
Quote from: David on October 11, 2007, 11:37 AM NHFT
Option #2. I'm not in any hurry to get arrested, but it is just a matter of time till it happens.
The only way #2 will work is with massive n-v, cd. In the mean time Lauren and Russell live "free", at least in their minds (although Lauren currently sits in jail).
QuoteThe 3rd option is to evaporate from the system.
That is what Lauren & Russell are doing prior to massive n-v, cd. They do not recognize the jurisdiction of federal or state authorities over them and are perfectly willing to suffer the consequences of incarceration for those beliefs when and if they break laws (deliberately, consciously, or otherwise).
Most of the people in this country still respect the police. They assume the occasional brutality report is an anomaly or 'liberal' bias in the news, then move on with their lives.
Unless it is damn clear the cop was wrong , and it usually isn't, you will be viewed as the aggressor by the vast majority of the public if you harm a cop. This is why violence against the state makes it stronger. If what people believe is good and moral is suddenly under attack, they will give any power necessary to the gov't to suppress the attack.
Gov't has the moral high ground. violence will never be the appropriate strategy against gov't until they lose the high ground. Other nations are at that point, this nation is not. If you defend yourself, you will be mowed down by the gov't.
Morally you have the right to defend yourself. But because the gov't has the high ground, you will be the one the people fear. This dynamic should be painfully obvious in the whole right to bear arms debate.
Put in another way: The civil rights movement. The white majority believed they had the right to forcibly segregate, and they looked the other way on the violence against blacks. While it is possible for black Americans to defend themselves against the nongov't groups' violence, had they reacted in defence to the official gov't repression the results would have been likely death for many, and prison for everyone else. The prisons were already full (just as they are today) of young black men.
Many chose to oppose the injustice by civil disobiediance, and very public marches. The marches were the only way to act that was very public, (to discourage the white brutality) yet clearly nonviolent. This neutered the white racists. It took awhile, but in the end, it succeeded.
Argue with reality if you want, but nonviolent resistance does work.
You're right to the extent that massive nonviolent civil D is more successful. But we have our own media, and cheap ways to disemminate info. The civil rights marches were their only method of breaking through the media wall of silence. They were so big, the mainstream media couldn't ignore them.
We have a similar problem, but we have ways around it. The following link has done some amazing civil disobedience that has worked. http://www.embassyofheaven.com/
Quote from: ivyleague28477 on October 11, 2007, 07:40 AM NHFT
Perhaps I'm preaching to the choir...
I am one of the few at the very heart of this controversy and am feeling intense amount of stress because if it, yet I am even more concerned with what is occurring right here on this board.
I feel like there is a lot of fighting occurring right now. I feel this is EXACTLY what the Feds are looking for. I feel most of the events since the Brown arrest have not necessarily been because some of us supported them and they are searching for potentially violent Brown supporters. On the contrary I feel our current harassment is because they know only some of us supported the Browns in their entire stance, they know as a group we do not advocate violence, they know the entire issue is a sensitive one, and they know we have been divided in the past on the same issue (i.e. they know of Rob and others being 'kicked off' this forum for speaking of or advocating for violence).
I feel they specifically targeted us in order to stir up the hornets nest and divide us now because we are becoming more and more united in this fight towards realizing liberty in our lifetime! We are gaining a momentum and it is scaring them. God forbid if Ron Paul get elected - they will be out of jobs. God forbid we do away with this large federal government - they will be out of jobs! Hell, I'd imagine if enough information about the work of some of these agencies were made public enough and the tide in this country changed enough, many of these Marshals and other government workers could be tried for treason!!! Of course they are terrified!
I ask you all... no, I beg of you. Please stop any fighting or bickering. I don't think it is necessary to "clarify" on issues such as whether or not the Browns were or were not FSPers at the cost of unity of the group. I don't think it necessary to 'clarify' on any view at the cost of unity of the group - if people need to know what we stand for it is right there, easily found on the FSP site.
Fortunately, none of us in the Manchester group is really divided over this. All this bickering and masturdebating over the utility of violence seems to be constrained to the forum, and with new users—most of whom aren't even freestaters.
Quote from: David on October 11, 2007, 10:53 AM NHFTI'm surprised no one else mentioned this. In ohio it is legally (I think) kidnapping to take someones child from where they are supposed to be, to somewhere else. That gov't person did. I assume someone was watching him, and the fed lady just picked him up and took him inside. The standard may be malicious intent, which other than to identify you, it doesn't appear malicious. Btw, did she even bother to ask who was watching him before she picked up your son?
In New Hampshire, this is covered in RSA 633:1, Kidnapping, however there's a catch at the end:
QuoteI-a. A person is guilty of kidnapping if the person knowingly takes, entices away, detains, or conceals any child under the age of 18 and unrelated to the person by consanguinity, or causes such child to be taken, enticed away, detained, or concealed, with the intent to detain or conceal such child from a parent, guardian, or other person having lawful physical custody of such child. This paragraph shall not apply to law enforcement personnel or department of health and human services personnel engaged in the conduct of their lawful duties.
So they'll just argue that lifting and carrying him was "engaging in the conduct of her lawful duties."
However, there is "interference with custody" in 633:4-II, without such an out for cops & feds:
QuoteII. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if such person knowingly takes, entices away, detains or conceals any child under the age of 18, or causes any such child to be taken, enticed away, detained or concealed, with the intent to detain or conceal such child from a parent, guardian or other person having lawful parental rights and responsibilities as described in RSA 461-A.
