New Hampshire Underground

Five messages on Porc-411:

1. 1:49 PM Hi this is Lauren in Plainfield New Hampshire, heading up to the Brown residence there's a roadblock where they stop and warn you and give you a sheet of laws you'd be breaking if you visited the Browns. So far we haven't gotten there. Talk to everybody later! Bye.

2. 2:10 PM This is Jim Johnson. They just arrested Lauren Canario at the roadblock, so she is sitting on the side of the road there. So .. OK, where's she going, where they gonna take her? .. ([background] if you stay here you're gonna go with her, you might as well go too)

3. 2:25 PM Hello, this is Russell. We're at the checkpoint trying to lead up, trying to get up to Ed and Elaine's house. They've stopped our car and now checking the registration and stuff like that. They're thinking that we might not have valid registration and so they want to tow our car away, and they're acting like this is all normal stuff. They have Kat's license and they're checking things and are telling us what to do. This is U.S. Marshals in connection with local cops, here to hassle normal Americans. I don't know if anybody else has tried to come up here, but they're not letting any of us pass. So they want to tell us what to do and obviously they want to hassle Ed and Elaine and anybody who might be associated with them. Talk to you guys later. Bye!

4. 2:29 PM Hi, Jim Johnson. They took Lauren traveling east away from Plainfield and they're probably going to take her down Highway 89 to maybe Concord or Manchester and they wouldn't say where they were going to take her. They're in a marshal's vehicle. If anybody has any information, let us know. Bye bye.

5. 2:34 PM Hello gang, this is Russell. We're outside of, we're at the bottom of the road up to Ed and Elaine's house, and they've stolen our car now. So if anybody can help us, it would be cool if you called us, and we can tell you where we're at, otherwise I guess we'll walk back to Plainfield and maybe walk back to West Lebanon or something like that. But they've taken our car because our registration was up 15 days ago. All right, talk to you guys later.

[attachment deleted by admin]

Emergency contacts:

Jim Johnson 702-858-8671
Russell Kanning 603-209-5761

[attachment deleted by admin]

Sixth message:

2:47 PM Yeah, this is for anybody who is planning on going up to the Browns. Caleb calling. I've been talking to Russell and  he told me that the roadblock there is being patrolled by local police who will, if you don't have a license they will arrest you, if your license plate has expired they will tow your vehicle. So, at this time if you go up there, be prepared for that. Also Russell and Kat, I'm hoping someone in Grafton can go get them because their car has been towed and they are up at the Citgo. I'm going to head up in 10 or 15 minutes. It's quarter to 2, or quarter to 3. I'm going to head up in 10 or 15 minutes but it could be a couple of hours. So if someone could get there quickly to get them so they could get their car that would be helpful, but if not then I'll head up and do it. But just wanted to let everybody know that there is some risk if you want to go up there. That's it!

[attachment deleted by admin]

Menno tells me that he has contacted Jim Johnson, and Jim is going to help Russell. I have contacted the US Marshals office to determine who was arrested, what the charges are, and where they are being taken. As of now, the US Marshals office doesn't know or isn't telling, but she said she would have someone call me back.

Maybe call plainfield police in the meantime? Russell thought that maybe others who didn't have driver's licenses might be in local plainfield police custody ...

per plainfield police, hanover dispatch, there have been no arrests today by local police...

The feds are out in the field with their government laptops and Verizon Wireless data cards reading this thread and the main Ed Brown thread. Stay alert.

last time I checked, a reporter trying to find out information wasn't illegal. Then again, we all know the feds are evil and make up laws as they go along. Gonna be real hot in the afterlife for some of us. We all answer to the Supreme Judge of the Universe at some point, and he is not a respecter of persons or pretentious titles, and he doesn't accept the excuse "I was only doing my job."

Message:

7. 3:27 PM Dave Ridley here requesting a verbatim transcription. I just got off the phone with Russell. I want to give you guys the latest information I know. Russell and Kat in Plainfield, at Plainfield they were stopped by police and they requested their papers. They stopped them because they were trying to go to the Browns and the papers were out of date or something, at least that's what the police said, and thus they stole their car basically, so their vehicle is impounded or something. They have a ride but they're in Plainfield and they're going to have a ride. They're not locked up. On the other hand Lauren apparently was arrested, but Kat and Russell were not. That's what I know so far. Also that authorities are out in force photographing, demanding identification from any car that approaches the area of the Browns. And that is what I know so far. Thanks for listening and transcribe.

[attachment deleted by admin]

Damn  >:(

Lauren was arrested by the feds.  We don't know where they've taken her.  If anyone wants to try and call the fed marshalls to find out where she is, that would be helpful.

Jim rescued us.

The paper they were handing out says:

Notice
In the criminal case of USw v Ed and Elaine Brown, the defendants were convicted in the US district court of federal crimes for which they are now subject to a federal warant of arrest.  Therefore, regarding the above captioned criminal action,

You are hereby notified that:
1.  By order of the US District Court, no one may enter or remain on the property known as 401 Center of Town Road, Plainfield, New Hampshire which is the defendants' residence, without the express authorization of the US Mashals "Service" or its designee.
2.  Whoever enters or remains on the property without the express authorization of the US Marshals and or refuses to leave the property may be criminally prosecuted see 18 USC 111 (assaulting, resisting or impeding certain officers or employees), 402 (contempt constituting crimes, 1501 (assault on a process server) and 1509 (obstruction of court orders).
3.  Whoever, knowing that an offense against the US has been committed by these defendents, receives, relieves, comforts, or assists both or either defendant in order to hinder or prevent their apprehension, trial or punishment, shall be criminally prosecuted as an accessory to their crimes after the fact, in violation of 18 USC 3.



....so that's what they may be charging her with.

Except ... it doesn't sound like she actually did any of those things. It sounds like they arrested her before she even set foot on the property.  Are we now arresting people for "unsuccessful attempt to break bogus law"?

They might just charge her with disobeying an officer then...some BS charge like that.

I've revived http://freelaurencanario.com/ (http://freelaurencanario.com/)

Their justification for stealing the Kanning's car was that their registration was out of date? In countries that aren't fascist, that's normally handled with a ticket.

Here's the article:

http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=613&Itemid=36

photo soon

(http://www.newhampshireunderground.com/wiki/show_image.php?id=2939&scalesize=0&nocount=y)

Anyone up for a little righteous civil disobedience?

I would like to organize a peaceful gathering of freedom lovers at the Brown's tomorrow (9/16), as a protest against laws that create victims where none exist, as well as a show of solidarity with the victims of State-sponsored tyranny ... i.e Ed and Elaine Brown, Lauren Canario, etc.

Anyone participating should be prepared to be kidnapped at gunpoint and confined in a cage for an indefinite period of time by a gang of egotistical thugs.  If you can't handle that, then this is not for you.

On the other hand, if you are fed up like I am with an out-of-control "government" that does not seek the consent of the governed, and are ready to stand up and be counted as a conscientious objector to blatantly immoral victimless crime laws, consequences be damned... then this is your moment.

As for me, I am prepared to make this stand if others are willing to stand with me.  In the event that I am arrested, I will almost certainly lose my job and personal transportation, so I want to be sure it is big enough to be newsworthy.  It should also be easier for others, knowing that they are not doing this alone.

If you are interested in participating, you may contact me by private message.

How much are you willing to sacrifice for freedom and justice??

srq +1 for you.   but how about doing it on a different day so it doesn't conflict with the ron paul extravaganza tomorrow....almost everyone will be tied up on that

Let me be the first to say ...  ::)

SO IT DOESN'T INTERFERE WITH A RON PAUL EXTRAVAGANZA!  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) The man is talking about going to jail to protest the ill treatment of Lauren and you want to reschedule it for a Ron Paul extravaganza?

I didn't know about that... but I did notice after I posted, that Kat posted her plans for getting arrested in Concord on Monday around the same time I was posting.  So perhaps we should plan it for Sun. 9/23... it would also give people a little more time to make any necessary arrangements.

Six people arrested today in total, according to We the People Radio Network. Marc Stevens (Adventures in Legal Land) is covering it live. He talked about Lauren's act of civil disobedience.

I think it would be very powerful for anyone to stand up to the feds at this time ... as always. I think it is very appropriate to follow in Lauren's footsteps.

If they are not going to let anyone go to Ed and Elaine's .... then heading up their with fresh fruit would be a great statement against the fed regime.

If they start letting people through after the party ... then supporting Lauren in any way will be very good for her and bad for the feds. You don't have to go all the way and get jailed ... you can come film them haul Kat away.

Quote from: Russell Kanning on September 15, 2007, 06:02 PM NHFT
You don't have to go all the way and get jailed ... you can come film them haul Kat away.

What is the latest plan -- will this be in Concord or Plainfield?

Quote from: error on September 15, 2007, 05:36 PM NHFT
Six people arrested today in total, according to We the People Radio Network. Marc Stevens (Adventures in Legal Land) is covering it live. He talked about Lauren's act of civil disobedience.

Wait, who are the other 5?

Quote from: error on September 15, 2007, 05:36 PM NHFT
Six people arrested today in total, according to We the People Radio Network. Marc Stevens (Adventures in Legal Land) is covering it live. He talked about Lauren's act of civil disobedience.

Who were the other five?

Who were the other 5 people arrested today? WTPRN is playing dave's video from Thursday.

I don't know. They didn't say who the other five were.

I'm going to Murphy's Taproom to meet various other political ne'er-do-wells and discuss the day's events. Anybody in the area is welcome to drop by.

Quote from: srqrebel on September 15, 2007, 06:08 PM NHFT

Quote from: Russell Kanning on September 15, 2007, 06:02 PM NHFT
You don't have to go all the way and get jailed ... you can come film them haul Kat away.

What is the latest plan -- will this be in Concord or Plainfield?

I'm thinking I'll go to Concord Monday, not go to my trial, and get arrested there.

My only concern is spreading our numbers too thin, though a quick response in Plainfield would be the best demonstration of solidarity.  If anyone is interested in going to the Browns tomorrow, or on the 23rd, please let me know.

Quote from: srqrebel on September 15, 2007, 06:24 PM NHFT
My only concern is spreading our numbers too thin, though a quick response in Plainfield would be the best demonstration of solidarity.  If anyone is interested in going to the Browns tomorrow, or on the 23rd, please let me know.

I'm not ready for arrest, but could shoot video...

Quote from: Kat Kanning on September 15, 2007, 04:27 PM NHFT
Here's the article:

http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=613&Itemid=36

photo soon

Read it on air tonight.

Did Jim get video of her arrest?

Bill called porc 411 about the road block at Ed and Elanie's.  He is fine and is on his way home.
Thanks Error.

So... I take it the road block is still there tonight?

Quote from: error on September 15, 2007, 05:36 PM NHFT
Six people arrested today in total, according to We the People Radio Network. Marc Stevens (Adventures in Legal Land) is covering it live. He talked about Lauren's act of civil disobedience.

I just listened to the Marc Stevens show from the archives, and there was only one arrest today.  The other five arrests were Reno, Bob Wolffe, Jason Garehart, Danny Riley, and Terry Melton (who was released without being charged.)

If anyone has video or pictures Free Minds TV would love to have them for this Friday's show.

Quote from: srqrebel on September 15, 2007, 06:08 PM NHFT

Quote from: Russell Kanning on September 15, 2007, 06:02 PM NHFT
You don't have to go all the way and get jailed ... you can come film them haul Kat away.

What is the latest plan -- will this be in Concord or Plainfield?

