Dave's doing a silent sign-holding at the IRS in Nashua. He just called to say that they've called the police on him. He's worried he may arrested, though they haven't actually asked him to leave, so he doesn't think he's violated any law.
It looks like the address is 410 Amherst St, Nashua, NH.
That's all I know now. Will keep you updated.
Everything is OK. He didn't get arrested, but the police made him leave the building. His sign said "Is it right to work for the IRS?" It apparently infuriated the IRS employees to have the police take a half an hour to show up to get rid of annoying sign and signholder.
;D 8) Zoombie signs strikes again.
Zoombie? Is that a super-fast zombie?
Yes Dave gets around to much to be a mere Zombie.
Nice work, Dave. 8)
Quote from: Kat Kanning on September 11, 2006, 03:43 PM NHFT
His sign said "Is it right to work for the IRS?"
They must feel guilty. If someone stood outside our place with that kind of sign, we would come out and say "Yes".
Quote from: Kat Kanning on September 11, 2006, 03:11 PM NHFT
Dave's doing a silent sign-holding at the IRS in Nashua.
Damn I wish he'd give more warning on these... I'm in Nashua this afternoon
Quote from: Kat Kanning on September 11, 2006, 03:43 PM NHFT
It apparently infuriated the IRS employees to have the police take a half an hour to show up to get rid of annoying sign and signholder.
They should raise taxes so that they can hire more police so that they would be there faster.
NICE!
If he did get busted in Nashua would they send him to Dover? Or, would I have to wright a new song? >:D
Hmmmmm? A song about silent protesting? The seed has been planted.
Will Dave be calling FTL tonight, or is he working?
Quote from: Dreepa on September 11, 2006, 04:15 PM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on September 11, 2006, 03:43 PM NHFT
It apparently infuriated the IRS employees to have the police take a half an hour to show up to get rid of annoying sign and signholder.
They should raise taxes so that they can hire more police so that they would be there faster.
When I talked to SGT. Jones a few months back, he said they were trying to hire 15 new officers......
Quote from: Money Dollars on September 11, 2006, 04:39 PM NHFT
When I talked to SGT. Jones a few months back, he said they were trying to hire 15 new officers......
Craig! We got a job for ya!
Quote from: Dreepa on September 11, 2006, 04:15 PM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on September 11, 2006, 03:43 PM NHFT
It apparently infuriated the IRS employees to have the police take a half an hour to show up to get rid of annoying sign and signholder.
They should raise taxes so that they can hire more police so that they would be there faster.
I wonder if they had the courtesy to simply ask him to leave (He might have.) . . . Or, did they just call the men with guns right away - because the only way they know (and/or care) how to deal with people is with brute force.
He said they'd called the police without asking him to leave.
8)
Wow the one man protest is really something.
Another case of something being much more powerful than I would have intially thought.
Cheers to Dave... a pioneer. ;)
Hey guys! I will report more later but a couple quick corrections...the IRS folks *did* ask me to leave, but I didn't get the impression they were asking me to leave the building, just their office within the building. So I left (slowly) the offices but not the building. After that no one repeated an order or request to do anything else so I decided to stand inside the building but outside the IRS offices. I was thinking I would probably leave pretty soon, but that's when they came out and told me the police were coming. So I had to stay.... :( I can see myself leaving a property I'm ordered off of, but I don't think it would be good to leave a property just because some police are coming.
Also another minor correction...I'm not sure it would be right to say I was worried the police would arrest me; it probably would have been an ok day to be arrested. But I did want to make sure you guys had some kind of warning that it was possible.
Kat thanks for getting the word out so fast and thanks everyone for showing interest!
I'll post some details later, and welcome to our new IRS and Nashua PD readers!
Quote from: DadaOrwell on September 11, 2006, 05:29 PM NHFT
I'll post some details later, and welcome to our new IRS and Nashua PD readers!
Don't do that when I am eating .... it could get messy. :biglaugh: :icon_stop:
Quote from: DadaOrwell on September 11, 2006, 05:29 PM NHFT
showing interest!
I'd call it support. Heck, I was ready start heading towards the/any Prison with Gadsen flag (wich is allways in the car and on the ready & guitar), if they were holding you.
GLAD YOUR OK, DUDE!
I took the story to FTL at 7+.
Dave took "part 1" of the story to FTL just now.
Good job Dave.
Dave's calling back tommorrow with "part 2."
We were left in the middle of the story >:(; at a point before the men with guns arived.
I like to refer to beurocrats as "desk-zombies!" 8-)
Good job, Dave. I'm glad you weren't arrested and I commend your courage.
OK here is a fuller report on the one man demo inside Nashua's IRS office.
As most of you know, another NH resident, Russell Kanning, held a demonstration at the Keene IRS office in August and was arrested for attempting to enter the building and hand out flyers. Russell may be free now, but that hasn't stopped the spread of anti-IRS activity in Keene. Every Thursday there is a larger group of activists outside their offices. I think it is really great that there is some follow up on Russell's sacrifice, but why limit it to Keene? Why not deliver Russell's message to agents in other parts of the state?
So since I was driving by the Nashua IRS office anyway, and had signs in my trunk anyway, I just grabbed one and spent fifty seconds writing a message on it. The sign says "Is it right to work 4 IRS?"
I went into the office with the sign around 3:20 p.m., more or less neatly dressed. There were two agents manning the dull gray teller windows and a family of foreigners trying to get some kind of paperwork done through their interpreter. I stood in a place where the agents could see me then smiled and nodded at each of them. One of them looked back at me and said "yes!" in answer to my sign. So you can get answers from the IRS after all....
She looked kind of amused. The other agent didn't. They both tried to ignore me for about five minutes, then the man said do you want to call the police or should I? The lady said "I'm not going to call the police, he's not bothering me; he's just asking a question."
The man said "he's annoying me!" I grinned at the lady. The man seemed to sigh sort of impotently.
At some point in here I placed a flyer in the man's teller window which, to my surprise, he opened and began to read.
The flyer says:
--------
IS IT RIGHT TO WORK FOR THE "INTERNAL ROBBERY SQUADRON?"
I have the right to remain silent. IRS agents have the right to quit their jobs. If that is not possible, they have a responsibility to work as inefficiently as possible when taking our money, and as quickly as possible when returning it. :)
I'm here to respectfully ensure they know that I do not appreciate what they are doing and to make them feel uncomfortable...morally, not physically.
IRS taxes fund torture, waste and unconstitutional Federal mandates like the privacy-killing "Real ID."
If you would like to join New Hampshire's peaceful resistance to IRS tyranny, come to
NHFREE.COM
The state's most active web forum
"Keeping NH Free
From Keene to Shining Sea"
--------
When he saw the NHfree.com at the bottom, he said "Oh it's YOU guys," and put the flyer down, rolled his eyes. Word is really getting out about us I guess! I retreated to a spot where I was more out of the way and concentrated on staying out of the way but visible.
I remember the man saying something like: "You're not allowed to solicit on Federal property."
At this point doors started opening from deeper inside the office and one after another dour looking people started coming out giving me dirty looks. I tried to nod at all of them respectfully and keep the sign aimed toward each of them as they came and went. I smiled at the immigrant family but realized I shouldn't stand too close to them for fear incoming and outgoing bureaucrats might erroneously associate them with me.
After I was in the office for about 20 minutes, and most of the employees had presumably come out to take a look at me (many of them saying "Yes!" in answer to my sign's question) an attractive middle aged lady came into the lobby with an entourage that included the biggest male bureaucrat they could find and said very sternly "I'd like you to leave." I was glad she brought the big guy along because I didn't want them to feel physically scared of me. Anyway the attractive bureaucrat and maybe the others seemed to say quite a few things and I don't remember them all, but the gist I got was that they wanted me out of their office, which takes up part of the third floor. I didn't get the sense that they were ordering me out of the entire building.
So, I began leaving the office while facing the IRS folks with my sign. I wasn't far from the door, so I didn't have far to go, but I kinda move slow sometimes when government folks are telling me what to do; you know how it is. After about a half-minute's worth of me leaving they decided I wasn't leaving fast enough and the attractive devourer of our sustenance kept getting angrier. She said "LEAVE!!!"
Somewhere in there she indicated an interest in calling the police, but that didn't deter me from continuing to follow her order.
Then something interesting happened. I looked behind me at the door I was eventually going to exit, and saw Henry McElroy standing there! Henry is a former State Rep and Free Stater from Nashua who of course had no idea I was going to be there. Apparently he just happened to show up at that moment as part of his own very different fight against the IRS. He's trying to do some complicated legal thing which I will never understand or try to explain. But I'm glad he's fighting and was glad to see him there.
Anyway I couldn't say anything to him, but then the IRS lady was telling me to leave again, so I motioned to Henry so as to remind her that it's not possible to leave while someone is standing in the door. Eventually he got out of the way, I patted him on the shoulder and continued leaving. Then, since I didn't have anything else to do while leaving, I handed the attractive bureaucrat a copy of the flyer. To her credit, she took it and began reading it.
I don't know why they were upset; they wanted me to leave, and I was doing a LOT of leaving.
Once I was out of their office, I felt I had met their demands, but just to be nice I kept backing up for another couple minutes until I was out of their sight and next to the elevator. I figured I would stand there for maybe fifteen minutes and then do some more leaving. But pretty soon agents started coming out of the office to see where I was, I guess. I would nod at them, and they would seem to pretend like they were just passing by on the way downstairs. They would walk up to the elevator and wait for it to come up. Since I was standing next to the elevator too, I would just aim the sign at them and look at them from three feet away, and we would stand there not talking for forty or fifty awkward seconds LOL. Me facing them, them facing the elevator doors and pretending like I wasn't there.
More and more people kept coming out, and then one lady wearing very Federal-looking clothes walked up to a window and looked out. She started tapping nervously on the window pane as though she were expecting someone to drive up who was instead taking his or her time.
More later...
Quote from: DadaOrwell on September 11, 2006, 09:20 PM NHFT
an attractive middle aged lady came into the lobby
MARK! GET DOWN TO THE IRS OFFICE, QUICK!
(after all, you
do have a history with ladies who work in government jobs...)
OK here's the second part of the story. As I am standing there in the hall the attractive middle aged lady comes out, I think for a second time. She says "Oh good, you're still here. The police will be here soon." She asks "what's your name?" I just look her and try to appear respectful.
I make a phone call to "Porcupine 911" (Kat) while no one is around and inform her that I could be arrested but probably not. A few average citizens come and go and eyeball my sign. An older guy asks me if it is right to work for the government. I smile at him too.
Henry comes out of the office. I let him know what's up. He informs me that, of course, he has got the whole IRS problem solved using whatever his latest incomprehensible approach may be. He says his method won't bring out the Heat like mine. But he says he would be happy to help me if I need bailing out or anything.
At this point I've been in the hall about as long as I'd planned to be, 15 minutes. But I don't really feel like leaving now since that would be backing down to threats, as opposed to backing down to a "leave the property" order. Unless I've just missed something, no one has yet asked me to leave the building or do anything since I exited the office .
After I have been out there for about a half hour you can tell the agents are really wondering what's taking the cops so long. Maybe the cops have some of their priorities straight!
I hear police in the elevator and when the door opens there are two angry looking NPD guys. I nod at them. Before the doors are even open all the way one of them says I have to leave or I'm gonna get arrested. They speak with the IRS folks who are eager to tell them about the horrible things I have done and described above. I don't try to stare them down or anything, I just try to keep a level demeanor and decent eye contact. I hold the cell phone up and punch the send button to put another call in to Kat, a silent one I guess. The same officer (J. Conner if I remember his badge right) says turn that off. I hit the end button. But he says "did you hear me!!??" He says you can't record this; that would be against the law. Not sure why he thinks a cell call is a recording but anyway he then says "leave!" I point at the elevator doors which are closed and the "down" button which is lit. As the doors open I start moving backward at the usual speed. They bunch up close to me and glare at me. I hand a copy of the leaflet to Conner. He refuses to take it and gets angrier. Then I hand it to the Quiet Cop (who I can hardly criticize, right?) Of course he also refuses to take it. So I open it and hold it up and aim the text at them as the elevator drops.
Connor says "You think I am reading that???" At this point I guess I should have held it in front of my face to give him nothing else to look at but that didn't really occur to me. When the door opens Connor barks at me some more but I think I do a pretty good job of keeping my speed the same. He says "HURRY UP!!" I'm not really all that scared this time like I was on the last one, or at least I'm not shaking much. Maybe I'm getting used to this. But my heart is beating fast enough.
He says "You're trying my patience buddy!" I don't react much. It does occur to me though that he might shove me, which would be bad for me and good for freedom. Connor if you're reading this feel free to post any corrections if you think I am not relaying this "conversation" accurately. When we finally get outside he says "For future reference wiretapping is a felony." He says something like if you try to come back after we leave you're getting arrested. If it's not on official business. I assume he's referring to the IRS office not the entire building or parking lot since there are other businesses in there.
He says put your shield down! Referring to the sign. I don't put it down but I aim it away so he can see my full torso, that there are no threats behind the sign. Then I aim it at him again and keep both hands visible. IRS agents start coming out of the building and watching. Then the cops stop standing in front of me and stay put. The Quiet Cop says something that makes Connor laugh. I'm now fifty feet away and getting another foot away every second. I wave at them. They go back to talk to the agents. A few minutes later once off the property I turn around and walk away.
I don't walk straight back to my car...they still don't even know who I am. It's not like they couldn?t follow me to the car or find me here...but I figure I'll make 'em work a little for my name if they want it. Once I do get close to my car a Protective Services (Homeland Security?) vehicle makes a U-Turn right behind me. I wave at them while they're still facing me. They ignore me and head to the IRS building and are still there half an hour later.
I don't feel all that comfortable about triggering a police response, since that triggers taxpayer expenditure...but I didn't feel right about leaving the building right after they called the police either.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on September 11, 2006, 11:36 PM NHFT
I don't feel all that comfortable about triggering a police response, since that triggers taxpayer expenditure...but I didn't feel right about leaving either.
You didn't trigger the police response, Dave. You did good. The folks who pulled the trigger were those inside the office who couldn't deal with a peaceful protest.
Kevin
QuoteConnor if you're reading this feel free to post any corrections if you think I am not relaying this "conversation" accurately. When we finally get outside he says "For future reference wiretapping is a felony." He says something like if you try to come back after we leave you're getting arrested. If it's not on official business. I assume he's referring to the IRS office not the entire building or parking lot since there are other businesses in there.
Connor, you need to recognize redress of grievances as "official business". I think its in some paperwork you don't use titled "US Constitution". Hope that helps. Welcome to the forum.
Thank you, Dave. Hope you don't mind if I copy your tactic.
;D Copycat activist...woohoo!
QuoteIf it's not on official business. I assume he's referring to the IRS office not the entire building or parking lot since there are other businesses in there.
he means the whole building...you have no freedom of speech rights anywhere but in a public building for that specific purpose or the right of way contained within the sidewalk.
Dave is on FTL now.
They have gone to break . . . we are getting part 2 when thet come back.
Quote from: FrankChodorov on September 12, 2006, 04:29 PM NHFT
QuoteIf it's not on official business. I assume he's referring to the IRS office not the entire building or parking lot since there are other businesses in there.
he means the whole building...you have no freedom of speech rights anywhere but in a public building for that specific purpose or the right of way contained within the sidewalk.
Oh no Georgist gets to define Dada's rights?
NICE CALL, DUDE!
Nice Call Dave I could picture everything in my mind :D
Dave, do you end up going through security at these IRS buildings? Metal detectors, etc.? If so, how do they react to you carrying a placard and handouts?
copycatting this would be great! I sort of copycatted Lauren to do this after all.
there isn't security at nashua or keene offices, don't know about the others.
Very cool .... it is funny how they react ..... why don't they just ignore you?
Maybe these (government thug) people just want to control others.
Maybe there is just not enough CONTROL in ignoreing.
Maybe they have just lost all common "people skills".
Maybe they should have their heads checked?
Maybe all they remember is brute force.
Maybe they should just check their souls?
Maybe they should think & feel again?
Maybe they should relax?
Maybe they forgot how?
Maybe they don't care.
Maybe they need help?
Maybe if they quit, they will find peace again.
Quote from: Dreepa on September 12, 2006, 06:25 PM NHFT
Quote from: FrankChodorov on September 12, 2006, 04:29 PM NHFT
QuoteIf it's not on official business. I assume he's referring to the IRS office not the entire building or parking lot since there are other businesses in there.
he means the whole building...you have no freedom of speech rights anywhere but in a public building for that specific purpose or the right of way contained within the sidewalk.
Oh no Georgist gets to define Dada's rights?
sorry...you have no freedom of speech rights in collectively owned buildings only where there is common right of ways or it is explicitly stated that the purpose of the building is the free exchange of ideas...this is very basic constitutional rights stuff
Realy? ???
Outstanding Dave!
The score is now: Dave 2 Russell 0
How many more offices are there in NH? Are you going to enter them all?
Do you think your message got through to any of them?
Looking forward to your next report.
Arn
Quote from: FrankChodorov on September 12, 2006, 09:05 PM NHFT
Quote from: Dreepa on September 12, 2006, 06:25 PM NHFT
Quote from: FrankChodorov on September 12, 2006, 04:29 PM NHFT
QuoteIf it's not on official business. I assume he's referring to the IRS office not the entire building or parking lot since there are other businesses in there.
he means the whole building...you have no freedom of speech rights anywhere but in a public building for that specific purpose or the right of way contained within the sidewalk.
Oh no Georgist gets to define Dada's rights?
sorry...you have no freedom of speech rights in collectively owned buildings only where there is common right of ways or it is explicitly stated that the purpose of the building is the free exchange of ideas...this is very basic constitutional rights stuff
Okay, at the risk of poking the bear I have to ask- "basic constitutional rights stuff"? I don't think the first amendment says "...except in Government buildings where you are just plain annoying to those that work there on your dime". I could be wrong, I've not read the most recent updated version.... :icon_pirat:
Quote from: John on September 12, 2006, 10:43 PM NHFT
Quote from: gr8_ace on September 12, 2006, 10:24 PM NHFT
Dave 2 Russell 0
? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Maybe I'm just tired>
IRS protests, without getting arrested. Russell if 0 for 2. Dave is 1 for 1. Not sure where the "2" comes in, unless gr8_ace is talking about Dave's Nashua PD protest.
Kevin
Quote from: gr8_ace on September 12, 2006, 10:24 PM NHFT
The score is now: Dave 2 Russell 0
If anything, the "score" is 3-0 -- liberty 3, fascists 0!
I'm going to do some recon this Thursday; if anyone in the Boston area wants to help make the score 4-0, PM me :brave:
Quote from: Revmar on September 13, 2006, 01:37 AM NHFT
Quote from: FrankChodorov on September 12, 2006, 09:05 PM NHFT
Quote from: Dreepa on September 12, 2006, 06:25 PM NHFT
Quote from: FrankChodorov on September 12, 2006, 04:29 PM NHFT
QuoteIf it's not on official business. I assume he's referring to the IRS office not the entire building or parking lot since there are other businesses in there.
he means the whole building...you have no freedom of speech rights anywhere but in a public building for that specific purpose or the right of way contained within the sidewalk.
Oh no Georgist gets to define Dada's rights?
sorry...you have no freedom of speech rights in collectively owned buildings only where there is common right of ways or it is explicitly stated that the purpose of the building is the free exchange of ideas...this is very basic constitutional rights stuff
Okay, at the risk of poking the bear I have to ask- "basic constitutional rights stuff"? I don't think the first amendment says "...except in Government buildings where you are just plain annoying to those that work there on your dime". I could be wrong, I've not read the most recent updated version.... :icon_pirat:
welll let's work backwards...
you don't have a free speech right on private property not owned by you - correct? (unless invited by the owner hwere they give you explicit permission)
The only personal freedoms I have are those which I am willing to exercise, usually at a cost, such as being told to leave or getting a pistol pointed in my face by some punk, or worse. The colonists paid a high cost, like watching their homes get burned out, and watching neighbors being tortured and executed without a jury trial. In a few years, our cost might be far worse.
Quote from: FrankChodorov on September 13, 2006, 06:19 AM NHFT
welll let's work backwards...
you don't have a free speech right on private property not owned by you - correct? (unless invited by the owner hwere they give you explicit permission)
Are you saying that you can only petition the government for redress of grievances on their property if you have their express permission? The first ammendment only gives us the right to petition them from our own living room? On their phone? What about email? Is it wrongful to send email to their server w/o their express permission? Even assuming you are correct about land owned in common I don't see how it works out that the government can decide how and when you redress them for grievances.
The first ammendment is terribly worded and I suspect it's not grammatically correct. But the best I can tell the relevant parts are intended to mean "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances." I could be wrong. The truth is I couldn't diagram that sentence if my life depended on it.
I don't know if the sign could be considered a petition though. A petition would be more like "Would you please stop being so evil?" or "I beg you to stop forcing me to provide money to fund things I find morally reprehensible." But that would be a bit long for a sign.
Besides, I do own that property and so does Dave. No person has a greater claim upon it than either of us, assuming it's owned in common.
"I don't know if the sign could be considered a petition . . ."
I think YES it is.
QuoteAre you saying that you can only petition the government for redress of grievances on their property if you have their express permission?
no, I am saying you can only petition the government on collectively owned property if the expressed specific purpose of the collectively owned property is to receive redresses of greivances or the excercise of your freedom of speech rights (both individual rights held in common).
so you can not go into a post office or IRS office and excercise your individual common rights of freedom of speech/redress of greivances because it will disrupt the intended official business of the collectively owned property whether or not that is your intention.
likewise, I have no individual common right to use the town snow plow to plow my driveway without getting permission via consensus from all the other owners of the jointly owned (collective) property OR by asking permission from our delegated authority (elected representatives) PRIOR to use because that is not the explicitly intended use.
QuoteEven assuming you are correct about land owned in common I don't see how it works out that the government can decide how and when you redress them for grievances.
being a radical Lockean - I believe land starts out owned in common and is rightfully privately enclosed via labor for exclusive use only upto Locke's proviso...beyond Locke's proviso (enough and as good left in common for others) simple social justice requires the equal and direct sharing of economic rent (with your neighbor in a community) that naturally attaches to all locations under scarce conditions (even in anarchy) which is not the result of the landowner's labor (hence their self-ownership is preserved).
the government can't decide how and when you can express your individual common rights of redress of greivances - just WHERE it is to occur.
the reason you always have the common right of freedom of speech on the sidewalks is because although technically the sidewalk itself is collectively owned property there is a common right of way contained within that supercedes the collective property SO LONG AS WHEN EXCERCISING YOUR INDIVIDUAL COMMON RIGHTS TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH YOU ARE NOT INFRINGING ON ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL'S COMMON RIGHT OF WAY...or shouting them down in a public forum.
that is why you can not block the sidewalks and have to keep moving
you have the same rights on the collectively owned roads/parking lots but you have to apply for a permit because there is an inherent conflict between cars use of the common right of way and people walking.
QuoteI don't know if the sign could be considered a petition though
.
Dave's sign falls under the individual common right of freedom of speech.
QuoteBesides, I do own that property and so does Dave. No person has a greater claim upon it than either of us, assuming it's owned in common.
then I am afraid you don't understand the difference between joint or collective ownership (a group right) and common ownership - an equal access individual right (not unusual in the NH liberty movement because they don't recognize the importance of common rights/property).
in jointly owned property you have to ask permission and get consent from all the other owners (group consensus) or their delegated authority to use other than it's official, explicitly intended purpose...you should be able to understand why this is inherently unequal!
the only restriction on individual common ownership is so long as you are not infringing on the equal access right of any other individual.
Quote from: FrankChodorov on September 13, 2006, 06:26 PM NHFT
Dave's sign falls under the individual common right of freedom of speech.
What if two people held the sign?
Would that be a collective right? :o
What if one person does this, and he ALSO represents my opinion?
What if I have multiple personalities and hold the sign?
To the moderator, a suggestion,
Thankfully dave seems to be ok :) but It may be a good idea to change the title of this thread by removeing the ALERT so that forum members are less likely to pass over an important more recent alert.
Thanks!
Quote from: Dreepa on September 13, 2006, 09:07 PM NHFT
Quote from: FrankChodorov on September 13, 2006, 06:26 PM NHFT
Dave's sign falls under the individual common right of freedom of speech.
What if two people held the sign?
Would that be a collective right? :o
nope - it would be a collective act
;D
Keene Police and ICE are at my house now wanting Dave. If they're waiting, they're going to have a long wait ::) Shit, I'm still shaking from having to talk to those jerks.
Meeting info:
The meeting is Friday at 11 am, Bldg 19 1/2 in Nashua. Here's info on the location:
http://www.building19.com/NASHUA.htm
I didn't know Dave lived with you guys.
Is it because of his forum complaints?
Dave's going to call them, but he's busy today. Would they come to arrest him with just two people? One Keene police cop and one ICE guy.
I'm shaking too. Really hope he dosen't get arrested.
...Dave's not here, man.
Oh, Dave's article came out in the paper today.
Russell's going out to meet Shorty now.
Is Daves article online? I would like to read it.
I'm really sick and took today off, so if you guys need help and don't mind my cooties I can come down with my video camera. Let me know.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on September 28, 2006, 08:38 AM NHFT
Russell's going out to meet Shorty now.
Does Dave know the way? ;)
http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=268&Itemid=36
It's on the front page of the print edition.
I'm convinced now they didn't come to arrest him. If they had a warrant, they wouldn't have just accepted me saying he's not here, they would have come in and had a look.
Oh, thanks for offering to film despite being sick :) Dave wont be here, so I don't think there will be anything to film today.
Dave called the ICE guy, Schmitt, who wants to meet with Dave in person. When Dave asked if he was going to be arrested, the guy said no. He wouldn't really talk about why he wants to see Dave on the phone. Dave says there's an 80% chance that he'll be able to meet with Schmitt tomorrow in Nashua. He's thinking he'd like an observer there, if anyone is available.
The meeting is tomorrow at 11 am, Bldg 19 1/2 in Nashua. Here's info on the location:
http://www.building19.com/NASHUA.htm
Anyone able to be there with Dave?
They are meeting at a store? ???
I guess so. In the parking lot.
This is bizarre. WHY does ICE want to meet with him, and why the strange meeting places?
All it takes is one angry bureaucrat from any of his silent demonstration sites to trigger this.
Cathleen
Think he should show up with a sign tomorrow?
Only Dave can say what his purpose is or will be tomorrow. Resisting intimidation doesn't require a sign. Public is good, even without a sign.
Cathleen
Quote from: cathleeninnh on September 28, 2006, 02:56 PM NHFT
All it takes is one angry bureaucrat from any of his silent demonstration sites to trigger this.
Cathleen
Well specifically one that is protected by ICE .... so that means a Fed place.
Be sure to pick up a CVS single-use video camera before tomorrow!
I'm sure Dave picked the meeting place, for whatever reasons.
Could a few ppl stand in the lot there with signs asking "Should officers enforce rights in the Constitution?"
Call Dave if you can help: 603-721-1490
I wish I could, but Don has to go to MA tomorrow.
Cathleen
Quote from: FrankChodorov on September 28, 2006, 03:05 PM NHFT
probably just to inform him that he has no individual freedom of speech rights (holding a sign with a message directed at the federal employees) in collectively owned buildings as it may disrupt the business that the building is intended for and that if he continues to repeatedly do it they will have to eventually arrest him (which may infact be his purpose).
Yes, the land-commie cops want to explain land-communism to Dave. ::)
In reality, they probably want to try intimidation. Or maybe Dave will just disappear if no one is there to help him.
Be armed with a video camera, etc.
Sorry to be so out of pocket, I was out doing silent demos in new london CT all day! I think I set a new record for the number of offices I've been slowly kicked out of .... more on that later.
Did want to put in a couple requests: If in fact this "meeting" with the homeland security guy(s) turns out to be an arrest; my "dying wish" is that a couple of you just go out and do more or less what I did, at whatever IRS offices are convenient. It might be best to keep your identity secret if in fact they are now putting people in concrete boxes for entering IRS offices with signs and then leaving when told. They probably just ID'd me because I wrote articles about the incident; but most of you guys could easily be in and out before they can say 501(c)3. absent some big investigation they'd never know who it was. However they *would* start to figure out that the little hyrda keeps getting bigger whenever they chop one its heads off....that maybe the thing to do is get the Hyrda back on their side.
Other than that just treat me as you and I have treated Russell and Lauren when they have been under the gun. if i do get nabbed a call to margot sanger katz at the Monitor would be appreciated as well as gardner and ian's shows.
I urge my family embers reading this to spread the word among family and friends of any such arrest. For that matter you can spread the word about what's already going on, if you feel like it. Just send them email with the following links:
The latest:
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?&topic=5464.0
The background:
http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=268&Itemid=36
Kat if you do not hear from me before 12:30 p.m. 9/29, you may consider me missing in action.
Godspeed, Dada.
I'd say that it is 50/50 whether you are arrested: they probably don't want to go through the trouble of getting an arrest warrant to enter your residence, but would love the chance to try to intimidate you with a brief arrest before being "nice" enough to drop the charge(s).
They don't, however, know what they're up against: the strong, silent type.
I would tell you not to say anything to The Man, but somehow I don't think that that's gonna be a problem for you.
Quote from: FrankChodorov on September 28, 2006, 03:05 PM NHFT
probably just to inform him that he has no individual freedom of speech rights (holding a sign with a message directed at the federal employees) in collectively owned buildings as it may disrupt the business that the building is intended for and that if he continues to repeatedly do it they will have to eventually arrest him (which may infact be his purpose).
Quote from: DadaOrwell on September 28, 2006, 11:41 PM NHFT
Did want to put in a couple requests: If in fact this "meeting" with the homeland security guy(s) turns out to be an arrest; my "dying wish" is that a couple of you just go out and do more or less what I did, at whatever IRS offices are convenient.
What? ??? Was I right or was I right? :(
I'm sure they're working on some trumped up charges against Cathleen, Kat, and I as we speak. The NH Underground may mysteriously disappear any day now.
If you think I'm kidding, ask IndyMedia what happens to your computers when the government does not like you.
I cannot believe this country.