The agent clearly intended to detain such child from an "other person having lawful parental rights and responsibilities," namely the person who was looking after him while Ivy was working, assuming that a delegation of such rights and responsibilities to a temporary caretaker falls under the definition in 461-A, and there's no LEO exception here.
Quote from: EthanAllen on October 11, 2007, 10:54 AM NHFT
The only moral position to an immoral act from the state is non-violent, civil disobedience. Too many people here do not understand this position. Those that do became pawns/shields in the Brown case for those that don't. If the Browns had used violent self-defense claiming they were protecting against trespassers against agents lawfully trying to apprehend them, then they would be acting immorally.
Bold added for emphasis. This view breaks down when you take it to an extreme. If the government is committing genocide, the only
moral response is non-violent resistance? The American Revolution was immoral? If it's permissible to use force in defense of self against private criminals, why not against public criminals? Here's what I believe:
1. I believe that the feds had no right to arrest the Browns, because collection of unconsented-to taxes is an immoral act of theft.
2. I believe that the Browns had a prima facie right to defend themselves from arrest by force.
3. I believe that not everything you have
a right to do is itself necessarily
right to do. Drug abuse, adultery, rudeness, getting drunk at weddings, and so on would fit this category of "wrong but you have a right to do it."
4. I believe that the Browns are nutso and did their own cause massive harm - they may have had
a right to threaten defensive force, but it was still
wrong for them to do so. If the feds were trying to kill them for no reason, say, then it would have been
right to use defensive force, because they would have had no option: imprisonment is temporary and still allows one's message to be heard. This is the real reason why the Browns should have used nonviolent civil disobedience,
not that violence against the state is always wrong.
5. In my view, the FSP expels anyone who promotes violent revolution because such promotion does our movement irreparable harm & doesn't solve anything - not because violent revolution is under all conceivable circumstances wrong. My view only, I'm not speaking "officially."
6. It is never acceptable to retaliate with force against people who have previously used force immorally. That is not defensive force; that is revenge. Anyone who tries to use pure retaliatory force should be apprehended and punished.
7. Thus, it would be wrong for anyone to retaliate with force against the feds & people responsible for the Browns' imprisonment. Moreover, such people can and should be arrested and charged. I'm not saying anyone will do this, and I hope no one does.
8. Most of the feds are probably not "evil," & it's disturbing to see even pacifists throwing that term around. They're just misguided: they don't understand the correct theory of property rights. Not an uncommon affliction in this country. "Evil" means that a person knows what is right and does what is wrong anyway. The feds think they're right. That's another reason why it would be totally counterproductive to use force against them in this scenario. As Michael Hampton says, we have to use words not guns. The issue is that people believe the wrong things about the content of their moral obligations.
Quote from: Sarah on October 11, 2007, 02:10 PM NHFT
Hi JSorens,
I think of it very simply.
(1) The initiation or threat of force or fraud is ethically indefensible. [No matter who initiates it.]
(2) The use of judicious defensive force against attack on one's life, liberty and/or property is ethically defensible. [No matter who defender or attacker may be.]
Nor is it any of my business what someone else does in immediate defense. Many people have religious and/or philosophical objections to the use of force in defense, and that is their choice to make. Others have no compunction about shooting an intruder dead, even though it may only be an unarmed thief. The choice is UTTERLY up to the individual so attacked, and not my business.
Initiation of such force is just simply always wrong. Defense is a personal issue.
Hunting down a perceived threat is initiation of force. That's what the fedsters do every day. It is ethically absolutely indefensible.
I wish no one else would imitate them.
Amen.
We are not George Bush. We do not use
pre-emptive attacks. Only persons of weak moral character attack people who have not engaged them. Even if the Fed did threaten me, you, or others with prison, arrest, or the IRS, we should not shoot or bomb them because then we are just as bad as them. That sounds like something an agent would say or do to stir things up... it's happened before [insert 1 of a thousand links here.]
The problem is that the war has evolved. It is a new battlefield. One or two hundred years ago it would have been a pugilistic confrontation between people of different ideas and you would have had a great affect. Today, the fight is political, mental, and carried out written and verbally. Fighting a psychological battle with guns is not effective in the least. You must learn to adapt to the new struggle. That is the reason for the creation of the FSP (as I understand it) and that is why I support it. They hope to fight it using the same weapons as the oppressors: words, law, and education.
QuoteDivide and conquer.
+1 for noticing.
An agitator can post a response to this post very easily and get us more divided, talking, arguing, and espousing negative ideas that divide us because of frustration and the feelings of helplessness and taking action so lets not do that. Those who would use violence or self harm to get a message out need to realize that we need you around. How can you see the world you want to see if you do something stupid? Strength in numbers and unity. Every person in this movement should run for office and vote for other FSPers. Organization and unity is what really scares them.
Ivy is very pretty and smart (I don't know her, just judging from the video) and just the thought of fedgoons manhandling her and her kids has riled up everyone. Her friends feel violated just having to watch her talk to them. I could see this in the first day's posts from 12,310 miles away. So lets take a deep breath and step back and focus on getting the work that needs to be done, done, namely getting everyone into public office, etc.