I am guessing that Lauren will be dragged into federal court in Concord on Monday. They probably also wanted her in court for the other bill that day too. They want Kat to show up in court on Monday, but she will be outside with her "Free Lauren" sign. They might arrest her and let her hang out with lauren in the ministry of love.

Quote from: srqrebel on September 15, 2007, 06:24 PM NHFT
My only concern is spreading our numbers too thin, though a quick response in Plainfield would be the best demonstration of solidarity.  If anyone is interested in going to the Browns tomorrow, or on the 23rd, please let me know.

I am interested in supporting Lauren in Concord. I don't know what is happening at Plainfield tommorrow and following.

Sent customized versions of this to the major NH media

---

Dear folks at the Sentinel:

Lauren Canario of Winchester has just been arrested by Federal authorities for attempting to walk through their new roadblock surrounding the Brown home in Plainfield.   This according to a Porcupine 411 report from her husband.   It was apparently an act of nonviolent civil disobedience, occurring just hours after the roadblock went up.

Another couple had their vehicle seized. 

Here's the article from a Keene opinion paper:

http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=613&Itemid=36

updates and discussion will appear at:

http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg184919#msg184919

You can give me a ring you need me to put you in touch with Lauren's husband...I don't yet have permission to give out his number.   I'm at 603-721-1490

Dave Ridley
NHfree.com

Quote from: FTL_Ian on September 15, 2007, 06:31 PM NHFT
Read it on air tonight.

Did Jim get video of her arrest?

Lauren got video ... her camera went with her

we could use camera men here .... they don't have to be arrested, but they do need to be johnny-on-the-spot. :)

Quote from: TobyFMTV on September 15, 2007, 07:01 PM NHFT
If anyone has video or pictures Free Minds TV would love to have them for this Friday's show.

you can use our pictures ... I only got 2 ... It was not an easy situation to get pictures. I wasn't sure what they were going to do.

Quote from: Russell Kanning on September 15, 2007, 07:22 PM NHFT

Quote from: TobyFMTV on September 15, 2007, 07:01 PM NHFT
If anyone has video or pictures Free Minds TV would love to have them for this Friday's show.

you can use our pictures ... I only got 2 ... It was not an easy situation to get pictures. I wasn't sure what they were going to do.

We would love the pictures. Even if video does turn up the pictures will be very helpful (toby@freekeene.com).

I'm sure U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier would love to hear what the public has to say about this. Why not leave him a message?

(603) 225-1632

Quote from: TobyFMTV on September 15, 2007, 07:27 PM NHFT
I'm sure U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier would love to hear what the public has to say about this. Why not leave him a message?

(603) 225-1632

There we go. I've been looking for this number for 10 minutes.
Thanks.

Quote from: Kat Kanning on September 15, 2007, 04:27 PM NHFT
Here's the article:

http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=613&Itemid=36

photo soon

Thanks Kat, for the info that Lauren's motor vehicle license was "suspended" and on alert to an arrest if they ever caught her driving again.  Technically "driving without a license" is only a violation for the first offense, and a misdemeanor for the second offense, both charges bullshit from the "bullshit artists" in government themselves who play on these privileges that override our rights! My case #87-S-313 in Merrimack County Superior Court in Concord for 2nd offense "driving without a license" was nol-prosed when I motioned to dismiss, citing the Oregon Law Review of 1953 (December, page 1) wherein the summary is: that a license is a restraint on the individual when you're a proven threat to the public, and you are NOT a proven threat until AFTER your first accident; and so with no accident on record they/ the state has no authority OVER you, and whatever they do, such as lock-up can be offset with a per-day lawsuit in Small Claims Court for the standard $2,500 damages per day, per the Veronica Silva case example in the State Board of Claims (see the details of this in my Reply #___).

BTW it was 2nd offense, since at the first I refused to doff my hat to the judge, citing the Quakers who say that a servant doffs his hat to the master, not to his public "servant" as by my religious rights guaranteed (or supposed to be) by Art. 5, N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights. The judge defaulted me, and so I had this case to fall back on just in case.

So WHEREever Lauren is now, IF in lock-up, and she can get over this "suspension" angle to the more basic traveling is a right issue, then she can make $money on this latest arrest.  This is now the perfect opportunity for those withOUT any suspension problems, and with NO licenses, to further educate these federal, county and state government goons to get them to "Wise up!"  8) at their $expense, the "victim"s to be paid $2,500/day for their professorship!  :icon_pirat:

Happy Trails, - Joe H.

I don't know what time the roadblock was set up. Did ANYONE get in? How about Dave VonKleist? I know he was on his way in the Uberbus

the radio guys were there overnight ... so some of them must be at the Browns house

I called this into 411 about an hour ago so I'm surprised it's not already here, but Lauren is at the Lebanon police department. She was walking toward the Browns when they arrested her and they did not give her a reason. They took her camera. As far as I know, she's still there. After I called porc 411, I left a message on Jim's phone also. I'm headed over to Murphy's now and I'll update people there.

P.S. The minor incident near Porc Manor on Central in Manchester seems to have already blown over and can probably be completely disregarded. I called that in shortly after the Lauren call.

Crossposting from NH Tea Party to make sure people see this:—

Quote
Dale called this into Porc-411 an hour or so ago, but I don't see it posted here yet, so here it is:—

Lauren Canario is being held at the Lebanon police station. They did not tell her what the charges are. Dale also called her husband and left him a message.

Quote from: coffeeseven on September 15, 2007, 07:58 PM NHFT
I don't know what time the roadblock was set up. Did ANYONE get in? How about Dave VonKleist? I know he was on his way in the Uberbus

Elaine said that people stopped being able to come in about 7 am.  I think that some musicians and others made it in last night.  They may be stuck there now.

Lebanon police communications dept. 603-448-1212

Lebanon Police Department
36 Poverty Lane
Lebanon NH, 03766

Free lauren demonstration outside lebanon police tomorrow?

If someone comes this way from Keene area, can you pick up our sign making materials and/or signs?

Jim Johnson just called in to Porc411 and said that they dumped Lauren out on the street in Lebanon.  He's heading back to get her.

Quote from: Kat Kanning on September 15, 2007, 08:24 PM NHFT
Jim Johnson just called in to Porc411 and said that they dumped Lauren out on the street in Lebanon.  He's heading back to get her.

Good news.

AWESOME!!!!!!!!

:clap: :clap: :clap: :party-smiley-020: :wav:

Jim just got her.  Some serious hugging going on right now, I suspect.

Did they give the cam back?

Quote from: Kat Kanning on September 15, 2007, 08:29 PM NHFT
Jim just got her.  Some serious hugging going on right now, I suspect.

;D 8)

What's the score now? Lauren's out of prison, but did they let her go, or are they going to come after her again for walking down a road?

I assume the Kannings' car is still stolen.

Car still gone, yes.  Thieves.

Quote from: Kat Kanning on September 15, 2007, 08:34 PM NHFT
Car still gone, yes.  Thieves.

They should have left the car and taken the plates. That's the only thing that belongs to them. Oh wait.....You paid for those too.

you guys are all amazing to stand up to these pigs.

Quote from: Kat Kanning on September 15, 2007, 08:34 PM NHFT
Car still gone, yes.  Thieves.

"cop comes from the Dutch Kapen, meaning to take or steal."

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcop.html

   Word of the roadblock and arrest is spreading quickly through the country.


     Listen for more information here:  http://www.wtprn.com/listen.shtml (http://www.wtprn.com/listen.shtml)
     

   I don't think they will go on while so much attention is on them,
but the chances are excellent before the first snowfall.  Its tough
to sneak around when you leave footprints.

Good to see Lauren out.  I guess I can expect to have my car stolen, as I will not be sending them any of my money.   :'(
I also thought they would do it before the snow.  They probably arrested Ed's supporters in an effort to get some intelligence on the inside of Ed's house. 

Let's catch up on Porc-411 transcriptions, shall we?

8. 7:13 PM Hi, this is Bill Walker calling in from Plainfield. Apparently the US Marshals Service in assistance with the police there have shown up to the edge of Center of Town Road. They'vee been there since noon. I just talked to a WMUR reporter. They were handing out a notice saying that anyone on the property or staying on the property or trying to go onto the property in violation of the US Marshal's orders will be I guess arrested and prosecuted for something they contrived. Apparently nobody's been able to get up into there all day and they're turning everyone away. The other thing is apparently Kat and Russell's car was not within, you know, good registration standards, whatever, it expired, and they got their car confiscated and I don't know if anybody's heard from them, but I'm assuming they might need assistance, and hopefully we can contact them and make sure they're all right. Thanks.

9. 7:44 PM Hi, this is Dale, I'm calling on behalf of Lauren Canario. She was on her way to the Browns' event and there was a roadblock and she decided to walk. They arrested her. They haven't given a reason for the charge that she knows of. I tried to find out what the specific charge was for and she doesn't know that. She hasn't been given that yet. She is at the Lebanon Police Department. I think she said she's going to stay there until she gets a ride or something. I'm about to call her husband and see what's going on with all that, but I just wanted to go ahead and get the word out. If someone would please put this on the message board, I would appreciate that. Thank you.

10. 8:24 PM Hi, this is Dale again, with a separate information call. Near Porc Manor on Central Street apparently there was some kind of fight or something and police are in the area. They stopped me for a moment thinking I might have been related to it, but they immediately let me go when I explained that I was just dropping off roommates. So I think it's a minor incident, but I'm just letting people know that if they're in the area that there seems to be some kind of fight going on or something and police are showing up near Porc Manor. That's all. If someone could post this on the boards I would appreciate it. Thanks.

11. 8:41 PM Hi, this is Jim Johnson. I just called the Lebanon Police Department where Lauren was being kept. Apparently they've just put her out on the street there in Lebanon. I'm going to go back to Lebanon right now. I'm about 50 miles south of there right now and I'm going to head back. If anybody's had any contact with her, please let me know. I'll keep my cell phone on. 702-858-8671. Thank you.

[attachment deleted by admin]

More messages.

12. 9:30 PM Hi, this is Lauren Canario, and I'm out of the jail and I'm out of the police department. I'm on the way home. Everything's peachy. Thanks everybody for all your help and getting me connected up with a ride. Bye!

13. 10:36 PM Hey, I'm listening to wtprn.com the We the People Radio Network. It's about 10:30 PM. It sounds like something may be going on at the Browns, like they're getting ready to go in. If anybody wants to keep track of what's going on live, just go to wtprn.com and they've got a media stream. Thanks.

[attachment deleted by admin]

The road block on Center of Town Road in Plainfield was  illegal.  They stopped every car  to ask  what their business was on that road, they let some cars pass, but if the cops didn't like the answer they searched papers.
The cops used the most extreme methods.
They had a backup squad of armed thugs about hundred feet beyond the Check Point.
The close by officers held their hands on their guns while drivers where interrogated.
They impounded one car for a 3 month past due registration.  (When has that ever happened anywhere in The United States on a first violation?)
They arrested Lauren  Canario without even asking her where she was going on that road.  Essentially Kidnapping her to another town and then dumping her on the street with charges to named later. 

Quote from: error on September 15, 2007, 11:06 PM NHFT
More messages...

13. 10:36 PM Hey, I'm listening to wtprn.com the We the People Radio Network. It's about 10:30 PM. It sounds like something may be going on at the Browns, like they're getting ready to go in...Thanks.

To: The Commissioner of Safety
#__ Hazen Drive
Concord, N.H. 03301
603: 271-_____

And; Here's my message or sermon to the Feds reading here:

Read Deuteronomy 27:24 of "Cursed be he that smiteth his neighbor in secret. And all the people shall say, Amen."