I am very upset. :bs:
Quote from: Otosan on September 29, 2006, 01:33 AM NHFT
Try to get and audio plus video recordings of the up coming meeting. If possible have 2 videos going, show them one and keep the other hid.
My 2 cents.
I think it is currently illegal in NH to record audio without consent.
I think any person in a government job should be willing to be recorded by the public, both video and audio. If you are doing a job for the public, the public should be able to record you going about your job.
Homeland security guys don't seem to freak out if you film them.
What's the big deal over this article?
If they want to meet you... in a parking lot, it really sounds like something's up, and I can't tell whether it's good, or whether it's bad, but I wouldn't go. I'd tell them to come meet me, somewhere else.
Quote from: Michael Fisher on September 29, 2006, 12:57 AM NHFT
Quote from: DadaOrwell on September 28, 2006, 11:41 PM NHFT
Did want to put in a couple requests: If in fact this "meeting" with the homeland security guy(s) turns out to be an arrest; my "dying wish" is that a couple of you just go out and do more or less what I did, at whatever IRS offices are convenient.
What? ??? Was I right or was I right? :(
I'm sure they're working on some trumped up charges against Cathleen, Kat, and I as we speak. The NH Underground may mysteriously disappear any day now.
If you think I'm kidding, ask IndyMedia what happens to your computers when the government does not like you.
All of a sudden I feel it might be a good idea for me to set up an alternate forum just in case... I can host it on my server at my house.
In the spirit of NHFree I'll leave it as open as the current one is, for perusal and registration
At this moment we can also reassemble at FTLive and Strike-the-Root if anything goes wrong here.
Kat and I are delivering newspapers on our way to Nashua this morning. We do not have any audio or video recording devices, but we will be there with ourselves and a camera.
Do you have a backup of the forum?
At least backing up the database would be a good idea so it could be rehosted if need be.
Sure .... but for an emergency ..... we meet at FTLive. :)
I have unused server space and bandwidth that can be used in the event of a real emergency. I also keep full off-site backups, so even if the federal morons were to seize the computer, I can be back up and running elsewhere in a VERY short time.
I am wondering maybe the DHS wants to call a truce with Dada?? That would be a great victory. ;D
I certainly hope Dada goes to the meeting holding a sign criticizing Homeland Security for going after legitimate First Amendment activities while ignoring terrorists.
Dave asked me to report that he was not arrested, but they did attempt to cite him - however he refused to accept the citation.
Quote from: mvpel on September 29, 2006, 11:29 AM NHFT
Dave asked me to report that he was not arrested, but they did attempt to cite him - however he refused to accept the citation.
Cite him for what? Being in the building?
Also thanks for informing us, let me help your karma :)
Refusing citations:
Interesting cop forum http://forums.officer.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-14631.html
Really interesting, but haven't reviewed the source http://www.transformcolumbusday.org/pdf/Legal-Steps-Chart.pdf
Cathleen
I hope Dada calls in to FTL tonight to describe the meeting and fill in all the details. ;D I am so happy they did not label him a terrorist and hold him indefinitely in Gut-mo.
I heard that dave was not arresst but police gave him a ticket. I don't recall the exact amout. I think around a hundred dollars. Dada will probuly tell the full story later.
I wonder if we could get Ted Turner to set up a trust fund to pay for the tickets Freestaters get for exercising their rights.
This was fun. Four of met with one homeland security guy..Schmitt. This time it was HIM who was shaking. I don't really know why. He was the one with the gun.
Dave talked nicely with the guy. Schmitt cited him for giving out handbills on Fed property on the 11th. He didn't deny that he got the info from Dave's article in the Keene Free Press. When he handed Dave the ticket, it was real obvious he was shakin in his shoes. Dave wouldn't take the piece of paper from him. He's supposed to pay a $150 fine. Apparently there's an appeals process. Dave didn't know yet whether he'd pay or not. At the end of the conversation, Dave told him nicely that he thought the guy was working on the wrong side. It seemed to effect him funny...having us think he was the bad guy.
Afterward, the reporter from the Nashua Telegraph showed up and talked to us for a long time. She was amused about Dave's silent/slow backing up protest. She headed over to the IRS next door to check it out right after the interview. Apparently the Concord Monitor wanted to talk to Dave about it later, also.
Quote from: error on September 29, 2006, 08:28 AM NHFT
I have unused server space and bandwidth that can be used in the event of a real emergency. I also keep full off-site backups, so even if the federal morons were to seize the computer, I can be back up and running elsewhere in a VERY short time.
Thanks for the offer. I hope Kat decides to take you or Crucial Servers up on your hosting offers: http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=3010.msg93276#msg93276
Kat: still waiting for your comments on the Crucial Servers offer.
Quote from: FrankChodorov on September 29, 2006, 05:16 PM NHFT
QuoteSchmitt cited him for giving out handbills on Fed property on the 11th.
in otherwords you have no specific individual freedom of speech right on collectively owned property?
Says you and the feds
Got a call from the Union Leader at about 4pm also wanting to debrief me.
Surprise surprise .... they want dada's money.
It sounded like they just wanted his briefs :o
Quote from: Russell Kanning on September 29, 2006, 09:39 PM NHFT
Surprise surprise .... they want dada's money.
Maybe we should write them a citation and see if they'll pay us!
I wonder how much it "cost" the taxpayers to serve this $150 citation on Dada?
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides:
"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The clear text of the First Amendment appears to protect Dada's right to petition the gubmint for a redress of grievances. He was (allegedly) distributing flyers containing his "grievance" (people being employed by the IRS) and how they could be redressed (by those people exercising their right to quit working for the IRS).
Of course, the clear text never really means anything once it gets into the hands of lawyers, politicians, and judges. It is interesting that the ICE is wasting its time on $150 tickets when there is a congressman sexually soliciting 16 year olds on the internet.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on September 29, 2006, 09:00 PM NHFT
Got a call from the Union Leader at about 4pm also wanting to debrief me.
Keep your pants on!
;)
Quote from: FrankChodorov on September 29, 2006, 05:16 PM NHFT
QuoteSchmitt cited him for giving out handbills on Fed property on the 11th.
in otherwords you have no specific individual freedom of speech right on collectively owned property?
Indeed.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on September 29, 2006, 05:27 PM NHFT
Quote from: error on September 29, 2006, 08:28 AM NHFT
I have unused server space and bandwidth that can be used in the event of a real emergency. I also keep full off-site backups, so even if the federal morons were to seize the computer, I can be back up and running elsewhere in a VERY short time.
Thanks for the offer. I hope Kat decides to take you or Crucial Servers up on your hosting offers: http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=3010.msg93276#msg93276
Kat: still waiting for your comments on the Crucial Servers offer.
Thank you all for working together on a contingency plan.
Quote from: Spencer on September 29, 2006, 10:47 PM NHFT
It is interesting that the ICE is wasting its time on $150 tickets when there is a congressman sexually soliciting 16 year olds on the internet.
I bet you it's more than one congressman. He's the one who got caught.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on September 29, 2006, 05:02 PM NHFT
This was fun. Four of met with one homeland security guy..Schmitt. This time it was HIM who was shaking. I don't really know why. He was the one with the gun.
Dave talked nicely with the guy. Schmitt cited him for giving out handbills on Fed property on the 11th. He didn't deny that he got the info from Dave's article in the Keene Free Press. When he handed Dave the ticket, it was real obvious he was shakin in his shoes. Dave wouldn't take the piece of paper from him. He's supposed to pay a $150 fine. Apparently there's an appeals process. Dave didn't know yet whether he'd pay or not. At the end of the conversation, Dave told him nicely that he thought the guy was working on the wrong side. It seemed to effect him funny...having us think he was the bad guy.
Afterward, the reporter from the Nashua Telegraph showed up and talked to us for a long time. She was amused about Dave's silent/slow backing up protest. She headed over to the IRS next door to check it out right after the interview. Apparently the Concord Monitor wanted to talk to Dave about it later, also.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on September 29, 2006, 09:00 PM NHFT
Got a call from the Union Leader at about 4pm also wanting to debrief me.
Great work, Dave. Whoever helped inform the media: excellent job, and what did you say to them?
Union Leader:
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Homeland+Security+goes+after+Keene+man+for+demonstrating+at+IRS+office&articleId=4a23cf7c-cd3b-4b8c-948b-bcb435605660 (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Homeland+Security+goes+after+Keene+man+for+demonstrating+at+IRS+office&articleId=4a23cf7c-cd3b-4b8c-948b-bcb435605660)
QuoteRidley said he stood in the IRS office for approximately 20 minutes with a sign reading, "Is it right to work 4 IRS?" before he was asked to leave by IRS employees. During that time he handed one employee a flyer promoting the website www.freenh.com, an organization that wishes to see a downsized government in New Hampshire.
Oops... someone needs to buy that domain and point it here. They made a mistake.
Grab a hard-copy of this when it comes out.
The freenh.com domain is taken already.
NHB Internet Services, LLC
3 Taggart Drive Unit J
Nashua, NH 03060
US
Domain Name: FREENH.COM
Administrative Contact -
John Webber - jwebber@nhbis.com
NHB Internet Services, LLC
3 Taggart Drive Unit J
Nashua, NH 03060
US
Phone - 603-594-3700
Fax -
I submitted feedback to the UL, pointing out the error. It's too late to correct the print version, but hopefully they'll correct the internet version.
Great job, Dave!
Good article, too.
Kevin
Quote from: FTL_Ian on September 29, 2006, 10:02 PM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on September 29, 2006, 09:39 PM NHFT
Surprise surprise .... they want dada's money.
Maybe we should write them a citation and see if they'll pay us!
Ooooh, I like that idea!!
Any Diggs of this story would be much appreciated:
http://digg.com/politics/Homeland_Security_and_Petition_for_Redress_of_Grievances
Posted on the FTL BBS:
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=9027.0
I think the citation was $125, not $150, but maybe I misunderstood.
If you guys digg it be sure to include the corrected NHfree.com URL in the intro.
Homeland Security goes after Keene man for demonstrating at IRS office
By SON HOANG
Union Leader Correspondent
9 hours, 30 minutes ago
Nashua ? A Keene man had a run-in with the United States Department of Homeland Security in the parking lot of Building 19 yesterday morning.
Dave Ridley, 40, said he met with an official from the Department of Homeland Security in the parking lot, located at 420 Amherst St., who repeatedly tried to give him a $120 citation for handing out handbills at a federal office.
The citation stems from a silent demonstration Ridley held in early September at the Internal Revenue Service Nashua office, located at 410 Amherst St.
Keene residents have been holding demonstrations at their local IRS office for the past two months, Ridley said, and he wanted to hold one at the Nashua office to show the government that their movement was growing.
Ridley said he stood in the IRS office for approximately 20 minutes with a sign reading, "Is it right to work 4 IRS?" before he was asked to leave by IRS employees. During that time he handed one employee a flyer promoting the website www.freenh.com, an organization that wishes to see a downsized government in New Hampshire.
After leaving the IRS office, Ridley said he remained in the building next to the elevator with his sign for 15 minutes until Nashua Police officers arrived and asked him to leave the building.
Two weeks later, Ridley wrote an article in the Keene Free Press, a local newspaper with a circulation of 5,000, about his demonstration in Nashua, he said. Representatives from Homeland Security soon after left a message at his home while he was out asking to have a meeting with him.
Yesterday morning Ridley met with a Homeland Security representative who identified himself as "Inspector Schmidt," Ridley said.
Schmidt objected to having the conversation recorded and repeatedly tried to hand Ridley his $120 citation, Ridley said.
Ridley, who brought three friends along to observe the meeting, added that Schmidt remained polite throughout the entire exchange despite appearing agitated by Ridley's insistence to not accept the citation.
The entire meeting lasted approximately 10 minutes, Ridley said, and he doesn't know what will happen next. Since he never accepted the citation in person, he assumes that one will be mailed to his home.
Ridley thought the attention Homeland Security paid to him seemed unnecessary. "Aren't they supposed to protect us from terrorists not sign-wavers?"
Despite the fallout from his demonstration in Nashua, Ridley said he will continue to hold his silent demonstrations at state bureaucracies. He has held 20 demonstrations at various state-level government offices such as the Department of Motor Vehicles.
What's kind of surprising to me is that Son was apparently unable to get verifications but was still willing to run the story. I guess it's a good sign if the media trusts us that much. It's too bad NH reporters have such a high rate of departure from the state; we do seem to have establihed good relations with so many reporters but then they leave. I guess we need to figure out a way to get more of the the higher ups at some of the papers to feel more friendly, but hopefully this will happen through the reporters to some extent.
Russell was commenting that the newness of so many reporters does also work to our advantage in that none of them bat an eye at the fact that so many of us are recent NH immigrants. Many of the people telling our story have been here even less than we have.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on September 29, 2006, 05:02 PM NHFT
This was fun. Four of met with one homeland security guy..Schmitt. This time it was HIM who was shaking. I don't really know why. He was the one with the gun.
Dave talked nicely with the guy. Schmitt cited him for giving out handbills on Fed property on the 11th. He didn't deny that he got the info from Dave's article in the Keene Free Press. When he handed Dave the ticket, it was real obvious he was shakin in his shoes. Dave wouldn't take the piece of paper from him. He's supposed to pay a $150 fine. Apparently there's an appeals process. Dave didn't know yet whether he'd pay or not. At the end of the conversation, Dave told him nicely that he thought the guy was working on the wrong side. It seemed to effect him funny...having us think he was the bad guy.
Afterward, the reporter from the Nashua Telegraph showed up and talked to us for a long time. She was amused about Dave's silent/slow backing up protest. She headed over to the IRS next door to check it out right after the interview. Apparently the Concord Monitor wanted to talk to Dave about it later, also.
Did he do the same thing they did and refuse to take the paper? >:D >:D >:DGive them a taste of their own medicine
Quote from: Kat Kanning on September 30, 2006, 05:00 AM NHFT
Quote from: FTL_Ian on September 29, 2006, 10:02 PM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on September 29, 2006, 09:39 PM NHFT
Surprise surprise .... they want dada's money.
Maybe we should write them a citation and see if they'll pay us!
Ooooh, I like that idea!!
Have a stack of citations and give them to the IRS, or just cite the police?
Next step is to have the media actually present the next time you "meet with an official from Homeland Security" so they can observe -- and question the Homeland Security official -- for themselves.
Russell was mentioning we learned a lot yesterday.
Some of the ideas we came up with for doing this better next time we are "asked" to meet with authorities:
Make them wait a week so you can get a bigger group together, plan more stuff, generate more anticipation
Make a spectacle....signs, rattlesnake flags, etc.
Do it somewhere a lot of passersby will see you...maybe the state house or near a busy intersection.
If the hosts don't object, invite the authorities to meet you at a porcupine party so they have to wade through a crowd to get to you
Take still pictures and video. Take the stills no matter what objections they seem to have, there is no law against that.
audiotape them if they don't object by invoking the NH wiretap law
represent the keene free press as a journalist and then maybe you can audio tape even if they do object....supposedly journalists are excempt from some of the wiretap laws.
Of course, do the things we did too....bring friends, call reporters, etc.
Any other ideas how this can be done better?
Quote from: DadaOrwell on September 30, 2006, 09:14 AM NHFT
represent the keene free press as a journalist and then maybe you can audio tape even if they do object....supposedly journalists are excempt from some of the wiretap laws.
I have a KFP press pass but haven't used it yet; done anyone know for sure what distinctions this pass allows? Does it give us carte blanch permission to videotape and/or audiotape? Does it get us past security or in to events that we wouldn't otherwise be able to attend?
Quote from: FTL_Ian on September 29, 2006, 05:27 PM NHFT
Quote from: error on September 29, 2006, 08:28 AM NHFT
I have unused server space and bandwidth that can be used in the event of a real emergency. I also keep full off-site backups, so even if the federal morons were to seize the computer, I can be back up and running elsewhere in a VERY short time.
Thanks for the offer. I hope Kat decides to take you or Crucial Servers up on your hosting offers: http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=3010.msg93276#msg93276
Kat: still waiting for your comments on the Crucial Servers offer.
If you can, give me a day or two of prior notice, if you want things like a control panel with pretty widgets to click on and manage your site. Since I'm the only person using it right now, I dispensed with it as completely unnecessary. :)
Quote from: DadaOrwell on September 30, 2006, 08:56 AM NHFT
What's kind of surprising to me is that Son was apparently unable to get verifications but was still willing to run the story. I guess it's a good sign if the media trusts us that much. It's too bad NH reporters have such a high rate of departure from the state; we do seem to have establihed good relations with so many reporters but then they leave. I guess we need to figure out a way to get more of the the higher ups at some of the papers to feel more friendly, but hopefully this will happen through the reporters to some extent.
Russell was commenting that the newness of so many reporters does also work to our advantage in that none of them bat an eye at the fact that so many of us are recent NH immigrants. Many of the people telling our story have been here even less than we have.
New reporters are an excellent resource if someone is willing to sit down and "show them the ropes," if you will. Spending an hour on the phone with a new reporter can make a friend out of her. You can explain the recent history of the liberty movement, how it has been reported in the press, vocabulary, pitfalls to avoid (like referring to the FSP imperfectly, unless she wants to be attacked by ravenous dogs ;) ), and many other concepts about politics in the state that she might not yet understand.
There are many facets to our movement that a reporter in this state needs to understand, and she will not connect the dots, without spending many hours researching our movement, unless someone sits down and explains it to her.
This is what a professional publicist does, and we should all understand this and do our best to foster good relations with reporters. Write a follow-up letter to, or call, a friendly reporter when she writes an excellent piece, even if it's not related to our movement. Give her all the information she needs on our activities.
IMO, there are five basic categories of media power for a publicist. This is very similar to basic sociology and I've adapted the concept from a very good book on business branding strategies of which I cannot remember the name, possibly "Marketing: Concepts and Strategies" by Dibb, Simkin, Pride, and Ferrell.
1. Reward Power: Reporters receive rewards from reporting on us. This is lame and a conflict of interests.
2. Expert Power: We are experts on a topic, send out press releases, sometimes gain publicity, and sometimes receive calls about a topic.
3. Referent Power: They defer to us (like the Associated Press) as a highly-regarded, objective information source on a specific topic or set of topics.
4. Legitimate Power: One of us actually own the newspaper. (Like the KFP. ;) )
5. Coercive Power: We are the government, and we threaten them to print what we want, or else!
Ideally, the KFP would become statewide. 8)
We are primarily at step 2, expert power, in most markets in New Hampshire, but we can become a referent power in other markets by becoming more like the Associated Press, where we cut deals with various news organizations to write a primarily objective news story and sell or trade it with them on a regular basis, gaining an increased level of trust over time.
We still have much territory to cover in solidifying our place as an expert power to the statewide media, but we must report on more topics, and we need more and more people writing primarily objective news stories that we can continuously feed to statewide news organizations. Unfortuantely, to accomplish this, we may need to write about news other than liberty most of the time.
Dealing with the press is also similar to selling. These benefits of collaboration, which relate to a publicist's job as much as an entrepreneur's, is quoted and adapted from the book, "Trust-based Selling," by Charles H. Green. I highly recommend it. :)
Benefits of Collaboration: (stuff in parentheses are my comments)
1. Shared perspectives. (We can find points that we agree on with a reporter.)
2. Enhanced creativity.
3. Efficiency through division of labor. (We can make her job easier.)
4. Efficiency through enhanced communication.
5. Efficiency through shortcutting where mutually agreeable. (Not too applicable to a publicist's job.)
6. More buy-in on the part of the customer. (We can get our point across to her more easily while helping her write a news story.)
7. Fewer misunderstandings. (i.e. the FSP's mission)
8. Less elapsed time.
9. Greater honesty. (We should be completely open and honest on the opinions of both sides of an event.)
10. Better working relationships.
11. Improved understanding of each others' business. (Our usefulness to her is made clear.)
12. Greater understanding of motives behind words and actions. ("Yes, we are biased, but here are both sides of the story, and here are the people you can talk to on the other side.")
13. Staff development on the part of buyer and seller. (Not too applicable with us... yet.)
Things to avoid: codependency; loss of perspective; and conflicts of interest, or the appearance thereof.
Quote from: Insurgent on September 30, 2006, 10:12 AM NHFT
Quote from: DadaOrwell on September 30, 2006, 09:14 AM NHFT
represent the keene free press as a journalist and then maybe you can audio tape even if they do object....supposedly journalists are excempt from some of the wiretap laws.
I have a KFP press pass but haven't used it yet; done anyone know for sure what distinctions this pass allows? Does it give us carte blanch permission to videotape and/or audiotape? Does it get us past security or in to events that we wouldn't otherwise be able to attend?
I'm not sure how the legality of it works, but this is my experience as a college-level journalist: If you call ahead to an event, you can probably get press passes to an event. For example, I wanted to go to a reading and speech by author and historian David McCullough, but the event was sold out. I put on my press hat and called back and wondered if they would grant a reporter access to the event, which they would, free of charge. So, call ahead if you want to attend an event as a reporter. Be sure to ask who you should contact once you arrive at the event, or if there is a press access area. A courtesy I usually do is send the press agent a clipping of my article for their records once it goes to print. As for audiotaping, I generally inform my interviewees that they are being audiotaped, out of courtesy. I won't speak to the legality of the matter.
Welcome to "freenh.com", brock LOL
Looks like the Nashua Telegraph never did an article.
any improvement suggestions before I send this... ?
---
Dear folks at the Union Leader:
Thanks for drawing attention to my run-in with Homeland Security. As Son Hoang reported, they wish to cite me after I petitioned the government for a redress of grievances. Basically I went into the Nashua IRS office in mid-September, silently handed two leaflets to workers and held a sign reading: "Is it right to work 4 IRS?" Then I left, with no plans to return.
The heavy-handed Federal treatment of N.H. residents Ed Brown and Russell Kanning inspired this protest. Normally I only do this stuff at state/local offices. Folks there are usually just amused. Only Feds react with such fear and defensiveness, something that simply generates more news coverage.
They're right, though...it's time to stop this petitioning and demonstrating around N.H. Federal offices. The Feds can't do that through punishment. But they *can* do it by rethinking their priorities in New Hampshire, attacking only those who force harm or danger upon others. If they do this, they'll find the state united behind them.
Dave Ridley
NHfree.com
Keene
I liked the loyal opposition part. :)
And you are right, every time the gov't attacks someone, they create allies for us. This movement is a response to gov't first strike force and threats of force. So it is natural (and too bad :'( ) that we have our greatest growth through persucution. This is especially true when the gov't goes after a clear peacefull underdog.
Dave,
Please do me one favor:
If you have not yet retained a lawyer, please do so RIGHT NOW.
They've attempted to give you a citation. As I see it, that changes the entire dynamic of the situation.
Proceeding any further without consulting a lawyer is like driving your car and wondering if you need to worry about the "check oil" light on the dashboard.
I'm not a lawyer and have no legal training, but I know enough to know when the legal equivalent of the "check oil" light is flashing...
My gut instinct before they cited me was that they would cite me.
My gut insinct now is that they may try something surprising now that our guard is back down. That should keep things interesting in these parts at least.
Quote from: d_goddard on October 01, 2006, 01:10 PM NHFT
Dave,
Please do me one favor:
If you have not yet retained a lawyer, please do so RIGHT NOW.
::) ::)
Quote from: Michael Fisher on September 30, 2006, 12:22 PM NHFTGive her all the information she needs on our activities.
I think our openness has
proven to be a very strong plus.
Some of the "political types" worry way too much about comunication "stratteigery."
I find - and I think reporters do as well - that full and complete openness works for everyone.
The truth rocks!
Quote from: DadaOrwell on October 01, 2006, 12:22 PM NHFT
any improvement suggestions before I send this... ?
They're right, though...it's time to stop this petitioning and demonstrating around N.H. Federal offices. The Feds can't do that through punishment. But they *can* do it by rethinking their priorities in New Hampshire, attacking only those who force harm or danger upon others. If they do this, they'll find the state united behind them.
This last part is confusing to me.
I feel a great responsibility at this moment to remind you Dave ..... that this is a "Federal" offense you are looking at.
:homework:
You cannot handle this alone .... you will need competent council.
We have an anarchist planning meeting this Tuesday ... you can ask some of our underage drinkin' campus radicals what to do in this delicate situation.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 01, 2006, 09:20 PM NHFT
We have an anarchist planning meeting this Tuesday ...
Planning the unplanning. :D
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 01, 2006, 09:20 PM NHFT
I feel a great responsibility at this moment to remind you Dave ..... that this is a "Federal" offense you are looking at.
:homework:
You cannot handle this alone .... you will need competent council.
We have an anarchist planning meeting this Tuesday ... you can ask some of our underage drinkin' campus radicals what to do in this delicate situation.
LOL!!!
Can I give anti-legal counsel, too?
would that be "illegal council" then? 8-) Seriously though, hide the personal goods before they decide to pounce on them. At the same time, figure out what your defense plan is. My IANAL suggestion is that you look into what Marc Stephens does vis a vis "Adventures in Legalland". Remember, above all else, (to paraphrase Fight Club), the (in)justice system doesn't like you. In fact, in all likelihood, it HATES YOU! After all, power is extremely conservative and spends 99% of it's time defending itself from challenges to that power, because those who have it realize that everyone hates their punk butts.
I never got around to posting a full report about the encounter with Homeland Security, so here it is!
As you may know the first clue I got that something was up, was when Kat called me on my cell the morning of Thursday, Sept. 28. I visiting New London, CT for a day getting ready to do some silent demonstrations. I was planning visit all the Kelo vs. New London perp offices as well as the offices of those who are complicit in the arrest and detention of Free Stater Lauren Canario. Kat left a message telling me "ICE police were just here, and it's like they wanted to arrest you or something!" So I called her back and she gave me the number they had left (one ICE guy and one Keene P.D. guy - not too happy the latter are involved with the former).
Anyway, I called the number, and a guy answered who identified himself as "Operator number zero three." I BS you not! I told him that is a very interesting way to refer to yourself; I said most folks want to avoid having a number but you've gone out of your way to have one? He laughed and said well his real name was John but he uses this number. Anyway I asked to speak to the guy who left the number, Officer Schmitt. They wanted to know what this was regarding, I told them sure, he's looking for me!
About a half hour later he called me back and told me he was seeking to meet with me in relation with the day I visited Nashua's IRS office. He said he wanted to "give me some details" about what one can and can't do at federal offices I said that's very interesting you want to "give me some details," but why is it necessary to do that in person? You could certainly give me details over the phone. I asked if one of the details might include arresting me. He said no this is not an arrest type situation. I said *I* would certainly enjoy meeting with him because I enjoy telling Federal officials what they're doing wrong. But I said I felt uncomfortable about the fact that such a meeting was a waste of tax dollars. Eventually we concluded that it would be appropriate to keep taxpayer costs down by settling on a place he would be anyway, Nashua. He said where in Nashua should we meet. I said "how about the IRS office?" That got him laughing. Between this and a second phone call we decided we'd meet right next to the IRS building at the Nashua Building 19. Also he mentioned he'd read what I'd written about him driving past me in the Building 19 parking lot the day I visited the IRS. He didn't specify whether he'd read that in the Keene Free Press or on NHfree.com. Kat thinks it was probably the print edition of KFP, since they came by the day after it printed.
Somewhere in there I asked him if this was what expected to be doing when he signed on with his job, chasing down sign wavers instead of bad guys. He said it was. Mostly the tone of the conversation was amused, or at least I think *I* sounded amused. Although sure I was scared too. He seemed pretty quick to go along with the jovial mood of the conversation. Somewhere in there I said something to the effect that probably both of us could agree that we each hope these wavers are the only kinds of "problems" America has to face...sign wavers and loyal opposition. He was enthusiastic in his agreement with this.
I had Kat post all the details she knew on NHfree.com and went on with my plans for the day doing silent demonstrations inside six bureaucrat offices around Connecticut. As I was heading home I made a couple phone calls and arranged to have an observer, Matt.
The next day at 11:00 I actually had three observers. Matt, Katt, Russell and I met Inspector Schmitt in the Building 19 parking lot. Russell and Kat were already there with their vehicle, Matt and I walked in after parking a ways away so I could conduct the meeting without having an ID. We went to Russell and Kat first after waving at Schmitt, who was already parked in the lot alone. Then we walked straight over to him and I introduced myself and shook hands with him. I was wearing one of Kat's NHfree.com T-Shirts, made of hemp cloth! He was wearing a flack vest LOL. The conversation was cordial and I tried to look friendly; in fact I didn't feel unfriendly. He was polite, so were we.
I told him it was good to meet him; he thanked me for returning his phone call, and I thanked him for returning mine. I showed him a tape recorder I'd brought and told him that, in the absence of objections, I intended to record the conversation. He said he did object. I asked why. I don't remember his answer. I think somewhere in there the idea came up that he works for us not the other way around; maybe Russell injected that.
He asked if I was carrying ID, I said no. He asked my date of birth; I gave it, but I do not claim that is the best thing to do. He asked for my address, I gave that too. Then he said "May I ask for your social security number?"
I said "You may ask, but I will not give it to you." I think I had kind of an amused look. This got a bit of a response from him but didn't seem to surprise him that much. The information I did give him he wrote down on what looked like a traffic ticket.
He asked me if I was at the Nashua IRS office on the date in question. I declined to answer but told him I was Dave Ridley and he could find out what he needed to know in the Keene Free Press article which everyone was so excited about. Then he finished writing on the "ticket," ripped it off his clipboard and held it out to me. He said it was a citation for handing out handbills on Federal property. Kat says he was shaking when he held it out but I didn't notice that.
I didn't reach out to accept the citation, so he began to look frustrated. I asked him if he would like to tell me a little bit about the citation. He said it was for $125, if I recall correctly. He said there was an appeal process and if that expired then something else would happen; I don't remember what. He said the details were on the citation. He also handed me a sheet of paper with rules about what you can't do on Federal property. I didn't take that either. Russell said something to him to the effect that "You government guys sure like your paperwork." But it was more banter than anger.
Inspector Schmitt said something about me refusing to take these pieces of paper; I said something to the effect that I hadn't necessarily refused to take them, I just hadn't done so yet or reached out my hand. He said ok well if I put the citation down here on the hood of my vehicle will you take it? I said "You may put it on the hood if you wish." But I was kind of looking amused again at that point so he knew what that meant...the thing would just blow away LOL.