Quote from: alohamonkey on October 10, 2007, 09:42 PM NHFT
Nice comment KB. Is it just me or does it seem weird that all of the derogatory statements about free staters are posted by people who are unwilling to provide their last name? hmmm :-\
it is for their own protection ... all of us freestaters are such dangerous people ... they were brave to even speak up ;)
Quote from: SethCohn on October 10, 2007, 09:55 PM NHFT
Chris was searching on some very old threads and mentioned she'd found a thread, way pre-trial, where Kat was going to invite Ed and Elaine to come to a meeting of Concord Porcs. I don't think that ever happened, nor do I think they were ever at any of the other Porc meetings (Keene?)
Ed Brown doesn't come to you ... you must go to him.
You have to climb the mountain and ask the guru your questions. ;)
Ed Brown is not part of the FSP ... we are all part of the body of edbrown.
I never saw him outside his property... and now the feds have taken him away.
Quote from: grasshopper on October 11, 2007, 07:37 AM NHFT
:D Well, I finally got to murphys yeaterday. I met the bar tender and 2 other patrons, nice people. I had this English beer 5.2 % that knocked my dick in the dirt and a Bud and sat for an hour or so and shot the shit. I took off around 4 ish.
I asked if there were porqs there or if there were any free staters presant and got funny looks. I left, i didn't want to get people nervous, I'm a new face so I didn't want to push it.
I am sure most people in there would have no idea what you are talking about most any time of the day.
well Russell
you are pretty scarry . speaking just for me you scare the hell out of me! please don't be offended. And when the whole gang is behind you . Lets just say iwould'nt give my last name either. Jose
Quote from: ivyleague28477 on October 11, 2007, 07:40 AM NHFT
Perhaps I'm preaching to the choir...
I am one of the few at the very heart of this controversy and am feeling intense amount of stress because if it, yet I am even more concerned with what is occurring right here on this board.
forums attract arguers
There are many people on this forum I have not met and will never meet and they like to tell some of the active members in this nonviolent revolution what to do ... including that we should use force.
On the other hand there are wonderful people on this forum who I have met or will meet who are my comrades in the fight for all of our freedoms. They have stood with each other during dark times. It is fun knowing people are making connections on this forum that I don't even know about and that they are benefiting from the friendships they started because of this movement. :)
Quote from: srqrebel on October 11, 2007, 08:48 AM NHFT
Whoa... Kat's karma just now was 1040 and Russel's was 666 :o
that "Russel" with the missing small "l" is diabolical
Quote from: David on October 11, 2007, 12:03 PM NHFT
Most of the people in this country still respect the police.
we are working on that .... aren't we
I showed a cop respect once. Once
Quote from: jsorens on October 11, 2007, 01:47 PM NHFT
Quote from: EthanAllen on October 11, 2007, 10:54 AM NHFT
The only moral position to an immoral act from the state is non-violent, civil disobedience. Too many people here do not understand this position. Those that do became pawns/shields in the Brown case for those that don't. If the Browns had used violent self-defense claiming they were protecting against trespassers against agents lawfully trying to apprehend them, then they would be acting immorally.
Bold added for emphasis. This view breaks down when you take it to an extreme. If the government is committing genocide, the only moral response is non-violent resistance? The American Revolution was immoral? If it's permissible to use force in defense of self against private criminals, why not against public criminals? Here's what I believe:
1. I believe that the feds had no right to arrest the Browns, because collection of unconsented-to taxes is an immoral act of theft.
2. I believe that the Browns had a prima facie right to defend themselves from arrest by force.
3. I believe that not everything you have a right to do is itself necessarily right to do. Drug abuse, adultery, rudeness, getting drunk at weddings, and so on would fit this category of "wrong but you have a right to do it."
4. I believe that the Browns are nutso and did their own cause massive harm - they may have had a right to threaten defensive force, but it was still wrong for them to do so. If the feds were trying to kill them for no reason, say, then it would have been right to use defensive force, because they would have had no option: imprisonment is temporary and still allows one's message to be heard. This is the real reason why the Browns should have used nonviolent civil disobedience, not that violence against the state is always wrong.
5. In my view, the FSP expels anyone who promotes violent revolution because such promotion does our movement irreparable harm & doesn't solve anything - not because violent revolution is under all conceivable circumstances wrong. My view only, I'm not speaking "officially."
6. It is never acceptable to retaliate with force against people who have previously used force immorally. That is not defensive force; that is revenge. Anyone who tries to use pure retaliatory force should be apprehended and punished.
7. Thus, it would be wrong for anyone to retaliate with force against the feds & people responsible for the Browns' imprisonment. Moreover, such people can and should be arrested and charged. I'm not saying anyone will do this, and I hope no one does.
8. Most of the feds are probably not "evil," & it's disturbing to see even pacifists throwing that term around. They're just misguided: they don't understand the correct theory of property rights. Not an uncommon affliction in this country. "Evil" means that a person knows what is right and does what is wrong anyway. The feds think they're right. That's another reason why it would be totally counterproductive to use force against them in this scenario. As Michael Hampton says, we have to use words not guns. The issue is that people believe the wrong things about the content of their moral obligations.
Sorry...What I meant to say is the only moral position for an immoral but
legal act by the state is non-violent, civil disobedience. My comments were in the context of believing there is a law requiring the paying of federal income tax. It is immoral because it violates the absolute right of self-ownership
Having said that, I don't think all taxes are immoral acts of theft. I believe requiring a specific type of tax as an obligation to those being excluded actually upholds absolute rights to self-ownership.
I don't think violence would ever be personally justified unless and until significant covert non-violent acts of non-compliance and overt non-violent acts of civil disobedience are exercised first.
Much of the rest of what you wrote I agree with.
