Over my speeding ticket.
I don't know what to do.
Plead my case and do what they say so they'll go away... until next time.
Or not. :-\
Update: I guess I'm not going to consent
this could be a good event to do camera panning civil dis (which otherwise might not be that great of an act)...the perfect event in fact since the usual videographer is tied up being the defendant!
you dont need to necessarily pick between full cooperation and full resistance...you could do what sam does....ask questions, etc.
Quote from: CoconutI don't know what to do.
If you decide to go to court, we will be there with you.
Quote from: Coconut on September 03, 2008, 12:04 PM NHFT
Over my speeding ticket.
I don't know what to do.
Plead my case and do what they say so they'll go away... until next time.
Or not. :-\
to show up?
to plead a case?
what case? how?
do what they say ... may depend on what they say
or not :)
Quote from: DadaOrwell on September 03, 2008, 12:20 PM NHFT
this could be a good event to do camera panning civil dis (which otherwise might not be that great of an act)...the perfect event in fact since the usual videographer is tied up being the defendant!
So would you come and do it?
Quote from: Russell Kanning on September 03, 2008, 01:39 PM NHFT
to show up?
to plead a case?
what case? how?
do what they say ... may depend on what they say
or not :)
Wow, Russell sure is helpful! ;) ;D
Is this an arraignment?
Did you sign the ticket?
http://adventuresinlegalland.com
As Sam points out, you have to understand the nature and cause of the proceedings against you in order to plead.
If they ask if you understand, say no, and ask a question back. Marc Stevens has scripts for sale and Sam may have a modified script he can share with you.
Here's one of Marc's videos:
Quote from: Coconut on September 03, 2008, 12:04 PM NHFT
Over my speeding ticket.
I don't know what to do.
Plead my case and do what they say so they'll go away... until next time.
Or not. :-\
Ok, I'm really really confused here. Coconut, why did you write yourself a ticket? Couldn't you go easy on yourself next time, and let yourself off with a verbal warning?
When did you write yourself this ticket? When are you demanding you plead? and who is they?
On your ticket that you wrote, did you spell your name in all capitol letters or with upper and lower case? How do you write your name normally? Which one is you? Would it be important that your ticket have the right name on it?
This might be helpful to listen to:
tp://mp3.wtprn.com/Beiter/0809/20080902_Tue_Beiter2.mp3 (http://mp3.wtprn.com/Beiter/0809/20080902_Tue_Beiter2.mp3)
And also this:
http://xml.wtprn.com/Beiter/0808/20080820_Wed_Beiter1.mp3 (http://xml.wtprn.com/Beiter/0808/20080820_Wed_Beiter1.mp3)
and
http://xml.wtprn.com/Beiter/0808/20080820_Wed_Beiter2.mp3 (http://xml.wtprn.com/Beiter/0808/20080820_Wed_Beiter2.mp3)
It's going to make your head spin. . .
Quote from: FTL_Ian on September 03, 2008, 05:34 PM NHFT
Is this an arraignment?
Did you sign the ticket?
http://adventuresinlegalland.com
no. It's a trial. NH doesn't require you to sign the tickets when you get them. They just give them to you. I did sign when I sent my plea of not guilty I think.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on September 03, 2008, 05:38 PM NHFT
As Sam points out, you have to understand the nature and cause of the proceedings against you in order to plead.
If they ask if you understand, say no, and ask a question back. Marc Stevens has scripts for sale and Sam may have a modified script he can share with you.
The ticket comes with 3 boxes to check and mail back. I checked Not Guilty and sent it back to them.
I've watched Sam's things and followed his cases. The bottom line is that courts and judges will do whatever they want, and I don't have time to plan for every action they may take in that room. Sam tries to work the fringes of the system to show it as illegitimate, which it is, and I can show that in 60 seconds in a courtroom:
1. The judge and officer work for the same company
2. If the defendant and plaintiff are supposed to be on an even field, why does he have all his weapons in the room and I will have a voice recorder stripped from me?
The court will continue to run, and will do to me whatever they want to. I'd like to be in and out without going through some loopyloop of questions meant to delay them. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I should be putting more effort into slowing them down and holding someone accountable.
The thing I liked about Marc's video that you just posted was the fact that there was no personal injury. If I am indeed going to resist, that is a point I was going to bring up. I think I may use a "right to revolution" approach. They need to prove that their speed limit is not arbitrary in order for me to not have the right to resist, as I see it.
I go back and forth on this in my head literally every hour.
make your stand, coconut.
stick to your principals. you'll feel better after.
If you are interested in challenging it, take a few days off of work. Tell your employer that you have a speeding ticket (or a legal 'issue' if you want to be vague) that you are fighting, and you may lose and you may be arrested. Give someone who is not likely to get arrested your workplace number just in case they have to call you off due to an arrest.
That reduces your risk somewhat. Then make it an act of civil disobediance.
In my registration trial the only thing I asked the state police guy who ticketed me was why he originally pulled me over, and if that was a safety violation. I then commented that he pulled me over for a safety violation but ticketed me for a revenue issue. I didn't really have much of a trial. I was firm that I would not pay any money to the gov't, and that became the issue.
I encourage you to do the same or similar. But I will try to be there no matter what you choose to do. :)
Quote from: bigmike on September 03, 2008, 08:46 PM NHFT
make your stand, coconut.
stick to your principals. you'll feel better after.
Could you do it?
I have a job, money, a business I am trying to run. Me doing this won't change the world. We can't change anything by compromise either though. Nothing will change until it's more important to us than our jobs, money, businesses, and comfort.
Thanks David. I won't ask that anyone go if I'm just going to beg their forgiveness.
I'm not worried about my job security. They'll give me the days off, however, I'm always driven to get all my work done there. Losing a few days will hinder that. I guess it's a personal issue.
Quote from: Coconut on September 03, 2008, 07:37 PM NHFT
The ticket comes with 3 boxes to check and mail back. I checked Not Guilty and sent it back to them.
I've watched Sam's things and followed his cases. The bottom line is that courts and judges will do whatever they want, and I don't have time to plan for every action they may take in that room. Sam tries to work the fringes of the system to show it as illegitimate, which it is, and I can show that in 60 seconds in a courtroom:
1. The judge and officer work for the same company
2. If the defendant and plaintiff are supposed to be on an even field, why does he have all his weapons in the room and I will have a voice recorder stripped from me?
The court will continue to run, and will do to me whatever they want to. I'd like to be in and out without going through some loopyloop of questions meant to delay them. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I should be putting more effort into slowing them down and holding someone accountable.
The thing I liked about Marc's video that you just posted was the fact that there was no personal injury. If I am indeed going to resist, that is a point I was going to bring up. I think I may use a "right to revolution" approach. They need to prove that their speed limit is not arbitrary in order for me to not have the right to resist, as I see it.
I go back and forth on this in my head literally every hour.
Coconut,
I'm learning that UCC may be underlying the court procedures to fill in the gaps. I believe it's based around offer and acceptance. Consider this example:
Quote
COCONUT! You have violated my posting statutes by using the phrase "head literally every hour" and are subject to a fine of $130. You have the option of pleading Gulity, Not Guilty, or No Context. Please decide which one. You are here by ordered to return the form with your selection within 10 days.
If you sent a reply and checked on of my boxes, you just agreed to violating the statute, and participating in my process. I think it would make more sense to send a letter back saying,
QuoteI'm Coconut, and I don't know who your looking for here (COCONUT!), but for my time and effort charge $325 per hour. If it's me you seek, please correct the spelling of my name, and return with a $5,000 retainer so that I may fill with your order.
However, if you sent back a reply that said, uuuh, okay SamIam, here's your signed form with not guilty checked, then you just fell for it hook line and sinker. Make sense? If I sent you an offer, what options do you think I would send you on MY return form? The options in my best interest or yours? (given I'm trying to take your money)
Once you agree to my distorted view of reality, your rights are of little consequence to me. By consenting to my forms and processes (silence is consent), you have let me define reality. Does that make sense?
The UCC Connection:
http://www.geocities.com/three_strikes_legal/ucc_connection.htm (http://www.geocities.com/three_strikes_legal/ucc_connection.htm)
Quote from: SamIam on September 03, 2008, 10:01 PM NHFT
However, if you sent back a reply that said, uuuh, okay SamIam, here's your signed form with not guilty checked, then you just fell for it hook line and sinker.
Oh well. I guess the "MUST RESPOND" and "A PENALTY WILL APPLY" made me fall for sending back their notice.
I didn't agree to abide by any ruling of some court or agree that I've violated anyone.
If I don't consent to their correspondence from the beginning, do you suggest I don't take the paper from the officer's hand in the first place?
No need for despair, as it's a learning process. Look at what I have gone though to get to this point! : ;D
Yes, If I made you an offer and said if you don't respond, then x will happen. The way I understand it, you have to respond, but by no means should you only consider the options I present to you. Learn what options are available to you.
By signing and returning their form, you just stepped into their cage, under their rules, etc. You have agreed to a lot more than you think.
You can refuse the offer (complaint), and the police will threaten to take you to jail. If someone does that, then they are threatening harm, and you can sign it: Under Duress, {Coconut's Signature}.
Only If it's under Duress and the threat was verbalized, then it's not a valid complaint, and you can challenge it later, by sending it back with the appropriate UCC words. There a guy that does this (and has sued government agents many times, and he talks about it on The Rule of Law.