He looked pretty upset about all this.
He said alright well your refusal to take this will go in my report. I said I appreciated his polite demeanor and handling of this and that I did not hold what he was doing against him personally. But I said "I think you're working for the wrong institution. There are much more moral institutions you could be working for."
That really got a reaction out of him but it was a silent reaction, hard to define. He almost looked like he'd been hit, shocked or something. Then he left and as he was driving off the gal from the Telegraph showed up.
I think we were all pretty calm and comfortable, and maybe that was what unnerved him. I felt scared too in a way but not the heart pumping way. Russell of course wasn't scared at all, he just kept injecting little amused digs heh heh.
That's all I remember off the top of my head.
;D ;D ;D
Thanks, Dave!
Three things:
1) Thank God for Dave Ridley (said in the deeply heartfelt way only an Atheist can!)
2) Can this report itself please be published in the KFP?!?!??!
3) Because of #1 above, I really do wish you'd at least talk to a lawyer, at least so you have real professional information about what's next, instead of hearsay and theory. Don't surround yourself with sycophants like me (or like anyone else on NHFree); get input from "within the system"
And one more time cause the first time wa so fun:
Thank God for Dave Ridley!
Quote from: d_goddard on October 07, 2006, 11:35 AM NHFT
2) Can this report itself please be published in the KFP?!?!??!
Yup. It won't be til Oct. 25th though.
Let me comb it again for spelling or grammatical errors before publishing, if you wish.
Thanks for the kind words DG
DG wrote:
<<really do wish you'd at least talk to a lawyer,>>
Who says I haven't? Also anyone on this forum who's a lawyer is welcome to give me information.
Dada, your handling of this is really really good. You kept it completly non-confrontational, while maintaining nonviolent resistance.
Why do you think all these cops shake when dealing with you?
Intimidation?
Or maybe they feel bad about what they're doing... Maybe they want to stop..
I doubt it
They won't take your papers don't take theirs, IMO.
You done good. Not my favorite type of CD since you're kind of lending legitimacy to the government, but confronting the individuals about who they work for and what they do is useful.
This is the first time I have seen a cop shaking that much. Lucky he only had a piece of paper and not a gun in his hand. :)
Next time, just inform them that you'll be recording your interaction with them, and that they're free to walk away if they wish.
Here's a guy who works for the fedgov (I know, I know, the unprincipled b@stard) who had a similar run-in with ICE:
http://www.boiseweekly.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A158729
There's a transcript of his dealings with ICE after he parked his private vehicle in a government parking lot to go to his fedgov job (his car was covered in anti-war messages); he was accused of violating the same bogus federal regs as you (41 CFR 102-74.415 (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/04nov20031500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/julqtr/41cfr102-74.415.htm)), just a different subsection.
The "government" (I don't think that adminstrative regulations of the executive branch should be given the power of "law" since they are not provided for in the Constitution and constitute a violation of the theoretical separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches) has been kind enough to make the penalty (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=d9418a66129c30fd4a77a084653c8013&rgn=div6&view=text&node=41:3.1.1.3.22.3&idno=41) a fine or 30 days imprisonment (meaning that constitutionally they do not have to provide you with a public defender -- the courts have repeatedly held that a sentence of less than 6 months in prison does not require the provision of counsel because it constitutes a mere petty offense).
QuoteThere's a transcript of his dealings with ICE after he parked his private vehicle in a government parking lot to go to his fedgov job (his car was covered in anti-war messages); he was accused of violating the same bogus federal regs as you (41 CFR 102-74.415), just a different subsection.
clearly the guy in Boise was not violating the law because of the Hatch Act* but are you claiming that Dada hasn't violated section (c) by not getting prior permission to carry a sign in the general use area of a federal property?
*Hatch Act lays out exactly what political activities federal employees are allowed to participate in. According to the Hatch Act, political bumper stickers are allowed on cars parked on federal property, with no stated limitation on either size or number of stickers. So by the current rules, Scarbrough's car would seem to be legit--unless the "elsewhere" of the pamphlet rule is meant to extend to personal property as well as government property.
excerpt:
TITLE 41--PUBLIC CONTRACTS AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
CHAPTER 102--FEDERAL MANAGEMENT REGULATION
PART 102-74--FACILITY MANAGEMENT--Table of Contents
Subpart C--Conduct on Federal Property
Sec. 102-74.415 What is the policy for posting and distributing materials?
All persons entering in or on Federal property are prohibited from:
(a) Distributing free samples of tobacco products in or around
Federal buildings, under Public Law 104-52, Section 636.
(b) Posting or affixing materials, such as pamphlets, handbills, or
flyers, on bulletin boards or elsewhere on GSA-controlled property,
except as authorized in Sec. 102-74.410, or when these displays are
conducted as part of authorized Government activities.
(c) Distributing materials, such as pamphlets, handbills or flyers,
unless conducted as part of authorized Government activities. This
prohibition does not apply to public areas of the property as defined in
Sec. 102-71.20 of this chapter. However, any person or organization
proposing to distribute materials in a public area under this section
must first obtain a permit from the building's manager as specified in
subpart D of this part. Any such person or organization must distribute
materials only in accordance with the provisions of subpart D of this
part. Failure to comply with those provisions is a violation of these
regulations.
maybe Russel action fall under this section...
Sec. 102-74.385 What is the policy concerning conformity with
official signs and directions?
Persons in and on property must at all times comply with official
signs of a prohibitory, regulatory or directory nature and with the
lawful direction of Federal police officers and other authorized
individuals.
Disturbances
Sec. 102-74.390 What is the policy concerning disturbances?
All persons entering in or on Federal property are prohibited from
loitering, exhibiting disorderly conduct or exhibiting other conduct on
property that--
(a) Creates loud or unusual noise or a nuisance;
(b) Unreasonably obstructs the usual use of entrances, foyers,
lobbies, corridors, offices, elevators, stairways, or parking lots;
(c) Otherwise impedes or disrupts the performance of official
duties by Government employees; or
(d) Prevents the general public from obtaining the administrative
services provided on the property in a timely manner.
Quote from: FrankChodorov on October 08, 2006, 07:40 PM NHFT
QuoteThere's a transcript of his dealings with ICE after he parked his private vehicle in a government parking lot to go to his fedgov job (his car was covered in anti-war messages); he was accused of violating the same bogus federal regs as you (41 CFR 102-74.415), just a different subsection.
but are you claiming that Dada hasn't violated section (c) by not getting prior permission to carry a sign in the general use area of a federal property?
I'm claiming that the "law" itself is not valid in that it was created by the executive branch via adminstrative "regulations." The executive branch is supposed to enforce (execute) the laws, not create them.
As one who frequently enjoys quoting Justice Scalia, allow me to offer the following regarding the separation of powers, contained in his dissent in Morrison v. Olson (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=487&invol=654), 487 U.S. 654, 697-699 (1988) (Scalia was the sole dissenter against the Court's decision upholding the constitutionality of the Independent Counsel Act):
Quote
Without a secure structure of separated powers, our Bill of Rights would be worthless, as are the bills of rights of many nations of the world that have adopted, or even improved upon, the mere words of ours.
The principle of separation of powers is expressed in our Constitution in the first section of each of the first three Articles. Article I, 1, provides that "[a]ll legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." Article III, 1, provides that "[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." And the provision at issue here, Art. II, 1, cl. 1, provides that "[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
But just as the mere words of a Bill of Rights are not self-effectuating, the Framers recognized "[t]he insufficiency of a mere parchment delineation of the boundaries" to achieve the separation of powers. Federalist No. 73, p. 442 (A. Hamilton). "[T]he great security," wrote Madison, "against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack." Federalist No. 51, pp. 321-322.
***
That is what this suit is about. Power. The allocation of power among Congress, the President, and the courts in such fashion as to preserve the equilibrium the Constitution sought to establish - so that "a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department," Federalist No. 51, p. 321 (J. Madison), can effectively be resisted. Frequently an issue of this sort will come before the Court clad, so to speak, in sheep's clothing: the potential of the asserted principle to effect important change in the equilibrium of power is not immediately evident, and must be discerned by a careful and perceptive analysis. But this wolf comes as a wolf.
QuoteI'm claiming that the "law" itself is not valid in that it was created by the executive branch via adminstrative "regulations."
if you were his attorney and he was arrested for carrying a political sign inside a federal building claiming excercise of his free speech rights and they inturn claim that it is is disrupting the business of the federal office as outlined in Sec. 102-74.390 you would urge him to argue (if he choose to argue in court) that the "law" itself "is not valid in that it was created by the executive branch via adminstrative "regulations""??
He is not (apparently) charged with disrupting business; he is apparently accused of unlawfully handing out flyers on public property.
But, to answer your question: it depends. The federal courts aren't going to give much credence to that sort of argument, and there is no right to a jury trial in this type of prosecution in federal court. However, it might be about time that the Supreme Court took a look at such adminstrative regulations that violate separation of powers, and I'd wager that Scalia and Thomas would love to grant cert.
Quote from: Spencer on October 08, 2006, 08:51 PM NHFT
I'm claiming that the "law" itself is not valid in that it was created by the executive branch via adminstrative "regulations." The executive branch is supposed to enforce (execute) the laws, not create them.
As one who frequently enjoys quoting Justice Scalia, allow me to offer the following regarding the separation of powers, contained in his dissent in Morrison v. Olson (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=487&invol=654), 487 U.S. 654, 697-699 (1988) (Scalia was the sole dissenter against the Court's decision upholding the constitutionality of the Independent Counsel Act):
That pesky Constitution will be dealt with in due time, I'm sure. You wouldn't want to limit anyone's power these days!
I didn't exactly rush to get this done but I have crafted a note for the DHS guys which I plan to send shortly. Any suggestions before I mail it? Actually i haven't even spell checked it yet...
------
U.S. Constitution
Amendment I [1791]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.
Dear Federal folks in New Hampshire:
Last month you sent one of your officers to cite me. I stand accused of peaceably petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. Specifically, you're unhappy that I entered the Nashua, N.H. IRS office in September and handed employees a flyer which asks: "Is it right to work for the Internal Robbery Squadron?"
I am told that I have two choices. I may pay a $125 fine for exercising this Constitutionally-endorsed right of petition, or I may appeal to courts which have themselves proven less than eager to obey that Constitution.
With regard to the idea of paying a penalty, would that be right or honorable for me to do? If a people can't petition agents of the government at their offices, where can they? If I were to pay this tribute, would I not be endorsing your attempted nullification of Amendment I?
As far as appealing, is that any more right or honorable? Would not taxpayers be forced to underwrite such an appeal process, without their consent? Any taxpayer expense thus far in this matter has been ordered by you, not me. Shouldn't I do all I can to keep it that way?
Is it right for Federal authorities to levy this fine? Is it right for you the individual empoyee to play even the smallest role in helping others to levy it? When you signed on, did you take an oath to uphold the Constitution? If so, could that mean you have a responsibility to question your office's activities in this matter and others like it?
Do you feel comfortable attempting to punish harmless citizens for doing the right thing? Your officer, surely a braver man than me, did not seem comfortable handing me the citation. Maybe he takes founding documents more seriously than those of you who ordered him to do it.
What happened the last time you came after a New Hampshire citizen for trying to exercise the right of petition at an IRS outpost? Did your August imprisonment of Russell Kanning harm or help his cause? Did protests inside and outside your Keene office cease or intensify as a result of your actions against him?
Would Russell have petitioned your Keene office if you had not overreacted in your handling of Plainfield tax resister Ed Brown? Would I have petitioned your Nashua office if you had not overreacted in your handling of Russell? Would there have been an article in the Keene Free Press about my Nashua visit, if IRS workers there had not overracted? Would there have been two articles in the Union Leader about the same incident, and your efforts to cite me, if Homeland Security had not overreacted? Would tens of thousands of people have heard our message, if the lot of you had ignored it or responded in a measured way, as state and local officials do when we demonstrate at their offices?
What's the most effective way to curtail demonstrations? Does it involve hurting the petitioners? Or is ignoring them more effective (assuming they do not cause disruption or harm)? Is it possible that the most impressive way to get all these libertarian protesters out of your hair is to stop throwing your weight around so much in New Hampshire?
I look forward to the day when it is again possible to think of our Federal government as a protector and ally of New Hampshire citizens, instead of a wasteful, torture-enabling threat to our liberties. I will work toward that day for as long as I have breath and do nothing that would push it further away. I remain ever eager to interact with your agents and officials, that I may remind them: so much of what they are doing is wrong, but there are still ways they can help make it right.
In the meantime, please: Lighten your heavy hand in New Hampshire, not necessarily toward me but toward her other peaceful citizens. Do this, and - to paraphrase Yoda - "multiply, your allies will."
Respectfully,
Dave Ridley
NHfree.com
When you are done, we will have to stick it in the Keene Free Press. :)
I met a man today who thinks I was wrong in attacking the government by handing them notes. He thinks the government is evil, but that the IRS employees are just following the law. I think that our tactics are working. :)
This is excellent.
I suggest you chop it down to a few hundred words and submit it as an open letter/LTE to the Telegraph, Monitor, AND Union Leader.
I think I would leave out the Yoda quote.
Cathleen
Quote from: cathleeninnh on October 12, 2006, 04:05 PM NHFT
I think I would leave out the Yoda quote.
Agreed.
Not because it's cute, but because (believe it or not) it may come off as threatening.
Wow and I was thinking I like the Yoda quote. Anytime you can quote a small green humanoid one should.
Yoda
Gazoo
Kermit
I almost forgot to mention I did another microdemonstration, out on the right of way on Amherst st. in front of Nashua IRS. This was around thursday the 5th I think. Just me and my sign with the huge "IRS" and an X on top of it. it has the NHfree.com url at the bottom. Did maybe 2 hours. Got about 20 responses of one type or another not counting waves. around 17 favorable , 3 unfavorable.
I guess if they come down on me like a bag of bricks, the thing we can do next is bigger demos in the same area.
If they come down on me like a bag of *automobiles* then I guess I would have to go back inside and get arrested :)
I like the simple anti-irs sign ..... not hard to understand. :)
i'm having trouble figuring out where to send this...all I can find is an email that goes to the national HQ.
The ice site does list a division which looks into complaints about officers handling a case altho obviously I don't have any major gripes about Schmitt himself.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on October 14, 2006, 03:09 PM NHFT
i'm having trouble figuring out where to send this...all I can find is an email that goes to the national HQ.
The ice site does list a division which looks into complaints about officers handling a case altho obviously I don't have any major gripes about Schmitt himself.
I've waded my way through the Department of Homeland Security's website and believe that the following contact info is correct:
ICE Federal Protective Service (FPS) Contacts (http://www.ice.gov/about/fps/contact.htm#region01)
Region 1-Boston, Massachusetts
10 Causeway Street
Room 935
Boston, MA 02222
Phone: 617-565-5772
Area of Responsibility: Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, and Connecticut
You may want to cc it to this guy (http://www.ice.gov/about/leadership/fps_bio/paul_durette.htm), who is the Acting Director of the FPS.
all the fed offices don't want to be contacted .... try finding out who is in those fed buildings .... it is a chore.
Authorities have scheduled a court date related to my citation for handing out "handbills" at the Nashua, NH IRS office. As most of you probably already know, I entered that office in mid September and did a silent demonstration in support of Russell Kanning. This involved handing leaflets to IRS workers.
The date is currently set for 11/13 at Fed. Court in Concord
I am given the choice to pay a $125 fine, appear in court or face arrest. I intend to appear in court. It would be a great honor to me if a respectable number of you were to join me outside the building that day, to demonstrate against whatever you want to demonstrate against! Hope to see you at:
9:00 a.m.
November 13
55 Pleasant St.
Concord, NH
My appearance inside is set for an hour and a half later. Maybe after court we (or depending on how things go just *you* guys - LOL) can do some more demonstrating and then get together for lunch. Maybe we can eat at the same restaurant as our rulers.
We should not worry too much about whether they change the date of the appearance. If the change is far in advance then maybe we'll reschedule the protest. If they make a last minute change we can still demonstrate just as happily.
For some background visit
http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=314&Itemid=36
http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=268&Itemid=36
If you'd like to discuss this, please head to:
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=5464.0
Is anyone here in a position to make or order some t shirts on the fly? I'm wanting one with a lot of fairly small lettering on the front that I think may be of use.
I just made a t-shirt with iron-ons from Walmart. But...I have your iron.
QuoteAuthorities have scheduled a court date related to my citation for handing out "handbills" at the Nashua, NH IRS office. As most of you probably already know, I entered that office in mid September and did a silent demonstration in support of Russell Kanning. This involved handing leaflets to IRS workers.
The date is currently set for 11/13 at Fed. Court in Concord
I am given the choice to pay a $125 fine, appear in court or face arrest. I intend to appear in court. It would be a great honor to me if a respectable number of you were to join me outside the building that day, to demonstrate against whatever you want to demonstrate against! Hope to see you at:
9:00 a.m.
November 13
55 Pleasant St.
Concord, NH
My appearance inside is set for an hour and a half later. Maybe after court we (or depending on how things go just *you* guys - LOL) can do some more demonstrating and then get together for lunch. Maybe we can eat at the same restaurant as our rulers.
We should not worry too much about whether they change the date of the appearance. If the change is far in advance then maybe we'll reschedule the protest. If they make a last minute change we can still demonstrate just as happily.
Oh, what fortuitous timing!
I will be in NYC on the 16th and I was trying to figure out if I could get in a visit to NH either before or after that. So I just might be able to be there.
Can you reschedule that for a Tuesday, Dada? No? Oh well. :-\
I'm not going to attempt a reschedule probably...however for those who can't make it there is plenty of other stuff you could do that would be just as helpful. I'll post some ideas on that later. For now one thing I need is your ideas how to get the most bang for the buck...
What would you do if you were me going into court charged with petitioning the government for a redress of greivances?
Dress like Thomas Jefferson?
does anyone have an NHfree.com hat I can wear?
Quote from: DadaOrwell on October 23, 2006, 03:31 AM NHFT
I'm not going to attempt a reschedule probably...
Heh, I didn't think so; I was kidding.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on October 23, 2006, 03:31 AM NHFT
What would you do if you were me going into court charged with petitioning the government for a redress of greivances?
We the People are doing something like this on November 14th. They're asking 100 people to dress up like V for Vendetta and stand outside the White House while one person goes inside with a list of greivances they have.
http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTP2/UPDATES/Update2006-10-17.htm
There's a 90% chance I'll be able to be there to support you. I just wish it were under more happy circumstances.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on October 23, 2006, 03:31 AM NHFT
What would you do if you were me going into court charged with petitioning the government for a redress of greivances?
#1 Get a lawyer. You have to know how the opposing player's tactics if you want to win any strategy game, and a lawyer will tell you the State's likely next move. INVALUABLE.
#2 Read, and re-read, the Bill Of Rights of the US Constitution, and the NH Constitution Bill of Rights (http://www.state.nh.us/constitution/constitution.html), especially NH Articles 13, 14, 15, 20, and 22. TAKE A COPY INTO COURT WITH YOU. Force yourself to have read and studied these as if you were about to take the biggest college-entrance exam ever. Because you are.
Dada, for whatever it's worth, I totally agree with Denis.
I will be there to support you, man. Promised my folks I'd be home for Thanksgiving so no continuances, okay? :)
Quote from: DadaOrwell on October 23, 2006, 03:31 AM NHFT
What would you do if you were me going into court charged with petitioning the government for a redress of greivances?
isn't the point to not make an argument at all like Russell and Lauren because you don't recognize the legitimacy of the federal government?
I would recommend not showing up at the evil government gang's court.
Yeah Dave you should spend a thousand dollars to a mouth piece to protect you from that 120 buck fine. ;D
Fuck the evil lying bastards. They don't care about any damn constitution. Have fun with the process, your paying for it. Pay your fine in pennies after you drag it out as long as you can.
It's probably a good idea to get a lawyer. You must KNOW THE LAW. Impress the judge or piss him/her off. Know what is constitutional and what is not.
I have a habit of fighting speeding tickets and one time I blew away not only the prostitutor, but also his holiness the judge. I pulled out court cases, legal terms, etc... I challenged the cop reading from his citation as "hearsay" and even named the case that affirmed my objection. The prosecutor wasn't aware of the case. The judge was and said I was right, but overruled my objection anyway. Sometimes you just can't win.
My advice, have fun with it, but don't get charged with contempt of court. Try to pay in pennies, dress "patriotically" (a la T. Jefferson), know which previous court cases support what you've done, etc... But at the end of the day, you could probably do more good out on the streets than in jail for going overboard.
Good luck to you. If I was in NH I'd love to stop by...
The law is a scam.
The courts are a public relations scheme:
http://adventuresinlegalland.com
Thanks for continuing to pay attention to this and bounce ideas around guys. Much honored that denis is eumlating my "percent chance I'll be there" approach LOL
There's a 100% chance I'll be there.
But there's only a 60% chance my friend will make it. :(
There's about a 1% chance I'll be there.
I am making the travel arrangements for someone who will be meeting you guys in Concord on Monday morning, following a weekend of exploring New Hampshire.
Adjusting for freak weather systems and the potential for a run-in with the TSA before he even gets on the plane in Atlanta, let's say there's a 99.3% chance he'll be there.
Quote from: mappchik on November 01, 2006, 07:47 PM NHFT
I am making the travel arrangements for someone who will be meeting you guys in Concord on Monday morning, following a weekend of exploring New Hampshire.
Adjusting for freak weather systems and the potential for a run-in with the TSA before he even gets on the plane in Atlanta, let's say there's a 99.3% chance he'll be there.
Welcome Mappchik.
Is your friend an F1K signer?
www.pledgebank.com/first1000
TSA fun just allow an extra hour and say no to any id.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on November 01, 2006, 09:16 AM NHFT
Thanks for continuing to pay attention to this and bounce ideas around guys. Much honored that denis is eumlating my "percent chance I'll be there" approach LOL
We go down this road, and we'll start sounding like:
What is the probability density for the forward looking certain event of Dave, Judge, and Clerk all being present in a certain rectangular boundary contained within the court house?
probability density
n. Statistics In both senses also called probability distribution.
1. A function whose integral over a given interval gives the probability that the values of a random variable will fall within the interval.
2. The calculated value of a probability density.
Hey Dan, you make a smart remark like that and put "software guru" in your custom title, so I have no choice but to attempt to recruit you:
The Free State Project IT team needs YOUR help!!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fspit (yes, that's "F-spit")
Tell 'em Denis sent you
Quote from: Dreepa on November 01, 2006, 09:07 PM NHFT
TSA fun just allow an extra hour and say no to any id.
Absolutely. Remember to tell everyone you don't have your ID when you check in. You'll have to go through secondary screening but the lines for secondary screening are much shorter. ;D
Quote from: Dreepa on November 01, 2006, 09:07 PM NHFT
Quote from: mappchik on November 01, 2006, 07:47 PM NHFT
I am making the travel arrangements for someone who will be meeting you guys in Concord on Monday morning, following a weekend of exploring New Hampshire.
Adjusting for freak weather systems and the potential for a run-in with the TSA before he even gets on the plane in Atlanta, let's say there's a 99.3% chance he'll be there.
Welcome Mappchik.
Is your friend an F1K signer?
www.pledgebank.com/first1000
TSA fun just allow an extra hour and say no to any id.
He is not an F1K signer. We have a
disagreement ongoing discussion on our time frame & commitment level. I'm actually kind of hoping that participating on the 13th (his idea) will get him fired up about the whole FSP move.
Quote from: mappchik on November 03, 2006, 08:34 AM NHFT
Quote from: Dreepa on November 01, 2006, 09:07 PM NHFT
Quote from: mappchik on November 01, 2006, 07:47 PM NHFT
I am making the travel arrangements for someone who will be meeting you guys in Concord on Monday morning, following a weekend of exploring New Hampshire.
Adjusting for freak weather systems and the potential for a run-in with the TSA before he even gets on the plane in Atlanta, let's say there's a 99.3% chance he'll be there.
Welcome Mappchik.
Is your friend an F1K signer?
www.pledgebank.com/first1000
TSA fun just allow an extra hour and say no to any id.
He is not an F1K signer. We have a disagreement ongoing discussion on our time frame & commitment level. I'm actually kind of hoping that participating on the 13th (his idea) will get him fired up about the whole FSP move.
Cool.
Well if he has any questions... let us know.
I signed as a friend right away. 6 months later I joined and 4 months after that I moved.
I'll be coming up from the Nashua or Salem area that day so if anyone wants to go and needs a ride from there lemme know.
Also a request. There has been a bit of name calling on this thread directed against our rulers and their enforcers.
I intend to be civil and kind to these people, whether I am cooperative or not. I hope all of you who attend will do the same.
QuoteI intend to be civil and kind to these people, whether I am cooperative or not.
does that mean you will or will not be making a legal argument to defend yourself or will you too not recognize the moral or legal authority of the court and thus not defend yourself?
I'm sending out a message to local freedom lovers inviting them to the demo and linking to this thread.
Send me a copy, too. :)
Here it is error:
Everyone feel free to distribute this as best you can.
Concord Anti-Federal Demonstration 11/13
Fellow NH freedom lovers:
I'd like to invite you to a demonstration at the Federal building on 55 Pleasant St. in Concord: It will be a protest against pretty much all things Federal, especially the torture and waste our rulers in Washington force you to underwrite. Bring a rattlesnake or NH flag if you like, but mostly just bring *you!*
It will start at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, November 13. An hour and a half later I will enter the building to appear in Federal district court. I stand accused of petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. Specifically, Federal agents have cited me because I entered the Nashua IRS office in September and handed flyers to employees. The exact charge is ?Distribution of Handbills.?
Those handbills reminded them that the money they seize from taxpayers funds waste and torture. They question the morality of working for the "Internal Robbery Squadron."
I've done maybe 20 silent demonstrations like this at various state and local bureaucracies; folks there are usually just amused and shoo me off. Only the most powerful institution on earth reacts with such fear to peaceful visits from its conscience.
I've made essentially no representations as to whether or how much I will cooperate, or whether I will pay the fine they have levied. Mahatma Gandhi showed the world that the best way to fight against authoritarian government is to refuse (or at least limit) your cooperation but maintain civility and kindness toward its ministers who seek to harm you. I will endeavor to do this as best I am able; I hope you will as well.
If you'd like to know more, give me a shout at (603) 721-1490 or drop by the NHfree.com forums, where this issue is under discussion.
More details, latest updates, discussion:
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=5464.msg104102#msg104102
Article from the Union Leader:
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=5464.msg96497#msg96497
I hope to see you on the thirteenth! If you can't make it, I'd be honored if you would at least spread the word as best you can. Copy, paste and spread this e-mail as you see fit.
What: Demo against Washington, DC. Court Hearing. Lunch.
Where: Fed Building in Concord, NH - 55 Pleasant Street. District Court.
When: Monday, Nov 13, 2006, 9:00 a.m. - 1:30 p.m. or maybe later. Call me for latest details.
Why: Dave Ridley aka Dada Orwell on trial. Feds wasting your money & torturing people with it. Any other beef you want to bring up.
Contacts: Dave Ridley (603) 721-1490
What should I have on my sign? Looks like Wayne will be driving me up there. Do they allow cameras in the Concord courtroom?
Quote from: FTL_Ian on November 08, 2006, 10:31 PM NHFT
Do they allow cameras in the Concord courtroom?
No.
They even confiscate iPods :(
Bah. Maybe I'll stay outside with my laptop, digital camera and iPod during the court proceedings. >:(
Just learned that Judge Muirhead will be my magistrate for this court appearance. Ed Brown has a high opinion of him. From what I understand he is one of the better fed judges you'll run into, so I plan to stand when he enters the room. I also informed one of the court clerks that I was considering doing so. She sounded amused :)
If you guys would like to tell me more about what you know of him I'm all ears.
i haven't given the signs a lot of thought but if you bring a flag pole i can loan you or sell you a flag maybe. my sign says "ministry of torture" but maybe i will make a more related sign.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on November 09, 2006, 08:02 PM NHFT
Just learned that Judge Muirhead will be my magistrate for this court appearance. Ed Brown has a high opinion of him. From what I understand he is one of the better fed judges you'll run into, so I plan to stand when he enters the room. I also informed one of the court clerks that I was considering doing so. She sounded amused :)
If you guys would like to tell me more about what you know of him I'm all ears.
Apparently, Muirhead is the guy that sentenced Russell after his IRS demonstration:
Quote
At yesterday's sentencing, Kanning failed to answer U.S. Magistrate James R. Muirhead's question if he had reviewed the sentencing report, until the judge threatened to call a recess until Kanning read the report.
Muirhead then sentenced him to time served with no probation and no fine, because the judge noted Kanning was unable to pay it. He was assessed a special fee of $20, which had to be paid before he could be released.
http://underground.soulawakenings.com/tiki-index.php?page=Tilting%20at%20Windmills
This Muirhead guy does look promising, though, based on the following article -- just watch for his signposting (he may drop a hint that you should be quiet -- remain silent -- not testify and he'll find a way to find you not guilty):
Quote
New Hampshire Fee Demo Violator Found Guilty
On January 14, 2000 Tate Trautz of Portland, Maine went to trial in federal court in Concord, New Hampshire over his violation of the Forest Service's Recreation Fee Demonstration Program in the White Mountains National Forest. Federal Magistrate Muirhead informed him of his right to remain silent and that anything he said could be used against him. Trautz pleaded "not guilty" to the charge of not paying the forest fee.
Earlier, the prosecutor had been offering deals to those accused of not paying the forest fee: plead guilty and pay only $30 rather than the $50 fine. One individual accepted the deal and left, another was granted a request that his trial be postponed 60 days. Magistrate Muirhead noted that of 47 people who were supposed to appear that day regarding forest ticket violations, 44 were no-shows. He said it's the same every trial date; he said he appreciated today's defendants showing up.
The prosecutor called the forest ranger who wrote Trautz's citation to the stand and questioned him about the facts of the case, using a number of exhibits: examples of the actual fee signs, photos of the Greely Ponds trailhead parking lot, and relevant paperwork. The ranger also had a roll of undeveloped photo film showing, he said, the ticket he placed on the defendant's windshield with the Forest Service's Recreation Fee Demonstration Program sign in the background.