Plus the landmark curse in verse :17 as indicated over at http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/html/gnde/Chapter66.htm thanks to icetylertx at aol dot com.

1.) Although the Feds call ALL of New Hampshire withIN their territorial "jurisdiction", this is a lie. The cornerstone of their building is in- deed the limits to their property.  They have NO jurisdictional authority OFF their turf!  If they did, then there would be their RSA Ch. 123:1 filing with the N.H. Office of Secretary of State as allowed by 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution for "Consent" that was offered or tendered to them way back on June 14, 1883, but that they NEVER accepted! BELIEVE IT OR NOT!

2.) The Center of Town Road is NOT owned by the Feds!  It is a RIGHT-of-way, that should be OPEN to all traffic.  The taxpayers along that road, including the Browns, ought to have their public servants they pay good money to, guarantee that their rights and those of their visitors will NOT be:

(a) "waylay"ed by outlaw Federal agents!  SHAME on the local COPS* and County Sheriff* Michael Prozzo! for allowing the Feds to accost motorists by coming alongside their vehicles with a red sheet of paper indicating that anybody helping the Browns assert their Article 10 Rights of Revolution against a corrupt federal enclave will be dealt with by the Feds!  Don't they* know about the check-and-balance of power in RSA Ch. 123:1 they take an oath to support!? See RSA Ch. 92:2 for their oath of office http://www.state.nh.us that they have violated!  The Selectmen should fire the COP immediately, but then again they are on-the-take with the acceptance of the $6,500 Treasury Check last Wednesday, Sept. 5th; a "bribe" for the Selectmen to act dis-honestly to their RSA Ch. 92:2 oaths of office.  The proof now is in their actions after-the-fact.

(b) stopped or interrupted in the progress of their travel, as in the intercept-ion definition from this word: waylay.**

** That brings me to another saying in Romans 14:13 with not a curse, but a judgment needed to be found whether this latest action by the Feds (in cahoots with the local and county COPs) was lawful and legal, by my written complaint to the State Police and Commissioner of Safety on Monday. State Police C-Troop in Keene for Sullivan County has the proof of federal non-filing and so the reason WHY they didn't participate? or did they? The Town and County has a copy of the same certificate of federal non-filing! but that they ignore it; to REFUSE to pay attention to; dis-regard, from the Latin of ignorare meaning "not to know" but they do know, and so are put into that culpable frame of mind for criminal prosecution too! Here it is: "Let us...judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way."

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059.

Lebanon Jail Story Part 1

At the roadblock on Center of Town Road, I walked past the state police, the county sheriff, but the fat U.S. Marshall asked," Where are you going"?
"Taking a walk", I answered.  Numerous police started shouting at me.
The fat Marshall with no name tag put his hands on my shoulders, another grabbed my video camera.  Someone grabbed my hands from behind and started handcuffing me.  I sat down to keep about 4 guys with guns from pushing me around.  They got the handcuffs on about the time I was laying on the ground.  They carried me to the county sheriff's car, drug me inside and buckled the seatbelt. 
They gave me notice I would be video recorded while I was in the car.  He didn't notice there was a clipboard between me and the camera.  On the drive out the two-car convoy I was in saw Jim following them.  They took a hard right to shake him, but they turned directly into the path of the second police car. Luckily we didn't get T-boned by them. 
On the drive into Lebanon a city police car came toward us with blue lights and siren (a.k.a code 2).  We pulled over and he whipped around to talk to us. 
"Do you want to go code 2 to the station?", said Mr. Blue Light
"Nah, we don't need to", said my driver.
"Follow me!", says Mr. Blue Light, and takes off with lights and sirens on the wrong side of the road. 
"I guess we're going code 2".
Sheesh, no wonder they out a seatbelt on me,  I wonder how they would drive if it was an emergency?

[http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=NH+woman+detained+at+Brown+property&articleId=c9b6ca98-cb56-42b7-a66c-d02571202b0d|NH woman detained at Brown property]

By KRISTEN SENZ
Sunday News Correspondent
2 hours, 37 minutes ago



PLAINFIELD – U.S. marshals detained a New Hampshire woman yesterday after she allegedly refused to obey a court order that forbid anyone from visiting the home of tax protesters Ed and Dr. Elaine Brown.

The Browns, who were convicted in January of felony tax evasion but have so far avoided apprehension by federal authorities, had planned to host a barbecue and concert at their concrete-fortified home on Center of Town Road in Plainfield yesterday. It would have been the third such event since April, when the couple was sentenced in absentia to more than five years in federal prison.

But the U.S. Marshal 's Office set up a temporary checkpoint about half a mile from the intersection of Stage and Center of Town roads, where about a dozen federal, county and local officers identified all motorists traveling on the road and handed out red flyers explaining the court order.

Lauren Canario, 51, a Keene-area resident and a member of the Free State Project, approached the partial barricade around 2:30 p.m. yesterday, U.S. Marshal Steve Monier said.

"She drove up to the checkpoint and was warned at least three times by the deputies that she could not proceed to the Browns ', and the last time she got out of the vehicle and tried to walk past us, so she was arrested," Monier said at the Lebanon police station, where he was using office space yesterday.

Monier said Canario, who was arrested in Connecticut in 2005 in connection with her protest of eminent domain issues, was being held without bail at an undisclosed location until she could be arraigned in Concord on a federal charge.

She was detained for about five hours and charges may be pressed at a later date, Monier said last night.

The charging decision lies with the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Hampshire. Monier said the charge could fall under Title 18 of the United States Code, section 111, which prohibits "assaulting, resisting or impeding certain officers or employees."

The U.S. Marshal 's Office obtained the federal court order, which was only in effect for yesterday, due to concerns about "hazardous conditions" on the Browns ' property, Monier said.

"Ed has talked about booby traps, and we know -- we have other information that there are hazardous conditions on the property," he said.

In a recorded radio interview posted on the Browns ' Web log, Ed Brown said, "I have things in the woods," but did not elaborate.

Ed and Elaine Brown have said repeatedly that if federal authorities show them the law that makes them liable to pay income tax, they will pay all the money the government says they owe.

Monier said yesterday that he doesn 't know how much it has cost the government to conduct ground, aerial and other forms of surveillance of the Browns ' since they sequestered themselves in their home after their January jury trial.

"At some point we 'll have those figures, but I don 't have them today," he said.

Earlier this summer, Monier 's office cut power, telephone and postal service to the Browns ' property. Last Wednesday, federal agents arrested four of Brown 's supporters in four different states on charges of aiding and abetting the Browns. Two of them, 40-year-old Danny Riley of New York and 50-year-old Robert Wolffe of Vermont, pleaded not guilty Thursday in federal court in Concord. The other two, 30-year-old Cirino "Reno" Gonzalez of Texas and 22-year-old Jason Gerhard of New York, have yet to appear in a New Hampshire courtroom.

Monier reiterated yesterday that he wants to avoid a violent clash with the Browns and find a peaceful resolution to the impasse.

"I have no desire to have some kind of violent encounter with Ed Brown or Dr. Brown," he said.

When a radio host asked Elaine Brown earlier this week what it would take for her and her husband to leave their property peacefully, she said the government would have to dismiss all charges against them, according to a blog post on www.questforfairtrialinconcordnh.blogspot.com.

Wait, so Lauren was arrested for violating an order put in place for her protection? Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

Lebanon Jail Part 2

Oh yeah, as I was lying on the ground at the road block one of the police said "Look out, she likes to get out of handcuffs, she has small wrists".  I guess they watch you tube. 
At the station they dragged me to the booking cell, read my rights, asked me to sign stuff.  Mr. Monier came out to talk to me.  I guess I was smirking and he said this isn't a game, Miss Canario, there are lives at stake.  Yeah, I thought, you are the one staking our lives out.  I kept quiet and didn't sign anything.    The local police knew I hadn't been searched and asked the feds to search me.  You search her, they answered, we haven't got a female agent.  The Lebanon police brought out Brandy, the dispatcher.  I didn't hold my arms out like she asked so in an inter-jurisdictional masterpiece the fat fed held me by the armpits while the local dispatcher went through my pockets.  After a few hours another arrestee came in for drunk driving and the drug me to a different cell.  The fat fed tried to twist my wrists behind me to make me stand, but I guess he didn't have a tight grip and I slipped to the floor.  In the back cell I found a pebble on the floor and scratched nhfree.com on the door.  About 6PM the fat fed gave back the contents of my pockets but kept the video camera as "evidence".  I took it as evidence they didn't want that arrest video out on you tube tonight.
They opened the cell door,Steven Monier showed up at my cell, told me they were releasing me and to come this way...right out here...OK, you can leave the cell, follow me this way.... Come on, let's go.  I just stood there.  The local police will charge you with trespassing if you don't leave the cell.  He called the local police over.  We don't have a beef with you, we were just holding you for the U.S. Marshals, now they said you can go.  We would like you to leave now.  They left the door open and went out to regroup.  I walked out into the booking room and the marshals and police made a path and opened doors for me out to the lobby.  There Monier said I was under court order to stay away from the Browns, he was keeping the video camera, and they would be contacting me in the future.  I didn't hear any charges.  I figure their prosecutor advised that charging someone with walking along a road wouldn't make a good case.

Quote from: TackleTheWorld on September 16, 2007, 02:13 AM NHFT
In the back cell I found a pebble on the floor and scratched nhfree.com on the door.

Awesome.

Quotehe was keeping the video camera

Bastards.

They are such thieves!  And all this so they can steal money from the Browns (and the rest of us).

*cheers Lauren*

May we all have your courage before our enemies.

Quote from: TackleTheWorld on September 16, 2007, 02:13 AM NHFT
Lebanon Jail Part 2

...  I figure their prosecutor advised that charging someone with walking along a road wouldn't make a good case.

You're right.  They THOUGHT that you were going to go up the road "and" THEN onto the Brown's property at the end of his driveway, but that UNTIL you actually stepped foot on Ed's dirt or gravel, they can only THINK what you MIGHT do; a classic case example of George Orwellian "1984" Thought-Police in action!  :icon_pirat:

You ought to get a gold star for walking against traffic, or whatever there was, if any, motoring from northeast to southwest. I think a Memorial Sidewalk ought to be put in there in your honor.

From the picture I see a tent was set up along the road for when it rained. And those orange cones going half way out to the middle of the road, so as to set up a gauntlet. The squeeze was on there and you over at the lock-up.  Unfortunately these gov't goons take the easy road to what they perceive as their claim to fame or honor by like bestowing bays or bay leaves to form a crown of laurel leaves, "given" as a sign of honor to themselves, or should I say TAKEing the honor by creating the bay in the first place: 1. "The position of one cornered by pursuers." 2. A long, howling bark.  >:D Yeah, why not give them what they want next time?  Some "long, deep, howling cries" like that of the "loup-garou" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werewolf#Origins_and_variations_of_the_word that tells of the "Berserker"s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserker see the "Modern usage" paragraph about your "civil rights" of NO "restraints" after you've had a little "gruit" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bog_myrtle "flavoring for beer".  ;D

Happy Trails, or should I say happy flying canoe story*, - Joe

* http://www.americanfolklore.net/folktales/quebec3.html

     Only Joe Haas could take the days events and seg-wey to discussion of Canadian folk tales.   ;D
Some of those tales still apply today as they did years ago.

Glad your out and safe Lauren.

That Monier really gives fat people a bad name.