Then there was a great show with a guy who talked about traffic court and by signing their form, answering are you cocunut? etc. you have testified, and then you can be compelled to testify. Hour 3 of the show covers some of the traffic ticket issues, but all 4 hours are great. I've started to understand how they ignore their constitution and case law. It's quite amazing, but a bit technical with the language and procedures. http://mp3.wtprn.com/Kelton/0808/20080829_Fri_Kelton3.mp3 (http://mp3.wtprn.com/Kelton/0808/20080829_Fri_Kelton3.mp3)
That link is only for hour 3, but if you listen to all 4 hours of that show, you will hear the stories of people who are successfully defending tickets, filing criminal charges against the public officials, and even getting settlements. It was very interesting, and I've ordered the training from jursdictionary.com. I'm working though it now to understand how the legal proceedings work. The 8-29 show was long, but very very good. Here's the archive listing: http://mp3.wtprn.com/Kelton08.html (http://mp3.wtprn.com/Kelton08.html)
Again, technical, long and can be very confusing, but these guys know what they are talking about. This is the path I'm going to head down, and gain greater knowledge.
One thing I learned, if the state starts the fight, then you can sue them. If you file a suit, then they do have immunity.
Here's a better link for the UCC Connection: http://usa-the-republic.com/revenue/ucc%20connection.html (http://usa-the-republic.com/revenue/ucc%20connection.html)
There's a lot of BS to learn, but I think this will lead to an effective way to convince the bureaucrats to leave you alone. It's probably going to take suing the city a few times, and putting some of the bureaucrats in jail. I'm debating how do fold this into my cases.
Quote from: Coconut on September 03, 2008, 10:34 PM NHFT
If I don't consent to their correspondence from the beginning, do you suggest I don't take the paper from the officer's hand in the first place?
I have a feeling that might get you arrested. Cops don't do well with people who don't follow their orders. I remember seeing a Youtube vid last year where a guy got tased after he refused to sign a ticket. You never know when you have a rogue cop on your hands.
For future reference, I like Sam's suggestion of sending them a letter in response to the ticket. It creates a dialog with them without consenting to their rules. Or if your feeling brave, ignore the ticket. If they come get you, question the legitimacy of the charge at that time.
But for now, because you've sent their ticket back, to them it appears you have consented. If you want to put up a fight, maybe try the David route, it worked for him, right? Is it the same courtroom? It'd be interesting to see how they handle that stance a second time.
It mostly worked for me. I was convicted, but I paid no money to the gov't, and they apparantly decided to not try to force me.
I would never pressure someone to engage in civil disobedience. We all have our comfort level. The state can be really intimidating and has a lot of potential violence on their side. If a robber holds a gun on you and asks for your wallet, a lot of people would hand their wallet over because they value their life more and I can't fault them for that even while I really admire the person who chooses to fight back.
On a practical note, if you go to court they usually lower the fine. /shrug
Quote from: peacenic on September 04, 2008, 12:53 AM NHFT
I have a feeling that might get you arrested. Cops don't do well with people who don't follow their orders. . .
For future reference, I like Sam's suggestion of sending them a letter in response to the ticket. It creates a dialog with them without consenting to their rules.
Or if your feeling brave, ignore the ticket. If they come get you, question the legitimacy of the charge at that time.
But for now, because you've sent their ticket back, to them it appears you have consented. If you want to put up a fight, maybe try the David route, it worked for him, right? Is it the same courtroom? It'd be interesting to see how they handle that stance a second time.
By ignoring the offer, you agree to the terms. Questioning the legitimacy at that point is pointless, because you have already agreed by accepting the offer (though your lack of a response).
I would would want to send the complaint back but with my offer that disputes the claim.
Humm, I wonder why they only offer a negative plea of guilty, no contest, or not guilty instead of a plea of innocence? :) This is quite a fascinating deception indeed.
I love your "Illegitimate in 60 seconds" strategy. The problem will be to get your 60 seconds.
The judge is a fast-talking, must-dominate-the-discourse type. If you want things to go quickly, he will oblige. He will try to rush you to testimony and cross examination where he has the most discretion on what is being said. The trick Marc and Sam use is to speak before the court officially starts. That's why the court pressures you to plead immediately.
Anyway, if you do get to speak and get these points in, I will reimburse you for any fine.
1. The judge and officer (and the prosecutor) work for the same company
2. The plaintiff has a weapon
3. I had a voice recorder stripped from me
4. Their speed limit arbitrary.
Quote from: Coconut on September 03, 2008, 02:48 PM NHFT
Quote from: DadaOrwell on September 03, 2008, 12:20 PM NHFT
this could be a good event to do camera panning civil dis (which otherwise might not be that great of an act)...the perfect event in fact since the usual videographer is tied up being the defendant!
So would you come and do it?
i'd say there's a 60 percent chance i'd do it (the camera panning disobedience) if i'm not already arrested by that time. i would make it part of the puppeteering campaign and break some other bad laws outside the courtroom before or after. thus far this looks like a great idea but flaws always appear as you look closer.
once i get arrested as part of this civil disobedience campaign, i will end it and probably no longer be available for civil dis.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on September 03, 2008, 05:38 PM NHFT
As Sam points out, you have to understand the nature and cause of the proceedings against you in order to plead.
is that part of nh law?
Quote from: Coconut on September 03, 2008, 07:37 PM NHFT
Quote from: FTL_Ian on September 03, 2008, 05:38 PM NHFT
As Sam points out, you have to understand the nature and cause of the proceedings against you in order to plead.
If they ask if you understand, say no, and ask a question back. Marc Stevens has scripts for sale and Sam may have a modified script he can share with you.
The ticket comes with 3 boxes to check and mail back. I checked Not Guilty and sent it back to them.
I've watched Sam's things and followed his cases. The bottom line is that courts and judges will do whatever they want, and I don't have time to plan for every action they may take in that room. Sam tries to work the fringes of the system to show it as illegitimate, which it is, and I can show that in 60 seconds in a courtroom:
1. The judge and officer work for the same company
2. If the defendant and plaintiff are supposed to be on an even field, why does he have all his weapons in the room and I will have a voice recorder stripped from me?
The court will continue to run, and will do to me whatever they want to. I'd like to be in and out without going through some loopyloop of questions meant to delay them. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I should be putting more effort into slowing them down and holding someone accountable.
The thing I liked about Marc's video that you just posted was the fact that there was no personal injury. If I am indeed going to resist, that is a point I was going to bring up. I think I may use a "right to revolution" approach. They need to prove that their speed limit is not arbitrary in order for me to not have the right to resist, as I see it.
I go back and forth on this in my head literally every hour.
i like coconut's thinking here. keep it simple. i dont like the idea of questioning authorities over capital letters that just seems frivolus.
if the judge accuses you of delaying other cases in the room, volunteer to have your case heard last. maybe volunteer for that before it even starts. beg the judge not to hold other people hostage. make sure the hostages hear you.
Quote from: Coconut on September 03, 2008, 09:32 PM NHFT
Quote from: bigmike on September 03, 2008, 08:46 PM NHFT
make your stand, coconut.
stick to your principals. you'll feel better after.
Could you do it?
I have a job, money, a business I am trying to run. Me doing this won't change the world. We can't change anything by compromise either though. Nothing will change until it's more important to us than our jobs, money, businesses, and comfort.
Thanks David. I won't ask that anyone go if I'm just going to beg their forgiveness.
I'm not worried about my job security. They'll give me the days off, however, I'm always driven to get all my work done there. Losing a few days will hinder that. I guess it's a personal issue.
not only could i do it, i plan to >:D
i know it's not the easiest thing to do and i don't want you to think that i was trying to put any additional pressure on your decision. you have to do what's right for you.
that being said, you have a HUGE support system here that will back you up. i don't think i have to apologize for saying i'm speaking for most of the readers here when i say we support you.
will you making a stand change the outcome? probably not. but you stuck to your principals and it will hopefully be recorded and broadcast for others to see. i wouldn't underestimate the importance of that alone.
if you watched the second of mark's videos about making an officer prove he is not competent to testify, that alone is a small victory and you'll probably have fun doing it.
ok can someone help get me started on the process of obtaining permission to videotape 9/26?
what do I need to do? remember i want to at least try and comply with all their protocols except the camera panning ban.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on September 03, 2008, 05:38 PM NHFT
As Sam points out, you have to understand the nature and cause of the proceedings against you in order to plead.
It really is hard to "plead" in their courts ... you never know what they are really doing.
Then they just "plead" for you.
Quote from: Coconut on September 03, 2008, 09:32 PM NHFT
I have a job, money, a business I am trying to run. Me doing this won't change the world. We can't change anything by compromise either though. Nothing will change until it's more important to us than our jobs, money, businesses, and comfort.
It is a series of steps that changes the world .... you thinking about this, and not just paying, is already changing the world ... a little bit.
They tried to take my license for getting a 'moving violation' under the age of 20, which I would have fought that rather than paying the 100$ 'go away' money if I knew they'd do that. I opted for a hearing before suspension, which most people don't do, because the letter they send you regarding suspension seems hopeless. Upon looking up the law, the gov't didn't have much reason to take my license and the section of law for keeping it seemed in my favor (pretty much said if you're a good driver with a clean record, they shouldn't take it...how arbitrary). I wrote like five pages of legal and Constitutional notes, and when I got there, I was surprised for there to be about 20 other cases in the room. I considered asking to go last cause I had so much left to read (the rest of the kids made no preparation, made no defense, etc). I noticed the magistrate (some prosecutor who works for DMV) was letting everyone go who had a clean record. So when it was my turn, rather than pushing it and reading the whole thing, I made some quick notes. The first thing the guy said to me after I finished was, "Wow, you should be a lawyer". The thing I didn't like is he still put my license on 'warning' or some crap and said if I got a moving violation within the next year I'd definitely lose it for like 60 days, which he did to everyone. I considered that this may not have happened if I had taken the opportunity to make all the legal points I made in my paper.