Magistrate Muirhead asked the ranger and prosecutor about CFR 261.15 -- the law, pre-dating the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (Fee Demo), under which Fee Demo cases are being tried. He asked the officer where in that statute it says that a decal or pass is required to be displayed on a car. He said that he had looked at CFR 261.15 and hadn't been able to find the relevant text.
Trautz, briefly questioned the ranger, and then took the witness chair and condemned the fees saying he'd been hiking in the White Mountains since he was a kid and that the fees were completely unneccesary and absurd. He questioned where they were coming from, noting that volunteers do most of the trail-work and that it was a free American's right to walk freely in the public forests.
After he finished, Muirhead turned the questioning over to the the prosecutor. He asked Trautz whether he had seen the signs to which Trautz replied, "I seen all the signs, and I'm not paying." The prosecution rested.
Muirhead then told Trautz that if had remained silent about not paying, he would have dismissed the charges because of "no probable cause." But since the defendant testified that he hadn't paid, he had no choice but to find him guilty. He told him he had to pay the $50 fine. The Magistrate went on to say that the prosecution did not prove what the statute required: that is, that Trautz hadn't paid a fee. He said the prosecution had proven only that there was no decal on his car, which is not what CFR 261.15 refers to. "I have been throwing out these cases left and right because of 'no probable cause.'"
Trautz firmly told Muirhead he would not pay. Muirhead said he had no choice but to have him led out of the courtroom by the marshalls. After a few minutes the defendant was brought back in and the judge again said, "You supplied crucial evidence by testifying that you didn't pay the fee. Otherwise -- if you'd remained silent on that, I'd have dismissed your case." Then he clearly and forcefully outlined various options, including one in which he might get arrested and shipped "right to Oklahoma," if he was found in contempt of court by still refusing to pay. Trautz agreed to pay.
http://www.freeourforests.org/n001.html
Thanks to Pat K for the heads up on our mention at Strike the Root
Quote from: Pat K on November 10, 2006, 12:08 AM NHFT
Follow the link.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/ (http://www.strike-the-root.com/)
And scroll down.
The direct link to The Picket Line 7 November 2006
http://www.sniggle.net/Experiment/index.php?entry=07Nov06&showyear=2006
Quote
Dave Ridley, inspired by Russell Kanning?s attempts to leaflet the IRS office in Keene, New Hampshire, followed in his footsteps in Nashua a couple of months back (see The Picket Line 18 September). He reports: ?Nothing happened for two weeks, but after my article about this encounter appeared in the KFP, a Homeland Security officer attempted to cite me. The charge was ?Distribution of Handbills.?? He has a court date next Monday.
Any chance we can request Judge Muirhead for all our trials?
At Russell's sentencing, the clerk of court indicated that the $20 court fee was very unusual. It is usually $100. But then, I think Russell was deemed to have "no assets".
Cathleen
With Kat and Russell out of town, could someone else bring some copies of the Keene Free Press to hand out to passers by?
The little restaurant right across the street from the FedCourt is nice, and yes lots of FedBureaucrats go there for lunch.
Last time we were there, Lauren offered copies of the KFP to the the folks with all the guns and badges.
My husband is doing an NH scouting trip this weekend, and is planning to be there bright and early Monday morning for whatever is happening at the courthouse.
He has Dave's number, and will probably give him a call sometime Sunday.
I'm taking suggestions for what Matt should do/visit - need things that will inspire him along the way to moving the whole fam damily.
Oh! He's staying in Concord, and most any company he'd wind up working for would be between there, Nashua & Portsmouth....
On that note, I'll be in Concord for a full day beyond Dada's court appearance. I'd also love any suggestions of things I should see and do, and government bureaucrats I should photograph. ;D
Will you be touring Keene? You don't strike me as a Concord political animal.
I tried to work Keene into my travel plans, but it didn't quite come off. :( Hopefully I'll get down there the week before the Liberty Forum.
If your looking for natural sites:
The White Mountains are (to me) heaven-on-earth.
The Kancamagus Highway (112 between Lincoln and Conway) has lots to see (short walks can get you to some very nice spots - as if the highway itself is not enough) . . ., The Flume (on 93 just north of 112) is something to see . . ., I love Route 302 throught the heart of the mountains . . . I've heard Mt. Washington can take your breath away (though I've never been up :-[) . . . Just to drive through Franconia Notch is worth it. The Old Man used to look over Profile Lake . . . But this is all just one area.
. . . The Lost River is ever popular. Many Porcfesters have gone to see it . . .
These were just a few thoughts.
Our Information Centers/Rest Areas have lots of info. They are also VERY clean and safe!
Stop and take a rest as you cross the NH boarder. Welcome yourself to your future Home. We will welcome you as soon as we see you.
Thanks for the suggestions. I'm forwarding to my husband.
Have done my job, now it's up to him. :)
Oh, be sure to also check calendar.
There is pleanty to do this weekend.
Quote from: mappchik on November 10, 2006, 04:01 PM NHFT
My husband is doing an NH scouting trip this weekend, and is planning to be there bright and early Monday morning for whatever is happening at the courthouse.
Is he coming to the Concord Meeting at noon?
What Concord Meeting at noon?
Oh nevermind, I'll go look at the calendar.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on November 09, 2006, 08:02 PM NHFT
Just learned that Judge Muirhead will be my magistrate for this court appearance. Ed Brown has a high opinion of him. From what I understand he is one of the better fed judges you'll run into, so I plan to stand when he enters the room. I also informed one of the court clerks that I was considering doing so. She sounded amused :)
If you guys would like to tell me more about what you know of him I'm all ears.
He apparently views himself as a safeguard against the excesses of the President - that's what he said at Russell's trial, at least.
one idea: I'd appreciate any copies of the constitution you guys could bring...which could be given away.
probably just go to the net and print it out.
i need someone to take my cell phone part of the day.
I'll need someone to hand some of my posessions over to for safekeeping in the event they do end up locking me away for some reason.
Dada,
Have you made arrangements for your car - just incase they lock you up for exercising your constitutional rights? :(
Quotefor exercising your constitutional rights
you don't have a constitutional right to a redress of greivances by handing out handbills in a public building like the IRS that is not intended for those purposes because you will be disrupting the intended purposes of the building.
you do by handing them out on the sidewalk (the common right of way contained within) where you can excercise your freedom of speech and assembly rights AND you can petition your representatives at their office or in a public forum or in the legislative building while testifying because those are the intended purpose of those venues.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on November 11, 2006, 02:11 AM NHFTHe apparently views himself as a safeguard against the excesses of the President - that's what he said at Russell's trial, at least.
Nice. Because I think that is at least part of the courts job.
I'm thinking I might even stand for this fellow when he comes in.
couple more administrative things...
I'll probably hand off my cell to someone else, perhaps to someone who wants to stand outside the courthouse during the proceedings, continue demonstrating, directing latecomers and answer calls. That way people who are on their way or late can perhaps get an update on where to meet us later.
Also I'd like to know if anyone would like to stand next to me shut me up or whisper advice into my ear for free if the judge will let you.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on November 11, 2006, 01:48 PM NHFT
Also I'd like to know if anyone would like to stand next to me shut me up or whisper advice into my ear for free if the judge will let you.
If I were in your position, the person I'd want doing that would have plenty of schooling in legal matters.
Quote from: FrankChodorov on November 11, 2006, 12:15 PM NHFT
Quotefor exercising your constitutional rights
you don't have a constitutional right to a redress of greivances by handing out handbills in a public building like the IRS that is not intended for those purposes because you will be disrupting the intended purposes of the building.
you do by handing them out on the sidewalk (the common right of way contained within) where you can excercise your freedom of speech and assembly rights AND you can petition your representatives at their office or in a public forum or in the legislative building while testifying because those are the intended purpose of those venues.
and he did leave when asked.
Quote from: Dreepa on November 11, 2006, 03:50 PM NHFT
Quote from: FrankChodorov on November 11, 2006, 12:15 PM NHFT
Quotefor exercising your constitutional rights
you don't have a constitutional right to a redress of greivances by handing out handbills in a public building like the IRS that is not intended for those purposes because you will be disrupting the intended purposes of the building.
you do by handing them out on the sidewalk (the common right of way contained within) where you can excercise your freedom of speech and assembly rights AND you can petition your representatives at their office or in a public forum or in the legislative building while testifying because those are the intended purpose of those venues.
and he did leave when asked.
some will ask him to leave and others will ask that he be arrested like Russell...same issue.
Quote from: FrankChodorov on November 11, 2006, 04:32 PM NHFTsome will ask him to leave and others will ask that he be arrested like Russell...same issue.
Not quite. And I think we are all smart enough to see a HUGE difference.
I will begin a fast around this time tomorrow.
Quote from: d_goddard on November 08, 2006, 10:33 PM NHFT
Quote from: FTL_Ian on November 08, 2006, 10:31 PM NHFT
Do they allow cameras in the Concord courtroom?
No.
They even confiscate iPods :(
What about the Free Press and the public's right to know what their government is doing?
I'm quite out of practice (not that I was ever much good at it) with the sketching. But I'm thinking I'll bring a sketchbook and some pencils.
Anyone know how I can get a press pass - so that I might not be hassled like all get out?
Quote from: John on November 11, 2006, 06:23 PM NHFT
Quote from: FrankChodorov on November 11, 2006, 04:32 PM NHFTsome will ask him to leave and others will ask that he be arrested like Russell...same issue.
Not quite. And I think we are all smart enough to see a HUGE difference.
why isn't it exactly the same issue?
hey there im just up from atlanta to show support on monday. im also staying at the holiday inn concord so ill be at the lp mtg tomorrow at 1pm. later in the day im planning a half day road trip. other than that though im available to help out if i can if there are any supplies or errands need doing let me know i'll check back online tomorrow a few times. i will be at the courthouse monday - when are people going to be showing up?
also if anyone has any advice this is the first support/protest ive been to so that would be appreciated.
my cell is: 404-641-2206 and i will be here until tuesday morning.
matthew
The LPNH meeting is in Manchester tomorrow at 6pm. I do not have an address.
Cathleen
Quote from: FrankChodorov on November 11, 2006, 08:03 PM NHFT
Quote from: John on November 11, 2006, 06:23 PM NHFT
Quote from: FrankChodorov on November 11, 2006, 04:32 PM NHFTsome will ask him to leave and others will ask that he be arrested like Russell...same issue.
Not quite. And I think we are all smart enough to see a HUGE difference.
why isn't it exactly the same issue?
Well - first - I'm thinking the responce is one of basic decency.
Asking one to leave and calling in the boys (and girls) with guns and badges are at two very different levels.
Thank you Matthew! Karma to you.
I hope to be at the FedCourt in Concord an hour early.
do you think someone has a constitutional right to disrupt the offices of the IRS?
Quote from: FrankChodorov on November 11, 2006, 09:23 PM NHFT
do you think someone has a constitutional right to disrupt the offices of the IRS?
I don't know.
However; In the case at hand, I see no evidence that
anyone claimed ANY "disruption" of the office.
Let me ask you this: What do you think should happen to my freind for his non-violent - and respectful - actions of redress; even if you beleive they happened at the wrong place?
Quote from: FrankChodorov on November 11, 2006, 09:23 PM NHFT
do you think someone has a constitutional right to disrupt the offices of the IRS?
Absolutely. There is no law (in the constitution) that says you can't talk to people while they're at work. Or hand out fliers while they're at work. Or even disrupt their work. I don't think working for the IRS qualifies as a "pursuit of happiness"...
:icon_pirat:
Quote from: Quantrill on November 11, 2006, 11:29 PM NHFT
I don't think working for the IRS qualifies as a "pursuit of happiness"...
:icon_pirat:
This is true. I know several people in Utah that work for the IRS. It is the antithesis of the pursuit of happiness! :o
QuoteI see no evidence that anyone claimed ANY "disruption" of the office.
the reason you can't hand out "handbills" is because it is disruption of the intended purpose of the building.
QuoteWhat do you think should happen to my freind for his non-violent - and respectful - actions of redress; even if you beleive they happened at the wrong place?
he should be read exactly what his constitutional rights are regarding redress of greivances and explained how one goes about legally excercising said rights and therefore why his actions were in violation...
for punishment for violating the law he should have to do community service - a series of public lectures given to other FSP members on the 1st amendment to the constitution which outlies our common rights (individual rights shared equally).
Quote from: Quantrill on November 11, 2006, 11:29 PM NHFT
Quote from: FrankChodorov on November 11, 2006, 09:23 PM NHFT
do you think someone has a constitutional right to disrupt the offices of the IRS?
Absolutely. There is no law (in the constitution) that says you can't talk to people while they're at work. Or hand out fliers while they're at work. Or even disrupt their work. I don't think working for the IRS qualifies as a "pursuit of happiness"...
his claim in his defense is that he was lawfully excercising his 1st amendment right to redresss of greivances.
legal precedent has established that this does not mean you can hand out "handbills" at any building owned by the federal government that is not explicitly intended for the receiving of redress of greivances because it will disrupt the intended purpose of the building.
you can petition, assemble, and speak freely anytime you want on the sidewalk as you have a common right of way that is contained within the collectively owned sidewalk.
the government acts (use of force) wrongfully if they restrict those rights in any way and rightfully if the protect those rights from infringement by other individuals.
Matthew thanks for planning to come to the courthouse! The only advice i'd have would be to be kind to our tormentors, carry one of the signs or flags we'll have, and wave at the traffic!
If i'm not mistaken it looks like there will be at least two participants who are here to visit and get a feel for NH. Great to have new faces, it' means we're green! when you're green you're growing; when you're ripe you're dying.
Something to remember: There is probably a 50% chance they will change the time or date of this at the last minute. Maybe for legit reasons, maybe just to throw us off. If they do this, it's our job to react to them the same way that Dr. Seuss town reacted to the Grinch who Stole Christmas!
Ba ho Boray Ba ho Boray
Quote from: DadaOrwell on November 12, 2006, 08:47 AM NHFT
when you're green you're growing; when you're ripe you're dying.
I agree. :)
Quote from: DadaOrwell on November 12, 2006, 10:36 AM NHFT
Something to remember: There is probably a 50% chance they will change the time or date of this at the last minute. Maybe for legit reasons, maybe just to throw us off. If they do this, it's our job to react to them the same way that Dr. Seuss town reacted to the Grinch who Stole Christmas!
When they changed Russell's time to later in the day it just gave us more time to demonstrate. :) ;) :D ;D :o 8)
Oh, and they won't be able to pull the crap like they did in CT. to Lauren (and us) by saying that things won't happen until later and then moving the docket, so that the portion of the public interested in the "public trial" was excluded; because Dave will be outside.
It is fun to smite Frank/Bill Grennon from Texas. :)
Have fun storming the castle inConcord.
It's official: I have obligations till ~10AM but then will be able to lend my support by being there.
There is always a 1% chance of work emergency, but it's not likely that time in the morning.
Dada,
Sorry I won't be able to make it -- gotta work, but I'll be anxious to hear how this one goes.
Dada, I wish I could make it. But, I've safely delivered error to Concord, so it's almost like I've done my part to make sure there's one more body there in person supporting you :) Good luck!
I know it's a rather late hour to ask, but I was wondering if anyone from the Keene area is going tommorow. If I could meet up with one of you and carpool up, I'd be happy. Of course I'm willing to split the gas tab too, so not only would you get to enjoy the pleasure of my company but you'd save a couple bucks too.
no one unable to make it should fret. Heck I only make it to one event in ten myself.
Quote from: Braddogg on November 12, 2006, 08:50 PM NHFT
Dada, I wish I could make it. But, I've safely delivered error to Concord,
+1
could someone do me a favor and make hard copies of the three keene free press articles I wrote about these events...then bring them tomorrow?
Dada, I think that will end up being me. I don't plan to give up MY electronics either!
Update: I had to leave the protest to get back to work, but there was a very good turnout - around 15 people. They were headed into the courthouse around 10:15 (probably everyone was glad to get out of the rain).
Called to get an update:
Dada found guilty. He is still fined $125. He says it was amicable. He hasn't said when or if he will pay the fine.
Turnout about 19.
Good turnot -bad weather. Dripping wet, lots of honks.
Inside - short story:
Dave and the judge had a short discussion of the first amendment and the justification for abridging that right in federal buildings. The position of the court is that for safety, it is justified.
Dave siad he had done nothing wrong, judge entered a not guilty plea. Judge asked when Dave wanted to come back for trial. Dave said he didn't want to. Trial proceeded. Feds put IRS lady on the stand. Her story pretty much mirrored Dave's. Dave took the stand (maybe that was his mistake). Judge asked if Dave wrote the online article. the one where Dave said he handed and left a flier on the counter. Dave said yes. Guilty as charged. Fine $100 plus $25 assessment fee.
Oh, the judge practically begged Dave to appeal. He gave a little speech for using the system to test the constitutionality of laws.
Cathleen
I took notes, I may post them later "when there is time".
My VERY brief $0.02... the judge wishes like hell someone remotely familiar with the law would argue a case like this, he'd love to strike down some unconstitutional regulations, but is not inclined to do so if the defendent has never heard of mens rea. ;)
PS. Excellent work by Dave. He maintained his trademark calmness, coolness, and courtesy.
Quote from: cathleeninnh on November 13, 2006, 12:59 PM NHFTOh, the judge practically begged Dave to appeal. He gave a little speech for using the system to test the constitutionality of laws.
This part is my words not Cathleeninnh's:
This reminded me VERY MUCH of George Bush signing into law a campaign finance law wich HE HIMSELF had made very clear he KNEW was UN-constitutional - and then saying that the courts would deal with it. ??? BOGUS B.S., IMHO!
:( & >:(
And, OH YES GREAT WORK DAVE!
I got lots of pictures of the protest, most of which will go up later, but in the meantime here's a teaser:
[attachment deleted by admin]
Dada.... calm and cool.
I overheard two 'guards' saying.. 'The fine should have been $1000'.
Did you see that they had about 6 people in a holding room ready to testify.
Also an extra 3-4 guards (marshalls, I think) came in the room -- ready for action.
Quote from: Dreepa on November 13, 2006, 02:38 PM NHFTAlso an extra 3-4 guards (marshalls, I think) came in the room -- ready for action.
If there was more room in the courtroom (wich we had brought to standing room only) they would have "packed the court" at least one more than we did - I think. But that's just a thing they do to impress the judge.
HOWEVER! I have NEVER seen (as we did when we were leaving) one of the "law" enforcement boys with a dog inside a court house. Maybe there is a reason they don't want cameras inside their sacred temple.
Oh and I think the final two who came in were: Steve, a personable marshal whom some of us have met several times, and the other was one of the ICEmen - maybe even one of those who were there when Russell was --- unnessesarily --- pushed to the floor inside his home.
WHAT ABOUT THAT POOR GUY (who was not there - but had called the "Texas" #) "WHO'S WIFE ANSWERED ALL CHARGES AND MADE A DEAL WITH THE COURT? Remember they had already issued a warrent for his arrest - before the court knew about the deal? AND, THE DEAL WAS ACCEPTED FOR BOTH OF THEM!
I'm thinking that poor guy will someday (maybe many years from now) get stopped for some little traffic thing and his life - and the life of his young family - could be DESTROYED. :'( BIG FEDERAL FUGITIVE CHARGES - FOR NOTHING! Loss of job . . . etc, etc, etc
IF NOTHING ELSE could you FEDGUYS (and/or GALS) reading this at least staighten that out? It was the first case today. All they did was go camping in the wrong place - probably a friggin mistake! They tried to make it right by you. CAN YOU DO RIGHT BY THEM? DO YOU EVEN CARE? Imagine it was your brother and his wife and kid; your sister and her husband, your daughter and son-in-law, your son and daughter-in-law, your grand kids.
IF YOU CAN DO RIGHT BY THAT YOUNG FAMILY, PLEASE DO IT TODAY BEFORE YOU FORGET ABOUT THEM!
The judge seemed to agree with my peaceful freind, but would not make that commitment. :(
The judge pushed this matter UP-HILL.
Appeal?
Frank, it is a shame that you could not be there today (assuming you were not ;)) because Dave made a darn good case for himself - and for our Constitution. I think most in that room were quite favorably impressed.
I think we all learned somthing today! 8)
I think Dave is both student and teacher on some of these moral issues.
Here's another picture.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: John on November 13, 2006, 04:31 PM NHFT
Quote from: FrankChodorov on November 13, 2006, 03:58 PM NHFT
Quote from: Dreepa on November 13, 2006, 02:38 PM NHFT
Dada.... calm and cool.
so was I correct?
About what?
that he has no constitutional right of redress of greivances (handbill distribution) within a federally owned building that was not intended for those purposes because it would disrupt the intended purpose of the building.
Nice pictures. This was (I think) our first (in 2+ years) rain soaked demonstration. Keep them comming.
My pictures have gone into Revolution Central >:D for proccessing and may be available later. ;D
Quote from: FrankChodorov on November 13, 2006, 05:29 PM NHFT
Quote from: John on November 13, 2006, 04:31 PM NHFT
Quote from: FrankChodorov on November 13, 2006, 03:58 PM NHFT
Quote from: Dreepa on November 13, 2006, 02:38 PM NHFT
Dada.... calm and cool.
so was I correct?
About what?
that he has no constitutional right of redress of greivances (handbill distribution) within a federally owned building that was not intended for those purposes because it would disrupt the intended purpose of the building.
Dude, you should have come out to Concord and heard the conversation in that courtroom. I like to think that you might have learned something today... I think even the closed-minded were taking a new breath of FRESH OPINION --- and respect for the opinions of others.
While
I may have come down a bit (here) on the FEDjudge (comparing him to Bush) I think Dave had it kind of right in his closing statement - no all of his statements - to the court.
Again, to bad you weren't there today.
Regardless of todays ruling, today was a good day for Liberty.
When brave men peacefully stand their ground, the "ripple" keeps happening.
Quoteto bad you weren't there today.
I drove by the court room at 7:45 am this morning on my way to work...
The response from the judge was that the only options for redress of grievance is to vote, write your legislators or stand on a street and hold a sign. Spelled out. Pretty sad.
Cathleen
Quote from: cathleeninnh on November 13, 2006, 06:25 PM NHFT
The response from the judge was that the only options for redress of grievance is to vote, write your legislators or stand on a street and hold a sign. Spelled out. Pretty sad.
and that is exactly what I said - except you can also go and visit your legislators office and ask for a meeting or testify in front of the legislature.
would you like links to the specific quotes?
If you have an opinion on this, Free Talk Live is talking about this right now . . . I just got on . . .
FTL is @ 1-800-259-9231
Why not call them up?
Quote from: FrankChodorov on November 13, 2006, 06:04 PM NHFT
Quoteto bad you weren't there today.
I drove by the court room at 7:45 am this morning on my way to work...
Sorry I wasn't ther earlier (with my flags) to wave at you.
Would you have honked? Would you have stopped to say hello?
QuoteWould you have honked? Would you have stopped to say hello?
if I had seen someone I know...
I am so glad Matthew went up to NH for this morning. I've heard the short version of the protest, and look forward to hearing more details when he gets back home tomorrow.
Thank you for making him feel so welcome - and I can't wait to meet many of you in February at the Liberty Forum. :)
Quote from: mappchik on November 13, 2006, 07:14 PM NHFT
I am so glad Matthew went up to NH for this morning.
And so are we!
Matthew helped us brave the rain - - - not winter, just some rain, but I'm thinking Matthew is a good man.
I suggested that folks who think winter weather might be too .... should take up some outdoor winter activities such as snow . . . sports . . .
Winter is fun!
Quote from: mappchik on November 13, 2006, 07:14 PM NHFTand look forward to hearing more details when he gets back home tomorrow.. :)
Home? Did you say Home?
New Hampshire is Home to Liberty lovers.
PLEASE COME HOME!
Quote from: John on November 13, 2006, 07:53 PM NHFT
Home? Did you say Home?
New Hampshire is Home to Liberty lovers.
PLEASE COME HOME!
Just because I'd be ready to start packing tomorrow, doesn't mean that he is.
He needs time to think about it before I kick into persuasive mode.
Great job everyone who stood in the rain... makes me proud. :)
Error, thanks for the photo coverage. 8)
And Dave, well, you da man. 8)
dave is next up on free talk live
Quote from: mappchik on November 13, 2006, 07:14 PM NHFT
I am so glad Matthew went up to NH for this morning. I've heard the short version of the protest, and look forward to hearing more details when he gets back home tomorrow.
Thank you for making him feel so welcome - and I can't wait to meet many of you in February at the Liberty Forum. :)
Cool tell him he can post here as well.
Frank... you have it 80% right about what went down... but Dada held his own on the 1st Amend. I hope that some people did listen and learn.
QuoteFrank... you have it 80% right about what went down... but Dada held his own on the 1st Amend.
what 20% did I get wrong?
Quote from: FrankChodorov on November 13, 2006, 08:27 PM NHFT
QuoteFrank... you have it 80% right about what went down... but Dada held his own on the 1st Amend.
what 20% did I get wrong?
Take a look at Articles #s 1
& 10.
Just for the fun of it, try to be open-minded and see if you can find another point of veiw.
After hearing everything on FTL, I say appeal. I think you could have some fun with it, Dada, and maybe more impact as well.
1A sounds good to me - Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Though the Supreme Court has ruled different, it does very clearly state that Congress cannot abridge the freedom of speech.
From Dictionary.com -
a?bridge? /??br?d?/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-brij] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
?verb (used with object), a?bridged, a?bridg?ing. 1. to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents: to abridge a reference book.
2. reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one's freedom.
3. to deprive; cut off.
[Origin: 1350?1400; ME abreggen, abriggen < MF abreg(i)er < LL abbrevi?re to shorten. See a-4, abbreviate]
?Related forms
a?bridg?a?ble, a?bridge?a?ble, adjective
a?bridg?er, noun
?Synonyms 1. cut down; epitomize; condense, abstract, digest. See shorten. 2. contract, reduce. 3. divest.
?Antonyms 1. lengthen. 2. expand.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, ? Random House, Inc. 2006.
Quote from: John on November 13, 2006, 08:42 PM NHFT
Quote from: FrankChodorov on November 13, 2006, 08:27 PM NHFT
QuoteFrank... you have it 80% right about what went down... but Dada held his own on the 1st Amend.
what 20% did I get wrong?
Take a look at Articles #s 1 & 10.
Just for the fun of it, try to be open-minded and see if you can find another point of veiw.
I have thank you...
the 1st amendment is based on common rights
federal buildings are collective property.
one is an individual equal right and the other is a joint unequal right.
collective property is an unequal joint right because you
MUST get permission prior to use from all the other owners (consensus)
OR their delegated authority (the state).
the excercise of our 1st amendment rights of freedom of speech, assembly, redress of greivances being individual equal common rights require
NO PRIOR PERMISSION before excercising them - the state sole role is to insure that while one individual is excercising their rights they are not infringing on anyone else's equal right to the same.
regarding freedom of speech, government acts rightfully when it insures that all may speak, but acts wrongfully when it decides, or lets the majority decide, who may speak or what may be said...in doing so, it subverts a common right into a collective right, effectively destroying the rights of those individuals who are excluded.
that is why the judge said you can carry a sign on the sidewalk where people are free to assemble and plead for a redress of greivances because there is a
COMMON RIGHT OF WAY contained within the sidewalk...the only requirements are that you can not block anyone else's equal right to the common right of way - that is why you must keep moving.
in a public building - just as Russell had been instructed - you can freely use the halls and lobbies because they are general purpose areas (without asking anyone for permission) to get to the offices but you can not interupt the intended purpose of the building
because you would have to get prior permission.
And another one. I never did figure out why Dada didn't want to protest WITH the rest of us!
[attachment deleted by admin]
So with the two visiting porcupines...which one is which in the pics? There's a redheaded one and dark haired one with a beard...
I'm sure Matthew (the dark-haired visitor) will be posting either tomorrow night or Wednesday, but he has an early morning date with the TSA at the airport in Manchester tomorrow, so.....
Here are a couple of pix he sent me earlier:
(http://static.flickr.com/122/296985513_7acaa1a146.jpg?v=0)
(http://static.flickr.com/114/296985511_d90b822dbe.jpg?v=0)
Quote from: error on November 13, 2006, 09:23 PM NHFT
And another one. I never did figure out why Dada didn't want to protest WITH the rest of us!
That would be like saying that I didn't protest "with" the rest of us >:D - I was busy walking around the Fedbuilding; up and down the streets - and quite around the hood; where I might be seen from I different FEDwindow, or passers by, or home, or shop, or office ... I actualy had some folks come out from one place and ask if I was protesting them ;D to wich I answered
"No. But is there something we should know?" :) We had a freindly chat - - - and they HATE (that's just shorthand for what was said) the IRS to. :-X
Methinks we (and many others) are quite together on this. Sorry I didn't spend more time on that corner with the group, but as we all know cats are rather hard to corral. :-*
I think we all compliment each other nicely. Dave (I think) was just getting the attention of the traffic from that one direction . . .
Dada, congratulations on arguing your first case. I imagine a combination of Clarence Darrow, Johnnie Cochran, and Matlock.
Next time, don't testify or offer any evidence (i.e., the articles from the KFP); you can still argue all of your legal points, but I get the impression that this judge doesn't think that the government can often make its case without direct testimony from the accused.
I can't wait to get to NH and offer my assistance to freedom fighters (pro bono, of course).
BTW, 3. :o
Quote from: Spencer on November 13, 2006, 10:17 PM NHFT
Dada, congratulations on arguing your first case. I imagine a combination of Clarence Darrow, Johnnie Cochran, and Matlock.
Next time, don't testify or offer any evidence (i.e., the articles from the KFP); you can still argue all of your legal points, but I get the impression that this judge doesn't think that the government can often make its case without direct testimony from the accused.
I can't wait to get to NH and offer my assistance to freedom fighters (pro bono, of course).
what is your analysis of the legality of the law against passing out "handbills"in federal buildings?
Quote from: FrankChodorov on November 13, 2006, 10:19 PM NHFT
Quote from: Spencer on November 13, 2006, 10:17 PM NHFT
Dada, congratulations on arguing your first case. I imagine a combination of Clarence Darrow, Johnnie Cochran, and Matlock.