(http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo//images/stories/Articles/2007/June/monier_butt.jpg)

Lauren, glad to hear you're out.  You're a champ!

Quote from: TackleTheWorld on September 16, 2007, 02:13 AM NHFT
I guess they watch you tube. 

Must be how they get their "Intel".

QuoteAt the station they dragged me to the booking cell, read my rights, asked me to sign stuff.  Mr. Monier came out to talk to me.  I guess I was smirking and he said this isn't a game, Miss Canario, there are lives at stake.  Yeah, I thought, you are the one staking our lives out.  I kept quiet and didn't sign anything.

Awesome.

QuoteAbout 6PM the fat fed gave back the contents of my pockets but kept the video camera as "evidence".  I took it as evidence they didn't want that arrest video out on you tube tonight.

Thieves.  I wonder if you'll ever see the camera or tape again.  >:( 

QuoteThey opened the cell door,Steven Monier showed up at my cell, told me they were releasing me and to come this way...right out here...OK, you can leave the cell, follow me this way.... Come on, let's go.  I just stood there.  The local police will charge you with trespassing if you don't leave the cell.  He called the local police over.  We don't have a beef with you, we were just holding you for the U.S. Marshals, now they said you can go.  We would like you to leave now.  They left the door open and went out to regroup.  I walked out into the booking room and the marshals and police made a path and opened doors for me out to the lobby.

Wow... just surreal.

QuoteThere Monier said I was under court order to stay away from the Browns,

I don't get the feeling that you like following orders.   :icon_pirat:

Lauren have you been presented with a copy of the order that says you have to stay away from the Browns?

Or are we in "take my word for it" mode?

Quote from: TackleTheWorld on September 16, 2007, 02:13 AM NHFT
.... Come on, let's go.  I just stood there.  The local police will charge you with trespassing if you don't leave the cell.  He called the local police over.  We don't have a beef with you, we were just holding you for the U.S. Marshals, now they said you can go.  We would like you to leave now...

Does anyone else notice the irony?  They wanted you to leave, and if you didn't comply, they were... umm... going to force you to stay there for trespassing??  LOL

Quote from: srqrebel on September 16, 2007, 10:13 AM NHFT

Does anyone else notice the irony?  They wanted you to leave, and if you didn't comply, they were... umm... going to force you to stay there for trespassing??  LOL

Tis a twisted world we have allowed, isn't it?

Lauren 1, The Pigs 0. I call that pure pwnage. :) Me thinks Lauren has mastered annoyance-fu. ^_^

-- Brede

Quote from: coffeeseven on September 16, 2007, 10:08 AM NHFT
Lauren have you been presented with a copy of the order that says you have to stay away from the Browns?

Or are we in "take my word for it" mode?

I didn't get any paperwork yesterday.

Except for an informative pamphlet on bullying I found in the lobby. 
Excerpt:

Quote[bullies]

• lack empathy and doesn't sympathize with others

(actual bad grammar from pamphlet)

• Like to be in charge
• Are generally physically agressive, hot tempered and impulsive

Reminded me of the people I met at the roadblock.

was it like one of the bad posters in 3rd grade or was this part of pig sensitivity training.

Quote from: supperman15 on September 16, 2007, 11:26 AM NHFT
was it like one of the bad posters in 3rd grade or was this part of pig sensitivity training.

More like the poster, it was titled,"PARENTS GUIDE TO BULLYING".

Quote from: supperman15 on September 16, 2007, 11:26 AM NHFT
was it like one of the bad posters in 3rd grade or was this part of pig sensitivity training.

Yeah!  Send these "pigs" back to school: 3rd grade class, like I've heard and seen about on Channel 6 http://www.wcsh6.com/ over in Maine there's a special state program that the teachers are implementing at that grade level.  Maybe their course materials ought to make it over to the Police Standards & Training Center on Fort Eddy Road in Concord where the Cadets have boot camp.  About 75% of the 20% sur-tax what they call a "penalty assessment" on top of the criminal fines they collect in District Courts goes over to train them alright, in what looks like they could use some of these bully brochures from Maine. Bully - Bully - Bully as Teddy Roosevelt used to say!

Plus Lauren, thanks for pointing out that spelling of "doesn't" as bad grammar for the word bullies in the plural when it should have been when bullies "don't" sympathize with others.  On a Google search http://www.google.com of bully "Teddy Roosevelt" I found at page 1 there an interesting http://www.maslibraries.org/infolit/samplers/bully.html website about some book, see "3. What unique idea did T.R. have about spelling? (page 110)"; I'd like to know too. ___ Plus the origin for that "bully" word he used meaning for the "bully pulpit" from the White House and his "Bull Moose" party. http://www.c-span.org/guide/congress/glossary/bullypul.htm 

These combo fed-county-local bullies found out yesterday that their "line-in-the-sand" so-to speak, was way out of line, both figuratively and physically. The boundary to the Brown property was #__ mile(s) down this Center of Town Road, but then again the order did NOT read to NOT go TO the property, but setting foot ON the property. And they did this on a Saturday when the court was not open, that maybe the old days of having our public servants work to 12:00 o'clock high noon on Saturdays too for when the working-man can do his business can take place.

Maybe to schedule another Concert for mid-week sometime, like for Wed. Sept. 26th or Fri., October 26th on the full moon  >:D +/or Wed., Oct. 31st for a Halloween party! :icon_pirat: Or maybe on the REAL Columbus Day, Friday, October 12th, not this "Federal Holiday" procedure of transferring the holiday back to the Monday preceding it, on the second Monday in October as the same day as Thanksgiving Day in Canada. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_Day that has been replaced with the Dia de la Raza in Latin America for The Day of the People, as against "oppression"; yeah! to celebrate the fact that Ed & Elaine Brown have kept the federal aggressors away for nine months from January 12th, 2007. Now that is a cause worth celebrating, like in exposing this 9-month rape of our land by these federalies. The word rape defined also as "The act of carrying off by force." The evidence of force being their militant stance AGAINST the Constitution, that is the supreme law of the land, and of how the Browns have asserted their Art. 10 Rights of Revolution to what should be concluded by then, like for some state judge in an habeas corpus proceeding to be THE first line of a check-and-balance AGAINST the Feds.  The judicial branch to weigh in the certificate of non-filing by RSA 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Const. and declare the Feds as OUT OF ORDER, giving the "opinion" that the governor in the executive branch of government should do his Art. 41, Part 2, N.H. Constitutional  duty of for them to comply with the law or else stop their exercise of exclusive jurisdiction! and if Lynch not comply then be impeached for dereliction of duty by the General Court, in that he, John H. Lynch has in effect abandoned his office and so we ought to make him "desert" or leave his post, so that he can "receive his just deserts"! that he deserves, because he "shall" be "responsible" (both in the job description, and any consequences therefrom) for enforcing all legislative mandates.

Yours truly, -- Joe H.

Modification: bullypul in c-span.

Quote
[bullies]

    * lack empathy and doesn't sympathize with others

(actual bad grammar from pamphlet)

    * Like to be in charge
    * Are generally physically agressive, hot tempered and impulsive


Reminded me of the people I met at the roadblock.



Holy Cow!! talk about Irony !!

Did you keep the pamphlet? Maybe Roger could use his skills and blow that up into a sign.

hey lauren
glad your out of the prison camp! when will the pigs realize were not the bad guys they are and the more they pick on non violent sweet people like you the more they will get angry people like me to stand up  for our right s. So they stole your video camera and kidnappped you and then just let you go at a foriegn location. You Lauren are one onf my heros and i dont have many of them so keep up the good work and let me know what i can do. FIRECRACKER JOE

Russel wrote - 5. 2:34 PM Hello gang, this is Russell. We're outside of, we're at the bottom of the road up to Ed and Elaine's house, and they've stolen our car now. So if anybody can help us, it would be cool if you called us,

-------------------

The technical term for what the police did is "warrantless seizure", it's also a "warrantless taking" in constitutional terms.  Their conduct invoked the 4th Amendment.

You need to verify whether the nature of an expired tag is CRIMINAL or CIVIL.

You also need to verify the NATURE of the police CONTACT.  Which one was it?:

The United States Supreme Court has identified three categories of police contact with persons. The first is referred to as a "consensual encounter" in which there is no restraint on the person's liberty. There need be no objective justification for such an encounter. The second type, called "detention,"  involves a seizure of the individual for a limited duration and for limited purposes. A constitutionally acceptable detention can occur "if there is an articulable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime." The third type involves seizures in the nature of an arrest, which may occur only if the police have probable cause to arrest the person for a crime. (Florida v. Royer, supra, 460 U.S. 491; Wilson v. Superior Court, supra, 34 Cal.3d 777.)
PEOPLE v. BAILEY , 176 Cal.App.3d 402
[No. H000583. Court of Appeals of California, Sixth Appellate District. December 17,1985.]

The bottom line is the servant seized property without a warrant.  Warrantless arrests and seizures are prima facie illegal.  They are punishing you by depriving your of property BEFORE any deprivation hearing in a court of law where you had an opportunity to examine any witness or evidence.  This is a substantive due process issue.  Police are NOT judges.  They can ACCUSE but they CAN NOT CONVICT, especially at curbside. 

You could file a claim for damages against the cop in their PERSONAL CAPACITY for "acting beyond the scope" of their duty in absence of "authorization".

"'To be valid, administrative action must be within the scope of authority conferred by the enabling statutes. . . .' . . . 'If the court determines that a challenged administrative action was not authorized by or is inconsistent with acts of the Legislature, that action is void.'" (US Ecology, Inc. v. State of California (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 113, 131-132.)
Hamilton v. Gourley (2002) , Cal.App.4th
[No. C038751. Third Dist. Oct. 31, 2002.]

I'm in California but I'm sure you can find similar sources in NH:

Defendant makes a prima facie case of unlawful arrest when he establishes that arrest was made without a warrant, and burden rests on prosecution to show proper justification.
People v. Holguin (1956) 145 Cal.App.2d. 520 [302 P.2d. 635]

When, however, the question of the legality of an arrest or of a search and seizure is raised either at the preliminary hearing or at the trial, the defendant makes a prima facie case when he establishes that an arrest was made without a warrant or that private premises were entered or a search made without a search warrant, and the burden then rests on the prosecution to show proper justification. (Dragna v. White, 45 Cal.2d 469, 471- 472 [289 P.2d 428]; Coverstone v. Davies, 38 Cal.2d 315, 319 [239 P.2d 876]; Hughes v. Oreb, 36 Cal.2d 854, 858 [228 P.2d 550]; People v. Boyles, 45 Cal.2d 652, 656 [290 P.2d 535]; People v. Gorg, supra, 45 Cal.2d 776, 782-783.)
Badillo v. Superior Court , 46 Cal.2d 269
[S. F. No. 19346. In Bank. Feb. 24, 1956.]

Reading about this Gestapo checkpoint just makes my jaw drop. Lauren Canario is a brave woman.

Quote from: 612Actual on September 16, 2007, 01:35 PM NHFT
Russel wrote - 5. 2:34 PM Hello gang, this is Russell. We're outside of, we're at the bottom of the road up to Ed and Elaine's house, and they've stolen our car now. So if anybody can help us, it would be cool if you called us,

-------------------

The technical term for what the police did is "warrantless seizure", it's also a "warrantless taking" in constitutional terms.

No, the term is "theft"

Quote from: 612Actual on September 16, 2007, 01:35 PM NHFT
I'm in California but I'm sure you can find similar sources in NH

I'm in CA too but thankfully I'm too young to be a lawyer.