Quote from: jsorens on October 11, 2007, 01:47 PM NHFT
Quote from: EthanAllen on October 11, 2007, 10:54 AM NHFT
The only moral position to an immoral act from the state is non-violent, civil disobedience.
Bold added for emphasis. This view breaks down when you take it to an extreme. If the government is committing genocide, the only moral response is non-violent resistance? The American Revolution was immoral? If it's permissible to use force in defense of self against private criminals, why not against public criminals? Here's what I believe:
I can't believe it ... here I have ethanallen on ignore and I agree with him. ;)
I do agree that the most moral position is to repay good for evil. None of us are at that ideal yet, but it is right to take steps in that direction
It doesn't break down in the extreme as Jesus, Tolstoy, and Gandhi have pointed out .... two of them even lived their words out. But as an example, Gandhi supported the British in ww1 but later on progressed to higher moral behavior
Quote
1. I believe that the feds had no right to arrest the Browns, because collection of unconsented-to taxes is an immoral act of theft.
Quoteamen
2. I believe that the Browns had a prima facie right to defend themselves from arrest by force.
I guess I don't understand this concept of "rights". I don't think I have rights to anything.
Quote
4. I believe that the Browns are nutso and did their own cause massive harm - they may have had a right to threaten defensive force, but it was still wrong for them to do so. If the feds were trying to kill them for no reason, say, then it would have been right to use defensive force, because they would have had no option: imprisonment is temporary and still allows one's message to be heard. This is the real reason why the Browns should have used nonviolent civil disobedience, not that violence against the state is always wrong.
maybe this is where many libertarians ideas of rights and defensive force falls short .... many of you can see how using defensive force doesn't turn out that great, but you still talk about it all the time. :)
Quote
5. In my view, the FSP expels anyone who promotes violent revolution because such promotion does our movement irreparable harm & doesn't solve anything - not because violent revolution is under all conceivable circumstances wrong. My view only, I'm not speaking "officially."
Do you think there should be a time for a violent revolution? Do you have to wait for the feds to come to your door and start hurting you?
Quote
6. It is never acceptable to retaliate with force against people who have previously used force immorally. That is not defensive force; that is revenge. Anyone who tries to use pure retaliatory force should be apprehended and punished.
ack! So if someone uses their "right" of "self defense" ... but not fast enough .... they should be subject to government punishment? I cannot support that kind of action.
Quote
8. Most of the feds are probably not "evil," & it's disturbing to see even pacifists throwing that term around. They're just misguided: they don't understand the correct theory of property rights. Not an uncommon affliction in this country. "Evil" means that a person knows what is right and does what is wrong anyway. The feds think they're right.
They know what is right ... and yet they not do it. They have convinced themselves that they are doing the right thing, but it doesn't take much for you to point out their evil deeds to them. We are all evil. We are all selfish. The feds are just farther down the wrong path. But we can be forgiven and we can show mercy to others. :)
Quote from: enloopious on October 11, 2007, 06:05 PM NHFTEvery person in this movement should run for office and vote for other FSPers. Organization and unity is what really scares them.
I'll pass. How about I don't run or vote and not get organized? :)
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 11, 2007, 08:32 PM NHFT
Quote from: enloopious on October 11, 2007, 06:05 PM NHFTEvery person in this movement should run for office and vote for other FSPers. Organization and unity is what really scares them.
I'll pass. How about I don't run or vote and not get organized? :)
But you would vote for me If I gave ya 25 bucks and really, really big salad, right?
Russell Kanning for Mayor!
QuoteI can't believe it ... here I have ethanallen on ignore and I agree with him.
Maybe it's time to be enlightened by taking my off ignored?
Quote from: Sarah on October 11, 2007, 06:16 PM NHFT
Quote from: enloopious on October 11, 2007, 06:05 PM NHFT
That sounds like something an agent would say or do to stir things up... it's happened before [insert 1 of a thousand links here.]
Could I ask, just to clarify, whether "That" means my post above? If so, please note that mine was a statement of ethics. Not convenience, not political huzzah, not efficiency. Just ethics.
If not, just pass me on by. ;D
lol, no, not meaning you. Just in general. I believe that the second amendment was written to ensure the first but I also believe that we have evolved to the point where it is also a secondary choice. Never a primary. I doubt there is, or ever will be, enough support for violent revolution for it to ever have the desired effect.
Quote
QuoteSo lets take a deep breath and step back and focus on getting the work that needs to be done, done, namely getting everyone into public office, etc.
Generations of people have believed the government would improve if only 'we could get our guy in.' The disappointments and biz-as-usual have always followed soon after. I would far rather develop positive changes rather than get more people involved in the same old system that worsens with each passing year. Just my opinion, from a friendly person and not a government apologist in any form!
Thanks! :)
I understand this point of view but those people have always been 'system' people... and its hard to think of any freedom person like Ron Paul or Michael Badnarik getting there... Andrew Jackson comes to mind. He killed the fiat bank system for 70 years. One person and a great example. Although it's kinda sad that I can't think of anyone else in modern history but we ARE due.
I got involved in politics only recently. I hate politics and always have. I got involved with them because I hate the politicians even more.
There is a point when you have to evaluate the situation and see if it's totally hopeless. A time like 'krystalnacht' would be a clear sign for me. I don't think that time has arrived so that means there is still time to work for it in the system but I will be ready when it does come... and lord have mercy if I ever get to THAT point.