Next time, don't testify or offer any evidence (i.e., the articles from the KFP); you can still argue all of your legal points, but I get the impression that this judge doesn't think that the government can often make its case without direct testimony from the accused.
I can't wait to get to NH and offer my assistance to freedom fighters (pro bono, of course).
Frank.... does everyone know that law?
Would it not be fair to assume that Dada... went into to 'redress his grievances' they then told him to leave.. and he did.
Are we to know all the 100s and 1000s of rules that the government (of the people, for the people by the people?) make?
what is your analysis of the legality of the law against passing out "handbills"in federal buildings?
Congress shall make no law . . .
What the hell were these boys thinking?
Quotedoes everyone know that law?
ignorance is no defense...
QuoteAre we to know all the 100s and 1000s of rules that the government (of the people, for the people by the people?) make?
it was the same law that restricted Russell from doing the same thing.
he started the "silent protests"
AFTER and in
RESPONSE to Russell's arrest.
the critique against Russell action was that he told the law enforcement officials what he was going to do before he did it (here on forum and in person before he went into the building)...Russell was allowed to precede thru the common areas of the building (without handbills the second time) but when asked what his intentions were in going into the office he told them he was going to "ask the employees to quit" and was arrested before going in.
"Are we to know all the 100s and 1000s of rules that the government (of the people, for the people by the people?) make?"
The "atractive" lady from the IRS office in Nassua, who testified, did not even know what the rules were in her own office - let alone the "law." She didn't even know what the sign in her office says . . .
I think a trained lawyer would/might have ended this case right on that point - alone. But then that would not have gotten to the heart of the matter; would it?
Thanks for taking a hit for the team, Dave. You're becoming bolder each day. :)
QuoteThe "atractive" lady from the IRS office in Nassua, who testified, did not even know what the rules were in her own office - let alone the "law." She didn't even know what the sign in her office says . . .
well someone knew the law enough to issue him a ticket for a specific infraction...
QuoteI think a trained lawyer would/might have ended this case right on that point - alone. But then that would not have gotten to the heart of the matter; would it?
what is the heart of the matter?
Dada has himself in a bit of a pickle you see because Russell and Lauren are not making a legal argument (the right of redress of greivances as part of the 1st amendment) they simply
DON'T RECOGNIZE THE MORAL OR LEGAL AUTHORITY of the court and are willing to go to prison for that view (Lauren claimed to be homesteading...I don't think Russell was arguing anything specifically).
is Dada willing to do the same? because if he tries to argue the law he is going to loose big time...
It was only after Dave wrote an article in the Keene Free Press that the FEDS decided to come down on him.
Maybe this has more to do with his speaking about his actions than those actions themselves. No harm was done by Dave.
Back to #1?
Quote from: Michael Fisher on November 13, 2006, 10:55 PM NHFT
Thanks for taking a hit for the team, Dave. You're becoming bolder each day. :)
Michael, More "ripples" happen every time.
Quote from: John on November 13, 2006, 11:01 PM NHFT
It was only after Dave wrote an article in the Keene Free Press that the FEDS decided to come down on him.
Maybe this has more to do with his speaking about his actions than those actions themselves. No harm was done by Dave.
probably because they had a slam dunk case with the public information Dada provided.
where would you draw the line as to the disruption of the business that is designated to occur in federal buildings?
Quote from: FrankChodorov on November 13, 2006, 10:59 PM NHFTif he tries to argue the law he is going to loose big time...
Back to #s 1 & 10?
Where would you draw the line on the Constitution?
Is it over?
Quote from: John on November 13, 2006, 01:43 PM NHFT
Quote from: cathleeninnh on November 13, 2006, 12:59 PM NHFTOh, the judge practically begged Dave to appeal. He gave a little speech for using the system to test the constitutionality of laws.
BOGUS B.S., IMHO!
:( & >:(
what a surprise ... a fed judge that wants us to use the system.
Quote from: FrankChodorov on November 13, 2006, 09:17 PM NHFT
the 1st amendment is based on common rights
federal buildings are collective property.
one is an individual equal right and the other is a joint unequal right.
collective property is an unequal joint right because you MUST get permission prior to use from all the other owners (consensus) OR their delegated authority (the state).
the excercise of our 1st amendment rights of freedom of speech, assembly, redress of greivances being individual equal common rights require NO PRIOR PERMISSION before excercising them - the state sole role is to insure that while one individual is excercising their rights they are not infringing on anyone else's equal right to the same.
regarding freedom of speech, government acts rightfully when it insures that all may speak, but acts wrongfully when it decides, or lets the majority decide, who may speak or what may be said...in doing so, it subverts a common right into a collective right, effectively destroying the rights of those individuals who are excluded.
that is why the judge said you can carry a sign on the sidewalk where people are free to assemble and plead for a redress of greivances because there is a COMMON RIGHT OF WAY contained within the sidewalk...the only requirements are that you can not block anyone else's equal right to the common right of way - that is why you must keep moving.
The ignore button may have resulted in some missing this gem. This is the current (since 1969) opinion of the SCOTUS, and a very, very good one IMHO. I give you, Brandenburg v. Ohio (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/brandenburg.html).
For those that are scared of clicky things, following the link to the full opinion is well worth it; this is a unanimous opinion with two amplifying concurrences that affirms your right to say whatever, affirms individual property rights, and affirms a clear and easy test for time and place restrictions that give equal access to so-called public property. As if that isn't enough, it SPECIFICALLY overturns the "clear and present danger" test and its follow-on corollaries. If you aren't familiar with the "clear and present danger" test, shame on you - it is established in the same paragraph as the much-bastardized "fire in a theater" nonsense.
Quick background: in Schenck v. United States, Justice Holmes pens what he later described as a disastrous opinion, saying that first amendment rights are not protected if they pose a "clear and present danger" of inciting harm or rebellion. This opinion was used in subsequent decisions (the later of which Holmes dissented on) to justify bills of attainder on Socialists (Whitney v. California), prohibitions on draft-card burning (United States v. O'Brien), and prohibitions on teaching Marxism (Denis v. New York). In Brandenburg, however, the court went to great lengths to denounce "clear and present danger" and its subsequent erosion of civil liberties.
QuoteThough I doubt if the "clear and present danger" test is congenial to the First Amendment in time of a declared war, I am certain it is not reconcilable with the First Amendment in days of peace. - Justice Douglas, concurring
QuoteMy own view is quite different. I see no place in the regime of the First Amendment for any "clear and present danger" test, whether strict and tight, as some would make it, or free-wheeling, as the Court in Dennis rephrased it. - Justice Douglas, concurring
QuoteI agree with the views expressed by MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS in his concurring opinion in this case that the "clear and present danger" doctrine should have no place [450] in the interpretation of the First Amendment. I join the Court's opinion, which, as I understand it, simply cites Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951), but does not indicate any agreement on the Court's part with the "clear and present danger" doctrine on which Dennis purported to rely. - Justice Black, concurring
In his concurring opinion, Justice Douglas also affirms the newer "Free Speech Plus" test that is the standard to this date. The "Plus" is an action that infringes upon the rights and liberties of others (blocking the sidewalk, tieing up traffic, etc.). In the interest of fairness to all, reasonable time and place restrictions on the "Plus" are not only warranted, but desirable.
QuotePicketing, as we have said on numerous occasions, is "free speech plus." See [list of citations] That means that it can be regulated when it comes to the "plus" or "action" side of the protest. It can be regulated as to [456] the number of pickets and the place and hours (see Cox v. Louisiana, supra), because traffic and other community problems would otherwise suffer. - Justice Douglas, concurring
Now, to put to bed the "fire in a theater" for all its horrible syntax (note, no "crowded" in Holmes' original cite):
QuoteThe line between what is permissible and not subject to control and what may be made impermissible and subject to regulation is the line between ideas and overt acts.
The example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre.
This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action. See Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 536-537 (DOUGLAS, J., concurring). They are indeed inseparable, and a prosecution can be launched for the overt [457] acts actually caused. Apart from rare instances of that kind, speech is, I think, immune from prosecution. Certainly there is no constitutional line between advocacy of abstract ideas, as in Yates, and advocacy of political action, as in Scales. The quality of advocacy turns on the depth of the conviction, and government has no power to invade that sanctuary of belief and conscience. - Justice Douglas, concurring
IOW, there is no basis for restriction of yelling fire in a theater, but if you do you bear the responsibility for any actual criminal endangerment and civil damages from the theater owner for interrupting the performance.
Now, it seems to me from the accounts of both Dada and Russel appearing before this judge, he is BEGGING you to challenge the time and place restrictions imposed in this office in the light of this "Plus". He is telling you (as best he can) that you are arguing the wrong half of the test. Instead of arguing that handing out pamphlets at the office is free speech, you should be arguing that handing out pamphlets is NOT "Plus".
Dada, because you are such a defensible defendent (your silence and civility, you did nothing to impede access, you didn't pre-cast your intent to "turn over the desks") and because this office is THE place where they receive mail and transact business with people who regularly bring them documents, competent legal representation (especially a lawyer sympathetic to your cause) could have gotten this judge to overturn the time and place restrictions altogether. My fear is that the opportunity is now squandered (the rules of appeal may limit arguments to specific things in the courtroom yesterday and not allow additional pleadings).
Get a lawyer![/list]
QuoteNow, it seems to me from the accounts of both Dada and Russel appearing before this judge, he is BEGGING you to challenge the time and place restrictions imposed in this office in the light of this "Plus". He is telling you (as best he can) that you are arguing the wrong half of the test. Instead of arguing that handing out pamphlets at the office is free speech, you should be arguing that handing out pamphlets is NOT "Plus".
Dada, because you are such a defensible defendent (your silence and civility, you did nothing to impede access, you didn't pre-cast your intent to "turn over the desks") and because this office is THE place where they receive mail and transact business with people who regularly bring them documents, competent legal representation (especially a lawyer sympathetic to your cause) could have gotten this judge to overturn the time and place restrictions altogether. My fear is that the opportunity is now squandered (the rules of appeal may limit arguments to specific things in the courtroom yesterday and not allow additional pleadings).
so you are suggesting that the distribution of "handbills" as a redress of greivances is NOT "Plus" because it impedes no one and the handbills are "transacting business" pertinent in some way to the business of the IRS?
another post here suggested that it was prohibited for "safety considerations"...anyone care to expound on this?
there must be some explanation of where redress of greivances can occur that is not thought of as disruptive in nature because he was very explicit to Dada - on the sidewalk, write letters, etc.
Thanks everyone for coming out and supporting me, or supporting me in other ways! I will post more details as the spirit leads, there were a lot of interesting interactions yesterday!
Quote from: error on November 13, 2006, 09:23 PM NHFT
And another one. I never did figure out why Dada didn't want to protest WITH the rest of us!
My theory is that protests are most effective when the demonstrators are spread out a bit...they are easier to see at a distance and drivers have more time to read each sign. I did explain this at the time but you might not have been in earshot. Of course I think the even better thing is if they are in clumps of two so each demonstrator has someone to talk to.
As I pointed out to Matt (glad to meet you, BTW), of the dozen or so of us who were concerned enought to come out yesterday, under similar circumstances, it is likely we would have a dozen different responses to the charge. And after many more of these occur, hindsight will show us which responses were BINGO successes. But that doesn't make this or any other response less important. We are changeable people in a changing world being oppressed and watched by changing populations. Every action moves us in sometimes unpredictable ways.
We will make our choices and hope the results lead toward a better future.
Cathleen
any other thoughts pro or con regarding whether I should appeal?
The only problem I have with appealing is the concern that it would trigger taxpayer expense. Everyone seems to be indicating that is not the case, including the judge who basically said the courts have too much time on their hands and are getting paid the same regardless. I suggested to him that they should shut down the unneeded courts of course.
Anyway this seems to at least alleviate my moral qualms about appealing. Maybe I will appeal just to stay in the fight until they bust through the last trench line. That I could do with or without an attorney I assume. If someone wants to come forward and play attorney pro bono I have no immediate objections. I don't have any interest in putting anyone on the spot however by asking them individually.
Quote from: FrankChodorov on November 13, 2006, 10:45 PM NHFT
Quotedoes everyone know that law?
ignorance is no defense...
But they make 10000 of laws that we can never know about.
How about the 'secret laws' that TSA has? Why can't I get a list of what is not allowed on a plane? I had my allen wrench stolen from me by TSA.. when I asked for the list of 'forbidden' items I was told it was a secret.
And people wonder why I've just stopped flying.
Dada, NOW I get it. :)
Quote from: FrankChodorov on November 13, 2006, 11:10 PM NHFT
probably because they had a slam dunk case with the public information Dada provided.
So.... The ticket he may (or may not) pay is $125.
How much did the gov spend on wasted productivity? (They had a bunch of the IRS people in Concord).
Plus gas to drive them up there.
Plus court time.
Plus the 'extra' cops.
All for this case Frank? Seems a waste of time on their side.
Quote from: Dreepa on November 14, 2006, 11:37 AM NHFT
Quote from: FrankChodorov on November 13, 2006, 10:45 PM NHFT
Quotedoes everyone know that law?
ignorance is no defense...
But they make 10000 of laws that we can never know about.
How about the 'secret laws' that TSA has? Why can't I get a list of what is not allowed on a plane? I had my allen wrench stolen from me by TSA.. when I asked for the list of 'forbidden' items I was told it was a secret.
your not going to get me to defend secret laws...
but don't you think if dada was going to engage in non-violent CD protest he would know exactly what his potential liabilities would be - what specific laws he was going to be breaking?
Quote from: Dreepa on November 14, 2006, 11:41 AM NHFT
Quote from: FrankChodorov on November 13, 2006, 11:10 PM NHFT
probably because they had a slam dunk case with the public information Dada provided.
So.... The ticket he may (or may not) pay is $125.
How much did the gov spend on wasted productivity? (They had a bunch of the IRS people in Concord).
Plus gas to drive them up there.
Plus court time.
Plus the 'extra' cops.
All for this case Frank? Seems a waste of time on their side.
from their perspective they are having to decide where do you draw the line?
in the case of Russell - it was crossing between general purpose area and the IRS office...w/dada it was distributing handbills.
should they allow massive CD to shutdown the IRS office in Keene?
Quote from: FrankChodorov on November 14, 2006, 07:57 AM NHFT
so you are suggesting that the distribution of "handbills" as a redress of greivances is NOT "Plus" because it impedes no one and the handbills are "transacting business" pertinent in some way to the business of the IRS?
Frank you make a good arguement.
I think (and someone can correct me), that Dada was silent and only gave her the 'handbill' as a way of communicating with her...ie transacting business. Distracting NO ONE. Then when asked to leave he did.
Quote from: Dreepa on November 14, 2006, 11:47 AM NHFT
Quote from: FrankChodorov on November 14, 2006, 07:57 AM NHFT
so you are suggesting that the distribution of "handbills" as a redress of greivances is NOT "Plus" because it impedes no one and the handbills are "transacting business" pertinent in some way to the business of the IRS?
Frank you make a good arguement.
I think (and someone can correct me), that Dada was silent and only gave her the 'handbill' as a way of communicating with her...ie transacting business. Distracting NO ONE. Then when asked to leave he did.
not interupting, not distracting, but DISRUPTING.
the transacting of IRS business has to be specifically pertinent as it realtes to the individual who does the transacting...if it is not then it is defacto DISRUPTING.
the IRS agent has no control over the IRS policy...the redress of greivances has to be to federal policy makers in a place specific to their function (federally owned building or their office) or within the common right of ways.
Couple more recollections worth mentioning...i'll try to post them chronologically.
the concord demonstration generated maybe 25 honks from cars at the modestly traveled intersection over an hour or so. We didn't get any opposition that I know of (in keene we usually get some). It was great to have all the new visitor faces there...error , tim from chicago and matthew from georgia. Seth Cohn showed up for both the demo and the hearing which was a shock and I appreciated it!
We didn't demonstrate in front of the courthouse itself but in front of a different part of the federal compound where there's more traffic
Once we went inside the building it took maybe 15 minutes for us all to get thru the metal detector. The metal detector guards were uneven in their disposition, most didn't do anything memorable but one started giving Bill a hassle about an item; wanted to hang onto it without giving him a receipt. Bill hassled him back some and I asked the guard what the problem was. He said he was talking to Bill not me. I indicated that since he was now talking to me, he was now talking to me.
I realized everyone had gotten quiet and was listening to our exchange, but it ended pretty fast and we were on our way.
After we got a little away from the metal detectors and started taking off our raingear, a man came up to me and introduced himself. His last name was Fief or Feef or something, and he said he was "with the U.S. Attorney's office."
I shook hands with him and told him it was good to meet him but asked him if he felt comfortable about prosecuting me. He didn't seem to expect that question and said that was irrelevant. I asked him if what he was doing was right and got a similar response. He asked me if I wanted to proceed and said if I did there would be a bench trial and they had witnesses. I asked him if the witnesses were here at taxpayer expense. I think he said he didn't know but probably so. I think I maybe said I didn't think that was right but I'm not sure if I said this or not.
He asked again if I wanted to proceed. I told him I had no representations to make about what I might or might not do, except that I intended to enter the courtroom. He seemed to get a little more terse as the conversation went on and then left.
Once we got inside the courtroom there were three cases about to be heard where the defendants were present, ours was the second.
The courtroom visitor area was small so it was almost standing room only. One of the court personnel asked if we would like them to bring us an extra chair or two. Since no one else answered I asked if this would involve any taxpayer expense. There was a lot of laughter but only from our side of the room :)
There were five other cases where the defendants had failed to show and the judge requested warrants be issued for their arrest. It was mostly u.s. park or forest stuff apparently. The gal in front of me was apparently in court for camping in the wrong spot!
I'm wondering what size Allen wrench Chris caries and for what
Quotenot interupting, not distracting, but DISRUPTING.
the transacting of IRS business has to be specifically pertinent as it realtes to the individual who does the transacting...if it is not then it is defacto DISRUPTING.
So if a friend or family member calls an IRS employee during business hours would they be in the same situation as Dada???
Quote from: Brock on November 14, 2006, 07:03 AM NHFT
Quote from: FrankChodorov on November 13, 2006, 09:17 PM NHFT
the 1st amendment is based on common rights
federal buildings are collective property.
The ignore button may have resulted in some missing this gem.
you didn't pre-cast your intent to "turn over the desks")
Get a lawyer![/list]
Ah ... nothing I like better than a Bill Grennon quote.
desk overturning is underrated. :)
all we need is a few more lawyers and the revolution is complete.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on November 14, 2006, 10:17 AM NHFT
any other thoughts pro or con regarding whether I should appeal?
appealing requires using the evil government system
Quote from: DadaOrwell on November 14, 2006, 03:23 PM NHFTI shook hands with him and told him it was good to meet him but asked him if he felt comfortable about prosecuting me.
He asked me if I wanted to proceed and said if I did there would be a bench trial and they had witnesses.
Perfect
ewww scary ... witnesses
Alright, call me mildly obsessed with Dada's ordeal, but I think that I may have found something interesting about this charge (distributing handbills).
41 CFR 102-74.415 (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/22jul20061500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/julqtr/41cfr102-74.415.htm) provides:
Quote
? 102–74.415 What is the policy for
posting and distributing materials?
All persons entering in or on Federal
property are prohibited from—
***
(c) Distributing materials, such as
pamphlets, handbills or flyers, unless
conducted as part of authorized Government
activities. This prohibition
does not apply to public areas of the
property as defined in ? 102–71.20 of this
chapter. However, any person or organization
proposing to distribute materials
in a public area under this section
must first obtain a permit from the
building manager as specified in subpart
D of this part. Any such person or
organization must distribute materials
only in accordance with the provisions
of subpart D of this part. Failure to
comply with those provisions is a violation
of these regulations.
"Public areas" is defined at 41 CFR 102-71.20 (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/22jul20061500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/julqtr/41cfr102-71.20.htm) as:
Quote
Public area means any area of a building under the control and
custody of GSA that is ordinarily open to members of the public,
including lobbies, courtyards, auditoriums, meeting rooms, and other
such areas not assigned to a lessee or occupant agency.
The problem is: SUBPART D (providing for obtaining a permit to distribute handbills in public areas) DOES NOT EXIST!
Check it out here (http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cfrassemble.cgi?title=200641):
Quote
Subtitle D--Other Provisions Relating to Property Management [Reserved]
Emphasis in the above quotes is mine.
So, how could Dada have applied for a permit when there is no procedure to apply for such a permit? I believe that the proper allegation against Dada was failing to get a permit under Subtitle D, which, according to the regulations under which he was cited, "Failure to comply with
those provisions [Subtitle D] is a violation of
these regulations."
This is the equivalent of creating a law that requires every dog owner to obtain a license for any dogs owned, then not providing a mechanism by which to obtain such a license.
I believe, Dada, that you should consider filing a Motion for New Trial (pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 33 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule33.htm)) -- but you must do so within seven (7) days of the verdict of guilty.
Quote from: Spencer on November 14, 2006, 09:08 PM NHFT
Alright, call me mildly obsessed with Dada's ordeal, but I think that I may have found something interesting about this charge (distributing handbills).
Quote from: Russell Kanning on November 14, 2006, 08:19 PM NHFT
all we need is a few more lawyers and the revolution is complete.
Some lawyers come in handy. ;D
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on November 14, 2006, 06:14 PM NHFT
I'm wondering what size Allen wrench Chris caries and for what
;)
Small... I had it in my messenger bag that I wear when I ride my bike. It was a quick trip from LA to SF... and 45 minutes and 2 supervisors and I still couldn't keep my allen wrench.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on November 14, 2006, 03:12 PM NHFTthe concord demonstration generated maybe 25 honks from cars at the modestly traveled intersection over an hour or so. We didn't get any opposition that I know of
I got about 6 honks at the corner of Pleasant and (I think it is N & S Sring Streets. Oh and no opposition. ;)
Quote from: DadaOrwell on November 14, 2006, 03:12 PM NHFTWe didn't demonstrate in front of the courthouse itself but in front of a different part of the federal compound where there's more traffic
I demonstated (carrying one flagpole with our state flag on top and the Gadsen below) mostly in front of the FEDcourt/compound walking on the north side (where I might be more visible from windows of the FEDcourt and Fedcompound) of Pleasant St. I also walked S Spring St. on the west side (same reason) of the street, and on the east side (same reason) of South St. This way I was in view from every side of the of the builings for at least some of the time. :o :o :o
I also made several stops at the corner where the traffic is heaviest.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on November 14, 2006, 10:17 AM NHFTI suggested to him that they should shut down the unneeded courts of course.
I think WE all enjoyed that. And THEY all seemed stunned - wich, in turn, some of US also enjoyed.
Quote from: Spencer on November 14, 2006, 09:08 PM NHFT
Alright, call me mildly obsessed with Dada's ordeal, but I think that I may have found something interesting about this charge (distributing handbills).
Quote
Subtitle D--Other Provisions Relating to Property Management [Reserved]
Emphasis in the above quotes is mine.
So, how could Dada have applied for a permit when there is no procedure to apply for such a permit? I believe that the proper allegation against Dada was failing to get a permit under Subtitle D, which, according to the regulations under which he was cited, "Failure to comply with those provisions [Subtitle D] is a violation of these regulations."
This is the equivalent of creating a law that requires every dog owner to obtain a license for any dogs owned, then not providing a mechanism by which to obtain such a license.
I believe, Dada, that you should consider filing a Motion for New Trial (pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 33 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule33.htm)) -- but you must do so within seven (7) days of the verdict of guilty.
He's got a point Dave. Reserved means NOTHING has been written up at this point. You know the details of the case better then anyone else...but it is something to consider. You can't be charged with a crime that doesn't exist.
Unfortunately, relying on U.S. Code alone isn't enough. You also have to refer to the Code of Federal Regulations. Despite the fact that agencies aren't supposed to exceed the USC with their "rule making", they all do. And the courts are loathe to overturn CFR "rules" when the procedures for proposals and public commenting have been followed.
"Legislation by bureaucracy" is very real. And the courts recognize CFR "rules" as being the same as law. The National Forest cases being heard the same day as Dave's case, were all violations of CFR, not USC. I'll bet a 12 pack of Newcastle on it.
>:(
Kevin
Quote from: AmerTownCrier on November 14, 2006, 11:30 PM NHFT
Quote from: Spencer on November 14, 2006, 09:08 PM NHFT
Alright, call me mildly obsessed with Dada's ordeal, but I think that I may have found something interesting about this charge (distributing handbills).
Quote
Subtitle D--Other Provisions Relating to Property Management [Reserved]
Emphasis in the above quotes is mine.
So, how could Dada have applied for a permit when there is no procedure to apply for such a permit? I believe that the proper allegation against Dada was failing to get a permit under Subtitle D, which, according to the regulations under which he was cited, "Failure to comply with those provisions [Subtitle D] is a violation of these regulations."
This is the equivalent of creating a law that requires every dog owner to obtain a license for any dogs owned, then not providing a mechanism by which to obtain such a license.
I believe, Dada, that you should consider filing a Motion for New Trial (pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 33 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule33.htm)) -- but you must do so within seven (7) days of the verdict of guilty.
He's got a point Dave. Reserved means NOTHING has been written up at this point. You know the details of the case better then anyone else...but it is something to consider. You can't be charged with a crime that doesn't exist.
we've already gone thru all this in another post when Russell was arrested...
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=4584.msg81702#msg81702 (http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=4584.msg81702#msg81702)
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=41&PART=101-20&SECTION=401&YEAR=2000&TYPE=TEXT (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=41&PART=101-20&SECTION=401&YEAR=2000&TYPE=TEXT)
excerpt:
TITLE 41--PUBLIC CONTRACTS AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
CHAPTER 101--FEDERAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS
PART 101-20--MANAGEMENT OF BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS--Table of Contents
Subpart 101-20.4--Occasional Use of Public Buildings
Sec. 101-20.401 Applications for permits.
(a)
Any person or organization desiring to use a public area shall
file an application for permit with the GSA Buildings Manager. Such
application shall be made on a form provided by GSA and shall be
submitted in the manner specified by GSA.
(b) The following information is required:
(1) Full names, mailing addresses, and telephone numbers of the
applicant, the organization sponoring the proposed activity, and the
individual(s) responsible for supervising the activity;
(2) Documentation showing that the applicant has authority to
represent the sponsoring organization;
(3)
A description of the proposed activity, including the dates and
times during which it is to be conducted and the number of persons to be
involved. (c) If the proposed activity constitutes a use of a public area for
soliciting funds, the applicant shall also submit a signed statement
that:
(1) The applicant is a representative of and will be soliciting
funds for the sole benefit of, a religion or religious group; or
(2) The applicant's organization has received an official ruling of
tax-exempt status from the Internal Revenue Service under 26 U.S.C. 501;
or, alternatively, that an application for such a ruling is still in
process.
Quote from: Spencer on November 14, 2006, 09:08 PM NHFT
Alright, call me mildly obsessed with Dada's ordeal, but I think that I may have found something interesting about this charge (distributing handbills).
41 CFR 102-74.415 (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/22jul20061500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/julqtr/41cfr102-74.415.htm) provides:
Quote
? 102?74.415 What is the policy for
posting and distributing materials?
All persons entering in or on Federal
property are prohibited from?
***
(c) Distributing materials, such as
pamphlets, handbills or flyers, unless
conducted as part of authorized Government
activities. This prohibition
does not apply to public areas of the
property as defined in ? 102?71.20 of this
chapter. However, any person or organization
proposing to distribute materials
in a public area under this section
must first obtain a permit from the
building manager as specified in subpart
D of this part. Any such person or
organization must distribute materials
only in accordance with the provisions
of subpart D of this part. Failure to
comply with those provisions is a violation
of these regulations.
"Public areas" is defined at 41 CFR 102-71.20 (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/22jul20061500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/julqtr/41cfr102-71.20.htm) as:
Quote
Public area means any area of a building under the control and
custody of GSA that is ordinarily open to members of the public,
including lobbies, courtyards, auditoriums, meeting rooms, and other
such areas not assigned to a lessee or occupant agency.
The problem is: SUBPART D (providing for obtaining a permit to distribute handbills in public areas) DOES NOT EXIST!
Check it out here (http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cfrassemble.cgi?title=200641):
Quote
Subtitle D--Other Provisions Relating to Property Management [Reserved]
Emphasis in the above quotes is mine.
So, how could Dada have applied for a permit when there is no procedure to apply for such a permit? I believe that the proper allegation against Dada was failing to get a permit under Subtitle D, which, according to the regulations under which he was cited, "Failure to comply with those provisions [Subtitle D] is a violation of these regulations."
This is the equivalent of creating a law that requires every dog owner to obtain a license for any dogs owned, then not providing a mechanism by which to obtain such a license.
I believe, Dada, that you should consider filing a Motion for New Trial (pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 33 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule33.htm)) -- but you must do so within seven (7) days of the verdict of guilty.
your looking at the wrong section of the law...
it is 41 CFR
101-20.309 NOT CFR
102-74.415http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=41&PART=101-20&SECTION=309&YEAR=2001&TYPE=TEXT (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=41&PART=101-20&SECTION=309&YEAR=2001&TYPE=TEXT)
If anyone would like to get me the contact information and what not that I need to file an appeal that would be appreciated. I could use some help guiding me through the process and/or filing paperwork.
Quote from: Spencer on November 14, 2006, 09:08 PM NHFT
Alright, call me mildly obsessed with Dada's ordeal, but I think that I may have found something interesting about this charge (distributing handbills).
41 CFR 102-74.415 (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/22jul20061500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/julqtr/41cfr102-74.415.htm) provides:
Quote
? 102?74.415 What is the policy for
posting and distributing materials?
All persons entering in or on Federal
property are prohibited from?
***
(c) Distributing materials, such as
pamphlets, handbills or flyers, unless
conducted as part of authorized Government
activities. This prohibition
does not apply to public areas of the
property as defined in ? 102?71.20 of this
chapter. However, any person or organization
proposing to distribute materials
in a public area under this section
must first obtain a permit from the
building manager as specified in subpart
D of this part. Any such person or
organization must distribute materials
only in accordance with the provisions
of subpart D of this part. Failure to
comply with those provisions is a violation
of these regulations.