Thomas

outatime wrote -  I'm in CA too but thankfully I'm too young to be a lawyer.

Thomas

-----------------

Dunno what that has to do with anything. 

I'm not a lawyer but I want to know what lawyers know, it could and has come in quite handy.  The only two real differences between you and an attorney is that they are called "attorney" and they know the rules.  You can know the rules without being an attorney, and I might add, have more power than them because they PRACTICE law, you don't need to be a member of the State Bar to APPLY law.  Once you're a member of the State Bar you have ring in your nose that the judge can yank whenever they want.  I don't have a ring in my nose.

And yes it's "theft" and there's reasons for the use of the terms "warrantless seizure" and "warrantless taking".  The word "theft" isn't used in the 4th Amendment, "seizure" is.  Use their words against them.

Quote from: 612Actual on September 16, 2007, 01:35 PM NHFT
Russel wrote - 5. 2:34 PM Hello gang, this is Russell. We're outside of, we're at the bottom of the road up to Ed and Elaine's house, and they've stolen our car now. So if anybody can help us, it would be cool if you called us,

-------------------

The technical term for what the police did is "warrantless seizure", it's also a "warrantless taking" in constitutional terms.  Their conduct invoked the 4th Amendment.

You need to verify whether the nature of an expired tag is CRIMINAL or CIVIL.

You also need to verify the NATURE of the police CONTACT.  Which one was it?:

The United States Supreme Court has identified three categories of police contact with persons. The first is referred to as a "consensual encounter" in which there is no restraint on the person's liberty. There need be no objective justification for such an encounter.

*********************************************************** The second type, called "detention,"  involves a seizure of the individual for a limited duration and for limited purposes. A constitutionally acceptable detention can occur "if there is an articulable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime."   (*)
*************************************************************The third type involves seizures in the nature of an arrest, which may occur only if the police have probable cause to arrest the person for a crime. (Florida v. Royer, supra, 460 U.S. 491; Wilson v. Superior Court, supra, 34 Cal.3d 777.)
PEOPLE v. BAILEY , 176 Cal.App.3d 402
[No. H000583. Court of Appeals of California, Sixth Appellate District. December 17,1985.]

The bottom line is the servant seized property without a warrant.  Warrantless arrests and seizures are prima facie illegal.  They are punishing you by depriving your of property BEFORE any deprivation hearing in a court of law where you had an opportunity to examine any witness or evidence.  This is a substantive due process issue.  Police are NOT judges.  They can ACCUSE but they CAN NOT CONVICT, especially at curbside. 

You could file a claim for damages against the cop in their PERSONAL CAPACITY for "acting beyond the scope" of their duty in absence of "authorization".

"'To be valid, administrative action must be within the scope of authority conferred by the enabling statutes. . . .' . . . 'If the court determines that a challenged administrative action was not authorized by or is inconsistent with acts of the Legislature, that action is void.'" (US Ecology, Inc. v. State of California (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 113, 131-132.)
Hamilton v. Gourley (2002) , Cal.App.4th
[No. C038751. Third Dist. Oct. 31, 2002.]

I'm in California but I'm sure you can find similar sources in NH:

Defendant makes a prima facie case of unlawful arrest when he establishes that arrest was made without a warrant, and burden rests on prosecution to show proper justification.
People v. Holguin (1956) 145 Cal.App.2d. 520 [302 P.2d. 635]

When, however, the question of the legality of an arrest or of a search and seizure is raised either at the preliminary hearing or at the trial, the defendant makes a prima facie case when he establishes that an arrest was made without a warrant or that private premises were entered or a search made without a search warrant, and the burden then rests on the prosecution to show proper justification. (Dragna v. White, 45 Cal.2d 469, 471- 472 [289 P.2d 428]; Coverstone v. Davies, 38 Cal.2d 315, 319 [239 P.2d 876]; Hughes v. Oreb, 36 Cal.2d 854, 858 [228 P.2d 550]; People v. Boyles, 45 Cal.2d 652, 656 [290 P.2d 535]; People v. Gorg, supra, 45 Cal.2d 776, 782-783.)
Badillo v. Superior Court , 46 Cal.2d 269
[S. F. No. 19346. In Bank. Feb. 24, 1956.]

(*) Thanks 612Actual.

Is there an "articulable suspicion" for this "about to commit a crime" if the COPs "think" that Lauren was going to set foot ON the Ed Brown property? As indicated below, this is a "far-out"* concept from what could have been the reason* for her to "simply walk away".

According to http://www.criminal-defense-attorney-usa.com/faqs.html of the 3 types of police-citizen encounters, #2 of "investigative stops" is a "seizure" that is "justified" IF there is "reasonable AND articulable suspicion of criminal activity..." (emphasis ADDed).  "...that the person has committed or is about to commit a crime." The latter of articulable suspicion is the equivalent of reasonable "if it is supported by some minimal* level of objective justification". 

The COPs knew that she had driven there in a car that was un-registered, so they took it upon themselves to remove it from the public domain. Did they give her a chance to call AAA to have it removed herself?  No!  As she started walking like maybe to a phone from a neighbor who could have assisted her by letting her use their telephone, they THOUGHT she was going to set foot on the Brown property and so "about to commit a crime".  What if any of us went to a neighbor's land on the west and east of Ed's place along this road to merely LOOK to see what might be happening on Ed's land?  Is that a crime?  Of course not!  The "Thought Police" of George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty Four" is in full force!

Whose land did they abut with their tent and cones? Could the owner thereof have volunteered to have her car pushed onto his/her/their property until Monday, when the car could be properly registered with the D.M.V.? Of course, but if they were not there in person, they must be in that house up the road, and to be arrested for walking by to try to see them!?

I don't like that "minimal"* word above, in that just because she chose to walk toward Ed's place, the COPs can use this an an excuse?! Monier calls it a possible interference by her of their operations for the U.S. Attorney to look into possible charges tomorrow, but really now, who was doing the interfering?! WHY didn't the COPSs just set up their INFORMATION BOOTH, to hand out the red warning sheets, and let the people on their way? THEN that support team up the road could photograph WHOever sets foot on the Brown's driveway as actually in KNOWIng violation of the Court Order for the day. Contempt charges could be lodged, and the persons so charged show up with Bill Gardner himself, under a subpoena duces tacum to bring that certificate of federal non-filing with him from his Office of Secretary of State that it is the Feds who are the "outlaws" to N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 as from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution! Case closed! Feds, telling us to KEEP OUT!, we telling them to GET OUT! Get back to their own deeded property and leave other deeded property owners withIN this state alone, as you have NO jurisdiction here!

Yours truly, Joe Haas

Once upon a time I concerned myself with all of the legal jots and crosses. A long time ago I recognized that police and judges no longer work for us, and more often than not work against us, even against their own law. I have freed myself from the study of things legal.

It's cathartic to fight against that that just plain pisses you off and not to have to worry about every line of the ever increasing bulk of their law.

JosephSHaas wrote - Is there an "articulable suspicion" for this "about to commit a crime" if the COPs "think" that Lauren was going to set foot ON the Ed Brown property? As indicated below, this is a "far-out"* concept from what could have been the reason* for her to "simply walk away".

------------

The court's have continually and consistently held that "reasonable articulable suspicion" of CRIME is necessary for POLICE CONTACT amounting to a SEIZURE or ARREST.  Additionally EVERY SINGLE case states that the "reasonable articulable suspicion" is related to CRIME.  That's why it's IMPERATIVE to KNOW the nature of the allegation. 

Is walking in and of it self a crime?  Is being unshaved a crime?  Is visiting a friend a crime?  How could the cop's possibly KNOW the motive of why someone is going to that house?  Did the suspect pick up a rock and make a "furtive gesture" with it?  Did the suspect spit on the cops?  What many cops are doing across the country on a routine basis is violating their oaths and disparaging and denying the very rights they swore to uphold. 

Re the warrantless taking of a car, is an expired tab a crime?  If not then the cop CAN NOT have reasonable articulable suspicion because NO CRIME has been committed and he MISAPPLIES the State's police power!  This is a "beyond the scope" and "no authorization" matter.  The following is a premier case out of California standing for the proposition.  There's tons of cases both State and fed that hold the same thing:

[2] " 'n order to justify an investigative stop or detention the circumstances known or apparent to the officer must include specific and articulable facts causing him to suspect that (1) some activity relating to crime has taken place or is occurring or about to occur, and (2) the person he intends to stop or detain is involved in that activity. Not only must he subjectively entertain such a suspicion, but it must be objectively reasonable for him to do so: the facts must be such as would cause any reasonable police officer in a like position, drawing when appropriate on his training and experience [citation], to suspect the same criminal activity and the same involvement by the person in question. The corollary to this rule, of course, is that an investigative stop or detention predicated on mere curiosity, rumor, or hunch is unlawful, even though the officer may be acting in complete good faith. [Citations.]' " (In re James D. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 903 , 914 [239 Cal.Rptr. 663, 741 P.2d 161]; cf. Scott v. United States (1978) 436 U.S. 128, 138 [56 L.Ed.2d 168, 178, 98 S.Ct. 1717].)
People v. Renteria , 2 Cal.App.4th 440
[No. B055019. Second Dist., Div. Six. Jan 7, 1992.]

JosephSHaas wrote - ...in that just because she chose to walk toward Ed's place, the COPs can use this an an excuse?!

-------------

Get used to it, the cops, or anyone else for that matter can accuse.  However:

CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE

520.  The party claiming that a person is guilty of crime or wrongdoing has the burden of proof on that issue.

It's the same everywhere because the justice system in this country is founded on that principle. 

The cops have to carry the bags of bricks until they PROVE you're guilty of their ALLEGATION.  They have to articulate the "elements" of the ALLEGED "crime".  If they can't and you can establish that they "acted beyond the scope" of their duty because they had NO AUTHORIZATION to apply the State's police power to NONcriminal activity then they are liable in damages in their PERSONAL CAPACITY.  They were acting "under color" of authority and they kissed their immunity good bye.

Not to defend the cops' behavior in any way, but FYI, I got pulled over for expired registration last year, and the cop did say that he could impound my car for that.  He was "nice" and "let me off" with a $100 ticket.   >:(

Quote from: Friday on September 16, 2007, 05:43 PM NHFT
Not to defend the cops' behavior in any way, but FYI, I got pulled over for expired registration last year, and the cop did say that he could impound my car for that.  He was "nice" and "let me off" with a $100 ticket.   >:(

Hmm...they must have needed some more handcuffs in the local PD more than they needed to impound your car :P

None of us are truly safe. A legislature is in session.

Was the pamphlet a how-to guide to bullying for cops, Lauren?  ::)

Quote from: 612Actual on September 16, 2007, 05:18 PM NHFT

... an investigative stop or detention predicated on mere curiosity, rumor, or hunch(*) is unlawful, even though the officer may be acting in complete good faith[/b][/i][/u][/color]. [Citations.]' " (In re James D. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 903 , 914 [239 Cal.Rptr. 663, 741 P.2d 161]; cf. Scott v. United States (1978) 436 U.S. 128, 138 [56 L.Ed.2d 168, 178, 98 S.Ct. 1717].)
People v. Renteria , 2 Cal.App.4th 440
[No. B055019. Second Dist., Div. Six. Jan 7, 1992.]

Thanks again 612Actual,

The key word in that quote from you above is "hunch"(*), defined as a premonition or warning in advance, foreboding.