I considered handing it in, but I knew he wouldn't read it, at the most he'd skim it and toss it. The mood was that you're not supposed to waste time, and everything you do must remain on topic. With enough constitution and legal paradoxes, I'm sure they would have just asked me to end it there and let it go or, ended it there and taken my license. I did not want the latter, so I did not risk it. If you do not have fear of them exacting the maximum sentence just because they don't like you, then I say slowing it down for yourself is key. When they go through the processes they do every day and just expect a quick yes or no out of you, ask them to have patience as you consider, while being careful not to abuse the slow downs. Bringing the procedure down to your pace is key to making the right decisions, and not walking out of court with regrets. Spirit of the stairway is a killer when dealing with cops, judges.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on September 04, 2008, 12:02 PM NHFT
ok can someone help get me started on the process of obtaining permission to videotape 9/26?
what do I need to do? remember i want to at least try and comply with all their protocols except the camera panning ban.
The process:
You call and say you're going to be there. The person answering the phone get confused, passes you off to someone else, you say the same thing, get put on hold, until she comes back and says you're all set to show up with a camera.
603-352-2559 - I usually call 7-9 days before.
I'm still so torn. I guess I just need to pick a side and commit to it.
Quote from: peacenic on September 04, 2008, 12:53 AM NHFT
Or if your feeling brave, ignore the ticket. If they come get you, question the legitimacy of the charge at that time.
Some have said that places your person in dishonor. Better to reply, conditionally accept their offer upon proof of claim and ask to be presented with the original signed instrument obliging you to their statutes.
I also like Sam's approach with the fee schedule. So many avenues to experiment with!
We have a new forum at FreeKeene with lots of good links to discussions about sovereignty and interacting with bureaucrats:
http://forum.freekeene.com/index.php?board=16.0
Quote from: DadaOrwell on September 04, 2008, 10:16 AM NHFT
Quote from: FTL_Ian on September 03, 2008, 05:38 PM NHFT
As Sam points out, you have to understand the nature and cause of the proceedings against you in order to plead.
is that part of nh law?
I don't know. Wouldn't know where to look. One could always try to distance yourself from the CORPORATE PERSON they are accusing and maintaining your sovereign status by asking questions instead of answering them.
Would the judge be the same guy that handled david krouse's registration disobedience? do they ban cell phones in there?
Quote from: DadaOrwell on September 04, 2008, 10:24 PM NHFT
Would the judge be the same guy that handled david krouse's registration disobedience? do they ban cell phones in there?
It's probably the same judge. I've gotten my phone through both times; they just make you double-check to make sure it's on silent.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on September 04, 2008, 05:37 PM NHFTOne could always try to distance yourself from the CORPORATE PERSON they are accusing and maintaining your sovereign status by asking questions instead of answering them.
You know they have chopped off the heads of those that claim sovereignty?
You can think you have rights ... you can think you are king ... you can even have been in the thrown for a while ... but that doesn't save you from those that are willing to jail and kill.
Yeah, but it's been a while. The govt wasn't too concerned about their legitimacy back then.
Of course it doesn't. Free men, as you know, must be prepared to go to jail. Eventually, as you know, they let you out. Then, hopefully they will come to the conclusion that you and your friends are no longer worth arresting/jailing.
Quote from: FTL_IanEventually, as you know, they let you out.
How comforting.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on September 05, 2008, 09:01 AM NHFT
Yeah, but it's been a while. The govt wasn't too concerned about their legitimacy back then.
sure it was ... and when the magic of the king being ordained by god ... then off with their heads ... it only happened a few times ... but I was just saying that claiming some stuph doesn't always work :)
it seems in this current situation decent guys do get let out most of the time ... but some die in jail
Certainly there are no magic words. Violent men will be violent men.
That said, these are relatively uncharted waters and very interesting to explore.
If one does not wish to face potential violence, one should just pay up and obey.
and it is interesting to hear their answers, when force is what really backs it all up
I agree with Russell. By all means try what you are comfortable with, Ian, Coconut, or anyone else. Pick your battles, we can't win them all. I would encourage you not to pay, but then I am not the one being threatened.
I agree with David about agreeing with Russell. :D Showing the bias of the court is an effective way to discredit their "justice" system. They teach a lot about it in their indoctrination centers for children, so most people are familiar with it, but have not done much critical thinking about it.
It must be difficult to pay or take a plea, when you know there is no other option, but to be locked up and denied your freedom. And, I must admit, when I first heard about people like Lauren taking a plea, I thought she had "lost". But, I was wrong, and stuck in the statist mindset. The goal of a non cooperative is not be to "win" justice at the trial, but to show the system for what it is, which is exactly what it did for me.
Thanks to all of those who question the system, you have helped me free my mind.
I'm not paying. I won't do community service either.
If they lower to a non-moving violation I will consider complying.
Court is the same day as Russell's Comm Service update is due to them.
I hope people come to support us.
What time is your "appointment"?
Quote from: FTL_Ian on September 08, 2008, 08:17 PM NHFT
What time is your "appointment"?
8:30 I guess
(http://i35.tinypic.com/30u7cia.jpg)
Russell's is the 26th at 9 am.
The Brown Supporters are in court (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=14370.0) in Concord at 10 too.
Quote from: TackleTheWorld on September 08, 2008, 09:44 PM NHFT
The Brown Supporters are in court (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=14370.0) in Concord at 10 too.
Which one are you going to?
Their terms suck. If it hasn't been 72 hours, I would write up a counter offer. Thinking of this in terms of Offer/Acceptance any of the terms can be changed and sent back to them.
The name is upper and lower case is very strange. The guy who gave up his drivers license filed papers with the court which put it into their record that he was making a special appearance in a separate jurisdiction from them. There's a lot to this, and I'm only just beginning to understand. I'm thinking what would a counter offer hurt? The show Briding the Gap is on tomorrow, you could call this in and ask them what to do. They may have an excellent suggestion on how to respond for the name. You might be able to send them a rate sheet and start billing.
One of the guys copyrighted his name as artwork, and when the court insisted on using his copyrighted works, He started charging for it. He had to place a lien on the judges house, but shortly after, he collected $13,000 for it's use. :) This stuff is going to be fun.
SamIam
Is the 72 hour thing in the UCC somewhere?
Nick, you could send a NOTICE OF DISCUSSION, conditionally accepting their offer of their court appointment upon proof (signed affadavit?) of a damaged party and noticing them that further offers will require a $1000 administrative fee.
How about that one, Sam?
Quote from: SamIam on September 08, 2008, 10:39 PM NHFT
Their terms suck. If it hasn't been 72 hours, I would write up a counter offer.
Lara Crof... I mean Sam, I fully support the time and energy you're going to spend through an epic journey to find the key to the machine that runs in the catacombs of the system. I just don't have the time to do it. As I've said, I only have the desire to deal with simplicity.
I hurt nobody.
I owe nobody money.
I'm not paying.
I'm tired of being afraid.
I hope Ridley will come to pan a camera.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on September 08, 2008, 10:47 PM NHFT
Nick, you could send a NOTICE OF DISCUSSION, conditionally accepting their offer of their court appointment upon proof (signed affadavit?) of a damaged party and noticing them that further offers will require a $1000 administrative fee.
How about that one, Sam?
Would you like me to call you next time I see a speed trap so you can have the opportunity? :)
Would it appease you if I sent one, stating that I agree to show up to their meeting, but do not consent to their rulings?
Quote from: Coconut on September 08, 2008, 10:50 PM NHFT
Would you like me to call you next time I see a speed trap so you can have the opportunity? :)
Would it appease you if I sent one, stating that I agree to show up to their meeting, but do not consent to their rulings?
Please don't appease me. You already have my approval by refusing to pay. Do what feels right.
If you send something stating you'll show, I suggest letting it be known the reason is because you are concerned his associates will hurt you. You not only don't consent to the ruling, you shouldn't consent to their offer of a trial. ;)
Robert Menard from thinkfree.ca says everything they send/give to you is an offer. Most people accept them. You can consider conditionally accepting, and attaching your terms for your acceptance.
Also, if they claim it's not an offer, but an order, consider it an order like an order in a restaurant.
"Ordering me to do X will cost you Y, payable in advance. Shall I write you a bill?"
Quote from: Coconut on September 08, 2008, 10:49 PM NHFT
Quote from: SamIam on September 08, 2008, 10:39 PM NHFT
Their terms suck. If it hasn't been 72 hours, I would write up a counter offer.
Lara Crof... I mean Sam, I fully support the time and energy you're going to spend through an epic journey to find the key to the machine that runs in the catacombs of the system. I just don't have the time to do it. As I've said, I only have the desire to deal with simplicity.
I hurt nobody.
I owe nobody money.
I'm not paying.
I'm tired of being afraid.
I hear ya. Looking at their offer again, they still didn't use your real name, unless your middle name is "J."
There's a lot to this stuff, and I'm very concerned with using it at this point until gaining a much greater understanding of their legal system. I'm working on that, and it might take a year to really understand. However, I do think it will start coming into play, and allow me to really pick the courts apart down the road and hold bureaucrats accountable in their own system. .
I have a camera that can pan >:D If Coconut wants coverage, I can cover left to right, top to bottom.
How about an XCU (extreme close-up) on the guy wearing the black dress? What can I use to get up-close-and-personal audio?
Quote from: TackleTheWorld on September 09, 2008, 10:21 AM NHFT
I have a camera that can pan >:D If Coconut wants coverage, I can cover left to right, top to bottom.
How about an XCU (extreme close-up) on the guy wearing the black dress? What can I use to get up-close-and-personal audio?