"Public areas" is defined at 41 CFR 102-71.20 (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/22jul20061500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/julqtr/41cfr102-71.20.htm) as:
Quote
Public area means any area of a building under the control and
custody of GSA that is ordinarily open to members of the public,
including lobbies, courtyards, auditoriums, meeting rooms, and other
such areas not assigned to a lessee or occupant agency.
The problem is: SUBPART D (providing for obtaining a permit to distribute handbills in public areas) DOES NOT EXIST!
Check it out here (http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cfrassemble.cgi?title=200641):
Quote
Subtitle D--Other Provisions Relating to Property Management [Reserved]
Emphasis in the above quotes is mine.
So, how could Dada have applied for a permit when there is no procedure to apply for such a permit? I believe that the proper allegation against Dada was failing to get a permit under Subtitle D, which, according to the regulations under which he was cited, "Failure to comply with those provisions [Subtitle D] is a violation of these regulations."
This is the equivalent of creating a law that requires every dog owner to obtain a license for any dogs owned, then not providing a mechanism by which to obtain such a license.
I believe, Dada, that you should consider filing a Motion for New Trial (pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 33 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule33.htm)) -- but you must do so within seven (7) days of the verdict of guilty.
Spencer,
Dada was not in a public area -
HE WAS IN THE ACTUAL IRS OFFICES...
Quote from: DadaOrwell on November 15, 2006, 09:25 AM NHFT
If anyone would like to get me the contact information and what not that I need to file an appeal that would be appreciated. I could use some help guiding me through the process and/or filing paperwork.
Take the information Spencer provided, and call the U.S. Public Defender in Concord, at 226-7360. This is a branch office of the MA public defender, so it might not be staffed full time.
Second option: call the clerk of the court at 225-1423, and explain that you'd like to file a Rule 33 motion and need information on how to do so.
Be sure to explain that it's for "other reasons", and you're on a 7 day deadline.
Have Bill be your counsel he lives right in Concord. :)
Or do you only critique, Bill?
Bill who? Bill Grennon you mean?
Quote from: Kat Kanning on November 15, 2006, 02:37 PM NHFT
Bill who? Bill Grennon you mean?
Yes... if he wants to be our leader he is going to have to start performing. ;D
He wants to be leader? I could make him El Presidente II.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on November 15, 2006, 02:40 PM NHFT
He wants to be leader? I could make him El Presidente II.
;D
Whenever the authorities ask me "who is the group leader?" My new answer is Bill Grennon. ;)
Oh, that's a good idea. Can we get Bill's phone number and address to give them?
While you guys have been traveling across America there are coup attempts. ;D
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=6028.msg105482#msg105482
Maybe once he's El Presidente II, people will "do what he says". Poor Bill, he's been so mistreated.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on November 15, 2006, 02:55 PM NHFT
Maybe once he's El Presidente II, people will "do what he says". Poor Bill, he's been so mistreated.
El Presidente II: Just when you thought it was safe to go back to the forum.
Quote from: Roger Grant on November 15, 2006, 12:12 PM NHFT
Have Bill be your counsel he lives right in Concord. :)
Or do you only critique, Bill?
how can I help when Dada and others have me on ignore?
he has no case...Russell and Lauren don't argue the merits of their cases (they have no cases either) they simply don't recognize the legal and moral authority of the court.
so if Dada takes that route he will be trading off his freedom for $125 while sitting in jail...freedom is just another word for nothing left to loose.
this is why I call these folks "emotive anarchists" - they have no idea how to articulate a viable strategy to get to a viable society based on
EQUAL liberty.
I have called the clerk's office and received what were to me fairly indecipherable instructions regarding the rule 33 retrial motion. I am in completely over my head and would just make a mistake if I tried to write up the motion myself.
However if someone here will provide me with more specific information how to file a rule 33 motion in this situation and write the thing up, and send it to me for me to sign between now and tomorrow I would likely be willing to fax it to them or what not with my sig. same goes for an appeal, altho in that case there is presumably more time to work with and I may look into that some myself. You handle the details if you want, I'll be happy to provide a signature and verbally spar with the bad guys. I am not going to jump through a lot of federal paperwork hoops , or engage in significant expense, or go far out of my way to fight in court. my fight is on the streets. their court system is designed to dissipate and absorb legal efforts, altho if you don't expend much effort on it then I think showing up and quoting the constituion can be useful.
I have more effective ways to fight for liberty than that, but if someone here is into that sort of thing and wants to do the bulk of the paperwork, I'm likely willing to provide the signature and the sympathetic defendant.
QuoteHowever if someone here will provide me with more specific information how to file a rule 33 motion in this situation and write the thing up, and send it to me for me to sign between now and tomorrow I would be willing to fax it to them or what not with my sig.
a rule 33 motion grants a new trial based on "other grounds" or when new evidence is discovered.
Spencer suggested it based on his understanding that you were in the lobby not the actual offices of the IRS...even if you were in the lobby he cited the wrong rule as to how apply for a permit to use the lobby for other business then what it was intended.
therefore there is
no basis for a rule 33 motion...
no charge for the free legal advice!
dada ... takin' it to the streets
maybe bill grennon can be a witness for the government
Quote from: FrankChodorov on November 16, 2006, 02:22 PM NHFT
QuoteHowever if someone here will provide me with more specific information how to file a rule 33 motion in this situation and write the thing up, and send it to me for me to sign between now and tomorrow I would be willing to fax it to them or what not with my sig.
a rule 33 motion grants a new trial based on "other grounds" or when new evidence is discovered.
Spencer suggested it based on his understanding that you were in the lobby not the actual offices of the IRS...even if you were in the lobby he cited the wrong rule as to how apply for a permit to use the lobby for other business then what it was intended.
therefore there is no basis for a rule 33 motion...
no charge for the free legal advice!
Worth everything he paid for it! ;D
Bill ... I'm trying to understand where you are coming from here.
As a Georgist, there can be no greater affront to liberty than a tax on a person's wage (income tax). The IRS must be one of your personal sticking points. And yet you defend it?
In the past, you have said (on another forum) that it is morally acceptable to destroy corporate property (though not harm individuals). Yet, you do not feel that it is acceptable for a citizen to confront a great moral evil peacefully, by distributing a flyer. In this case, does not the moral outrage of the IRS existance in the first place trump any "law" that can be connived?
I finally got around to posting my pictures and a few notes from Monday's festivities.
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/11/16/who-knew-protesting-could-be-so-fun/
8)
QuoteAs a Georgist, there can be no greater affront to liberty than a tax on a person's wage (income tax). The IRS must be one of your personal sticking points. And yet you defend it?
I am not defending it...although interestingly a Georgist, Congressman Warren Worth Bailey of Pennsylvania, drafted the first Federal personal income tax law with the help of Congressman Henry George Jr. based on
Georgist lines: falling mainly on very high incomes from property in land.
QuoteIn the past, you have said (on another forum) that it is morally acceptable to destroy corporate property (though not harm individuals).
I have never said that nor do I believe it...you must be confusing me with the anarcho-communist/syndicalist named "green" who use to post on the FSP forum.
Quoteyou do not feel that it is acceptable for a citizen to confront a great moral evil peacefully, by distributing a flyer.
since we are a system of laws and not people I don't think there is a constitutional right to a redress of greivances or freedom of speech in a collectively owned building not specifically designated for that purpose because those are common rights.
people can confront whatever they think is evil in anyway they want and suffer the consequences of their action...isn't that the point of non-violent, civil disobedience - to make those who enforce the laws to realize the inhumanity of what they are doing?
or they can try and change the laws...
Quotedoes not the moral outrage of the IRS existance in the first place trump any "law" that can be connived?
I don't believe the first amendment to the US constitution is "connived"?
having said that...yes, I would prefer to be living under the original articles of confederation
which includes their system of taxation (LVT).
Which CFR was Dada cited under?
Frank and I are posting at cross-purposes. He is referring to one CFR section that says almost what the section that I am referring to; except that mine contains a reference to a non-existent "subpart D" that instructs a person in how to apply for a permit.
If Dada was cited under Frank's CFR section, then he's likely SOL; if he was cited and prosecuted under the section that I refer to, then, depending on how the word "lobby" is defined (does it include all lobbies within a public building, including those of the various offices, i.e., the IRS?), Dada could have something to hang his hat on.
How insane is it that the feds are prosecuting people (Dada, Russell, etc.) for violating federal regulations (where does the authority for federal regulations appear in the Constitution?* if such authority exists, then where does the Constitution say that federal regulations can be used as the basis for criminal liability?**) that are so convoluted that Frank and I can find two different sections in the same title (41) of regs that say almost the same thing?
Are we having fun yet?
------------------------
* "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 1. Federal regulations look a lot more like legislation (esp. when given the force of criminal laws) than anything else, yet they are drafted and enacted by members of the executive branch of government.
** "The Congress shall have Power . . . To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States . . . [and] To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations." U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 8. "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." U.S.Constitution, Article III, section 3. These are the crimes over which the federal government has any constitutionally-delegated powers.
Quote from: error on November 16, 2006, 09:29 PM NHFT
I finally got around to posting my pictures and a few notes from Monday's festivities.
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/11/16/who-knew-protesting-could-be-so-fun/
Hehehe
I like the plate pictures. That should offend someone. ;D
QuoteFrank and I are posting at cross-purposes. He is referring to one CFR section that says almost what the section that I am referring to; except that mine contains a reference to a non-existent "subpart D" that instructs a person in how to apply for a permit.
and mine references the exact procedure to apply for the permit...
QuoteIf Dada was cited under Frank's CFR section, then he's likely SOL; if he was cited and prosecuted under the section that I refer to, then, depending on how the word "lobby" is defined (does it include all lobbies within a public building, including those of the various offices, i.e., the IRS?), Dada could have something to hang his hat on.
remember in Russell's case, the second time he attempted to enter the building
without any handbills he was
allowed to proceed through the lobby all the way up to the entrance of the office and it was at this point the police drew an imaginary line between the general purpose lobby and the actual office and told him he could not go passed it.
he told the officers that he was going to ask the employees to quit disrupting their intended purpose and when he crossed the line he was arrested.
so Dada has no common right of freedom of speech or redress of greivances
AT ALL WITHIN the office by carrying a sign or passing out handbills because it would disrupt the intended business of the collectively owned building and he has no right to engage in those activities in the lobby without first receiving a permit.
Quotewhere does the authority for federal regulations appear in the Constitution?* if such authority exists, then where does the Constitution say that federal regulations can be used as the basis for criminal liability?**
I have been trying to explain to people the difference between common rights and property and collective rights and property to no avail...
common rights are natural rights each of us hold equally as individuals and don't require any prior approval so long as the excercise of these rights does not infringe on the equal rights of any other individual.
governments are constituted to uphold these individual equal common rights in a very narrow way...
that is why they are available to individual persons within common right of ways (sidewalks & roads) and within public buildings where designated as such because a public building is collective property that we have delegated the authority to our elected representatives to set the rules over their use.
Quote from: FrankChodorov on November 16, 2006, 10:55 PM NHFT
Quotewhere does the authority for federal regulations appear in the Constitution?* if such authority exists, then where does the Constitution say that federal regulations can be used as the basis for criminal liability?**
I have been trying to explain to people the difference between common rights and property and collective rights and property to no avail...
common rights are natural rights each of us hold equally as individuals and don't require any prior approval so long as the excercise of these rights does not infringe on the equal rights of any other individual.
governments are constituted to uphold these individual equal common rights in a very narrow way...
that is why they are available to individual persons within common right of ways (sidewalks & roads) and within public buildings where designated as such because a public building is collective property that we have delegated the authority to our elected representatives to set the rules over their use.
What does that have to do with the authority (or lack thereof) of the federal government to prosecute people criminally for crimes that are not enumerated within the Constitution? I can understand a state law prosecution for trespassing, but not these federal regulations that create non-enumerated crimes.
Do not feed the trolls.
Quote from: error on November 16, 2006, 09:29 PM NHFT
I finally got around to posting my pictures and a few notes from Monday's festivities.
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/11/16/who-knew-protesting-could-be-so-fun/
Cool! But I noticed that you couldn't see the license plate of
every cop car there. Time for a cop-watch database, perhaps? :icon_pirat:
Also:
QuoteI snapped a picture of the restaurant across the street where many of the bureaucrats eat lunch, then we all went elsewhere?
Damn. You could've ate with the bureaucrats and handed them copies of the U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights. I don't think many of them have read that lately...
I'd much rather eat lunch with liberty lovers than bureaucrats!
I see john goes for 2 flags now. 8)
OK i have now called the Defender's office; they gave me the number of the appeals court in boston; the lady there who answered appeared to know her stuff...she informed me that there's a 30 day window to file an appeal in such a case as this and filing itself does not appear complicated; I would basically just send a note to the clerk at District Court there in Concord.
The problem however is that, according to her at least, there is a $450 fee just to file. Now I don't know about you but I can think of about twenty different ways to spend such money that would be more helpful to our cause than expending it on their system. I'm always griping about how michael badnarik wasted 400 grand on his congressional LP when it was obvious the money could have been spent more effectively. If he'd donated it to the FSP, the NHLA or FTL or what not...it would be guaranteed to have a huge effect. We could fund twelve liberty forums, flood the state with ads or win fifty state rep races with an amount like that!
I'm wondering if dumping money on the courts, which are designed to absorb and dissipate our efforts, would be a wise use of it.
..say on the NHLA or
for virtually no
a losing third party run, when that amount would almost be guaranteed
ave almost been guaranteed to elect dozens
is guaranteed to
have easily turned the FSP into
been in a system that
hopeless LP congressional race
Quote from: DadaOrwell on November 18, 2006, 09:02 AM NHFT
The problem however is that, according to her at least, there is a $450 fee just to file.
Boy THEY really do not want people to appeal! So, to fight an unjust, in my mind unconstitutional judgment against you you have to spend three times as much as the fine! Yeah, I'd say the system is rigged to keep people from demanding the rights we are supposed to have by default. Every day I learn new things that remind me just how broken our government is.
Quotethey gave me the number of the appeals court in boston; the lady there who answered appeared to know her stuff...
did she tell you that you have to have a basis for appealing and when you told her what your basis for appealing was (per Spencer) that there was no way to apply for a permit to distribute handbills upholding your right to redress of greivances in the general purpose area of the lobby...did she then ask you if Spencer go the correct rule #s or not and if you believe Spencer gave you the correct rule #s did you tell her that you actually weren't only handing out handbills in the lobby but in the actual offices of the IRS - beyond the same point that Russell was arrested for crossing?
did she also tell you that if you had applied for a permit for redress of greivances to hand out handbills in the lobby they would have denied it because the intended purposes of the collectively owned building known as the IRS office is not a place for a redress of greivances because there are no policymakers (elected representatives) there?
that the place for redress of greivances is on the collectively owned sidewalks which contain a common right of way or within collectively owned buildings specifically designated to receive your redress of greivances because it houses your delegated authority (elected representatives)?
I am assuming because I wasn't at your court hearings that this is essentially what the judge told you as to what your rights are as it relates to the common right of redress of greivances as he handed down his verdict...
I don't blame you at all for questioning the value of that option. It's precisely why I don't question the differing choices we make. One option may weigh more to me than to someone else. A lot of times, the attention you can garner is the most we can hope for. That is worth a lot to me.
Cathleen
If I had $450 laying around, I'd drop it in a second, just to see how this plays out.
Unfortunately, I spent that money coming out there, and coming out there again for the next inevitable protest! ;D
Quote from: DadaOrwell on November 18, 2006, 09:02 AM NHFT
there is a $450 fee just to file. Now I don't know about you but I can think of about twenty different ways to spend such money that would be more helpful to our cause than expending it on their system.
Yeah... that's a lot of money to put into this fight. Opportunity cost would be pretty high.
If you're soliciting for feedback from armchair quarterbacks, this one suggests paying the fine and moving on, analyzing in detail how & why they were able to prosecute you in this instance, so as to be able to either:
a) avoid prosecution in the future, or
b) choose specifically what unconstitutional rule you intend to break, and have consulted with a lawyer about how to defend yourself BEFORE breaking it, or
c)
best option determine specifically the rule you believe to be unjust and unconstitutional, and consult with a lawyer about how to bring charges
against the State to get that rule removed
I for one would be more than happy to contribute to defray legal costs if option (c) is pursued.
If you read a few of the "famous" court cases where constitutional arguments have been used to successfully strike down oppressive laws, 9 times out of 10, that is exactly how it was done.
Generally, an appeal requires that you have preserved the error that you are claiming. Without a lawyer, a person usually doesn't know how to say all the right things and object at all the right times (and then reraise the issues, as appropriate) so as to preserve any error. My suggestion to request a new trial was a way to create and preserve error.
Just try not to get cited again, but if you do, don't rush into the trial again (take the time that they give you); there are plenty of ways to prepare a case and proceed pro se in a way that allows you to preserve any issues for appeal (as well as possibly win).
Dada, just to sate my curiousity, could you tell me what CFR the Man cited you with violating? It should be something like 41 CFR ___. Then I'll know whether my earlier advice (which is based on an assumption re: the CFR involved) is correct as applied to your situation.
I appreciate Dada spending 125 bucks for the entertainment... folks spend that much for an evening out. He got a lot more than one evening's mileage out of this.
LTE published and people mobilized... it ain't about winning a court case, that would have just been icing on the cake. 8)
Quote from: DadaOrwell on November 18, 2006, 09:02 AM NHFT
The problem however is that, according to her at least, there is a $450 fee just to file.
What a fucking scam. So only wealthy people can challenge their convictions? Surely there is a exemption to this. They probably just tell people that to get them to give up or pay up. There may be a workaround. If not, then this is just more evidence that the system is stacked against the little guy.
I'm looking forward to hearing what you decide to do, Dada.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on November 18, 2006, 08:43 AM NHFT
I see john goes for 2 flags now. 8)
Seemed to work quite well . . . just have to have a long enough pole.
Quote from: Roger Grant on November 18, 2006, 08:48 PM NHFT
I appreciate Dada spending 125 bucks for the entertainment...
I bet he doesn't pay. The bad guys want your money.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on December 02, 2006, 07:15 AM NHFT
Quote from: Roger Grant on November 18, 2006, 08:48 PM NHFT
I appreciate Dada spending 125 bucks for the entertainment...
I bet he doesn't pay. The bad guys want your money.
I wonder how much his time is going to be worth sitting in jail?
mine is definitely worth more than $125/hr.
Quote from: FrankChodorov on December 02, 2006, 11:11 AM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on December 02, 2006, 07:15 AM NHFT
Quote from: Roger Grant on November 18, 2006, 08:48 PM NHFT
I appreciate Dada spending 125 bucks for the entertainment...
I bet he doesn't pay. The bad guys want your money.
I wonder how much his time is going to be worth sitting in jail?
mine is definitely worth more than $125/hr.
Bill I hope you make your customers wear a condom.
Well as far as the appeal goes I don't intend to go that route but I do kind of like the idea of doing this from scratch at some point with the plan of getting cited again and then taking it through the system on our terms. I have still made no represenations regarding whether I will pay the fine or not pay it. I still need to write another article for the KFP
Just sent this to the KFP for publication probably in the next edition:
------
Local man charged with petitioning government for redress of grievances
By Dave Ridley
If the calls and other inquiries I've been getting are any indication, it would seem there is some interest in the outcome of my David-and-Goliath wrestling match with Homeland Security, during which I have been charged with an interesting "crime."
As you may recall from previous KFP and Union Leader articles, in September I entered the IRS office in Nashua and performed a "silent demonstration."
I held a sign and handed flyers to IRS workers which question the morality of working for an institution which funds waste and torture. Respectful in tone, these leaflets list constructive steps IRS employees could take which would reduce the amount of harm they are causing. They are, in the purest sense, petitions for a redress of grievances.
I left the office (slowly) after being ordered to. But when an article about this demonstration appeared in the Keene Free Press, Homeland Security officers came looking for me and issued me a sort of Federal traffic ticket. It charged me, essentially, with...petitioning the government for a redress of grievances! Specifically the charge was "Distribution of Handbills."
As you may be aware, such a charge seems to nakedly violate two Constitutional Amendments...Amendment One, which says Congress shall make no law "abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances," and Amendment Ten which reads:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited
by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So the Founding Document, which Federal officials swear an oath to uphold, specifically forbids them from "abridging" the right of petition. But even if the First Amendment were not there to safeguard petitioners, the Tenth Amendment strictly limits Washington's powers. It can't lawfully issue "Federal traffic tickets" to keep petitioners out of its offices, or do much of anything else, unless there is some passage in the Constitution which at least vaguely authorizes it to.
Of course, the Feds haven't been following the Constitution for many decades, so there is rarely much hope of winning a court case simply by appealing to that simple document. You "win" by lavishing your life savings on attorneys who search for complex legal precedents and loopholes for you to slip through.
I think it's better just to make the government violate the Constitution in full view and keep your attorneys fees to yourself, even if it costs you the case. So when I declined to accept the citation, and the authorities summoned me to court in November, I happily dropped by with eighteen friends, two rattlesnake flags, one copy of the Bill of Rights and zero lawyers.
After holding a demonstration outside the Concord courthouse for about an hour, we went in and found ourselves intercepted by a polite gentleman from the U.S. Attorney's office, Mr. Fief, whose name I may be misspelling. He asked me, without really saying it in so many words, if I would consider making some kind of deal to keep this from going before the judge - James Muirhead. He said he had brought witnesses. I asked him if he felt comfortable about prosecuting a case like this. He said it didn't matter what he felt. I asked him if what he was doing was right. He repeated that it didn't matter what he thought. He asked if I wanted to proceed with what would likely be a bench trial. I said I had no representations to make other than my intent to enter the courtroom.
There were a lot of extra people standing around including Federal Marshals and a police dog. Later I was told that they were all there because of us. Gandhi said to be effective, civil disobedience must evoke a response from the government. So there was our response...though I don't welcome their decision to waste taxpayer dollars this way.
Once inside things went fast. I have no idea how to play lawyer, but I just quoted Amendment One above and requested that the judge throw out this "constitutionally challenged" case. I suggested we minimize wasteful taxpayer expense and put a quick end to the proceeding, a proceeding I did not request. I did get him to admit that the Constitution takes precedence over laws and regulations. But he and the prosecutor both said that the government can institute "reasonable regulations" to maintain security in Fed buildings. Of course, there is nothing I know of in the Constitution that authorizes this practice. So I then brought up Amendment Ten above and indicated that "reasonable regulations," like everything else cannot be imposed by the U.S. government unless there is something in the Constitution that authorizes them. I asked them twice where in the Constitution they were authorized. I would have settled for a pretty vague passage...but of course never got much of a response, just references to "fire in a crowded theatre," security and regulation. It was like to them the Constitution was an endearing legend but not quite real. They say it takes precedence, but apparently regulation - not even law - takes precedence instead.
From there on it was all facts and witnesses, and of course as expected I was in completely over my head. They brought in the IRS officer who had thrown me out, a Ms. Post. She also was polite and did not seem vindictive...to some extent I think she was starting to get a little amused with the whole thing too. She was mostly accurate but made what I will assume was an honest factual error in her testimony. She had misinterpreted my pokey backwards departure as a refusal to leave the office, and I wanted to make clear that this silent demonstrator always leaves (slowly) when told to. :) To get this and a couple of other points across I had to take the stand myself, which is usually bad for a case but what the heck, nobody lives forever. It's important that Feds understand us, so they can join us, right? Maybe that is more important than winning. So up I went to the stand and of course that gave the prosecutor the chance to ask me other questions about the handbills. I declined to answer at first but the judge said I had to. I later was told this was not true and that I could always plead the Fifth even on the stand. Anyway I answered honestly.
After this the judge asked for closing statements, and I just said that I appreciated everyone's politeness but that a conviction would be indicative that the Constitution is no longer in effect. Judge Muirhead said something like "not on my watch is it ever going to stop being in effect." Then, of course, he pronounced me guilty. He said I could pay the $125 fine at the Clerk's office.
I was more amused than angry and we had some banter after this; he suggested I should appeal and said he was always in favor of citizens exploring constitutional rights using the courts. I expressed reservations about running my own little crusade at taxpayer expense; he said the guys at Appeals Court aren't doing anything anyway. I said then you should shut those courts down. He laughed, and away we went.
Outside I spotted the man who had issued me the citation, Officer Schmitt. I went over and shook hands with him in a friendly manner. I said "you didn't come all the way over here just because of me did you?" He failed to answer. He did not look real thrilled to be talking with me. One of the Marshals who I know, Gary DiMartino, came by and greeted me. And then we were back on the street.
Looking back, we have some gains and some losses to report here. First, we have lost some degree of our spare time over this and had a bit of travel expense. I had some degree of uncertainty thrown into my regimen. We have not generated a great deal of mainstream media attention...just an article in the Union Leader. And of course we lost the case!
On the other hand, this sort of fight is what we are all about. It is great to be able to address some of New Hampshire's most prominent (if polite) tormenters and do it, I hope, in a way that reminds them we are not vindictive against them on a personal level, that we are peaceably and respectfully trying to gain our freedom. We've had a chance to display for them the whole Gandhi approach yet again, and each time this happens they get to know us better. Assuming we have done our jobs and they have consciences, it gets a little harder for them to inflict yet another anti-liberty evil in New Hampshire each time this happens. By now they should have a very clear understanding that when they hurt us, they are hurting decent people who are peaceably risking their freedoms to protect the country from its government.
In terms of press coverage, we now have so much media of our own that it's easy to get the word out even when the event is not tailor made for the mainstream press. Hundreds of thousands of folks have probably heard about this one silent demonstration now thanks to Free Talk Live, KFP, WNTK radio and the Homeland Stupidity blog.
We have an issue here upon which the entire libertarian community is united (those that know of it), and we have learned a little more about Federal court and how Federal officials handle themselves. It's not a bad exchange.
Thanks again to everyone who took the time to show up or spread the word about this case. If everyone did what these stand-up New Hampshirites are doing, everyone would have their freedom already.
Dave, it's just not fair you're having all the fun! Your article is well written by the way. Everyone in NH getting active and here I sit in Michigan frothing at the bit to get there. Maybe it's time to lower the sales price on my property...again!
Keep up the good work...the numbers of people moving to NH will grow and it's helpful to know the foundation is being laid by so many good people.
What actually happens if you just don't pay? A bench warrant issued? Which means you'll probably get picked up during a random traffic stop. Or maybe they will just add penalties...in which case you can leave again...and wait until the next random traffic stop.
In any case...as poor as I am...I'd be willing to send you $10 and hope enough other people will pitch in too. There was a thread at one point talking about an 'insurance' program...but it won't work as well as We The People financially supporting those who get 'hit'. Can you imagine if enough of us send in money...and you receive $200...pay the fine...and have money left over for the next citation! If people will sign up to help finance those who are actively persuing freedom...we can actually make it profitable to engage in CD.
Anyhow, I just meant to say thanks...keep up the good work.
I just fixed a couple of typos.
This is good info for us to put in the Keene Free Press. :)
Great story. If you decide to pay the fine, I'll chip in. But I demand advance credit on that Freedom Insurance premium! ;) Let me know.
Barterer didn't say how much he'd chip in...but theres 2 of us. Come on folks, make CD fun and even profitable for those able to put their necks on the line!
$62.50? Pshaw. A bargain at twice the price.
I sometimes forget that people actually read Homeland Stupidity. Sometimes it feels like throwing words out to the winds.
Thanks for all the kind words and everything guys! Michael thanks for the article on HS!
Quote from: Barterer on December 04, 2006, 07:42 PM NHFT
$62.50? Pshaw. A bargain at twice the price.
Does this mean a pledge total of $72.50 is the new total!?!
I think the amount we need is $120? Over half way there.
Come on People. With 7000+ members of the FSP (round it off to 7000) - if we each pledged a single dollar a month...we could finance CD in New Hamshire at $7000 a month!!!!
For now...let's cover Dave's ticket.
But... has Dave decided to just pay the fine? If so, I'll put $25 in the hat.
Quote from: error on December 04, 2006, 10:25 PM NHFT
But... has Dave decided to just pay the fine? If so, I'll put $25 in the hat.
Ok...with Kat's pledge that brings it up to a total pledge of $97.50. If it was $125 (not the $120 I mentioned earlier) that leaves only $27.50 to cover the total cost.
As far as Dave deciding to pay or not...if
he doesn't have to...it frees him to continue with his CD and NOT have to be personally penalized. Either way, it is his decision...but if
we can cover the cost it might make it an easier decision for him to make.
The bullshit fine is $125. I offered 62.50 assuming you'd split it with me. I'll go $90 and pay the balance should Dave have a sudden need for $125. I'm not joking about the Freedom Insurance credit though. I'm Barterer, I don't just piss money away. :evil5:
Quote from: Barterer on December 04, 2006, 10:44 PM NHFT
The bullshit fine is $125. I offered 62.50 assuming you'd split it with me. I'll go $90 and pay the balance should Dave have a sudden need for $125. I'm not joking about the Freedom Insurance credit though. I'm Barterer, I don't just piss money away. :evil5:
I understand your position Barterer...and if there is ever a Freedom Insurance 'business' why not get credit? But how about credit towards any fines YOU get for your CD activities?
Contributions to Dave's fine...and any other fines down the road for anyone involved in CD...pays us all back in results...so your need to get something back might not apply because you are already getting something back...our money supports them because of their willingness to put their butts on the line and pave the road to freedom until we get there.
The Insurance idea is fine...but not as an established, mainstream Insurance company. Here's my suggestion.
It's based on membership. For example...so far it's you, me and Kat. The bill is $125. If apportioned that would be $41.66 each. Add one more person (a new member) and it drops to $31.25 each. Add another...well, you get the idea. With 7000 members in the FSP...a dollar a month would probably cover most of the current expenses.
Amounts paid are apportioned among the members: To keep it reasonable...set a limit. Say $100 a YEAR to begin with. So, the most any member would be billed would be $100. Since that?s a lot for some of us to pay out in one payment?break it down by monthly average. That equals a maximum of $8.33 a month charged to any member.
CD Signees: The category as I named it might not be clear. My meaning is this. So far, Kat, Russell and Dave are 3 names of people actively involved in CD. So, in this example...only those 3 are eligible for apportioned payments from the membership. Another caveat would be CD activities in NH only! (My apologies to all of you out of NH who are active--get to NH!)