Marshal Monier had advised us all to NOT attempt to attend the concert, and so gave this advance "warning" to us as an "omen" of ill portend first by way of his communication of such to the newspaper reporters who did write it into their stories with his quote, and then directly to us by way of like the red-letter day.  Technically this warning was a "threatening likelihood of" something that MIGHT or WILL happen, like IF you step foot on the property THAT day, then they will see to it that you will not only be photographed with a written  invitation through the mail to appear in court for contempt=of-court, but that these law enforcement officers will in-turn be transformed into rule enforcement officers, as in the rule by judge to STAY AWAY!  from private property!?

I like your statement in the next reply of to have them "articulate the 'elements' of the ALLEGED 'crime'." There was no paperwork of an arrest, and so this detention for them to CONTINUE their thinking-up of what maybe they might be able to charge her with, is so ludicrous and "laughable because of obvious absurdity". Absurd: ridiculously incongruous (In-appropriate; out of place: yeah! like "they"/the Feds are out of their place alright, ONE STEP BEYOND the borders of their property onto state lands withOUT authority, as they are "Not harmonious" with their own U.S. Constitution that they take an oath of office to support, and in particular Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 over to N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 with NO federal filing! As Leonard Nimoy, the actor as Spock in "Star Trek" would say: completely "illogical".  And back to the word absurd: un-reasonable.  So there! Lauren's attorney ought to have a "field day" alright since they "acted beyond the scope" of their duty, withOUT authorization "to apply the State's police power to NONcriminal activity then they are liable in damages in their PERSONAL CAPACITY.  They were acting 'under color' of authority and they kiss their immunity good bye."

Good luck, J.S.H.

Quote from: Kat Kanning on September 16, 2007, 08:31 PM NHFT
Was the pamphlet a how-to guide to bullying for cops, Lauren?  ::)

Only for those who can read above the second grade level.

Friday wrote - Not to defend the cops' behavior in any way, but FYI, I got pulled over for expired registration last year, and the cop did say that he could impound my car for that.  He was "nice" and "let me off" with a $100 ticket.

---------------------

The reason the cop has DISCRETION not to take your car is because the Legislature must have provided the authorization for his behavior.  However, notwithstanding the fact that they MAY impound it, it's still a WARRANTLESS TAKING/SEIZURE which invokes the 4th Amendment.  You're being punished BEFORE you've had any hearing to determine whether you did anything wrong.

Again, an ALLEGATION isn't a CONVICTION.  Cops ARE NOT judicial officers and CAN NOT CONVICT you of their ALLEGATION. 

Now the kick in the head part is that when you went to the DMV to ASK for what the DMV was offering and you ACCEPTED their TERMS & CONDITIONS, when you registered YOUR PROPERTY (car) you PERFECTED a SECURITY INTEREST in YOUR PROPERTY with the State.  In other words, you CONVEYED and INTEREST to the State which under the TERMS & CONDITIONS they could recover in the event that you breached your agreement. 

You need to verify whether an expired tag is in fact a crime.  If it's not then what the hell is a POLICE OFFICER doing applying the State's police power to alleged CIVIL wrong doing? That's a Separation of Powers Doctrine issue because the Legislature HAS NOT AUTHORIZED the police to apply the State's police power to NONcriminal activity, and when they do they CREATE LEGISLATION which is not only a violation of their oath but also the Separation of Powers Doctrine.  It's imperative that people understand the NATURE of the conduct being called into question by police officers because it has everything to do with JURISDICTION and if they don't have JURISDICTION then they BREAK THE LAW when they act beyond their AUTHORIZED DUTY, it's a trespass.

Quote from: Scott Roth on September 16, 2007, 05:53 PM NHFT
Glad to hear that everyone is"reasonably safe" for now.

Yup, like when the goon-squad is "sound" asleep that is, as/because their "sound thinking" or "with reason" must have been altered by their "bog myrtle" cocktail right before they set up the roadblock.  >:D

This reminds me of "The Eiger Sanction" movie of 1975 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072926/  with Clint Eastwood and George Kennedy with that order: "to execute with EXTREME prejudice". Emphasis ADDed for to be "reasonable" one must NOT be excessive or extreme.

Like I said above, I think that a littler "Berserker" juice was taken BEFORE their set-up of camp on Center of Town Road, and that their "flying canoe" is heading out of town tonight!  8)

J.S.H.

On a daily basis people's possessions are being seized without a warrant by police before they've had their day in court.  James Otis advocated against Writs of Assistance which were general warrants greater in scope than anything currently being issued by courts today.  General warrants are an abomination to the concept of freedom the Founders envisioned and established and anathema to the right of absolute ownership of property to which one may not be deprived unless by due process of law.   Again, what's happening in this country on an hourly basis is that our servants are taking peoples property without ANY warrant.  Perhaps it would be a good idea to revisit an old idea which if it was valid then, it's certainly valid now, maybe even more so.


We the people of California, grateful to Almighty; God for our freedom: in order to secure its blessings, do establish this Constitution.


All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty: acquiring, possessing and protecting property: and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.             
George Santayana


    The "Writs of Assistance" were general warrants allowing officials to search for smuggled material within any suspected premises. James Otis was Advocate-General when the legality of these warrents was attacked, but promptly resigned his office when called upon to defend that legality. The Boston merchants then retained him as their counsel to oppose the writs before the Superior Court of Massachusetts. Otis refused the fee they offered, saying that in such a cause he despised all fees. In a five-hour speech, which was witnessed by a young John Adams, Otis argued that the writs were unconstitutional. He based his case on the rights guaranteed in English common law.

    MAY it please your Honors: I was desired by one of the court to look into the books, and consider the question now before them concerning Writs of Assistance. I have accordingly considered it, and now appear not only in obedience to your order, but likewise in behalf of the inhabitants of this town, who have presented another petition, and out of regard to the liberties of the subject. And I take this opportunity to declare that whether under a fee or not (for in such a cause as this I despise a fee) I will to my dying day oppose, with all the powers and faculties God has given me, all such instruments of slavery on the one hand and villainy on the other as this Writ of Assistance is.

    It appears to me the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law-book. I must therefore beg your Honors' patience and attention to the whole range of an argument that may perhaps appear uncommon in many things, as well as to points of learning that are more remote and unusual, that the whole tendency of my design may the more easily be perceived, the conclusions better descend, and the force of them be better felt. I shall not think much of my pains in this cause, as I engaged in it from principle.

    I was solicited to argue this cause as Advocate-General; and, because I would not, I have been charged with desertion from my office. To this charge I can give a very sufficient answer. I renounced that office and I argue this cause from the same principle; and I argue it with the greater pleasure, as it is in favor of British liberty, at a time when we hear the greatest monarch upon earth declaring from his throne that he glories in the name of Briton and that the privileges of his people are dearer to him than the most valuable prerogatives of his crown; and as it is in opposition to a kind of power, the exercise of which in former periods of history cost one king of England his head and another his throne. I have taken more pains in this cause than I ever will take again, although my engaging in this and another popular cause has raised much resentment. But I think I can sincerely declare that I cheerfully submit myself to every odious name for conscience' sake; and from my soul I despise all those whose guilt, malice, or folly has made them my foes. Let the consequences be what they will, I am determined to proceed. The only principles of public conduct that are worthy of a gentleman or a man are to sacrifice estate, ease, health, and applause, and even life, to the sacred calls of his country.

    These manly sentiments, in private life, make good citizens; in public life, the patriot and the hero. I do not say that, when brought to the test, I shall be invincible. I pray God I may never be brought to the melancholy trial; but, if ever I should, it will then be known how far I can reduce to practice principles which I know to be founded in truth. In the meantime I will proceed to the subject of this writ.

    Your Honors will find in the old books concerning the office of a justice of the peace precedents of general warrants to search suspected houses. But in more modern books you will find only special warrants to search such and such houses, specially named, in which the complainant has before sworn that he suspects his goods are concealed; and will find it adjudged that special warrants only are legal. In the same manner I rely on it, that the writ prayed for in this petition, being general, is illegal. It is a power that places the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer. I say I admit that special Writs of Assistance, to search special places, may be granted to certain persons on oath; but I deny that the writ now prayed for can be granted, for I beg leave to make some observations on the writ itself, before I proceed to other Acts of Parliament.

    In the first place, the writ is universal, being directed "to all and singular justices, sheriffs, constables, and all other officers and subjects"; so that, in short, it is directed to every subject in the King's dominions. Every one with this writ may be a tyrant; if this commission be legal, a tyrant in a legal manner, also, may control, imprison, or murder any one within the realm. In the next place, it is perpetual; there is no return. A man is accountable to no person for his doings. Every man may reign secure in his petty tyranny, and spread terror and desolation around him, until the trump of the Archangel shall excite different emotions in his soul. In the third place, a person with this writ, in the daytime, may enter all houses, shops, etc., at will, and command all to assist him. Fourthly, by this writ not only deputies, etc., but even their menial servants, are allowed to lord it over us. What is this but to have the curse of Canaan with a witness on us: to be the servants of servants, the most despicable of God's creation?

    Now, one of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one's house. A man's house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege. Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court can inquire. Bare suspicion without oath is sufficient.

    This wanton exercise of this power is not a chimerical suggestion of a heated brain. I will mention some facts. Mr. Pew had one of these writs, and, when Mr. Ware succeeded him, he endorsed this writ over to Mr. Ware; so that these writs are negotiable from one officer to another; and so your Honors have no opportunity of judging the persons to whom this vast power is delegated. Another instance is this: Mr. Justice Walley had called this same Mr. Ware before him, by a constable, to answer for a breach of the Sabbath-day Acts, or that of profane swearing. As soon as he had finished, Mr. Ware asked him if he had done. He replied, "Yes." "Well then," said Mr. Ware, "I will show you a little of my power. I command you to permit me to search your house for uncustomed goods" - and went on to search the house from the garret to the cellar; and then served the constable in the same manner!

    But to show another absurdity in this writ: if it should be established, I insist upon it every person, by the 14th Charles Second, has this power as well as the custom-house officers. The words are: "It shall be lawful for any person or persons authorized," etc. What a scene does this open! Every man prompted by revenge, ill-humor, or wantonness to inspect the inside of his neighbor's house, may get a Writ of Assistance. Others will ask it from self-defence; one arbitrary exertion will provoke another, until society be involved in tumult and in blood.

    [The remainder of the speech exists only in the following summary by John Adams:]

    A dissertation on the rights of man in a state of nature. He asserted that every man, merely natural, was an independent sovereign, subject to no law but the law written on his heart and revealed to him by his Maker, in the constitution of his nature and the inspiration of his understanding and his conscience. His right to his life, his liberty, no created being could rightfully contest. Nor was his right to his property less incontestable. The club that he had snapped from a tree, for a staff or for defense, was his own. His bow and arrow were his own; if by a pebble he had killed a partridge or a squirrel, it was his own. No creature, man or beast, had a right to take it from him. If he had taken an eel or a smelt or a sculpin, it was his property. In short, he sported upon this topic with so much wit and humor, and at the same time with so much indisputable truth and reason, that he was not less entertaining than instructive.