You're more than welcome to use my voice recorder as seen last time. Not sure if it will perform well. Ian has one too, so you could spread them out if needed.
Yeppers.
Two voice recorders would give tremendous coverage. Can you please bring them Nick and Ian?
Quote from: TackleTheWorld on September 09, 2008, 10:21 AM NHFT
What can I use to get up-close-and-personal audio?
This just occurred to me: Can you pan an
audio recorder? What if it looks like this?
(http://www.instructables.com/files/deriv/FOG/YWF0/FAWRI4FV/FOGYWF0FAWRI4FV.MEDIUM.jpg)
"But your Honor, this isn't a video camera?"
You can find instructions to make this here http://www.instructables.com/id/Dollar-Store-Parabolic-Mic/ (http://www.instructables.com/id/Dollar-Store-Parabolic-Mic/)
Quote from: TresJay on September 09, 2008, 12:31 PM NHFT
Quote from: TackleTheWorld on September 09, 2008, 10:21 AM NHFT
What can I use to get up-close-and-personal audio?
This just occurred to me: Can you pan an audio recorder? What if it looks like this?"But your Honor, this isn't a video camera?"
You can find instructions to make this here http://www.instructables.com/id/Dollar-Store-Parabolic-Mic/ (http://www.instructables.com/id/Dollar-Store-Parabolic-Mic/)
Quote(h) Equipment . Exact locations for all video and still cameras, and audio equipment within the courtroom will be determined by the presiding judge. Movement in the courtroom is prohibited, unless specifically approved by the presiding judge.
(1) Placement of microphones in the courtroom will be determined by the presiding judge. An effort should be made to facilitate broadcast quality sound. All microphones placed in the courtroom will be wireless.
Movement in the courtroom is prohibited. Not movement of a camera, or a microphone, just movement. geezus f**
Anyway, Lauren. I'll bring it. Good luck keeping the judge happy as you put them around the room. I will probably have to rip the mp3 from it for you, or show jesse how to do it on my computer... if I'm unavaliable.
Quote from: TackleTheWorld on September 09, 2008, 10:44 AM NHFT
Two voice recorders would give tremendous coverage. Can you please bring them Nick and Ian?
Sure will. Making a note.
Coconut: "How do you recommend I pay this fine?"
Judge: "You can pay with cash/check/money order/etc at the clerk's desk."
Coconut: "But, Your Honor, Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution of the United States of America says 'No state shall make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts'. I thought you represented the State."
my paperwork looks just like yours Coconut ... it doesn't seem to have any connection to what they want from me. They haven't sent me any info on community service.
Quote from: Coconut on September 08, 2008, 10:49 PM NHFT
I hurt nobody.
I owe nobody money.
I'm not paying.
I'm tired of being afraid.
preach it brother
Their existence depends on our fear. The more we eliminate our fear, step by step, the more others will be inspired to find courage within themselves.
Quote from: Josh on September 09, 2008, 04:01 PM NHFT
Coconut: "How do you recommend I pay this fine?"
Judge: "You can pay with cash/check/money order/etc at the clerk's desk."
Coconut: "But, Your Honor, Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution of the United States of America says 'No state shall make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts'. I thought you represented the State."
You might want to try phrasing the question: "
How can I pay without waiving any of my rights?"
Then it's a matter of turning any answer he comes back with to Article 1 Section 10.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on September 09, 2008, 05:45 PM NHFT
Their existence depends on our fear. The more we eliminate our fear, step by step, the more others will be inspired to find courage within themselves.
This is why I feel broadcasting the video is more important than the outcome of the trial itself. Unless, of course, we all start getting judgments like David got.
Quote from: Josh on September 09, 2008, 04:01 PM NHFT
Coconut: "How do you recommend I pay this fine?"
Judge: "You can pay with cash/check/money order/etc at the clerk's desk."
Coconut: "But, Your Honor, Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution of the United States of America says 'No state shall make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts'. I thought you represented the State."
Are you really going to say this to the judge?
Quote from: Luke the Truthteller on September 10, 2008, 08:01 PM NHFT
Quote from: Josh on September 09, 2008, 04:01 PM NHFT
Coconut: "How do you recommend I pay this fine?"
Judge: "You can pay with cash/check/money order/etc at the clerk's desk."
Coconut: "But, Your Honor, Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution of the United States of America says 'No state shall make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts'. I thought you represented the State."
Are you really going to say this to the judge?
no.
i am still leaning toward doing this "camera panning disobedience" on the 26th. still a 60% chance. but i have some questions I'm trying to get answered first.
also here's a brainstrom...what if lauren goes in to video tape russell while panning, and i go in to videotape nick?
Or is it possible they will be heard at more or less the same time?
another thought...any of us who are doing anything that might slow the judge down...could demand that he the random citizens in there go first, and put us at the end where we will not be in anyone's way.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on September 11, 2008, 10:02 AM NHFT
i am still leaning toward doing this "camera panning disobedience" on the 26th. still a 60% chance. but i have some questions I'm trying to get answered first.
also here's a brainstrom...what if lauren goes in to video tape russell while panning, and i go in to videotape nick?
Double the disobedience? Sounds good to me. :icon_pirat:
can someone tell me what the anti-panning law or statute or rule is...what it's called, copy it here if you like....
Quote from: DadaOrwell on September 11, 2008, 10:46 AM NHFT
can someone tell me what the anti-panning law or statute or rule is...what it's called, copy it here if you like....
http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/dmcr/dmcr-1_4.htm
Quote
(i) Restrictions . Unless otherwise ordered by the presiding judge, the following standing orders shall govern.
(1) No flash or other lighting devices will be used.
(2) Set up and dismantling of equipment is prohibited when court is in session.
(3) No camera movement during court session.
(4) No cameras permitted behind the defense table.
(5) Broadcast equipment will be positioned so that there will be no audio recording of conferences between attorney and client or among counsel and the presiding judge at the bench. Any such recording is prohibited.
(6) Photographers and videographers must remain a reasonable distance from parties, counsel tables, alleged victims, witnesses and families unless the trial participant voluntarily approaches the camera position.
(7) All reporters and photographers will abide by the directions of the court officers at all times.
(8) Broadcast or print interviews will not be permitted inside the courtroom before or after a proceeding.
(9) Photographers, videographers and technical support staff covering a proceeding shall avoid activity that might distract participants or impair the dignity of the proceedings.
(10) Appropriate dress is required.
what is the earliest we could be allowed in? what time does the buildign open? what time do the courtroom doors open?
In the past, they've only allowed one person to film at a time, and said we had to share footage.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on September 11, 2008, 01:44 PM NHFT
what is the earliest we could be allowed in? what time does the buildign open? what time do the courtroom doors open?
I'd think you could get in before 8am.
I also doubt panning the camera would escalate into an arrest or something crazy.
do both cases come up theoretically at the same time? 8:30 a.m.?
Quote from: DadaOrwell on September 11, 2008, 03:13 PM NHFT
do both cases come up theoretically at the same time? 8:30 a.m.?
Russell's is at nine. Neither will likely see attention from the judge before 9:15, though I'll plan to be sitting in the courtroom by 8:25
Both times I did it, the bailiff just told me not to pan the audience. The second time pretty rudely. It's possible you'll be asked to "go over the rules" with the judge beforehand.
ok wait i thought the judge stopped you from moving the camera at all...that's how i remember the video
restrictions simply on taping the audience...might not be ideal but that's not something I would do civil disobedience over.
i'll look at the vid again. if he's not banning videographers from panning between the bureaucrats and the defendant... then i'm not seeing a huge problem.
He wasn't trying to pan the audience at the time.
OK from looking at the video again it seems the judge was unwilling to really enforce the camera pan ban; he says "it's ok this time," which is a start on his part. were you actually stopped from panning or did he just put the issue off to the future?
if he's bending the rules for us a bit, then maybe he's not broke enough to fix on this issue. maybe the thing to do is quietly inform him of planned camera panning but not make it a news-release-civil-dis type thing. never back someone into a corner who is already doing the right thing in some ways.
one concern that keeps cropping up in my mind, i never want to make this guy to say to himself..."all this civil disobedience is happening because i was lenient on that david krouse.... now i should crack down..."
OK here's the exact quote:
"it's okay for today, next time we're going to have to go with the ground rules"
And that *is* unacceptable. not only unacceptable but sure to be perceived as such by a large number of viewers.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on September 11, 2008, 03:36 PM NHFT
ok wait i thought the judge stopped you from moving the camera at all...that's how i remember the video
Correct. Not taping the audience was a seperate but similar issue. He was indeed saying that I can't move the camera period.
Here is a draft news release/open letter
(rough draft deleted. see below for final version that is headed to judge burke)
Very good. Thanks to anyone, especially dave, who comes to court on this day. Let's plan to have backup cameras.
Awesome. I'm getting ready to leave town, but Nick, if you could post his final release on Free Keene, that would be great.
I'm sending Nick an invite to the Free Keene news list so he can blast this out to the local media when the final release is done.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on September 11, 2008, 04:58 PM NHFT
Awesome. I'm getting ready to leave town, but Nick, if you could post his final release on Free Keene, that would be great.
I'm sending Nick an invite to the Free Keene news list so he can blast this out to the local media when the final release is done.
I don't know how to blast anything.... I'll give it a look later. Haven't done much with google groups
once i've completed the open letter, is there anyone who might be available to print it out and deliver it to keene district court? they dont seem to have a fax machine number listed
this will help keep 42 cents out of the monopolistic hands of the postal service.....and will get the letter to the judge a lot sooner. it would take me a week to get it in the mail plus the time it takes to get there.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on September 11, 2008, 06:36 PM NHFT
once i've completed the open letter, is there anyone who might be available to print it out and deliver it to keene district court? they dont seem to have a fax machine number listed
this will help keep 42 cents out of the monopolistic hands of the postal service.....and will get the letter to the judge a lot sooner. it would take me a week to get it in the mail plus the time it takes to get there.