Acceptable reasons for payments resulting from CD: Rent/mortgage payments if incarcerated; fines/court fees/child care/?????
Folks...I'm broke...but even I can find $8.33 a month to help pave the road to freedom in NH. If we can make CD a break even at worst?profitable at best?we?ll all want to become a signee!
One more thing. Payments should be made with Postal Money orders?left blank. That means someone in NH will have to be willing to run this program?I will certainly participate once I get to NH.
Ok?Ideas? Suggestions?
You are excellent friends for helping Dave.
You have no idea how comforting it is to receive a check in the mail from an anonymous friend after going to jail for liberty. :)
Quote
I understand your position Barterer...and if there is ever a Freedom Insurance 'business' why not get credit? But how about credit towards any fines YOU get for your CD activities?
I don't think coverage will include things like court fees or fines one might get for CD.. that's a direct risk.. unless the Freedom Insurance idea is expanded to include that. The FI outline is here: http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?&topic=5080
QuoteContributions to Dave's fine...and any other fines down the road for anyone involved in CD...pays us all back in results...so your need to get something back might not apply because you are already getting something back...our money supports them because of their willingness to put their butts on the line and pave the road to freedom until we get there.
I accept Dave's paving my way to freedom as a valuable FI service ;) The activity does not have to be directly on my behalf.. I'm sure we'll all "collect" when broke and in trouble.. I'll watch this space to see what Dave is going to do.
Quote from: AmerTownCrier on December 04, 2006, 10:31 PM NHFT
Ok...with Kat's pledge that brings it up to a total pledge of $97.50.
Huh? I didn't say anything. I'm hoping he doesn't pay it.
Has somebody been deleting posts from this thread? Kat, I could have sworn you said you would pitch in $25???
Well, error said he could.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on December 05, 2006, 02:17 PM NHFT
Well, error said he could.
You are sooooo right! My sincerest apologies.
I still haven't heard from Dave though. If he's just not interested in having the fine paid, then why should we be passing around the hat?
Quote from: error on December 05, 2006, 07:50 PM NHFT
I still haven't heard from Dave though. If he's just not interested in having the fine paid, then why should we be passing around the hat?
Just a token of appreciation, if nothing else. It's the "donationware" model of political action.
he has not said either way
if someone is eager to underwrite my activities, that is a real honor and I am sure not going to stop them! However I am not saying that I would or would not use donations to pay fines.
Photos from John :cowboy2::
(http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/tikiwiki/show_image.php?id=2482&nocount=y)
(http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/tikiwiki/show_image.php?id=2483&nocount=y)
(http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/tikiwiki/show_image.php?id=2484&nocount=y)
(http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/tikiwiki/show_image.php?id=2485&nocount=y)
Today after the Brown trial was done for the day, I was upstairs chatting with DadaOrwell when Officer Therrien and another officer walked up and Officer Therien tried to hand a folded paper to DadaOrwell. Since DadaOrwell didn't put out his hand and take it, Officer Therrien placed it on his lap. Officer Therrien told him that it was a summons for not paying his $125 fine for "distributing handbills" (giving petitions for redress of grievances to federal employees). DadaOrwell tried to explain to the officers that what they were participating in was unconstitutional, violating both the 1st and 10th amendments. He asked them how they felt about the fact that they were violating their oaths of office. The officers implied that they had no idea what he was talking about. DadaOrwell cited the 10th amendment and explained how it applied to the case. One of the officers tried to make an analogy between DadaOrwell's silent protest and someone running into a building and yelling "fire!". They obviously didn't want to argue about the law, and left. The summons stated that DadaOrwell didn't pay his fine, wrote a letter to the judge stating that he wouldn't pay the fine, and that his new trial will be in March.
He should have filed a lawsuit for fraud(against him through the oath) against the officers and the one that ordered the summon.
Quote from: lordmetroid on January 17, 2007, 04:22 AM NHFT
He should have filed a lawsuit for fraud(against him through the oath) against the officers and the one that ordered the summon.
That would go over like a led zeppelin
I may be mistaken here but, I'm thinking:
This would be the same fed ICEman whom Dave politly greeted and had a conversation with on the steps of the fedcourt in the morning. The ICEman acted all nice and friendly but didn't seem to even understand Dave not giving him a yes-or-no answer to his question as to weather Dave had ever payed that fine. I became a bit distracted at the moment, but ICEman was telling Dave how he (ICEman) had traveled all over and ... bla, bla, bla ... ain't we the balls haveing been brainwashed that we are sooo free.
Anyway, I later was relating the story to someone at work about that interaction, and how (some of) the fedthugs (sometimes) act all nice, but would probably look forward to busting your skull if they were given the chance ...
Oh. So it looks like we all could have yet another opertunity, in March, to let the (awakening) general public know what "their" fedgov is doing here in NH.
Thanks Tim, I really appreciate this account.
Here's a mostly pre-written note that I prepared last month for publication in the event our rulers decided to push this issue. As you can see, I was keeping my defiance secret from everyone except judge Muirhead himself, in hopes of leaving him a graceful line of retreat which would not cause him to lose face. Now that he and his have chosen a different course, it is appropriate to tell the whole story.
---
Last year, as you may recall from previous KFP articles, I went on trial before a Federal magistrate in Concord...charged with an interesting "crime."
In September I had entered a local IRS office and performed a "silent demonstration."
I held a sign and handed flyers to IRS workers, both respectfully questioning the morality of working for an institution which funds waste and torture. The flyers were, in the purest sense, petitions for a redress of grievances.
I left the office (slowly) after being ordered to. But subsequently Homeland Security officers came looking for me and issued me a sort of Federal traffic ticket. It charged me, essentially, with...petitioning the government for a redress of grievances! Specifically the charge was "Distribution of Handbills."
When I did not immediately pay the $125 fine, officials summoned me to court on November 13, judged me guilty and ordered me to pay up or file an appeal.
Subsequently I took a course of action which, until now, has remained essentially secret. In fact, the only person I informed of it was Judge Muirhead himself....the Federal Magistrate who had pronounced guilt and ordered me to pay. On December 6 I composed him a private note.
Until now, I did not consider it honest or appropriate to broadcast the letter's contents. As we shall see, subsequent Federal actions have intervened, causing their publication to become both honorable and necessary. Here is the (formerly) secret note.
-----
"I knew someone had to take the first step, and I made up my mind not to move."
- Rosa Parks
Dec. 6, 2006
Judge James R. Muirhead
U.S. District Court
Concord, NH
Dear Judge Muirhead:
I wanted to let you know I enjoyed exchanging philosophies with you Nov. 13 during "United States of America vs. David K. Ridley." I did appreciate the polite and professional demeanor you and nearly all the personnel of the court displayed.
I will admit your actions, though not surprising, saddened me and were probably twice as unconstitutional as I was able to represent them. It is wrong to fine anyone for merely handing a list of grievances to a government officer. But I was glad to leave court thinking of you as an opponent rather than a malicious enemy. Gandhi showed us how important it is to oppose bad institutions and actions, without being against individuals.
I've avoided making many representations regarding what I would or wouldn't do in relation to this case...however you may be aware that the promises I've made, I've kept. I told your citing officer I'd meet him at a specific time and place. I kept this promise, to the minute. I later pledged I would attend your hearing and kept that promise as well, arriving at your opulent building rather early and answering honestly your prosecutor's questions, perhaps to my own detriment.
Now I have another representation to make, to which I will remain true regardless of how much your institution tries to hurt me.
I can not in good conscience pay this fine.
Unless you can show me *something* in the Constitution that at least vaguely authorizes your government to levy it, I will never pay it. Doing so would be wrong; it would directly underwrite Federal violations of the First and Tenth Amendments. Appealing also strikes me as inappropriate, for other reasons.
Despite the lighthearted approach, I realize this respectful disobedience could mean humiliation, imprisonment, confiscation of my possessions...maybe even an outside chance of death itself. There was a guy last month who died in jail because he didn't have car insurance.
But this is what I'm willing to sacrifice over a small fine, related to a right I only occasionally exercise. Perhaps when Washington begins to inflict more vexatious ills upon citizens of New Hampshire (good folks like Ed Brown and Russell Kanning, for instance) it will be appropriate to take greater risks, as the Mahatma did.
It seems most fair to you that I be candid with you regarding this minor act of noncooperation, but not necessarily with the public. Having kept thousands of people up-to-date on this case, I suppose I could always inspire a couple of them to civil disobedience of their own by announcing mine. Perhaps at some point, robbed, threatened or driven to desperation by such torments as you may loose upon me, I will feel the need to do so. If you are hell-bent on turning me into the next Russell Kanning, I won't in good conscience be able to stop you.
But for now, I just want to be able to look at the mirror without guilt. For now, this act of refusal is my proud secret.
It is sufficient reward that *you* know what I and other Free Staters are prepared to sacrifice...for a document not one in three of us ever swore to uphold, and fewer still would have voted to ratify had it come before us in 1788.
Yours with best wishes,
Dave Ridley
NHfree.com
-----
I hoped this correspondence would provide our Federal rulers with some maneuvering room, a graceful exit from this situation. They could, if they wished, merely do nothing. If it were a loss on their part, no one would know it had happened. The mass of their small problem would go away with no loss of face on their part, no public defiance, but no payment of the fine.
Since composing the note, I've told no one of its contents or existence and, to a much greater extent than promised, kept secret this act of noncooperation.
Initially not much happened. I got a quick note back from Judge Muirhead simply informing me he'd received the note and passed it on to the prosecutor. Then, on January 16 I was at U.S. District Court to support the Browns. I ran into Federal Protective Services big wig Therian while demonstrating and introduced myself.
He said he knew who I was. We had a cordial give and take about various liberty-related issues. Then he asked me if I had paid my $125 fine. I gave him the same answer I have been giving all of you:
"Maybe."
He became stern and, while remaining professional, threatened me with potential arrest in the form of a bench warrant. He said "Maybe I already know whether you've paid the fine."
Later during a recess, while Tim and I were the only activists remaining in the building, he approached me with another officer and said "we have something for you." The second officer handed me a note, which as usual I didn't reach out and take. So he put it in my lap. It is a summons to appear in court at 10:30 a.m. March 13 and face, again, charges of petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.
Now that the Federals have "robbed, threatened or driven to desperation," (in this case just threatened) I consider myself relieved of the provisional promises I made to keep this defiance secret. They have certainly solved a problem for me. I now place these matters before you for your consideration and intend to at least briefly visit the federal building again today in continued support of Ed, House hearings and fate permitting.
Obviously it isn't just the appeals court that's bored and doing nothing.
I like the idea you had of letting the judge just forget about the fine. Gives them the choice of going after you or not and it does not back them in to a corner. I guess the judge thinks he is above every other person because he wears a funny robe in public. Dada I think that no one can complain about how you handled this interaction with the feds.
The feds could complain about it. After all, Dave didn't bow and scrape at their feet, which is all they really want.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on January 17, 2007, 07:13 AM NHFTThen, on January 16 I was at U.S. District Court to support the Browns. I ran into Federal Protective Services big wig Therian while demonstrating and introduced myself.
He said he knew who I was. We had a cordial give and take about various liberty-related issues. Then he asked me if I had paid my $125 fine. I gave him the same answer I have been giving all of you:
"Maybe."
He became stern and, while remaining professional, threatened me with potential arrest in the form of a bench warrant. He said "Maybe I already know whether you've paid the fine."
That is what I saw and heard.
In this: "Maybe I already know whether you've paid the fine." I found what came across to me as an
INABILITY on ICEman's part to remain civil - i.e. he was
willing wanting to use violence. It was said with a slight - and dangerous - smile/grin. I knew what it meant.
Quotecharges of petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.
Forgive me for coming late, but is there a statute against petitioning the government for a redress of grievances?
In any case, best to you.
I've been following the Brown case from TCF, courtesy of Shorty Dawkins.
Quote from: penguinsscareme on January 17, 2007, 08:34 AM NHFT
Quotecharges of petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.
Forgive me for coming late, but is there a statute against petitioning the government for a redress of grievances?
I've been told that there's never been a Supreme Court case regarding the First Amendment protection of the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Dada's case could have been such a case, if he'd pursued the appeals process. But it would have cost far more in filing fees (read: bureaucratic payoffs) simply to file the paperwork to begin the appeal than the $125 fine itself!
Quote from: slim on January 17, 2007, 07:49 AM NHFT
I like the idea you had of letting the judge just forget about the fine. Gives them the choice of going after you or not and it does not back them in to a corner. I guess the judge thinks he is above every other person because he wears a funny robe in public. Dada I think that no one can complain about how you handled this interaction with the feds.
Complain? I can't think of any way for a person to have done it better. :D Good Job Dave. Nonviolent, Pricipled, and outwardly polite.
We will probably never succeed in repealing most of the gov't laws, and penalties. The best that may be hoped for is to get the gov't to simply look the other way. We have our freedom, and they keep their legitamacy to the bulk of the people. Unfortunatly they have clearly choosen the authoritrian way, to maintain complete control, and to maintain a strong deterence.
If they won't keep quiet, then neither should we.
Regarding the idea of us being outwardly polite; we should be inwardly polite too if possible. i.e. learn to like the people who are trying to hurt you. There is usually something to like about everyone. For instance, Therian (can someone tell me how to spell his name?) has been helpful to some of you guys in terms of making his people behave more politely towards you.
He is also a veteran, so most of us can sincerely thank him for his service. Proably there are some of you here who don't appreciate it but I do since I'm not one of the peaceniks.
Col. Michael G. Therrien, USAF (Ret.)
Last assignment: Deputy Commander, 753rd Electronic Systems Group, 653rd Electronic Systems Wing, Electronic Systems Center, Air Force Materiel Command, Hanscom AFB, MA
Biography (http://integrator.hanscom.af.mil/2006/July/07272006/Therrien%20Bio_June%2006.doc) (MS Word)
Quote from: error on January 17, 2007, 12:31 PM NHFT
I've been told that there's never been a Supreme Court case regarding the First Amendment protection of the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Dada's case could have been such a case, if he'd pursued the appeals process.
Dada, I respect any decision you make, but I am compelled to share my opinion, by virtue of my being an insufferable knowitall.
A prime reason Rosa Parks is famous, and that the US government apartheid apparatus was dismantled, was because she sued the government.
I strongly urge you to seek legal counsel.
There are various ways to deal with the fiscal impact of doing so, which I'm happy to discuss in private.
I believe --
strongly believe -- that you have the opportunity to strike at the root of the system that places you in your present uncomfortable situation. Indeed, I believe you do a disservice to all those who worked so hard to create a limited government if you ignore the options available within the legislative and judicial framework. This remains true despite the erosion of those limits over the past 150 years.
Quote from: d_goddard on January 18, 2007, 07:36 AM NHFT
Quote from: error on January 17, 2007, 12:31 PM NHFT
I've been told that there's never been a Supreme Court case regarding the First Amendment protection of the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Dada's case could have been such a case, if he'd pursued the appeals process.
Dada, I respect any decision you make, but I am compelled to share my opinion, by virtue of my being an insufferable knowitall.
A prime reason Rosa Parks is famous, and that the US government apartheid apparatus was dismantled, was because she sued the government.
I strongly urge you to seek legal counsel.
There are various ways to deal with the fiscal impact of doing so, which I'm happy to discuss in private.
I believe -- strongly believe -- that you have the opportunity to strike at the root of the system that places you in your present uncomfortable situation. Indeed, I believe you do a disservice to all those who worked so hard to create a limited government if you ignore the options available within the legislative and judicial framework. This remains true despite the erosion of those limits over the past 150 years.
he really doesn't have a case...you can't disrupt the official business of a collectively owned building by handing out handbills.
freedom of speech, assembly and petitioning for redress of greivances are all individual common rights that people are free to engage in on common right of ways and in collectively owned buildings for that specific purpose.
:blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:
QuoteA prime reason Rosa Parks is famous, and that the US government apartheid apparatus was dismantled, was because she sued the government.
actually what happened is they engaged in a year long bus strike (MLK was asked to lead it) and then when they called it off they just got on the buses and sat wherever they wanted and no one bothered to do anything about it.
Boycott
Quote from: FrankChodorov on January 18, 2007, 07:52 AM NHFT
he really doesn't have a case...you can't disrupt the official business of a collectively owned building by handing out handbills.
freedom of speech, assembly and petitioning for redress of greivances are all individual common rights that people are free to engage in on common right of ways and in collectively owned buildings for that specific purpose.
Frank are you a lawyer? or is it just your layperson opinion that Dada does not have a case. Also I thought that I read on another thread that the building was privately owned but the IRS used some office space in the building.
I think that's the Keene IRS office...they just have a small part of the post office building.
QuoteFrank are you a lawyer?
I play one on tv...
Quoteor is it just your layperson opinion that Dada does not have a case.
let's just say I am surrounded by lawyers and we talking about the issues all the time and we researched this with a lawyer here on the forum (spencer) and identified the exact laws that pertain...
all of the first amendment rights are common rights - in other words individual equal rights that can not be infringed upon by any other person or group of persons (state) so long as you are in a common right of way (like what is contained within a sidewalk) or within collectively owned property specifically designated for that purpose (a public forum, your representatives office, testifying infront of the state legislature, etc)
you have no common right of way in the IRS offices...you do on the sidewalk out front and you do in the general areas of the building for egress into the IRS office to conduct specific business (that is why Russell was allowed to pass unfettered until he reached the IRS office door).
in my opinion the best test case for the IRS would be to wear a T-shirt into the IRS office to conduct IRS business with information on the T-shirt (freedom of speech) that you want to convey.
Dada is right on the line...he is attempting to excercise his freedom of speech rights in collectively owned buildings without conducting any IRS business...when asked to leave he does.
in handing out "handbills" he went too far...I believe the calculus the authorities are weighing is whether or not arresting him within the building without asking him to leave first would help or hinder the situation.
Quoteyou can't disrupt the official business of a collectively owned building by handing out handbills.
I'm going to have to assume that this was meant tongue in cheek or something, because it made me gag when I read it. Not that I was there, but I have a hard time picturing Dada disrupting anything. He's not a very disruptive type of person. It's just a ridiculous charge with the government trying to overstep its bounds and get him to pay a fine that is more symbolic than anything. The costs of these court hearings has to have already over run $125.
Anyway, good luck on March 13, Dada. I hope we get some
good news
Quote from: Rochelle on January 18, 2007, 01:39 PM NHFT
Quoteyou can't disrupt the official business of a collectively owned building by handing out handbills.
I'm going to have to assume that this was meant tongue in cheek or something, because it made me gag when I read it. Not that I was there, but I have a hard time picturing Dada disrupting anything. He's not a very disruptive type of person. It's just a ridiculous charge with the government trying to overstep its bounds and get him to pay a fine that is more symbolic than anything. The costs of these court hearings has to have already over run $125.
I am dead serious - the law says you can't handout or post "handbills" in a collectively owned building not intended for that purpose as a way of excercising your constitutionally protected individual common right of redress of grievances because you keep the persons working there from being able to fulfill their duties by disrupting them.
you can do it all day and all night long (with free speech and assembly) wherever there is a common right of way though (sidewalks, parks, etc)...
Quote from: Rochelle on January 18, 2007, 01:39 PM NHFTThe costs of these court hearings has to have already over run $125.
A rational observation that won't have any effect on the bureaucrats. They don't have to care about costs.
QuoteAnyway, good luck on March 13, Dada. I hope we get some good news
I'm no expert, but I feel some jail time coming on. :'( They wanted him to bow to them and pay the "citation". He did not, and now they will want him punished for it.
QuoteDada, I respect any decision you make, but I am compelled to share my opinion, by virtue of my being an insufferable knowitall.
A prime reason Rosa Parks is famous, and that the US government apartheid apparatus was dismantled, was because she sued the government.
I strongly urge you to seek legal counsel.
I wholeheartedly agree! Dada, if you want to sue the government, the Grennon family will underwrite your entire legal bill. It's another service I offer.
All you would have to do to conduct business at the IRS would be to ask for a publication / form when you got to the desk (i.e., could I have a Form 1040, please?).
1. Excellent work, Dave, with your righteous politeness and respect in all dealings with government agents. Love is the only path to liberty, and you clearly understand that.
2. Great work, Dave, with rejecting your options of legal counsel or a lawsuit. Evil should not be fought with evil.
3. You are doing a fine job of promoting love toward all in heart, mind, word, and deed, just as Gandhi promoted. Your example is a valuable asset to this movement and to liberty.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on January 18, 2007, 02:34 PM NHFT
QuoteAnyway, good luck on March 13, Dada. I hope we get some good news
I'm no expert, but I feel some jail time coming on. :'( They wanted him to bow to them and pay the "citation". He did not, and now they will want him punished for it.
The more they hurt him, the more liberty he wins for everyone else at his own expense.
By humanizing himself, Dave has helped soften potential opposition, and prevented the opposition from de-humanizing him. And people of good will, will support him. That is the power, of peaceful nonviolent resistance. Perfect, no. But a good strategy to use against overpowering opposition, yes. :)
Quote from: Spencer on January 18, 2007, 11:35 PM NHFT
All you would have to do to conduct business at the IRS would be to ask for a publication / form when you got to the desk (i.e., could I have a Form 1040, please?).
carrying a sign or wearing a t-shirt (speech)?
obviously not handing out "handbills"...
I have to disagree with myself...
The intent of the law to restrict handing out "handbills" is to prevent Amway salesman from annoying you at the Post Office... or other soliciting, they can show you the door.
Is this law ever used to prevent someone from handing their representative a flyer about their organization?
If Dada was a mute should he be arrested for communicating via the written word?
It's a "beautiful stone" that you both cast upon the pond!
May the ripples reach far and wide. 8)
QuoteIs this law ever used to prevent someone from handing their representative a flyer about their organization?
yes - you have no right to petition for redress of grievances in a collectively owned building not designated for that purpose.
QuoteIf Dada was a mute should he be arrested for communicating via the written word?
you have no freedom of speech right in a collectively owned building not designated for that purpose - but you do wherever you have a common right of way...like on a sidewalk.
it would be interesting to test the case by wearing a t-shirt with information on it...
I suspect Dada will get arrested carrying a sign before wearing a t-shirt.
Quote from: Bill Grennon on January 19, 2007, 07:16 AM NHFT
I have to disagree with myself...
The intent of the law to restrict handing out "handbills" is to prevent Amway salesman from annoying you at the Post Office... or other soliciting, they can show you the door.
Is this law ever used to prevent someone from handing their representative a flyer about their organization?
If Dada was a mute should he be arrested for communicating via the written word?
At Dave's "trial", there was special attention brought to the fact that he left a flier on the counter before backing out of the office. I definately felt that handing over the flier when approached was not the issue, it was the unsolicited act that was the issue. When Dave took the stand they pressured him to admit he left that paper on his own.
Cathleen
QuoteI definately felt that handing over the flier when approached was not the issue, it was the unsolicited act that was the issue.
you mean he wouldn't have been in violation of the handbill law if when approached he had given someone a handbill vs. just leaving it there unsolicited?
I believe he is in violation of the law by even carrying a sign into the IRS office.
That is the impression that I got. My thought at the time was of the possibility that he was mute. They approach with a "May I help you?". That is soliciting a response that turns out to be written. The prosecutor breezed right over this action and focused on the placement of the sheet on the counter when asked to leave.
Cathleen
Quote from: cathleeninnh on January 19, 2007, 01:58 PM NHFT
That is the impression that I got. My thought at the time was of the possibility that he was mute. They approach with a "May I help you?". That is soliciting a response that turns out to be written. The prosecutor breezed right over this action and focused on the placement of the sheet on the counter when asked to leave.
got it - clever.
Dada was recently handed a summons to appear in federal court again for refusing to pay a $125 fine levied on him November 13 for petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. True to form, he didn't take the summons, and ICE officers dropped it in his lap.
More info and background here: http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=404&Itemid=44
Dada hasn't said whether he plans to be in court that day, but I'd expect he would be likely to be there. I propose doing another round of sidewalk protests, lunch, &c.
There's about a 40% chance I can make it to Concord that day. :)
---
Update for calendar: Dada has another federal court date on 7/17 at 10:00am.
Demonstration outside the courthouse starts at 8 am.
Is there a time scheduled?
Quote from: d_goddard on January 31, 2007, 12:23 PM NHFT
Is there a time scheduled?
Probably. Dada would know what it is. If I make it I'll be available all day.
Quote from: error on January 31, 2007, 12:35 PM NHFT
Quote from: d_goddard on January 31, 2007, 12:23 PM NHFT
Is there a time scheduled?
Probably. Dada would know what it is. If I make it I'll be available all day.
My ability to be present depends strongly on the time... and on knowing ahead of time what the time is, so I can reschedule other things as necessary.
Hence, any further info would be most welcomed. Dada?
------
insert from 3/9
they have rescheduled me to 2pm the same day. demo will go on as planned 830 am
-----
thanks error!
as I recall it's at 10:15 a.m. but i don't remember for sure. I'm not sure where the paperwork is.
I was thinking maybe we should demonstrate for ed brown while we are there, instead of for me. we will certainly have plenty of signs for the ed brown cause by then.
I suppose it depends on where Ed Brown's case stands at that point.
Quote from: error on January 31, 2007, 12:02 PM NHFT
Dada was recently handed a summons to appear in federal court again for refusing to pay a $125 fine levied on him November 13 for petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. True to form, he didn't take the summons, and ICE officers dropped it in his lap.
More info and background here: http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=404&Itemid=44
Dada hasn't said whether he plans to be in court that day, but I'd expect he would be likely to be there. I propose doing another round of sidewalk protests, lunch, &c.
There's about a 40% chance I can make it to Concord that day. :)
since you apparently believe you have first amendment rights to free speech, assembly and redress of grievances on or within all "public property" why restrict your protest to the sidewalk where the common right of ways are?
why don't you bring the protest (free speech) into the federal courthouse itself?
Quote from: d_goddard on January 31, 2007, 12:52 PM NHFT
My ability to be present depends strongly on the time... and on knowing ahead of time what the time is, so I can reschedule other things as necessary.
The other hard part is that the feds can change the time even at the last minute.
If we do Ed Brown stuff, then the time doesn't matter much. :)
It kindof ruins their time shifts and cancellations if we hold signs anyway.
Quote from: error on January 17, 2007, 12:31 PM NHFT
Dada's case could have been such a case, if he'd pursued the appeals process. But it would have cost far more in filing fees (read: bureaucratic payoffs) simply to file the paperwork to begin the appeal than the $125 fine itself!
Yeah but, this isn't nor are any such fines ever about the money. The money is a pittance, the real crime is of failure to submit one's will wholly to the state. The goal is not to get Dada to to pay the meager sum, the goal is to force his "obedience." We've all read Thoreau:
As they could not reach me, they had resolved to punish my body; just as boys, if they cannot come at some person against whom they have a spite, will abuse his dog. I saw that the State was half-witted, that it was timid as a lone woman with her silver spoons, and that it did not know its friends from its foes, and I lost all my remaining respect for it, and pitied it.If they can't reach his mind, they'll try for his person.
Quote from: FrankChodorov on January 19, 2007, 08:09 AM NHFT
QuoteIs this law ever used to prevent someone from handing their representative a flyer about their organization?
yes - you have no right to petition for redress of grievances in a collectively owned building not designated for that purpose.
QuoteIf Dada was a mute should he be arrested for communicating via the written word?
you have no freedom of speech right in a collectively owned building not designated for that purpose - but you do wherever you have a common right of way...like on a sidewalk.
it would be interesting to test the case by wearing a t-shirt with information on it...
I suspect Dada will get arrested carrying a sign before wearing a t-shirt.
How does this make sense? What's the difference between a "collectively owned" building and a public sidewalk that is also "collectively owned?"
QuoteWhat's the difference between a "collectively owned" building and a public sidewalk that is also "collectively owned?"
there is a common right of way (an individual right) contained within the collectively owned sidewalk.
there is no right of way in collectively owned buildings.
Quote from: Sweet Mercury on February 04, 2007, 05:52 PM NHFT
Quote from: FrankChodorov on January 19, 2007, 08:09 AM NHFT
This user is currently ignored.
How does this make sense? What's the difference between a "collectively owned" building and a public sidewalk that is also "collectively owned?"
Oh, you asked for it now.
Quote from: FrankChodorov on February 04, 2007, 06:12 PM NHFT
QuoteWhat's the difference between a "collectively owned" building and a public sidewalk that is also "collectively owned?"
there is a common right of way (an individual right) contained within the collectively owned sidewalk.
there is no right of way in collectively owned buildings.
What is a common right of way, and how does it exist in the sidewalk and not in the building?
Quote from: Sweet Mercury on February 04, 2007, 05:52 PM NHFT
Quote from: FrankChodorov on January 19, 2007, 08:09 AM NHFT
QuoteIs this law ever used to prevent someone from handing their representative a flyer about their organization?
yes - you have no right to petition for redress of grievances in a collectively owned building not designated for that purpose.
QuoteIf Dada was a mute should he be arrested for communicating via the written word?
you have no freedom of speech right in a collectively owned building not designated for that purpose - but you do wherever you have a common right of way...like on a sidewalk.
it would be interesting to test the case by wearing a t-shirt with information on it...
I suspect Dada will get arrested carrying a sign before wearing a t-shirt.
How does this make sense? What's the difference between a "collectively owned" building and a public sidewalk that is also "collectively owned?"
DOn't feed the troll.
TRacy
why did you delete my post?
I didn't.
Tracy
Any update on this?
Tracy
Quote from: tracysaboe on February 25, 2007, 12:51 AM NHFT
Any update on this?
Tracy
Date is 3/12 vice 3/13
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=7397.msg130314#msg130314
Which silent protest are they fining you for?
the mid september protest inside nashua's irs office.
Why I'm refusing to pay a Federal fine
By Dave Ridley
1/18/07
Last year, as you may recall from previous KFP articles, I went on trial before a Federal magistrate in Concord...charged with an interesting "crime."
In September I had entered a local IRS office and performed a "silent demonstration."
I held a sign and handed flyers to IRS workers, both respectfully questioning the morality of working for an institution which funds waste and torture. The flyers were, in the purest sense, petitions for a redress of grievances.