    He asserted that these rights were inherent and inalienable. That they never could be surrendered or alienated but by idiots or madmen and all the acts of idiots and lunatics were void and not obligatory, by all the laws of God and man. Nor were the poor Negroes forgotten. Not a Quaker in Philadelphia or Mr. Jefferson in Virginia ever asserted the rights of Negroes in stronger terms. Young as I was and ignorant as I was, I shuddered at the doctrine he taught; and I have all my life shuddered, and still shudder, at the consequences that may be drawn from such premises. Shall we say that the rights of masters and servants clash and can be decided only by force? I adore the idea of gradual abolitions! but who shall decide how fast or how slowly these abolitions shall be made? >From individual independence he proceeded to association. If it was inconsistent with the dignity of human nature to say that men were gregarious animals, like wild geese, it surely could offend no delicacy to say they were social animals by nature, that there were natural sympathies, and, above all, the sweet attraction of the sexes, which must soon draw them together in little groups, and by degrees in larger congregations, for mutual assistance and defense And this must have happened before any formal covenant, by express words or signs, was concluded. When general councils and deliberations commenced, the objects could be no other than the mutual defense and security of every individual for his life, his liberty, and his property. To suppose them to have surrendered these in any other way than by equal rules and general consent was to suppose them idiots or madmen whose acts were never binding. To suppose them surprised by fraud or compelled by force into any other compact, such fraud and such force could confer no obligation. Every man had a right to trample it underfoot whenever he pleased. In short, he asserted these rights to be derived only from nature and the Author of nature; that they were inherent, inalienable, and indefeasible by any laws, pacts, contracts, covenants, or stipulations which man could devise. These principles and these rights were wrought into the English constitution as fundamental laws. And under this head he went back to the old Saxon laws and to Magna Carta and the fifty confirmations of it in Parliament and the executions ordained against the violators of it and the national vengeance which had been taken on them from time to time, down to the Jameses and Charleses, and to the position of rights and the Bill of Rights and the revolution.

    He asserted that the security of these rights to life, liberty, and property had been the object of all those struggles against arbitrary power, temporal and spiritual, civil and political, military and ecclesiastical, in every age. He asserted that our ancestors, as British subjects, and we their descendants, as British subjects, were entitled to all those rights by the British constitution as well as by the law of nature and our provincial character as much as any inhabitant of London or Bristol or any part of England, and were not to be cheated out of them by any phantom of "virtual representation" or any other fiction of law or politics or any monkish trick of deceit and hypocrisy.

    He then examined the Acts of Trade, one by one, and demonstrated that, if they were considered as revenue laws, they destroyed all our security of property, liberty, and life, every right of nature and the English constitution and the charter of the province. Here he considered the distinction between "external and internal taxes," at that time a popular and commonplace distinction. But he asserted that there was no such distinction in theory or upon any principle but "necessity." The necessity that the commerce of the Empire should be under one direction was obvious. The Americans had been so sensible of this necessity that they had connived at the distinction between external and internal taxes, and had submitted to the Acts of Trade as regulations of commerce hut never as taxations or revenue laws. Nor had the British government till now ever dared to attempt to enforce them as taxations or revenue laws.

    The Navigation Act he allowed to be binding upon us because we had consented to it by our own legislature. Here he gave a history of the Navigation Act of the first of Charles II, a plagiarism from Oliver Cromwell. In 1675, after repeated letters and orders from the King, Governor Leverett very candidly informs His Majesty that the law had not been executed because it was thought unconstitutional, Parliament not having authority over us.

    ©1998 National Humanities Institute

    http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/writs.htm

Quote from: 612Actual on September 16, 2007, 11:18 PM NHFT
On a daily basis people's possessions are being seized without a warrant by police before they've had their day in court.  James Otis advocated against Writs of Assistance which were general warrants greater in scope than anything currently being issued by courts today.  General warrants are an abomination to the concept of freedom the Founders envisioned and established and anathema to the right of absolute ownership of property to which one may not be deprived unless by due process of law.   Again, what's happening in this country on an hourly basis is that our servants are taking peoples property without ANY warrant.  Perhaps it would be a good idea to revisit an old idea which if it was valid then, it's certainly valid now, maybe even more so.

Constitution of the State of California, 1849

We the people of California, grateful to Almighty; God for our freedom: in order to secure its blessings, do establish this Constitution.

Article I:  Declaration of Rights

Sec. 1.

All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty: acquiring, possessing and protecting property: and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.             
George Santayana

James Otis: Against Writs of Assistance

February 1761

    The "Writs of Assistance" were general warrants ...

Bare suspicion(*) without oath is sufficient...

       ©1998 National Humanities Institute

    http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/writs.htm

(*) So, in other words the U.S. Supreme Court in the Florida v. Royer case of 19__ you cited in your 1:50 PM reply above wherein "articulable suspicion" is O.K. to detain a person, but when it relates to goods in that bundle of rights to: life, liberty and property, like Otis said in his 5-hour speech, there has to be more than a vague or "bare" suspicion, but an oath? WHERE was the oath then written to not only take the car, but to keep it? Did she get a receipt for it to be held until it be registered with the DMV?

JSH

if anyone knows where lauren is or how to reach her, a sentinel reporter is looking to speak with her ASAP....if you could let her know.

his name's jake and lauren can reach him at 352 1234  ext 1435 

Quote from: DadaOrwell on September 17, 2007, 07:59 AM NHFT
if anyone knows where lauren is or how to reach her, a sentinel reporter is looking to speak with her ASAP....if you could let her know.

his name's jake and lauren can reach him at 352 1234  ext 1435 

She talked to him, thank you.

If it's supposedly illegal to fraternize with federal fugitives, where does that leave Hillary Clinton?

(http://www.wnd.com/images2/ClintonHsu.jpg)

Much LOVE!
I am "fasting" and meditating for all involved.

What are those words from Thomas Jefferson?
If God is just: I pray for my country . . .

If God is just, I pray for the Federal Thugs (from marshal to "judge").
If there is a God, he is already with those who stand for Liberty & Justice.

Mercy be.

We have our car back  ;D

Quote from: Kat Kanning on September 17, 2007, 12:46 PM NHFT
We have our car back  ;D

Did the SOB's clean and wax it?

No way.  Some other guys were working today at the tow place and didn't seem to know that they shouldn't let me have it.

LOL!! ;D 8)

Quote from: Kat Kanning on September 17, 2007, 12:49 PM NHFT
No way.  Some other guys were working today at the tow place and didn't seem to know that they shouldn't let me have it.

:rofl:

We will have our plate straightened out soon ... we are still bowing to the thugs half the time.

In other news ... Lauren Canario is loose on the streets of Keene as we speak ... why do the feds let such a dangerous person stay at large? :)

Quote from: Russell Kanning on September 17, 2007, 01:45 PM NHFT
In other news ... Lauren Canario is loose on the streets of Keene and Winchester as we speak ... why do the feds let such a dangerous person stay at large? :)

Thank goodness they have her camera under lock and key. No telling what kind of mayhem there'd be if that thing was loose on the streets!

Quote from: Kat Kanning on September 17, 2007, 12:46 PM NHFT
We have our car back  ;D

Kat, check it for bugs...all types.  ;)

btw..tell the tow service you will be filing a theft charge against them.

kola

Quote from: Kat Kanning on September 17, 2007, 12:46 PM NHFT
We have our car back  ;D

Yay!  You all are very brave people.  You are heroes.

I hope whoever owns this board is saving all these posts for a future movie deal.  8)

Someone could re-write the lyrics to The Harper Valley PTA song to fit the cause.

Quote from: kola on September 17, 2007, 02:51 PM NHFT
Kat, check it for bugs...all types.  ;)

Seriously, do.

The car had a high tech fed trap in it that we were taking to the Browns.  It was a milk crate with a big "Fed Trap" sign on it and a donut box to place under it.  We just needed a stick to prop up the crate.

Quote from: Kat Kanning on September 17, 2007, 05:07 PM NHFT
The car had a high tech fed trap in it that we were taking to the Browns.  It was a milk crate with a big "Fed Trap" sign on it and a donut box to place under it.  We just needed a stick to prop up the crate.

lol

Quote from: Sheep Fuzzy Wool on September 17, 2007, 03:02 PM NHFT
I hope whoever owns this board is saving all these posts for a future movie deal.  8)

We authorize you to save the contents of  the entire website and make a movie out of it. I might even pay to see it. :)

Quote from: Kat Kanning on September 17, 2007, 05:07 PM NHFT
The car had a high tech fed trap in it that we were taking to the Browns.  It was a milk crate with a big "Fed Trap" sign on it and a donut box to place under it.  We just needed a stick to prop up the crate.

Perhaps I am not the one to post this but......

If you were planning to trap that Monier guy, you would need a milk crate the size of a Winnebago.

Quote from: YixilTesiphon on September 17, 2007, 03:48 PM NHFT

Quote from: kola on September 17, 2007, 02:51 PM NHFT
Kat, check it for bugs...all types.  ;)

Seriously, do.

I'd put the car inside a microwave for at least 30 seconds...at'ed take care'a any federalized bugs  at mit'a crawled in'nar.   :mf_farmer:
On the other hand, I saw an episode of Hogan's Heroes where Hogan knew there was a bug in his barracks.  Hogan planed some sort of shenanigans but I can't remember if Sgt. Schultz saw anything.

Thanks for the encouragement!
Jared, picaro, BrennaFMTV, Brede, Firecracker Joe, Thomas, Ratty Dog, and all well-wishers.  Some days I think I'm just stupid to try these things.  I'm glad you folks appreciate my efforts.
Thank you :blowkiss:

Quote from: TackleTheWorld on September 17, 2007, 11:01 PM NHFT
Thanks for the encouragement!
Jared, picaro, BrennaFMTV, Brede, Firecracker Joe, Thomas, Ratty Dog, and all well-wishers.  Some days I think I'm just stupid to try these things.  I'm glad you folks appreciate my efforts.
Thank you :blowkiss:

Theme Song?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUvEouWA29o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUvEouWA29o)

I'd like to get my camera back.  I think I'll give Monier a call - 603 225 1632

Hmm...how should I phrase this? 
:-X
Well, I think I'll just say, "I'd like to get my camera back".

Quote from: TackleTheWorld on September 18, 2007, 12:07 AM NHFT
I'd like to get my camera back.  I think I'll give Monier a call - 603 225 1632

Hmm...how should I phrase this? 
:-X
Well, I think I'll just say, "I'd like to get my camera back".

Good luck, hardware is hard to replace when you've gotten use to it. :(

-- Brede

Quote from: TackleTheWorld on September 18, 2007, 12:07 AM NHFT
I'd like to get my camera back.  I think I'll give Monier a call - 603 225 1632

Hmm...how should I phrase this? 
:-X
Well, I think I'll just say, "I'd like to get my camera back".

If he says "no", ask him for a copy of the warrant, because you know he wouldn't seize property without any legal authority. Right?

Report it as stolen.

Quote from: Jon Maltz on September 18, 2007, 05:39 AM NHFT
Report it as stolen.

Thief to replace it with seven more.  Small Claims Court?

Public Law 97-280, 96 Statute 1211 of October 4, 1982 = the Year of the Bible for 1983 & beyond, reference= Proverbs 6:30-31.

Joe H.

I love how there needs to be a date on the thread so it doesnt get confused with other arrest threads... awsome..

Glad to hear that all is good with all parties involved.. well except the feds..and the local cops that are assisting them and there immoral work.

Quote from: KBCraig on September 18, 2007, 02:18 AM NHFT

Quote from: TackleTheWorld on September 18, 2007, 12:07 AM NHFT
I'd like to get my camera back.  I think I'll give Monier a call - 603 225 1632

Hmm...how should I phrase this? 
:-X
Well, I think I'll just say, "I'd like to get my camera back".

If he says "no", ask him for a copy of the warrant, because you know he wouldn't seize property without any legal authority. Right?