Dave Ridley, I have truly never met a man like you before. I have never met a man who would write a letter like that to a judge and who would openly disobey a judge in a judge's own courtroom like that. And what adds even more to it is the fact that you are going to be taping a guy who is refusing to pay his speeding ticket.
I can print and deliver your letter, Dada.
Tell me when it's done.
Quote from: Luke the Truthteller on September 11, 2008, 07:45 PM NHFT
Dave Ridley, I have truly never met a man like you before. I have never met a man who would write a letter like that to a judge and who would openly disobey a judge in a judge's own courtroom like that. And what adds even more to it is the fact that you are going to be taping a guy who is refusing to pay his speeding ticket.
I agree! Except I salute Ridley, whereas I suspect you don't.
Quote from: KBCraig on September 11, 2008, 09:54 PM NHFT
Quote from: Luke the Truthteller on September 11, 2008, 07:45 PM NHFT
Dave Ridley, I have truly never met a man like you before. I have never met a man who would write a letter like that to a judge and who would openly disobey a judge in a judge's own courtroom like that. And what adds even more to it is the fact that you are going to be taping a guy who is refusing to pay his speeding ticket.
I agree! Except I salute Ridley, whereas I suspect you don't.
FYI at this point I haven't made up my mind whether to salute or to not salute Ridley. One side of me is saying that I've never heard of a rule being enforced in Michigan that says you can't pan a camera in a courtroom in Michigan, and if Michigan is a regular state and New Hampshire is the Free State, then New Hampshire courts ought to automatically be at least as free as Michigan courts. But the other side of me is saying that judges should be the ones who are in control of their courtrooms, not the rabble. Right now I don't know what side of myself to listen to.
Does anyone else envision Luke drooling onto his keyboard when he types this drivel?
Not that there anything wrong with being retarded!
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on September 12, 2008, 05:41 AM NHFT
Does anyone else envision Luke drooling onto his keyboard when he types this drivel?
Not that there anything wrong with being retarded!
Why do you consider it drivel?
I tried to begin to explain, but, couldn't decide where to start. Perhaps one side of you could explain it to the other side.
Gollum...gollum.
I was wondering last night...
The officer is asked to identify the offender, so he points over to the person sitting at the defendant table. What happens if when someone's name is called, someone else goes up to begin the trial? Then the officer identifies him?
That would be funny :D
Quote from: Coconut on September 12, 2008, 01:27 PM NHFT
I was wondering last night...
The officer is asked to identify the offender, so he points over to the person sitting at the defendant table. What happens if when someone's name is called, someone else goes up to begin the trial? Then the officer identifies him?
A guy I used to know used that trick. It was the lawyers first case out of law school and he put the older brother in the chair. The undercover narcotics officer identified the guy at the defendant's table and the case was dismissed without prejudice and they picked him up and tried him again about 6 months later. He was convicted and went to prison.
Quote from: Roycerson on September 12, 2008, 05:00 PM NHFT
Quote from: Coconut on September 12, 2008, 01:27 PM NHFT
I was wondering last night...
The officer is asked to identify the offender, so he points over to the person sitting at the defendant table. What happens if when someone's name is called, someone else goes up to begin the trial? Then the officer identifies him?
A guy I used to know used that trick. It was the lawyers first case out of law school and he put the older brother in the chair. The undercover narcotics officer identified the guy at the defendant's table and the case was dismissed without prejudice and they picked him up and tried him again about 6 months later. He was convicted and went to prison.
Isn't that double jeopardy?
Quote from: Luke the Truthteller on September 15, 2008, 02:50 AM NHFT
Quote from: Roycerson on September 12, 2008, 05:00 PM NHFT
Quote from: Coconut on September 12, 2008, 01:27 PM NHFT
I was wondering last night...
The officer is asked to identify the offender, so he points over to the person sitting at the defendant table. What happens if when someone's name is called, someone else goes up to begin the trial? Then the officer identifies him?
A guy I used to know used that trick. It was the lawyers first case out of law school and he put the older brother in the chair. The undercover narcotics officer identified the guy at the defendant's table and the case was dismissed without prejudice and they picked him up and tried him again about 6 months later. He was convicted and went to prison.
Isn't that double jeopardy?
Legalese - dismissed without prejudice. It says "Oops, we screwed up but we may want to try again later."
Quote from: Pat McCotter on September 15, 2008, 03:07 AM NHFT
Quote from: Luke the Truthteller on September 15, 2008, 02:50 AM NHFT
Quote from: Roycerson on September 12, 2008, 05:00 PM NHFT
Quote from: Coconut on September 12, 2008, 01:27 PM NHFT
I was wondering last night...
The officer is asked to identify the offender, so he points over to the person sitting at the defendant table. What happens if when someone's name is called, someone else goes up to begin the trial? Then the officer identifies him?
A guy I used to know used that trick. It was the lawyers first case out of law school and he put the older brother in the chair. The undercover narcotics officer identified the guy at the defendant's table and the case was dismissed without prejudice and they picked him up and tried him again about 6 months later. He was convicted and went to prison.
Isn't that double jeopardy?
Legalese - dismissed without prejudice. It says "Oops, we screwed up but we may want to try again later."
I don't think they should be able to do that. It still smells too much like double jeopardy to me.
Quote from: Luke the Truthteller on September 15, 2008, 03:22 AM NHFT
I don't think they should be able to do that.
They do lots of things they shouldn't be able to do. Like breaking into peoples' houses because someone told them there might be contraband in it.
Quote from: Josh on September 15, 2008, 05:44 AM NHFT
Quote from: Luke the Truthteller on September 15, 2008, 03:22 AM NHFT
I don't think they should be able to do that.
They do lots of things they shouldn't be able to do. Like breaking into peoples' houses because someone told them there might be contraband in it.
Yup. When you give gov't power, they like to use it. No one has ever been able to restrain gov't, so it will always use its power in ways that they weren't supposed to, and against the 'wrong' people. For some reason the dems and repubs can't seem to understand this basic principle. When you give gov't power to do something you want them to do, that same power in the hands of the opposition can and will be used against you at some point. Political winds change. That lovely patriot act, and the wiretapping of 'terrorists', will be used by the opposition against the 'wrong' people at some point. It is not an if, but a when. And they are likely to get away with it, because they usually do anyway.
Inbound to judge burke via private "Canario Courier...."
What: Attempted "Illegal camera panning"
Where: Keene District Court, 3 Washington Street, Keene, New Hampshire
When: Friday, Sept. 26, 2008. 7:45 a.m.
How: Videographer will attempt to man, and pan, his video camera during trial of Keene freedom activist. Camera movement is forbidden under
http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/dmcr/dmcr-1_4.htm
And Judge Edward Burke has said he'll begin enforcing the ban.
Why: There are two objectives...
1) Document Nick Ryder's controversial refusal to pay traffic fine (something that can't be done well without panning the camera)
2) Protest - and draw attention to - an unacceptable, actively enforced court rule that unnecessarily limits freedom of press
Who: Dave Ridley, 42, Manchester videographer
Open letter for Judge Edward Burke
Presiding Justice, Keene District Court:
Dear Judge Burke:
Your restraint and politeness in the handling of David Krouse's civil disobedience case this spring...turned me into an unlikely fan. It was a reminder to liberty lovers that judges in New Hampshire tend to be less violent than those in other places.
However I'm concerned regarding your stated intent to begin enforcing a bizarre rule against video camera panning. In my fifteen years of service as a TV news videographer, I've never seen anything like it. To tell a videographer he can't pan or tilt his camera...that's like telling a writer she can't hold a pen. It violates the spirit of a "speedy and *public* trial." That's dangerous.
Apparently this is a district court regulation, but it's not acceptable and must be openly challenged. Unfortunately, I don't have the skills, money or time to effectively use 'the means the state has provided me for changing it." So I'll follow Thoreau's example and undertake constructive disobedience.
Over the next few days, I will go through the usual process that a videographer undertakes to film in your chambers. I'll seek clearance to record Nick Ryder's speeding ticket hearing, currently scheduled for 8:30 a.m. September 26th. In the absence of emergencies or illness, I'll attempt to enter the courtroom with my camera. I'll try to follow any reasonable rules - and perhaps some unreasonable - that you may wish to impose. I'll operate as unobtrusively as possible.
But I will not comply with the "pan ban," or any rule that intolerably restricts a videographer's ability to document this taxpayer-funded event.
If you forbid me from entering the courtroom with a camera, I'll ignore the ban and repeatedly attempt peaceable entry. If allowed in, but ordered to cease panning, I'll respectfully refuse to comply with the command. If ordered to leave the courtroom for any reason that seems unacceptable, I will politely decline. I'm ready to undergo arrest or detention, if that's what it takes to bring attention to this First Amendment matter.
This is happening, not becuase of your decent treatment of Krouse, nor your allowance of cameras. I respect and appreciate those things; they were almost enough to stop me from bothering you with this. But your court's unacceptable regulations on videographers, and your statement to Ryder indicating that you will begin enforcing them....makes this act of constructive disobedience imperitive.
You have various courses of action to pick from, but in the end...you will either allow me to aim and operate my camera in the courtroom or use force against a harmless citizen.
Yours,
Dave Ridley
RidleyReport.com
(addie, contact info)
Posted press release to Free Keene and blasted it to the news list. (Sentinel, WKBK, etc.) 8)
that's cool but bear in mind the version above doesn't have much contact info and thus isn't the version that goes to the media. can i list you as backup media contact?