"People should not fear their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." -V
...and they do act afraid don't they?
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 11, 2007, 08:27 PM NHFT
Quote from: jsorens on October 11, 2007, 01:47 PM NHFT
6. It is never acceptable to retaliate with force against people who have previously used force immorally. That is not defensive force; that is revenge. Anyone who tries to use pure retaliatory force should be apprehended and punished.
ack! So if someone uses their "right" of "self defense" ... but not fast enough .... they should be subject to government punishment? I cannot support that kind of action.
Additionally, I would consider government punishment—"justice" some call it—to be just another form of revenge. Saying people who commit an act of revenge deserve to have revenge committed back against them is rather ludicrous.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on October 11, 2007, 08:51 PM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 11, 2007, 08:27 PM NHFT
Quote from: jsorens on October 11, 2007, 01:47 PM NHFT
6. It is never acceptable to retaliate with force against people who have previously used force immorally. That is not defensive force; that is revenge. Anyone who tries to use pure retaliatory force should be apprehended and punished.
ack! So if someone uses their "right" of "self defense" ... but not fast enough .... they should be subject to government punishment? I cannot support that kind of action.
Additionally, I would consider government punishment—"justice" some call it—to be just another form of revenge. Saying people who commit an act of revenge deserve to have revenge committed back against them is rather ludicrous.
Well, I believe in restorative but not retributive justice.
Quote from: jsorens on October 11, 2007, 09:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on October 11, 2007, 08:51 PM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 11, 2007, 08:27 PM NHFT
Quote from: jsorens on October 11, 2007, 01:47 PM NHFT
6. It is never acceptable to retaliate with force against people who have previously used force immorally. That is not defensive force; that is revenge. Anyone who tries to use pure retaliatory force should be apprehended and punished.
ack! So if someone uses their "right" of "self defense" ... but not fast enough .... they should be subject to government punishment? I cannot support that kind of action.
Additionally, I would consider government punishment—"justice" some call it—to be just another form of revenge. Saying people who commit an act of revenge deserve to have revenge committed back against them is rather ludicrous.
Well, I believe in restorative but not retributive justice.
Okay. But that shouldn't really be considered a form of "government punishment" I suppose, since the point isn't to punish, but to make whole the victim once again.
All this said, I'm not actually opposed to revenge. Human beings used revenge to deal with conflicts for most of our history, until the state came along, renamed it
justice, decided to monopolize it under the new name, and claimed anyone else engaging in the act was being uncivilized or barbaric. I just prefer calling
revenge by its own name.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on October 11, 2007, 10:04 PM NHFT
Quote from: jsorens on October 11, 2007, 09:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on October 11, 2007, 08:51 PM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 11, 2007, 08:27 PM NHFT
Quote from: jsorens on October 11, 2007, 01:47 PM NHFT
6. It is never acceptable to retaliate with force against people who have previously used force immorally. That is not defensive force; that is revenge. Anyone who tries to use pure retaliatory force should be apprehended and punished.
ack! So if someone uses their "right" of "self defense" ... but not fast enough .... they should be subject to government punishment? I cannot support that kind of action.
Additionally, I would consider government punishment—"justice" some call it—to be just another form of revenge. Saying people who commit an act of revenge deserve to have revenge committed back against them is rather ludicrous.
Well, I believe in restorative but not retributive justice.
Okay. But that shouldn't really be considered a form of "government punishment" I suppose, since the point isn't to punish, but to make whole the victim once again.
All this said, I'm not actually opposed to revenge. Human beings used revenge to deal with conflicts for most of our history, until the state came along, renamed it justice, decided to monopolize it under the new name, and claimed anyone else engaging in the act was being uncivilized or barbaric. I just prefer calling revenge by its own name.
Revenge is never the answer, all revenge does is get people baked into pies. Human beings that have used revenge either do the baking or have their children baked.
I think the fallacy of revenge/justice is part of the mind-fuck that's used to convince us government is essential. Part of the evolution of thought that leads one to realize the inherent immorality of archy should also lead one to realize that revenge is a barbaric practice that a civilized society is better off without, just as we are better off without coercive government.
Quote from: David on October 11, 2007, 12:03 PM NHFT
Most of the people in this country still respect the police. They assume the occasional brutality report is an anomaly or 'liberal' bias in the news, then move on with their lives.
Unless it is damn clear the cop was wrong , and it usually isn't, you will be viewed as the aggressor by the vast majority of the public if you harm a cop. This is why violence against the state makes it stronger. If what people believe is good and moral is suddenly under attack, they will give any power necessary to the gov't to suppress the attack.
Gov't has the moral high ground. violence will never be the appropriate strategy against gov't until they lose the high ground. Other nations are at that point, this nation is not. If you defend yourself, you will be mowed down by the gov't.
Morally you have the right to defend yourself. But because the gov't has the high ground, you will be the one the people fear. This dynamic should be painfully obvious in the whole right to bear arms debate.
David, you nailed it very well! +1
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 11, 2007, 07:10 PM NHFT
Quote from: srqrebel on October 11, 2007, 08:48 AM NHFT
Whoa... Kat's karma just now was 1040 and Russel's was 666 :o
that "Russel" with the missing small "l" is diabolical
Sorry about that, Russell... I must admit, I've even laughed at others for misspelling your name -- now I'm guilty of it, too! :blush:
Quote from: dalebert on October 11, 2007, 10:51 PM NHFT
I think the fallacy of revenge/justice is part of the mind-fuck that's used to convince us government is essential.