And a copy of the restraining order that says you cannot visit the Browns. You'll probably get another copy of the red piece of paper.

I like the idea of reporting it stolen, the problem would be filling out the police report in a way that's factual, honest, and doesn't give away the "authority" of those who stole it.

The government must have paperwork for property they seize, and usually your supposed to get a copy of the items seized. Lauren, I'm guessing they skirted this procedure, and you may be able to leverage that against them. Anyone have experience with property seizure procedures?

  My guess is they stole the camera, and will get a sympathetic so called judge (like McAuliffe)
to sign a warrant after the fact.  Kat, I'd get your car searched thoroughly.
The feds may have planted drugs/child porn/GPS beacon via cellphone/Qurans inside. 

We probably have qurans and some communist literature from Caleb already.

Quote from: Russell Kanning on September 18, 2007, 06:32 PM NHFT
We probably have qurans and some communist literature from Caleb already.

I have a Q'ran in my truck. I bought it in Iraq and have just never taken it out.  :P

Quote from: Puke on September 18, 2007, 06:50 PM NHFT

Quote from: Russell Kanning on September 18, 2007, 06:32 PM NHFT
We probably have qurans and some communist literature from Caleb already.

I have a Q'ran in my truck. I bought it in Iraq and have just never taken it out.  :P

Which did you buy in Iraq, your Koran? Or your truck?

Oh my gosh!  I didn't even know all of this had happened, my computer has been messed up so every time I logged on it would only stay connected for a couple of minutes.  I've also been and still am sick as crap but I sat here all day yesterday and tried to fix whatever is wrong with the damn computer and so far so good today.
Lauren I'm so glad your out of jail.  I was going through and reading this thread today and boy am I pissed off.  Who the hell do these cops, marshals whatever think they are?  Now they can just take anyone they want away somewhere for any reason they want and that's okay?  I just read about that guy being tasered at the John Kerry speech too, what the heck is going on?

Anyways I'm glad everybody is okay and that Kat & Russell got their car back.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2261697231309840194&hl=en

Video of the roadblock.  The fat guy who didn't want to be filmed was the guy who threw Russell down at our house.

and then he was nice to me in the elevator when they all knew they were going to let me go ... he joked about John with his guitar

All I kept thinking while watching the faces of those men on the video:

"Gee, I'm just doing my job."

How sad.

great video Kat!

those feds feds look like assholes...and it is actually comical.


..taking their little pictures...and how about the little cocky dickhead handing out flyers? These fuckheads have got nothing better to do?

The keystone cops "live" in NH....now just put some Benny Hill music to the vid and run it in fast motion.

Kola



 

left roughly the following msg with chief alexander at lebanon pd, on 9/17:

"I object to your detention of lauren canario"

Quote from: Kat Kanning on September 19, 2007, 07:48 PM NHFT
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2261697231309840194&hl=en

Video of the roadblock.  The fat guy who didn't want to be filmed was the guy who threw Russell down at our house.

If you freeze at about 2:15 up the road you'll see "sniper hill", the place where green uniformed "peace officers" were stationed. As first mentioned by Facilitator.

got a chance to mention lauren on WTP radio network today ...they asked me to call in this morning

checking on other media coverage to see how it went....

Quote from: kola on September 19, 2007, 09:27 PM NHFT
great video Kat!

Thanks.  I don't actually know who made it and put it up on the internet.  Just passing it along.

We live in a police state.   :'(

Quote from: FTL_Ian on September 20, 2007, 08:45 AM NHFT
We live in a police state.   :'(

Recognizing that it exists is a start. Now lets act.  :)

Do whatever you can...and tell others.

the torch is lit.

kola

Quote from: FTL_Ian on September 20, 2007, 08:45 AM NHFT
We live in a police state.   :'(

I know. When I see those police roadblocks or similar ... my heart sinks .... and they think their behavior is perfectly normal ... even though they would not want to be treated the same way

Quote from: Nicholas Gilman on September 18, 2007, 01:03 PM NHFT
Kat, I'd get your car searched thoroughly.
The feds may have planted drugs/child porn/GPS beacon via cellphone/Qurans inside. 

Check this out: http://www.googleearthstore.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=2-STS

Quote
The Super Trackstick is the perfect tool for individuals, law enforcement and government agencies looking for a way to track anything that moves. The Super Trackstick records its own location, time, date, speed, heading, altitude and temperature at preset intervals. With over 4Mb of memory, it can store months of travel information.
The included magnetic mount makes the Super Trackstick easy to attach and remove from any metal surface.

How it works The Super Trackstick receives signals from twenty four satellites orbiting the earth. With this information, the Trackstick Pro can precisely calculate its own position anywhere on the planet to within fifteen meters.

Where it worksThe Super Trackstick will work anywhere on the planet Earth. Your exact location and the route traveled can be viewed and played back directly within Google Earth™. Everything is included and there are no monthly fees.

Well, this certainly opens broad new vistas of possibility for stalkers.  :P

Quote from: Friday on September 23, 2007, 09:10 PM NHFT

Quote from: Nicholas Gilman on September 18, 2007, 01:03 PM NHFT
Kat, I'd get your car searched thoroughly.
The feds may have planted drugs/child porn/GPS beacon via cellphone/Qurans inside. 

Check this out: http://www.googleearthstore.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=2-STS

Quote
The Super Trackstick is the perfect tool for individuals, law enforcement and government agencies looking for a way to track anything that moves. The Super Trackstick records its own location, time, date, speed, heading, altitude and temperature at preset intervals. With over 4Mb of memory, it can store months of travel information.
The included magnetic mount makes the Super Trackstick easy to attach and remove from any metal surface.

How it works The Super Trackstick receives signals from twenty four satellites orbiting the earth. With this information, the Trackstick Pro can precisely calculate its own position anywhere on the planet to within fifteen meters.

Where it worksThe Super Trackstick will work anywhere on the planet Earth. Your exact location and the route traveled can be viewed and played back directly within Google Earth™. Everything is included and there are no monthly fees.

Well, this certainly opens broad new vistas of possibility for stalkers.  :P

Duct tape them to the underside of cop cars.

EDIT: Actually, they're magnetic. That opens up all sorts of possibilities.

If only they were cheaper...all federal vehicles in NH could be tagged...

Rather than fantasize about all of the tricks we can play on "the man" I think our goal should be to get their government cars parked for good so they can go home in peace to be with their families free from fear of people busting their doors down.

Just an opinion.

Are you still paying them to kick doors in?

Quote from: coffeeseven on September 24, 2007, 08:06 AM NHFT
Are you still paying them to kick doors in?

Not me.

By the way, have you seen my latest thread? http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=10944.0

Quote from: YixilTesiphon on September 23, 2007, 11:26 PM NHFT
EDIT: Actually, they're magnetic. That opens up all sorts of possibilities.

like one being stuck to the plate in my hEad

I'm wondering whether USC Title 18, Section 241 might apply:

QuoteConspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured--

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Seems to me you have the right to walk or ride along a section of public highway. The court order looked bogus, so you may well have the right to enter the Brown's property for a little entertainment.

And that disguise part--I wonder if that includes ghillie suits and camo paint?

Quote from: yuri on September 25, 2007, 12:45 AM NHFT
I'm wondering whether USC Title 18, Section 241 might apply:

Yes - if you recognize "code" as legitimate law.

There's USC, UCC, and the tax code. Then there's state statute, county code, city code, municipal ordinances and separate rules to govern our parks. Enough pseudo law out there to choke a horse. Although I have never personally seen a horse choke on a law, I am.

And let us not forget out brothers and sisters at the FCC who say they are the controlling body for all transmissions - including the light from the Sun.

Quote from: yuri on September 25, 2007, 12:45 AM NHFT
I'm wondering whether USC Title 18, Section 241 might apply:

QuoteConspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured--

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Seems to me you have the right to walk or ride along a section of public highway. The court order looked bogus, so you may well have the right to enter the Brown's property for a little entertainment.

And that disguise part--I wonder if that includes ghillie suits and camo paint?

Welcome Yuri and thanks for the bitterly ironic legal info.

They were disguised, as peace officers.
Yes, That would be useful... if they obeyed their own laws.

Have they given your camera back?

Quote from: Kat Kanning on September 25, 2007, 10:42 AM NHFT
Have they given your camera back?

No :crybaby2:

Camera theft update!

A process server brought me a search warrant this morning, for my camera.  It describes the camera, commands Andre J. La Bier to search it on or before Sept 28, and was signed by James R. Muirhead on Sept 18. 

I can't find any reason why the camera should be stolen on the paperwork.  For example, "this camera should be seized because it is evidence of a someone getting kidnapped".  No crimes are mentioned on the warrant. 

The warrant does say the camera was "obtained" from me on Sept 15 - before the warrant existed.  Of course, warrants are supposed to describe the thing being seized, and you can't describe it until you have it in the evidence locker. Hmmm...

That's bizarre. How do you search a camera? You can search the tape by looking to see if any crimes have been recorded, but tapes are fleeting things. They're easily swapped out, erased, recorded over, etc.

I guess they didn't include the affidavit stating what they believed was on the camera/tape, the basis for that belief, etc.

???

Reading Rule 41 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule41.htm) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, I don't find any mention of post-dated search warrants.

show lauren the law

Silly porcupine, don't you know laws are for us serfs to follow.  They're not for nice government officials.

Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 02, 2007, 12:18 PM NHFT
show lauren the law

;D

I wish I'd thought of this earlier, but Lauren should have filed a theft report with the police at the time. I know she's not a big fan of making use of police services, but in the case of the Feds, it's like fighting fire with fire.  ;D They absolutely did steal her camera. This is truly absurd.  >:(

I was browsing through the NH highway statutes, and there seem to be a few that are unconstitutional on their face.  For example,

QuoteSection 265:4 Disobeying an Officer. --
    I. No person, while driving or in charge of a vehicle, shall:
          (d) Refuse, on demand of such officer, to sign his name in the presence of such officer;

So the officer walks up to you and says, "This is a check for $10,000 made out to cash, sign here."  If you don't sign, you've committed a misdemeanor. 

Or this:

Quote265:84 Implied Consent of Driver of Motor Vehicle to Submit to Testing to Determine Alcohol Concentration.
    Any person who drives a vehicle upon the ways of this state shall be deemed to have given consent to physical tests and examinations....

You can't even withdraw permission by virtue of the fact that you're dead:

Quote265:91 Incapacity to Give Consent.
    Any person who is dead, unconscious or who is otherwise in a condition rendering him incapable of refusing shall be deemed not to have withdrawn the consent

This is a very slippery slope.  For example: "By virtue of the fact that you attend a government funded school, you are deemed to consent to _______ (fill in the blank)."

Unfortunately there are many instances where we the people give implied consent when signing documents such as drivers license, vehicle registration, using the federal postal service, when you sign the dotted line, you voluntarily enter contract with the state. buyer beware, they then make the rules, and you already agreed to them by signing. My next goal is to figure out how to give back their licenses, and reclaim my liberty to use the common areas. and beat them in court when stopped.

Quote from: slimpickens on October 10, 2007, 10:20 AM NHFT
Unfortunately there are many instances where we the people give implied consent when signing documents such as drivers license, vehicle registration, using the federal postal service, when you sign the dotted line, you voluntarily enter contract with the state. buyer beware, they then make the rules, and you already agreed to them by signing. My next goal is to figure out how to give back their licenses, and reclaim my liberty to use the common areas. and beat them in court when stopped.

Revocation. I remember an old timer telling of a Revocation process.
I am sorry to not be able to know more.