I noticed and added:
QuoteIf you would like to get in touch with Dave Ridley or have questions,
please get in touch with me,
Then put my info. ;)
anyone got a cheap tripod and tripod-plate i could borrow?
how about a cheap video camera? i can bring mine if need be but my cheap backup camera is out on loan right now to a crimewatch guy.
bear in mind there's probably about a 20 percent chance your camera or pod could get confiscated.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on September 17, 2008, 10:12 AM NHFT
anyone got a cheap tripod and tripod-plate i could borrow?
how about a cheap video camera? i can bring mine if need be but my cheap backup camera is out on loan right now to a crimewatch guy.
bear in mind there's probably about a 20 percent chance your camera or pod could get confiscated.
I have 2 or 3 cheap tripods, of varying cheapness.
2 cheap cameras too.
Dave's open letter has been delivered to Judge Burke and Larry the court clerk.
Let the fun begin.
Should be an interesting day :D
Have we ever had a triple civil disobedience event? In that three people are all being disobedient in three different ways?
Quote from: FTL_Ian on September 17, 2008, 02:17 PM NHFT
Have we ever had a triple civil disobedience event? In that three people are all being disobedient in three different ways?
I'm not sure Russell is being disobedient on purpose. I'm very happy he'll be there though.
Requested most of the day off, will be there. 8)
Cheshire TV's Lee will attend. 8)
Quote from: FTL_Ian on September 17, 2008, 08:29 PM NHFT
Cheshire TV's Lee will attend. 8)
Really? Does he know that I'm resisting payment? I doubt he would not be in support of that, but he gets excited when people push for freedom of the press.
September 18, 2008
To the Keene District Court, or individuals who work on its behalf:
Please forgive my delay in responding to a letter I received from you about 4 weeks ago. If I understand your letter correctly, you are requesting my presence in your building on the morning of September 26th. I am writing to inform you that my schedule will allow me to make that appointment. I am not intending to hide from, nor defraud anyone, and as a show of good-will, I will happily come to our meeting on that morning.
However, please do not misinterpret my attendance as consent to follow any "rulings" you or the court may claim to have against me. If I have inadvertently consented to such "rulings," consider my consent withdrawn; effective immediately. I believe the purpose of our meeting will be to discuss a complaint against me, and I look forward to making amends to anyone I have harmed or scared that caused such a complaint.
-Nicholas Ryder
any comments or suggestions? I want to mail this tomorrow.
Maybe instead of attendance you should write special appearance.
Quote from: Coconut on September 17, 2008, 08:38 PM NHFT
Quote from: FTL_Ian on September 17, 2008, 08:29 PM NHFT
Cheshire TV's Lee will attend. 8)
Really? Does he know that I'm resisting payment? I doubt he would not be in support of that, but he gets excited when people push for freedom of the press.
I didn't tell him that.
Quote from: Coconut on September 17, 2008, 08:47 PM NHFT
September 18, 2008
To the Keene District Court, or individuals who work on its behalf:
Please forgive my delay in responding to a letter I received from you about 4 weeks ago. If I understand your letter correctly, you are requesting my presence in your building on the morning of September 26th. I am writing to inform you that my schedule will allow me to make that appointment. I am not intending to hide from, nor defraud anyone, and as a show of good-will, I will happily come to our meeting on that morning.
However, please do not misinterpret my attendance as consent to follow any "rulings" you or the court may claim to have against me. If I have inadvertently consented to such "rulings," consider my consent withdrawn; effective immediately. I believe the purpose of our meeting will be to discuss a complaint against me, and I look forward to making amends to anyone I have harmed or scared that caused such a complaint.
-Nicholas Ryder
any comments or suggestions? I want to mail this tomorrow.
I suggest hand delivering it to the court clerk. Mailing it could result in it being lost or them claiming they didn't get it, unless you pay for special delivery. Better to just go down there and give it to them.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on September 11, 2008, 01:44 PM NHFT
what is the earliest we could be allowed in? what time does the buildign open? what time do the courtroom doors open?
According to my observations the clerks open the window at 8AM but the
wand-your-personals-and-ask-nosy-questions station is not set-up that early. Don't know if the courtroom door is open at that time.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on September 18, 2008, 11:17 AM NHFT
I suggest hand delivering it to the court clerk. Mailing it could result in it being lost or them claiming they didn't get it, unless you pay for special delivery. Better to just go down there and give it to them.
I suppose I can do that tommorow on my lunch break
coconut i would use the word 'threatened' instead of 'scared'
it's not necessarily unethical to scare someone , since you can do that by accident
it is more usually unethical to threaten
also i talked to the court folks today and am set to be there 9/26
Quote from: FTL_Ian on September 18, 2008, 11:17 AM NHFT
I suggest hand delivering it to the court clerk. Mailing it could result in it being lost or them claiming they didn't get it, unless you pay for special delivery. Better to just go down there and give it to them.
I did this today. Lots of people in the courtroom "wand room" around 12:45. I stood by their window until someone came up, said "I have a piece of mail for the court. That is all." She started opening it and I walked out.
Sounds like you handled it perfectly. Sometimes they will look very confused and begin to open it and say something like "wait". Simply apologize for being very busy and take your leave.
Tommorow morning in Keene. Don't forget to come everyone.
I will be there!
Thank you in advance for your courage, Coconut! 8)
I'll be out in front about 8ish. :) I'll prolly be yawning, and still trying to wake up. ;)
I look forward to seeing reports on this. A victory of a day I would say. They will mail me the verdict, even if it's negative, the court made it clear that we are having an impression on how they act.
Quote from: Coconut on September 26, 2008, 09:46 AM NHFT
I look forward to seeing reports on this. A victory of a day I would say. They will mail me the verdict, even if it's negative, the court made it clear that we are having an impression on how they act.
Do you have time to write up a summary for Free Keene and the News list?
Quote from: FTL_Ian on September 26, 2008, 10:48 AM NHFT
Quote from: Coconut on September 26, 2008, 09:46 AM NHFT
I look forward to seeing reports on this. A victory of a day I would say. They will mail me the verdict, even if it's negative, the court made it clear that we are having an impression on how they act.
Do you have time to write up a summary for Free Keene and the News list?
Not until late tonight. You were there too you know :)
Yep.. I'm going to make some business calls then work on a summary.
We won! 8)
Quote from: FTL_Ian on September 26, 2008, 11:08 AM NHFT
Yep.. I'm going to make some business calls then work on a summary.
We won! 8)
You should post a new thread on your date ASAP so people can plan for it. 8:30am Oct 1?
Yep. Keene District Court.
Summary of today's triple success posted at Free Keene:
http://freekeene.com/2008/09/26/triple-civil-disobedience-success/
Today's triple civil disobedience was a triple success! Watch here at FreeKeene.com for video later, but here's a quick summary:
- RidleyReport.com's Dave Ridley was informed before the trial that the "judge", Mr. Burke had reviewed his ordinances and determined his earlier interpretation had been incorrect and that cameras may now be panned by their operator while in Keene "district court".
- Additionally, the man in the robe did not publicly acknowledge another major change that occurred today. All entrants are now allowed recording devices. Four video cameras were operational today, as compared to Mr. Burke's earlier commandment of one camera per court.
- Free Keene blogger Nick Ryder had an apparent victory in his refusal to pay a speeding ticket. Mr. Burke heard the case, and after Nick made his final statement, Burke said he'd take it under advisement and ended the "trial". If he were going to pronounce Nick guilty, he'd have done it then.
- NH Free Press publisher Russell Kanning appeared in front of Mr. Burke to update the "city" on their demand he perform 30 hours community service. Kanning has completed 0 hours and Burke extended the due date out 60 more days.
This morning's multiple success is still more proof that noncooperation and civil disobedience result in immediate, tangible changes with a large return on investment. Compare this to how difficult achieving today's successes would have been "working inside the system" by running campaigns and contacting "representatives", and begging they change the system. How much time and effort would that have taken? Noncooperative activists achieved their goals with a total turnout of 12 activists, a couple hours of time, a few press releases, and some courage.
Please join the peaceful evolution (http://move.freekeene.com) here in Keene. The fun is just beginning! Also, join our discussion on the Free Keene Forum (http://forum.freekeene.com)!
cool ... I will use that for the paper .... tomorrow
;D 8)
atta boy(s)
Someone's upset at me in the comments on Ridley's first video of my trial. Big surprise.
Quote from: Coconut on September 27, 2008, 10:26 PM NHFT
Someone's upset at me in the comments on Ridley's first video of my trial. Big surprise.
Link to video comments:
http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=F5HGVaua93M&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DF5HGVaua93M
That fczwartek guy is a nut. I've had a number of dialogues with him and have learned he's best to just ignore, or give the youtube thumbs down. He refuses to see the truth when it's placed right in front of him.
In the PM convo I had with him, he tried to claim people who do not wish to join a labor union are 'stealing' union services and should be forced to pay.
Quote from: Giggan on September 28, 2008, 12:07 PM NHFT
That fczwartek guy is a nut. I've had a number of dialogues with him and have learned he's best to just ignore, or give the youtube thumbs down. He refuses to see the truth when it's placed right in front of him.
In the PM convo I had with him, he tried to claim people who do not wish to join a labor union are 'stealing' union services and should be forced to pay.
Wait till he's not home, then mow his lawn and present him with a bill. Do this several times a week. Or switch services to keep things surprising . . .
Quote from: Sam A. Robrin on September 28, 2008, 08:09 PM NHFT
Wait till he's not home, then mow his lawn and present him with a bill. Do this several times a week. Or switch services to keep things surprising . . .