+1 for use of "mind-fuck", and a shout-out to John Warren (http://www.ne-ds.org/new_website.htm) in Boston as one of the best users of that particular technique.
Quote from: srqrebel on October 11, 2007, 11:14 PM NHFT
Quote from: David on October 11, 2007, 12:03 PM NHFT
Most of the people in this country still respect the police. They assume the occasional brutality report is an anomaly or 'liberal' bias in the news, then move on with their lives.
Unless it is damn clear the cop was wrong , and it usually isn't, you will be viewed as the aggressor by the vast majority of the public if you harm a cop. This is why violence against the state makes it stronger. If what people believe is good and moral is suddenly under attack, they will give any power necessary to the gov't to suppress the attack.
Gov't has the moral high ground. violence will never be the appropriate strategy against gov't until they lose the high ground. Other nations are at that point, this nation is not. If you defend yourself, you will be mowed down by the gov't.
Morally you have the right to defend yourself. But because the gov't has the high ground, you will be the one the people fear. This dynamic should be painfully obvious in the whole right to bear arms debate.
David, you nailed it very well! +1
Yes he has. And the state (I draw a distinction with governance as legitimate authority) will not lose the moral high ground until significant and deliberative covert acts of non-compliance and overt civil disobedience occurs. That will be the signal.
I prefer the old left-anarchist "dual power" strategy of building the new society in the shell of the old while the shell of the old crumbles.
Ivy, does Rob want a lawyer present? ...maybe videotape it as well?
Kola
Quote from: ivyleague28477 on October 12, 2007, 09:30 AM NHFT
Yes, and we know of a wonderful one, though we certainly do not have the resources available to retain her. :-\
The feds (assholes) will probally make it into some long-ass interrogation. I am thinking they will try and find something so they can throw him in jail. A lawyer may help keep him out. Maybe try bartering with the lawyer. Or paying a monthly fee.
Kola
Sounds likely, since it's Friday. If there were any way possible to postpone the meeting until Monday (or at least Sunday evening), there'd likely be less time "awaiting" arraignment.
I, too, must come out of lurk mode.
If you can't afford a lawyer, just don't talk with the feds. If they had probable cause to arrest Rob, they would have done it already. Don't give them any ammunition. Tell them you are excercising your right to remain silent, and do it. Unless they subpeona you to testify in front of a grand jury or a trial jury, and give you immunity, they can't force you to tell them ANYTHING. Ever. Yes, they'll pull out all sorts of threats. Ignore them. Make them work hard for every tiny little bit of information.
These are not nice people, folks. Don't treat them as if they were. Treat them as you would a rabid dog that you're not allowed to shoot. Keep away.
But I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. If you know a good attorney and have any way to convince him/her to help you, do it.
I'll apologize for the others, Ivy. This is a battle, and unfortunately, you're on the front lines, even if that's not where you want to be. I wish it could be otherwise.
QuoteI told them they were welcome to get a warrant for my arrest, for which they would need probable cause of an actual crime committed.
QuoteIf they had probable cause to arrest Rob, they would have done it already. Don't give them any ammunition. Tell them you are excercising your right to remain silent, and do it.
bingo.
Kola
Quote from: Sarah on October 12, 2007, 10:13 AM NHFT
Quote from: ivyleague28477 on October 12, 2007, 10:04 AM NHFT
Sarah or heidi or whatever your name is: When a federal agent comes in to your life and says you can either arrange to meet with me peacably OR we will get a warrant for your arrest within 24hours, you do what you have to do. Those 24 hours apparently have turned into one week for their own purposes which I can not even begin to fathom.
I'm logging off now because I need to get away from this chaos. This is just insane. Those that know me have my number or know someone else that has my number. call me if you need me. later.
My name's Heidi, but I'll answer to either one here. :)
When federal agents came into my life, I told them they were welcome to get a warrant for my arrest, for which they would need probable cause of an actual crime committed.
It didn't happen.
They work on fear. They like to get us going to them voluntarily, because they can work us a lot more that way without actually having to declare probable cause. In an "informal" meeting, they can squeeze more information out. They can lie up and down, intimidate, and bully, and take down every word and reaction of ours. All because we got scared into doing it.
Every successful advisor on this subject whom I've known says, Make them come and carry you out. Never cooperate and never volunteer anything. That's the advice I followed, and it worked for me.
Since Ivy's logged out, this is just for discussion by others who might be reading.
I have second hand experience thru my parents of this sort of thing, and the bottom line is if they had probable cause to arrest rob, they would already have a warrant. so they are on a phishing expedition when Rob(you) talk to them, just like when you get an e-mail asking for personal info. another thing to remember is that they are "legally" allowed to LIE to Rob(you), to get Rob to self incriminate. as has been posted by others, silence is golden. I don't believe in luck, so good fortune to you, rob and everyone else
involved. (((((((((united we stand, divided we fall))))))))
Quoteupdate: we have retained attorney Penny Dean.
Awesome! I've only met her once, and she is very unique. :)
very cool i think we should put penny and a couple other lawyers on permanent FSP retainer. and we may want to look into some PR stuff to.
Quote from: kola on October 12, 2007, 09:29 AM NHFT
Ivy, does Rob want a lawyer present? ...maybe videotape it as well?
Kola
Where does Evan Nappen currently reside?
Bow, NH.