I like that! Maybe do the same with some parks and other public properties, and bill the municipality too?
Surely their responsibility to pay the bill falls under the social contract ;)
I have mail from the court. I am going to get it now.
Quote from: Coconut on September 30, 2008, 06:38 PM NHFT
I have mail from the court. I am going to get it now.
NOT GUILTY
(http://i37.tinypic.com/25typm9.jpg)
(http://i38.tinypic.com/sm7mdv.jpg)
Thanks everyone
:) :) :)
Awesome! Major win!
:hammer:
I CAN"T BELIEVE IT!
Nice Job!!!! :wav:
Probably the biggest win so far. Dave Manning never got any final decision on his case. (that's good) David Krouse was given a suspended fine. (that's better) Nick Ryder found not guilty. (Best!)
Quote from: FTL_Ian on September 30, 2008, 07:33 PM NHFT
Probably the biggest win so far. Dave Manning never got any final decision on his case. (that's good) David Krouse was given a suspended fine. (that's better) Nick Ryder found not guilty. (Best!)
Not guilty, nice. Now maybe the cops will be out catching "real criminals"...you know the kind with illegal couches outside! ;D
See -- the system works! :o
Sorry, couldn't resist. >:D ;)
Tis true when you have a solid argument some reasonable judges will be fair. I had one. They're not all authoritarian dickweeds.
Just got up to speed on Ridley Report and right after tuned in to FTL for the news. Congratulations!!
Quote from: Paul on September 30, 2008, 08:02 PM NHFT
Tis true when you have a solid argument some reasonable judges will be fair.
And they are to be commended--
both of them!
Indeed, the pursuit of liberty may already have a potential ally on the bench in New Hampshire. At the very least a possible sympathizer. It would be unwise to alienate or destroy this opportunity. If this judge remains consistent in his rulings his future campaigns for reelection should be supported. Unfortunately he may also become a target of the authoritarians.
Wow! Congrats very well done. :D
I think it helped that the judge knew you were not going to pay.
:tiphat:
mark stevens, the author of "adventures in legal land" has a post on his website that refers to the "save-a-bureaucrat-foundation". this is a good thing for free/no-staters. we just need to push it.
judge burke is a prime candidate for either:
a) reforming the system from within, or
b) leaving the system and telling his terrorcrat buddies why he's leaving
both are good for us, and will become better if we can determine his effectiveness when talking to his colleagues from other cities.
someone needs to take this guy to lunch, off the record. approach him as he's walking to his car. see how he really feels and get an idea for what type of influence he has. let him know what our plans are like Ian did with the Keene councilman.
to me it's the same as trying to date a girl that works in the department that picks random voters for jury duty. i'd hit on her if i got the info i was looking for. has anyone ever used FIJA as a defense for jury tampering? not that i've found. any takers?
working from within doesn't necessarily mean going inside, and as things become worse, what's the harm in having a mole or two or three? until you get burke on the record, but off the record, we'll never really know what a true friend of liberty we have in this man who wears a robe every day. he might be our friend.
Unfortunately he'd probably never tell us, because he knows it would get out. The system is built to force out people who don't want to use force on others. You may change your mind on him when you see the video from Ian's hearing today.
I'm taking Carl Patten out to lunch.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on October 01, 2008, 10:00 PM NHFT
I'm taking Carl Patten out to lunch.
Just don't record him ^-^
Just remember; he is trying to pass the buck to his boss, just like every other person who is hurting others in the name of government. It doesn't make him innocent. It's good that you're willing to reach out though. It shows that you're not interested in fighting when you don't have to.
cool ... good to see they will not try to use force on you ... beyond making you come to court. :)
Quote from: Paul on October 01, 2008, 02:32 PM NHFT
Indeed, the pursuit of liberty may already have a potential ally on the bench in New Hampshire. At the very least a possible sympathizer. It would be unwise to alienate or destroy this opportunity. If this judge remains consistent in his rulings his future campaigns for reelection should be supported. Unfortunately he may also become a target of the authoritarians.
he is a real sweetheart ...
he sent me to jail once for not having papers
he has always convicted me of not having proper papers
he wants money or community service right now
if he convicts me 2 more times, I will sit in the Concord State Prison for a mandatory year
I am putting him up for a sainthood.
Vehicle registration papers? Touchy issue.
Personally I think if someone is taking advantage of a system constructed by a certain organization they are obligated to abide by whatever rules set forth by that organization, regardless of its nature. If however one is a participating member of that organization who is directly contributing to the upkeep of those roads an argument can be made that being a member of that organization, the People as represented by the State in this case, they possess and unalienable right to the use of those roads without restriction. This right naturally does not extend to destructive modification of the roads or violation of whatever guidelines the organization has set forth for interactions within and on the road system for the purpose of preventing bodily harm (driving the wrong way in traffic, for instance). Vehicle registration obviously does not meet this. So while the participant (tax-victim) is not obligated to submit vehicle registration, the non-participant is as they have no legitimate claim to those roads. This applies to publicly and privately funded roads alike.
The question in this case comes down to participation. Do only property taxes serve to maintain the government roads? What about gas taxes? Does everything just go into a general fund which road maintenance is paid out of? There has to be a clear association for a claim of sovereignty to be valid because ultimately one is free to walk.
Look at it from the judge's perspective. If you find a flaw in the logic he used to arrive at his position, help him find it. Show him the alternatives like Coconut did. Most importantly, help him to act on this knowledge. Give him problems and he'll just get angry and throw it right back at you thrice fold.
Quote from: Paul on October 02, 2008, 08:47 AM NHFT
The question in this case comes down to participation. Do only property taxes serve to maintain the government roads? What about gas taxes? Does everything just go into a general fund which road maintenance is paid out of? There has to be a clear association for a claim of sovereignty to be valid because ultimately one is free to walk.
As I understand, there is supposed to be a stand-alone road fund. However, they have been taking from the road fund for other projects. As long as they're breaking their own rules, why does anyone else have to follow them?
Quote from: Paul on October 02, 2008, 08:47 AM NHFT
Vehicle registration papers? Touchy issue.
Personally I think if someone is taking advantage of a system constructed by a certain organization they are obligated to abide by whatever rules set forth by that organization, regardless of its nature.
No one should be obligated to follow rules that they did not agree to follow outside of common law.
In my opinion the initiated use of any service qualifies as an agreement to the conditions of use set forth by whomever is offering the service. If one is in and of themselves the provider of the service (tax-victim) they have grounds to object to those conditions. Private property common law applies so long as one recognizes the legitimacy of the State as an entity serving as a representative body of the People. The mere act of stepping into the Court with the intention of representing or defending ones self is an admission of the Court's legitimacy, and by proxy the legitimacy of the State.
You can't walk into their court, say yes to being searched at the door, approach the bench when requested, and then suddenly start noncooperating and still expect to be taken seriously. This sort of quasi-civil disobedience from within the system is just bizarre. I don't know how anyone can be surprised when it backfires. If one is not going to recognize the legitimacy of the Court, one should simply not submit to the Court's authority and refuse summons as Canario did. If one wishes to challenge the legitimacy and jurisdiction of the particular law or the Court itself, they should state their purpose as such and remain true to this agenda as Coconut or to a much greater extent Sam (in Texas) has done. One certainly can not agree to the Court's ruling (such as accepting a sentence of community service) and then not expect consequences if this agreement is broken.
I support true civil disobedience and those who practice it because there are limits to my own personal activity, but you can't enter the lion's den and start poking things with a stick and not expect to have your head bitten off. I've been in front of enough judges and spent enough time in jail to know I never want to go back. But I feel I can relate current events to my experiences with some authority and at least let others know what they can expect when they attempt to play their game in the State's arena.
Don't let me be a deterrent though. I'm just stating the reality of dealing with the State. When a matter goes to court it's going to have one of a few outcomes. It's either dismissed, you're acquitted, or you're sentenced. The ratio depends on the demeanor and persuasion of the judge. Those who challenge the legitimacy of the Court do so with full knowledge that if they fail it must be recognized (likely meaning they pay whatever citation requested their presence in court in the first place) or face the reality that men with guns will place them in a cage. I myself like to avoid cages, but I respect those that face this outcome with dignity. The greatest sacrifices produce the greatest results.
Personally I think if one does not wish to recognize the legitimacy of the State as a sovereign of the land to which they lay claim they should ignore its demands completely. Better yet, send a messenger.
That's why Ian made it clear when he showed that he did so under duress, knowing full well that the refusal to do so would result in further violence from the state. Russell says the same thing when he goes to court. He explains that he's simply trying to avoid the violence that would inevitably ensue.
What's the difference between going to court because you're afraid of their guns, or just paying your fine because you're afraid of their guns?
People who say "If they have no authority, just don't go" do have a point. I dunno. It's all confusing.
When I went, I wrote a letter beforehand stating that I was showing up as an act of good-will, and that I'm not trying to hide from anyone.
Quote from: Coconut on October 02, 2008, 08:40 PM NHFT
What's the difference between going to court because you're afraid of their guns, or just paying your fine because you're afraid of their guns?
The latter gives them money. The former costs them money. I'll always opt for costing them.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on October 02, 2008, 09:59 PM NHFT
The latter gives them money. The former costs them money. I'll always opt for costing them.