Quote from: ivyleague28477 on October 12, 2007, 10:04 AM NHFT
When a federal agent comes in to your life and says you can either arrange to meet with me peacably OR we will get a warrant for your arrest within 24hours, you do what you have to do. Those 24 hours apparently have turned into one week for their own purposes which I can not even begin to fathom.
It's very simple. They're lying.
If they could have arrested Rob at any time they would have done so. They would much rather arrest him, think about it.
The
only reason they have to talk to Rob at this point is try to find some reason to arrest him.
They are not your friends, and it does not inconvenience them to arrest anyone. It is much more of an inconvenience to go to public places and stalk Rob since they don't have probable cause to arrest him (yet).
Bottom line: they're bluffing. You already know they've blatantly lied to everyone being questioned, including yourself, this is just one more intimidation technique.
Rob: Do
not give up your 5th amendment right to
remain silent.
Quote from: ivyleague28477 on October 12, 2007, 10:46 AM NHFT
update: we have retained attorney Penny Dean
....
*deep breath*
Please post instructions on how to contribute to legal expenses, including PayPal (or other online) payment instructions, if available. That will make it easier for people to assist - this will be taken care of (am I right, crew?)
Please, breathe again...
...and, will she accept Liberty Dollars? Face value or bullion?
Quote from: freedominnh on October 12, 2007, 07:05 PM NHFT
Just signed up for Pre-Paid Legal at approx. $26.00 per month. Why pay out thousands--- many attorneys will take what ever you are foolish enough to give them for initial retainer.
I had been approached a couple of times by people with the information. Typically, like most people---typically run away from multi-level marketing. This one is completely unique.
NH retained attorneys specializing in everything from vehicular homicide to IRS Tax Codes will go to bat for you in immediate response time. Which is completely unheard of in this day and age.
Have already witnessed some very interesting first hand experiences with this service. More some other time.
Wow, how did you do it?
Quote from: jaqeboy on October 12, 2007, 06:51 PM NHFT
Quote from: ivyleague28477 on October 12, 2007, 10:46 AM NHFT
update: we have retained attorney Penny Dean
....
*deep breath*
Please post instructions on how to contribute to legal expenses, including PayPal (or other online) payment instructions, if available. That will make it easier for people to assist - this will be taken care of (am I right, crew?)
Please, breathe again...
Your right, I'll help! :)
Quote from: freedominnh on October 12, 2007, 07:33 PM NHFT
Will pm you some info. Will have it on a website in a couple of days.
Great, thanks! :)
I'm not sure the rest of us have a couple of days to wait.
This brings back up the idea of an LDA (Legal Defense Association) which I suggested a couple of years ago to no response. Can't find the old post, but, for example, the home-schoolers have one (http://www.hslda.org/Default.asp?bhcp=1) and Bob Schultz of We the People mentioned starting one (not sure if he ever got that going).
The idea being members would contribute to a pool and attorneys would be retained, who would give general advice and specific representation to members when their time of need arose. Anyone interested in a Porcupine LDA?
Quote from: jaqeboy on October 12, 2007, 09:26 PM NHFT
Anyone interested in a Porcupine LDA?
Me!
The cool thing would be that we have a few porc lawyers so they could be the ones retained.
Quote from: jaqeboy on October 12, 2007, 09:26 PM NHFT
This brings back up the idea of an LDA (Legal Defense Association) which I suggested a couple of years ago to no response. Can't find the old post, but, for example, the home-schoolers have one (http://www.hslda.org/Default.asp?bhcp=1) and Bob Schultz of We the People mentioned starting one (not sure if he ever got that going).
The idea being members would contribute to a pool and attorneys would be retained, who would give general advice and specific representation to members when their time of need arose. Anyone interested in a Porcupine LDA?
That might not be a bad idea, especially considering recent trouble.
I'm definitely interested.
Quote from: jaqeboy on October 12, 2007, 09:26 PM NHFT
The idea being members would contribute to a pool and attorneys would be retained, who would give general advice and specific representation to members when their time of need arose. Anyone interested in a Porcupine LDA?
Good idea, I'd be interested. Please PM me if enough others respond positively and you decide to start this LDA.
I'm interested. Just heard a podcast of FTL where Ian mentioned JUST THIS ide on the air, and that if anyone came up with such a plan, he's in too.
As for donations if you are within three states of NH, try and make it to the party tomorrow at Kevin's. I believe the stated purpose of the party is half party and half charity to some of the little porc's (Ivy's kids and others).
Quote from: jaqeboy on October 12, 2007, 06:51 PM NHFT
Please post instructions on how to contribute to legal expenses, including PayPal (or other online) payment instructions, if available. That will make it easier for people to assist - this will be taken care of (am I right, crew?)
Damn right.
Quote from: jaqeboy on October 12, 2007, 09:26 PM NHFT
Anyone interested in a Porcupine LDA?
Yes.
Quote from: Dan on October 12, 2007, 10:48 PM NHFT
I'm interested. Just heard a podcast of FTL where Ian mentioned JUST THIS ide on the air, and that if anyone came up with such a plan, he's in too.
To clarify what I was talking about:
Lawyers certainly have their place, but I was referring to some sort of group that would defend against all government. Not necessarily just lawyers working inside the government system...
Quote from: ivyleague28477 on October 12, 2007, 09:55 AM NHFT
Okay, I don't understand much why I'm getting lashed at when I'm just relaying info, so please stop yelling at me. I cant handle it right now, but thanks for making me cry.
Ignore these lurkers!