That's the way I look at it. The reality is we live in a world dominated by government. It's tendrils are in everything. I acknowledge that painful reality and do my best to live with it. We all have our individual comfort levels. Lauren and Russell are quite ready to go to jail over a lot more things than I am. However, I'm quickly coming to terms with the things I'm willing to go to jail over and a lot of that depends on just what I'm having to compromise and what I'm going to have to suffer. I pay taxes, but I'm doing whatever I can to reduce what I pay and that means making some sacrifices in terms of how much money I make and HOW I make the money. By not taking a job, I'm not handing a lot of money over up front before I even see the check from an employer who's in complete control and I'm opening up a lot of avenues for legal loopholes. Like I said, we have to live in the world we live in. We can't all be hermits in boogar huts (http://anarchyinyourhead.com/tag/hermit/) in the woods living completely off the grid. *shrug*
Quote from: Paul on October 02, 2008, 08:47 AM NHFT
Vehicle registration papers? Touchy issue.
Look at it from the judge's perspective.
the cops do like to touch you if you don't have their ID papers
from the judges perspective ... he should quit his job and start dealing with people on a voluntary basis ... not people who have been dragged there.
Quote from: Paul on October 02, 2008, 12:44 PM NHFT
In my opinion the initiated use of any service qualifies as an agreement to the conditions of use set forth by whomever is offering the service.
Where can I live in america where the government doesn't claim the land I stand on?
Where can I walk or drive my car where they have not already been there and tell me what to do?
Coconut could be driving safely ... but they threw up a 35mph sign in front of him ... does he have to follow all of their rules? What happens when the UN sends you bill for income taxes? Are you using their services of relative freedom throughout the world? How do you decide?
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 03, 2008, 07:59 AM NHFT
Where can I live in america where the government doesn't claim the land I stand on?
In these united states, in the State of New Hampshire, or in the City of Keene? In the former, American Indian reservations are probably the closest you can get. Otherwise the Republic was here first. Like it not, they planted their flag long before you were born. If you're going to challenge the legitimacy of the State, this is your starting point. If not, just don't worry about it and respond appropriately when necessary. Same you would do if anyone wished to do you harm. One can either resist actively (Brown), passively (Canario), or go underground (Mitnick).
QuoteCoconut could be driving safely ... but they threw up a 35mph sign in front of him ... does he have to follow all of their rules?
If he were a guest, yes. If he is a resident tax-victim he is within his right to do whatever he wishes on the roads he has helped fund so long as he does not place the life, body, or property of another in imminent danger unless he has explicitly agreed to the extra conditions. If he does not agree to those conditions he is within his right to challenge them or refuse payment however if he continues use of those roads he no longer has grounds to object. It is my opinion this is what the judge ruled on in his case as it was a core component of his argument from what I could make out. It's one thing to be speeding through a residential neighborhood where kids are running around in the street. It's another entirely to be on a clear path not a threat to anyone. Dumb laws should always be challenged, so long as one is willing to accept that if the challenge fails their options become limited. If not, just ignore them or accept them.
QuoteHow do you decide?
By the initiation of use. It's the same issue as property taxes for services not requested or desired.
My personal suggestion in your case if you do not wish to resist when the time comes is to register your vehicle and perform the community service. Continue challenging it, but if you keep trying to fight it in court while simultaneously disobeying they're just going to prove themselves.
Apologies for missing this.
Quote from: Coconut on October 02, 2008, 08:40 PM NHFT
What's the difference between going to court because you're afraid of their guns, or just paying your fine because you're afraid of their guns?
Not much. Either way you're complying with their demands and therefore recognizing their legitimacy. If you acknowledge yet challenge this legitimacy there will only be one of two outcomes: You succeed, or you're SOL. Congratulations again on your success.
I should also state that this is simply the circumstances as they exist today (as I interpret them anyway) with regards to any attempts at in-the-system activism through the judiciary (as opposed to the legislature). As time progresses and more minds are opened to the ideas of liberty the very real power of jury nullification comes into action. Then all that must be done is defendants take their cases to trial. This is why it is my opinion that it is vital for the civil disobedient-types and the political-types to work together and support eachother. With an impotent judiciary and a stronghold in the legislature the authoritarians are powerless and nature is free to run its course.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on October 02, 2008, 09:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: Coconut on October 02, 2008, 08:40 PM NHFT
What's the difference between going to court because you're afraid of their guns, or just paying your fine because you're afraid of their guns?
The latter gives them money. The former costs them money. I'll always opt for costing them.
Bingo. Fred Parcells, a former Keene cop, is egging us on to 'prove' that we really believe the gov't has no authority. Yet If he was still a cop, I am confident he would love to put metal bracelets on Ian in particular, maybe me, and a few others.
Personally I would advise against letting them. The State is real; It exists. As an individual sovereign one can either recognize the State as a legitimate body established by the People or reject its legitimacy as such. When choosing to interact with its court one runs the risk of imprisonment. I have the utmost respect for those who take it this far for it brings true individual liberty, but it's short lived. I absolutely will support those who make this sacrifice but I'm still going to discourage it. Martyrs can help, yes. But I don't like to see assets lost. If someone goes to jail the only thing they can offer is a name for a bumpersticker. Pick your battles and know when to withdraw.
Only men threatening force is real; the state is a fantasy.
Quote from: Paul on October 03, 2008, 03:50 PM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 03, 2008, 07:59 AM NHFT
Where can I live in america where the government doesn't claim the land I stand on?
In these united states, in the State of New Hampshire, or in the City of Keene? In the former, American Indian reservations are probably the closest you can get. Otherwise the Republic was here first. Like it not, they planted their flag long before you were born.
so I guess you are saying ... nowhere
there have been many people who have walked this ground before me ... do I have to ask them all permission to do so ... or just the guys with guns?
Quote from: Paul on October 03, 2008, 04:41 PM NHFT
Not much. Either way you're complying with their demands and therefore recognizing their legitimacy.
your are recognizing their use of force ... not legitimacy
As an individual sovereign if you submit to their force without resistance you are recognizing their legitimacy.
Quote from: FTL_IanOnly men threatening force is real; the state is a fantasy.
Believe that if you wish but a fantasy can quickly become a nightmare.
Quote from: Paul on October 05, 2008, 11:35 AM NHFT
As an individual sovereign if you submit to their force without resistance you are recognizing their legitimacy.
You must have submitted to be around to say this.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 04, 2008, 11:03 PM NHFT
so I guess you are saying ... nowhere
That would be subjective which is why I differentiated the relationship. What government are you talking about? If you're talking about the Federal Government, at present day, yes... basically nowhere. An independent New Hampshire would change this obviously. Then all you have to deal with is the New Hampshire State Government, a system of governance established by the People (land owners) over two hundred years ago. Don't like it? Too bad. Facts are facts. They were here first. Deal with them or ignore them.
As far as cities are concerned I think you're just out of luck. Any land incorporated into the City is under that city's domain as allowed by the New Hampshire Constitution. If you don't like the property taxes and associated regulations implemented by a city, don't move into that city. Just as if you didn't want to agree to the rules set forth by a voluntary community, don't move to that community.
On that topic however a voluntary community can exist within the domain of a state sovereign. You just have to create one or convert an existing one. Once the voluntary community is established if a general attitude of mercantilism is initially adopted the community, embracing the free market, can dominate economic competition in the state. As councils of other cities lose power and the cities adopt the attitudes of the successful voluntary community the State Government is progressively weakened. Once again at this point with the judiciary and legislature under control of free minded individuals, nature runs its course.
Just avoid going to jail. Yes, they can and will make room for everyone if given the opportunity. Don't give it to them. If you're going to refuse their legitimacy, do so as Canario did. Otherwise know when you're beaten and keep your ass on the street where you can still do some good for liberty. If the time comes where people are backed into a corner with one option left, you're useless behind bars. Don't become a casualty over a stupid couch or piece of paper.
Quote from: margomaps on September 30, 2008, 07:44 PM NHFT
See -- the system works! :o ;)
The question is: Why and how did the system work?
After listening to the trial again, I couldn't help but notice two things.
1) When Nick went before the judge, the judge asked him "
DO YOU swear before me that the testimony you are about to give is the truth...." and Nick's reply was "It is" not "I do". I'm not sure but I think this might have some relevance.
2) Then the judge asked him if his name was "Nicholas Ryder" and Nick's reply was "That's the name on my license". Not satisfied with his answer, the judge continued with a second question, "But is that who
YOU are?" and Nick's reply was "That's what my friends call me". It appears to me that Nick never admitted or consented to being the "person" (artificial entity) in question here and responsible for the ticket. This is the reason I believe, and I could be wrong, he was found not guilty.
I noticed both of those things as well. Also not sure of their significance.
Quote from: Paul Comeau Jr on October 11, 2008, 02:00 PM NHFT
This is the reason I believe, and I could be wrong, he was found not guilty.
I think it was a combination of knowing Nick wasn't going to pay, which the judge interpreted as saying he'd go to jail first, and the judge believed it because he knows we're serious here from previous people, combined with a pretty solid presentation that showed reasonable doubt. Now it's not your average guy just trying to see if he can talk his way out of a ticket. Now there are cameras on the judge who has to prove publicly, beyond a reasonable doubt, so he can send a guy to JAIL. Nick kind of raised the stakes and he wasn't bluffing, not one bit.
Quote from: dalebert on October 12, 2008, 08:41 AM NHFT
Quote from: Paul Comeau Jr on October 11, 2008, 02:00 PM NHFT
This is the reason I believe, and I could be wrong, he was found not guilty.
He wasn't bluffing, not one bit.
I guess we'll never know.
Three cheers for Coconut!
:occasion14: :occasion14: :occasion14:
Horray!
:occasion14:
Yeah Three Beers for Coconut!!
Quote from: Pat K on October 13, 2008, 08:49 AM NHFT
:occasion14:
Yeah Three Beers for Coconut!!
Hey, there's only two beers there! What happened to the third one?
...
Oh. Sorry, Pat. Nevermind. ;)