Quote from: Pat K on October 11, 2007, 08:36 PM NHFT
But you would vote for me If I gave ya 25 bucks and really, really big salad, right?
yes
I would vote for Pat for free
Quote from: error on October 11, 2007, 08:38 PM NHFT
Russell Kanning for Mayor!
we already have a president for the Shire ... the rest of us are just cabinet members under him. :)
Big salad?! ;D :broc1:
Quote from: andy_d on October 12, 2007, 09:41 AM NHFT
I've had enough. Everyone knows I don't post here...
Please save all replies for the next time you see me. It will probably another 8 months before I log into this website and you'll see me in person within a few days.
Andy Demers
I have no idea who you are. Thanks for showing up and telling us all what to do.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 13, 2007, 08:13 AM NHFT
Quote from: Pat K on October 11, 2007, 08:36 PM NHFT
But you would vote for me If I gave ya 25 bucks and really, really big salad, right?
yes
See, voting is an inherently corrupted/corruptible process!
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 13, 2007, 08:43 AM NHFT
Quote from: andy_d on October 12, 2007, 09:41 AM NHFT
I've had enough. Everyone knows I don't post here...
Please save all replies for the next time you see me. It will probably another 8 months before I log into this website and you'll see me in person within a few days.
Andy Demers
I have no idea who you are. Thanks for showing up and telling us all what to do.
I know him and he's just a dick in real life too. ;)
Quote from: ivyleague28477 on October 12, 2007, 09:27 AM NHFT
So out of the debate and back to the "something going on"
Fed Marshal John Bolen called Rob last night and has apparently decided that after blowing Rob off all week it is imperative that he speak with Rob in person today. Rob is of course concerned, believing he is very much in danger of being taken into custody. I am of course concerned for many reasons, not the least of which is that I need to work tonight and Rob is my childcare provider.
Not sure what else to say...
I'm wondering -- what would be the charge?
LOL Rosie :D
Quote from: JustUs on October 13, 2007, 12:48 PM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 13, 2007, 08:13 AM NHFT
Quote from: Pat K on October 11, 2007, 08:36 PM NHFT
But you would vote for me If I gave ya 25 bucks and really, really big salad, right?
yes
See, voting is an inherently corrupted/corruptible process!
He knows. He just needs the money
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on October 12, 2007, 11:00 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on October 12, 2007, 06:51 PM NHFT
Please post instructions on how to contribute to legal expenses, including PayPal (or other online) payment instructions, if available. That will make it easier for people to assist - this will be taken care of (am I right, crew?)
Damn right.
Quote from: jaqeboy on October 12, 2007, 09:26 PM NHFT
Anyone interested in a Porcupine LDA?
Yes.
Note from Penny Dean:
Send checks/money orders to:
Law Offices of Penny S. Dean
59 Warren Street
Concord, NH 03301-3951
please put Rob Jacobs in the memo line.
I am sorry to say I do not accept PAYPAL (they are antigun and I refuse
to use them, sorry). I do not accept Liberty Dollars at this point ( I
also try to avoid cash because of the federal reporting requirements for
$10,000.00 per 12 month person/cycle/cash reporting requirement).
Thanks
What is the status of this situation, does anyone know?
Has he been charged with anything for which he'd need a lawyer?
Well here we go again. I just observed a marked Federal Protective Service SUV cruise by the house a few minutes ago. I know of no reason any of them should be in this area.
Funny, I haven't been inside any federal buildings lately, and I have no plans to enter any federal buildings. Frankly I don't want to be caught dead anywhere near one. No pun intended.
Every time I see the subject of this thread, I keep thinking, "Cool, Party at error's!"
Too bad it's not. Well, at least not a good kind of party... ;D
At about 8:30 this morning there was a firetruck in front of the federal building in Concord. Maybe they thought you had something to do with that? :o
Why are they wasting our gas whan they can just put a killer on a roof somewhere with a big fat bifocle with a gun underneath it. I guess they have to use the fuel perdiem or they'll loose it. Oh well,
Be safe people.
Going for a beer tonight, got a sticker for the chariot.
QuoteAt about 8:30 this morning there was a firetruck in front of the federal building in Concord. Maybe they thought you had something to do with that?
Any more info on that situation?
not trying to hi-jack thread but was wondering what porc 411 was ??
error..if i was you,i'd :wave: next time they drove by and see if they want some ice tea or coffee...or go :raspberry: (but then,that's me)
BUy some gift certificates at Murphy's and pass them out to the nice people in the silver vans.
You know, I thought I saw some activity at the airport Friday and I was going to post it but I thought it was nothing. If i had known they were around, I'd have baked a cake with jimmies and vanilla frosting for them. :occasion15: :inspect:
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on October 12, 2007, 11:00 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on October 12, 2007, 09:26 PM NHFT
Anyone interested in a Porcupine LDA?
Yes.
Let's have a side meeting tonight at the Tap Room to begin the conversation.
Quote from: beretta92d on October 23, 2007, 12:06 PM NHFT
not trying to hi-jack thread but was wondering what porc 411 was ??
error..if i was you,i'd :wave: next time they drove by and see if they want some ice tea or coffee...or go :raspberry: (but then,that's me)
Search for it and you'll find a thread about it.
Umm, ....... a lda Liberal defence innitiative? ::)
Seriously, can someone lock this thread? Maybe we can continue conversation about the general subject in a more appropriately named thread, but I live in the same place as error and nothing has been going on for quite some time and yet this thread keeps getting bumped and making me wonder. ::)