I left the office (slowly) after being ordered to. But subsequently Homeland Security officers came looking for me and issued me a sort of Federal traffic ticket. It charged me, essentially, with...petitioning the government for a redress of grievances! Specifically the charge was "Distribution of Handbills."
When I did not immediately pay the $125 fine, officials summoned me to court on November 13, judged me guilty and ordered me to pay up or file an appeal.
Subsequently I took a course of action which, until now, has remained essentially secret. In fact, the only person I informed of it was Judge Muirhead himself....the Federal Magistrate who had pronounced guilt and ordered me to pay. On December 6 I composed him a private note.
Until now, I did not consider it honest or appropriate to broadcast the letter's contents. As we shall see, subsequent Federal actions have intervened, causing their publication to become both honorable and necessary. Here is the (formerly) secret note.
-----
"I knew someone had to take the first step, and I made up my mind not to move."
- Rosa Parks
Dec. 6, 2006
Judge James R. Muirhead
U.S. District Court
Concord, NH
Dear Judge Muirhead:
I wanted to let you know I enjoyed exchanging philosophies with you Nov. 13 during "United States of America vs. David K. Ridley." I did appreciate the polite and professional demeanor you and nearly all the personnel of the court displayed.
I will admit your actions, though not surprising, saddened me and were probably twice as unconstitutional as I was able to represent them. It is wrong to fine anyone for merely handing a list of grievances to a government officer. But I was glad to leave court thinking of you as an opponent rather than a malicious enemy. Gandhi showed us how important it is to oppose bad institutions and actions, without being against individuals.
I've avoided making many representations regarding what I would or wouldn't do in relation to this case...however you may be aware that the promises I've made, I've kept. I told your citing officer I'd meet him at a specific time and place. I kept this promise, to the minute. I later pledged I would attend your hearing and kept that promise as well, arriving at your opulent building rather early and answering honestly your prosecutor's questions, perhaps to my own detriment.
Now I have another representation to make, to which I will remain true regardless of how much your institution tries to hurt me.
I can not in good conscience pay this fine.
Unless you can show me *something* in the Constitution that at least vaguely authorizes your government to levy it, I will never pay it. Doing so would be wrong; it would directly underwrite Federal violations of the First and Tenth Amendments. Appealing also strikes me as inappropriate, for other reasons.
Despite the lighthearted approach, I realize this respectful disobedience could mean humiliation, imprisonment, confiscation of my possessions...maybe even an outside chance of death itself. There was a guy last month who died in jail because he didn't have car insurance.
But this is what I'm willing to sacrifice over a small fine, related to a right I only occasionally exercise. Perhaps when Washington begins to inflict more vexatious ills upon citizens of New Hampshire (good folks like Ed Brown and Russell Kanning, for instance) it will be appropriate to take greater risks, as the Mahatma did.
It seems most fair to you that I be candid with you regarding this minor act of noncooperation, but not necessarily with the public. Having kept thousands of people up-to-date on this case, I suppose I could always inspire a couple of them to civil disobedience of their own by announcing mine. Perhaps at some point, robbed, threatened or driven to desperation by such torments as you may loose upon me, I will feel the need to do so. If you are hell-bent on turning me into the next Russell Kanning, I won't in good conscience be able to stop you.
But for now, I just want to be able to look at the mirror without guilt. For now, this act of refusal is my proud secret.
It is sufficient reward that *you* know what I and other Free Staters are prepared to sacrifice...for a document not one in three of us ever swore to uphold, and fewer still would have voted to ratify had it come before us in 1788.
Yours with best wishes,
Dave Ridley
NHfree.com
-----
I hoped this correspondence would provide our Federal rulers with some maneuvering room, a graceful exit from this situation. They could, if they wished, merely do nothing. If it were a loss on their part, no one would know it had happened. The mass of their small problem would go away with no loss of face on their part, no public defiance, but no payment of the fine.
Since composing the note, I've told no one of its contents or existence and, to a much greater extent than promised, kept secret this act of noncooperation.
Initially not much happened. I got a quick note back from Judge Muirhead simply informing me he'd received the note and passed it on to the prosecutor. Then, on January 16 I was at U.S. District Court to support the Browns. I ran into Federal Protective Services big wig Therian while demonstrating and introduced myself.
He said he knew who I was. We had a cordial give and take about various liberty-related issues. Then he asked me if I had paid my $125 fine. I gave him the same answer I have been giving all of you:
"Maybe."
He became stern and, while remaining professional, threatened me with potential arrest in the form of a bench warrant. He said "Maybe I already know whether you've paid the fine."
Later during a recess, while Tim and I were the only activists remaining in the building, he approached me with another officer and said "we have something for you." The second officer handed me a note, which as usual I didn't reach out and take. So he put it in my lap. It is a summons to appear in court at 10:30 a.m. March 12 and face, again, charges of petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.
Now that the Federals have "robbed, threatened or driven to desperation," (in this case just threatened) I consider myself relieved of the provisional promises I made to keep this defiance secret. They have certainly solved a problem for me. I now place these matters before you for your consideration and intend to at least briefly visit the federal building again today in continued support of Ed, House hearings and fate permitting.
Dave Ridley
NHfree.com
Some folks are wondering what they can do to help me in the context of my March 12 appearance in Federal court. I have a list of suggested action items below, some of which you can do even if you're outside NH. If you are willing to do one or two of them, that will make my minor act of civil disobedience all the more worthwhile.
As you probably already know, I am charged with "Distribution of Handbills" because I briefly entered a Nashua IRS office last year to petition the government for a redress of grievances. I have also declined to pay the $125 fine Washington has levied against me as punishment for petitioning on "their" turf. I've promised that I will never pay it unless perhaps they can demonstrate for me that they are Constitutionally authorized to levy it.
1) First, and maybe easiest, I hope some of you will consider just doing something on your own initiative to support this endeavor. I have no idea what that would be. All I care is that it's constructive and peaceful.
2) If you like, drop by our demonstration at 8:30 a.m., Monday March 12, 55 Pleasant Street, Concord NH.
3) Come to the trial itself two hours later, same day, same place....or continue outside if you like.
4) Call folks you know who are in or near New Hampshire and invite them to the demonstration or trial.
5) Make a sign or two for it, or bring a flag. I have some signs, and NH and Gadsden flags I can lend out or sell if need be. But let me know in advance if you're wanting to buy one or I will not have enough with me.
6) As you may know, my original "crime" was an imitation of Russell Kanning's attempted distribution of flyers at the Keene IRS office. It would mean a lot to me if one or more of you were willing to imitate him as I did. This would remind our Federal rulers our movement is growing. It would deliver on my suggestion to Judge Muirhead that their continued attacks on people like us tend to generate more opposition.
7) If you aren't in a position to commit "civil dis," consider setting your life on a course that will allow you to do so in the future. This is what Mike Fisher and Russell Kanning inspired me to do. It may take a long time to prepare for that sort of thing, so if you ever want to do it the time to start preparing is now.
8) Check out the latest article about this trial:
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?&topic=7495.0
...and post it to other web forums. Here's a list of forums where it might be appropriate:
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?&topic=2613.0
Leverage this minor sacrifice as an opportunity to spread the word about the Free State Project.
9) Write a letter to the editor
For those in-state here is a somewhat dated list of local newspapers that print LTEs: http://www.freestateproject.org/about/essay_archive/BeTheMedia.php
But the short story on that is the best places to write LTEs appear to be the Keene Free Press, the Union Leader, the Keene Sentinel and Concord Monitor. I've found all of the above to be good about printing LTEs.
10) Call Free Talk Live about it and update them: (800) 259-9231 7p-10p Eastern, Mon-Sat. You can change the topic they are on, no problem. Average hold time is 20 minutes, average actively-listening audience is perhaps around 200,000
11) Join some of the Ed Brown blogs/forums and keep them up to date on this:
http://questforfairtrialinconcordnh.blogspot.com/
http://www.edbrown.org
http://www.myspace.com/time2makeastand
I could also use someone to hold onto my cell phone as the morning unfolds and take incoming calls.
Other people may need someone to hold their cell phones as well, or other court-banned items while they are inside.
We'll need someone to stash our signs in one or more vehicles as we go in.
It would be great if someone who attends could submit an article to the Keene Free Press
If you want to contact other media folks and invite them along that would be great too.
That is all I can think of for now, but may have more ideas later. as always I come back to the "do what you feel like doing" approach...sometimes the things you do on your own initiative are best, but if you were at a loss as to what I need...now at least you have some ideas.
Bear in mind the Feds could for all we know switch the court date, but we're planning to demonstrate regardless.
Would "I support the Browns" t-shirts be good? Or save for another time?
Dada Orwell
vs
IRS
Petition of
Grievances
NHFREE.com
Is this double jeopardy? Trying you again for the same offense?
maybe I will stay on the outside and can grab the signs and stuff.
Should you hand them an additional grievance for dragging you into court?
Couple Sign ideas:
Obey
Tenth
Amendment
NHfree.com
Is it Right to work 4 IRS?
NHfree.com
Remember the lettering needs to be pretty big and thick or passing cars can't read it.
Best place to get materials is Staples
the i support the browns tshirts don't bother me since I have a sign that says that!
i think the demonstration will probably be a little multi messaged but we'll just let it say what it says.
TAXES =
TERROR
Am I right in assuming that this court date is for a "failure to pay" charge?
Cathleen
I'll bring a pile of light blue T-shirts. All are XL.
They say," I support Ed and Elaine Brown - SHOW ME THE LAW" front and back.
Ed Brown asked me to spread them around.
Maybe Dada could decide not to enter the kangaroo court ala Ed Brown. :)
Would they drag him in ... or add another "charge"? :)
99% chance I will be there, wearing a sweatshirt I purchased at the Manchester airport:
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Live Free Or Die
Not to be pessimistic or anything, but I was thinking if Dada gets tossed in jail for a couple days...what do you think about round-the-clock jail protest? I can pass around a sign up sheet or some such so we could take it in shifts and try to have someone outside his jail 24 hrs/day. What think ye?
Where's the jail?
They could send him to several places. Won't know until it happens.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 04, 2007, 01:46 AM NHFT
Not to be pessimistic or anything, but I was thinking if Dada gets tossed in jail for a couple days...what do you think about round-the-clock jail protest? I can pass around a sign up sheet or some such so we could take it in shifts and try to have someone outside his jail 24 hrs/day. What think ye?
24 hour jail protest would be impressive. Good idea.
If he was in for just 2 days, we could have people outside during the day pretty easily. That would really drive them nuts.
We could ask them if Dave is getting his beans or if they let him shave his head every day.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 04, 2007, 02:25 AM NHFT
They could send him to several places. Won't know until it happens.
Where are the possibilities? If there's going to be a 24 hour protest then there's a small chance I can do the overnights. :)
They sent me to strafford county jail in Dover.
I think there are other jails in NH that will take fed "detainees".
The one here in Cheshire Co doesn't take fed guys. They want to expand and do that in the future.
My fellow prisoners in Dover were guessing that the jail would not have wanted to take me back after sentencing. It would be funny if dada went in there and didn't answer their questions ... got treated like me ... and we could tweak the warden the same way as last time. :)
the summons says I am supposed to "show cause" for why I haven't paid. good ideas guys that would be much fun if there were 24 hour coverage!
Show cause ehhhh?
how about articles containing government activities with nice pictures ... that you don't want to pay for?
receipt for something you spent the money on ;)
takes it from just a pile of money ... into life liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Most of the county jails take fed prisoners, as far as I know.
Dave... You're the man. That's an understatement.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on March 02, 2007, 02:21 PM NHFT
Why I'm refusing to pay a Federal fine
By Dave Ridley
1/18/07
btw .... since you edited this post ... Kat and I didn't see until now. It didn't show up as unread.
Is this your last word before the fed court thingy?
I may post something more updated.
Sent announcement to NH-porucupines-announce list.
Dear folks at the NHLA: I wanted to request a favor. As you may know, I am scheduled to appear in Federal court at Concord on Monday March 12th. I'm charged, essentially, with respectfully petitioning the government for a redress of grievances!
I've also scheduled a demonstration which is set to ocurr beforehand the hearing.
Latest details are at http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?&topic=7495.0
It would mean a great deal to me if you could pass this message on to your mailing list, and let your members know they are invited to our demonstration and to the hearing if they wish to support me. I hope you'll spead the word far and wide and disseminate this e-mail as you see fit!
I may be going to jail because I have indicated that, without some sort of Constitutional authorization, I will not pay the small fine they are trying to levy.
What: Demonstration, Dave Ridley aka Dada Orwell in Federal Court
When: Monday, March 12: 8:30 a.m. is the demonstration, the hearing starts two hours later.
Where: U.S. District Court, 55 Pleasant St., Concord NH (we may pick a busy corner that is a block away however)
Why: I am refusing to pay an unconstitutional fine which the Feds ordered me to fork over.
How: Just show up or bring signs and flags if you like. Anything anti-Federal will do if it's peaceful :) We'll likely have some signs if you don't.
Note that I have a cold right now and will still be getting over it when Monday comes around. I may not demonstrate for long myself if the temperatures are low. I could file a motion to postpone but I'd rather suffer than beg Washington's permission to be sick!
Sign ideas? Dada said anything anti-federal.
If I were able to be there, I might make a "Department of Homeland Stupidity" sign.
It will not be so cold on Monday. But you might as well be comfortable inside since you will want to be nice and relaxed. :)
and they will show up too. :)
I will be wearing my "I support Ed and Elaine Brown" shirt
Calling them stupid somehow doesn't seem productive to me.
Pointing out Dave's moral innocence seems much more compelling to all individuals involved, whatever their role.
Quote from: d_goddard on March 07, 2007, 10:37 PM NHFT
Calling them stupid somehow doesn't seem productive to me.
You've apparently never seen me call them stupid. ;D
Quote from: error on March 07, 2007, 10:47 PM NHFT
Quote from: d_goddard on March 07, 2007, 10:37 PM NHFT
Calling them stupid somehow doesn't seem productive to me.
You've apparently never seen me call them stupid. ;D
Actually, you're right, I haven't.
Very well, then, we shall see!
Since the charges have something to do with handbills & protesting - what about a sign with examples of the handbills passed out in the region 230+ years ago? Some mock ups of Thomas Paine or others, perhaps?
-----
I found a page from the Avalon Project containing the American Crisis series from Thomas Paine, written under the name Common Sense.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/paine/p9.htm (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/paine/p9.htm)
I'm thinking there is a (?%) VERY good chance I'll make it.
Regardless, I'll be fasting.
And if I make it to Concord:
I'll bring my New Hampshire state/Republic / DON'T TREAD ON ME/NHfree.com flag combo. (Well those are always in the car and at the ready.)
I'll wear my orange IR$ OUT OF NH shirt. (It's large enough to fit over my coat.)
I'll walk around the fedbuildings (3 streets) carrying these, so that any/all feds inside can see from their windows.
I'll also bring and play my guitar - IF (and I think that is a big IF) it is not so cold that my fingers - literally - freeze. (Hard to play with mittens on, don't you know.)
I'll probably go inside to get warm - - - I mean for the trial.
If the fedcourt takes a break, I'll probably take that opportunity to go back outside and have some more fun on the street.
Oh, and for those who have not yet been there, the busy corner there is also the warmest in the morning.
The fedcourt (appropriately enough) casts a cold dark shadow on the other corner. :(
Quote from: John on March 08, 2007, 07:56 AM NHFT
I'll also bring and play my guitar - IF (and I think that is a big IF) it is not so cold that my fingers - literally - freeze. (Hard to play with mittens on, don't you know.)
If it is cold your guitar just becomes a brittle drum. :)
Quote from: Russell Kanning on March 08, 2007, 08:22 AM NHFTIf it is cold your guitar just becomes a brittle drum. :)
Good point. Drums are always good. (As are cow bells.)
(Still, I've never quite used the drum action with mittens on.) We'll see what Monday brings.
Looks like I won't be able to be at the trial.
The House will be hearing public testimony on medical marijuana at that time.
I'll be there in spirit.
The court has just moved my appearance time to 2:00p.m., however the demonstration will go on as scheduled at 8:30 a.m. This will give all those of us so inclined a chance to zip over to the statehouse and testify against bad bills... or do lunch...or any number of things between 10 and 2.
Also how about we make this the main "Dada in FedCourt" thread?
Dennis the protest is still set for 830 am but it looks like they've changed the time of the court appearance to 2pm. so maybe you can make it after all , and maybe i can make it to your hearing!
also Since we are now starting to suffer from thread duplication on this topic, i'm locking the thread and directing its discussion to
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=7495.0
Quote from: DadaOrwell on March 08, 2007, 03:05 PM NHFT
Also how about we make this the main "Dada in FedCourt" thread?
But the other one has the calendar entry! :)
Quote from: DadaOrwell on March 08, 2007, 03:03 PM NHFT
The court has just moved my appearance time to 2:00p.m
Cool.
I have a work meeting Monday at 2:00 that I've just now canceled.
I have another one at 4PM I can't get out of, so I can be at the Fed court until ~3:45pm
Quote from: DadaOrwell on March 08, 2007, 03:05 PM NHFT
Also how about we make this the main "Dada in FedCourt" thread?
I can combine threads really easily. Splitting them is complicated.
Yes Joy, that sounds good...
Dada have request: Can we lock this thread and direct its traffic to:
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=7495.0
I don't want the thread moved or deleted since it is, I believe, a calendar entry.
Quote from: d_goddard on March 07, 2007, 10:37 PM NHFT
Calling them stupid somehow doesn't seem productive to me.
I'm glad more people are starting to make that point.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on March 08, 2007, 08:05 PM NHFT
Quote from: d_goddard on March 07, 2007, 10:37 PM NHFT
Calling them stupid somehow doesn't seem productive to me.
I'm glad more people are starting to make that point.
Oh, the people themselves are about average, or perhaps slightly below average. It's the system itself -- government in any form -- that is stupid.
I'm making hoods to go with the "I won't pay for torture", "torture is never right", "Ministry of Torture" signs:
(http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/tikiwiki/show_image.php?id=2658)
I'll bring them Monday.
8)
Oh course she can't see my post. ;D
Is it just me, or is that a really funny picture?
Maybe this goes without saying but I would appreciate it if everyone Monday makes some effort to show a bit of kindness to our tormentors. If you want, you can look at this as making them feel uncomfortable about what they are doing. But I personally will be kind to them simply because I do not really dislike them.
Shall we bring them donuts or flowers?
Quote from: DadaOrwell on March 09, 2007, 07:18 PM NHFT
Maybe this goes without saying but I would appreciate it if everyone Monday makes some effort to show a bit of kindness to our tormentors.
What do you mean by this?
Quote from: Russell Kanning on March 09, 2007, 08:06 PM NHFT
Quote from: DadaOrwell on March 09, 2007, 07:18 PM NHFT
Maybe this goes without saying but I would appreciate it if everyone Monday makes some effort to show a bit of kindness to our tormentors.
What do you mean by this?
Uh, be nice when you ask them to quit their immoral jobs?
OK...too bad it's so cold. If someone where to tie them self's up and be naked with just that hood on, what cop would stop that demonstration. A picture of a local cop next to a torture victim like that would make the news world wide. >:D
Quote from: Facilitator on March 09, 2007, 09:37 PM NHFT
OK...too bad it's so cold. If someone where to tie them self's up and be naked with just that hood on, what cop would stop that demonstration. A picture of a local cop next to a torture victim like that would make the news world wide. >:D
Cold? It's supposed to be sunny with highs in the 50's on Monday. That's about as warm as Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and the Afghanistan salt pits.
Quote from: error on March 09, 2007, 09:42 PM NHFT
Cold? It's supposed to be sunny with highs in the 50's on Monday.
Shit, I would swear you were here in NH.
Quote from: d_goddard on March 09, 2007, 10:28 PM NHFT
Quote from: error on March 09, 2007, 09:42 PM NHFT
Cold? It's supposed to be sunny with highs in the 50's on Monday.
Shit, I would swear you were here in NH.
Maybe it's my ghost.
I'll be there soon enough.
Quote from: Facilitator on March 09, 2007, 09:37 PM NHFT
OK...too bad it's so cold. If someone where to tie them self's up and be naked with just that hood on, what cop would stop that demonstration. A picture of a local cop next to a torture victim like that would make the news world wide. >:D
Think so? Do we need a male with a dark complexion or would any color work? How about a female?
how about a orange jumpsuit instead of nakedness?
Good idea. I'll bring my XXL orange prison jumpsuit.
Putting an extra-small person in an extra large-prison uniform is almost the same as nakedness.
I have personal experience with this phenomenon.
New video of Dave at his January silent protest in Concord (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RA8u5JL_hHU)
I can provide rides to concord to anyone from Manchester monday. 2 people only though. small car ;)
i heard there was some kind of hearing in concord that we could attend at the state house around 10 am...regarding med marijuana? Maybe other things... i may have time to waste ... plz inform where i can go cause trouble.
>>Putting an extra-small person in an extra large-prison uniform is almost the same as nakedness.
I have personal experience with this phenomenon.>>
heh heh lauren bears the orange badge of courage
updated action item thing...
----
Some folks are wondering what they can do to help me in the context of my March 12 appearance in Federal court. I have a list of suggested action items below, some of which you can do even if you're outside NH. If you are willing to do one or two of them, that will make my minor act of civil disobedience all the more worthwile.
As you probably already know, I am charged with "Distribution of Handbills" because I briefly entered a Nashua IRS office last year to petition the government for a redress of grievances. I have also refused to pay the $125 fine Washington has levied against me as punishment for the petition, and have promised that I will never pay it unless perhaps they can demonstrate for me that they are Constitutionally authorized to levy it.
1) First, and maybe easiest, I hope some of you will consider just doing something on your own initiative to support this endeavor. I have no idea what that would be. All I care is that it's constructive and peaceful.
2) If you like, drop by our demonstration at 8:30 a.m., March 12, 55 Pleasant Street, Concord NH.
3) Come to the trial itself two hours later, same day, same place.
4) Call folks you know who are in or near New Hampshire and invite them to the demonstration or trial.
5) Make a sign or two for it, or bring a flag. I have NH and Gadsden flags I can lend out or sell if need be, but let me know in advance if you're wanting to buy one or I will not have enough with me.
6) As you may know, my original "crime" was an imitation of Russell Kanning's attempted distribution of flyers at the Keene IRS office. It would mean a lot to me if one or more of you were willing to imitate him as I did. This would remind our Federal rulers our movement is growing. It would deliver on my suggestion to Judge Muirhead that their continued attacks on people like us tend to generate more opposition.
7) If you aren't in a position to commit "civil dis," consider setting your life on a course that will allow you to do so in the future. This is what Mike Fisher and Russell Kanning inspired me to do. It may take a long time to prepare for that sort of thing, so if you ever want to do it the time to start preparing is now.
8) Check out the latest article about this trial:
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=7057.msg132219#msg132219
...and post it to other web forums. Here's a list of forums where it might be appropriate:
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?&topic=2613.0
Leverage this minor sacriface as an opportunity to spread the word about the Free State Project.
9) Write a letter to the editor
For those in-state here is a somewhat dated list of local newspapers that print LTEs: http://www.freestateproject.org/about/essay_archive/BeTheMedia.php
But the short story on that is the best places to write LTEs appear to be the Keene Free Press, the Union Leader, the Keene Sentinel and Concord Monitor. I've found all of the above to be good about printing LTEs.
10) Call Free Talk Live about it and update them: (800) 259-9231 7p-10p Eastern, Mon-Sat. You can change the topic they are on, no problem. Average hold time is 20 minutes, average actively-listening audience is perhaps around 200,000
11) Join some of the Ed Brown blogs/forums and keep them up to date on this:
http://questforfairtrialinconcordnh.blogspot.com/
http://www.edbrown.org
http://www.myspace.com/time2makeastand
That is all I can think of for now, as always I come back to the "do what you feel like doing" approach...sometimes the things you do on your own initiative will be the most effective, but if you were at a loss as to what I need...now at least you have some ideas.
Dave
Quote from: DadaOrwell on March 11, 2007, 08:03 PM NHFT
...I have also refused to pay the $125 fine Washington has levied against me as punishment for the petition, and have promised that I will never pay it unless perhaps they can demonstrate for me that they are Constitutionally authorized to levy it. ...
Here's an argument the feds might make to get you to pay:
The
$125 is not a fine, it's a
freedom fee. Federal offices accept grievances as mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but they need time to properly accept the petition. Officials must be gathered, space cleared, recording devices prepared so that the grievance may be most effectively embraced. The cost of this operation, you must agree should bear upon the person initiating the grievance, not the taxpayers at large as they may not subscribe to your demand. You failed notify the IRS before your visit, therefore your grievance could not be accepted. Furthermore, your unannounced demand upon the office caused a disruption of official business and a loss of productivity for the citizens. The
freedom fee of
$125 only covers the costs of preparing for the petition.
Would you pay if they told you that?
Quote from: TackleTheWorld on March 11, 2007, 09:00 PM NHFT
Quote from: DadaOrwell on March 11, 2007, 08:03 PM NHFT
...I have also refused to pay the $125 fine Washington has levied against me as punishment for the petition, and have promised that I will never pay it unless perhaps they can demonstrate for me that they are Constitutionally authorized to levy it. ...
Here's an argument the feds might make to get you to pay:
The $125 is not a fine, it's a freedom fee. Federal offices accept grievances as mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but they need time to properly accept the petition. Officials must be gathered, space cleared, recording devices prepared so that the grievance may be most effectively embraced. The cost of this operation, you must agree should bear upon the person initiating the grievance, not the taxpayers at large as they may not subscribe to your demand. You failed notify the IRS before your visit, therefore your grievance could not be accepted. Furthermore, your unannounced demand upon the office caused a disruption of official business and a loss of productivity for the citizens. The freedom fee of $125 only covers the costs of preparing for the petition.
Would you pay if they told you that?
That's not in the Constitution.
If the government were a private business this argument would have validity, but our constitution says we have a right to the redress of grievance which disregards any issue of cost.
You should not have to pay to leave a "comment" card with the government...
How quaint... your bringing up that old dead document that gets in their way all the time. :P
The drag about this is, I'm sure the intent of the law was to keep people from trying to sell you Amway will you waited in line at the post office.
Heck, back in the day, you could go knock on the door of the white house and Thomas Jefferson would answer it and invite you in. Now they fine you for communicating with some dweeb at the IRS.
Hey, maybe if we stopped calling it 'The Constitution' and referred to it as 'that old dead document' the government would stop calling us terrorists.
Quote from: Facilitator on March 11, 2007, 11:25 PM NHFT
Hey, maybe if we stopped calling it 'The Constitution' and referred to it as 'that old dead document' the government would stop calling us terrorists.
It's just a goddamned piece of paper!
Should Dave be imprisoned, I'll be fasting for his release.
thanks kat
i might fast or might not, depending on circumstances.
i'll probably know if and when when I go in whether I will fast or not, but won't decide one way or another until I know more.
I wish I could be there but that damn work thing gets in the way. My thoughts will be with you today Dada.
After a morning lobbying for medical marijuana, I got called away to work.
I heard that at least half-a-dozen people were there in the AM.
I'm looking forward (I think) to any summary or write-up...
For what it's worth, this atheist's prayers are with Dave
Questionable gesture, yet, somehow sincere
Well, Dave did great in court. He's not in jail yet, but they're threatening him with 30 days in jail for contempt of court. He's supposed to have another court date but we don't know when yet. That's the bare bones of the thing. I'm sure others will post more later.
Good job, Dave!! :D
I'm surprised the judges haven't started wearing those wigs like the British judges wear,
they have the robes and all that garbage. Its like a fiefdom in court. One of these days,
I want to dress like a serf and enter the court to raise awareness about how court
is demeaning to the defendant. Reminds me of the judge cartoon from "The Wall".
LOL, too true.
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:U5Rr5rp7Xtzf1M:http://www.wmbriggs.com/images/rumpole3.png)
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:K_eO1NErbtgZ0M:http://www.greatwigs.co.uk/shop/media/wigs/1415205_Judge_Grey.jpg)
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:-IYWu9IXV3poUM:http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/ICL/ICL157/LJU_020.jpg)
there were lots of people outside in the morning and in the court in the afternoon and at our debriefing session at the restaurant.
the judge equated dave's actions with ed and elaine brown and chastised us all for cheering for them. He left the room in a huff.
The case before Dada's was a charge of "Disturbing Artifacts"
Did someone disassemble Stonehenge or raid a royal tomb?
An elderly man with a cane moved a rusted-out teapot off a pile of axles and leaf springs and took a picture of it.
Court worker: How do you plead?
Elderly man: Guilty, but can I say something?
Judge : Absolutely, Yes.
He described the "artifacts".
(some discussion between judge and prosecutor)
Judge : Would you like to withdraw your guilty plea?
Elderly Man: (Confused) Uh, I ... Yes
Judge: Case dismissed
Spectators: Applause and cheers.
First thing after calling Dave up to the defendant's table the court worker gave Dave a financial affidavit form and asked him to fill it out.
Dave looked at it briefly and said, "I have no intention of filling out a financial form".
Yay Dave!
Every other phrase uttered by Dave's judge was ...if you had an attorney or ...but if you had a lawyer defending you, or ...if you asked, you could have the best criminal defense lawyer in New Hampshire.
Dave said," I have no intention of having the taxpayers pay for my defense." Then Dave explained about licensing being required for lawyers, and in order to get the license they have to become "officers of the court" and therefore are not working for their clients, but the court.
Big Dave 2 for 2!
Quote from: TackleTheWorld on March 12, 2007, 06:41 PM NHFT
First thing after calling Dave up to the defendant's table the court worker gave Dave a financial affidavit form and asked him to fill it out.
Dave looked at it briefly and said, "I have no intention of filling out a financial form".
Yay Dave!
I wish they would allow cameras in the court that would have been great footage
Quote from: TackleTheWorld on March 12, 2007, 06:56 PM NHFT
Dave said,"... in order to get the license they have to become "officers of the court" and therefore are not working for their clients, but the court.
A number of pro-liberty Reps would love to know they're not the only ones who feel this way.
I hope they hear about what Dave is doing,
preferably from Dave himself.
HB 670 (http://www.generalcourt.org/bills/2007/HB670) - Repealing the incorporation of the New Hampshire Bar Association
Quote from: HB670the New Hampshire constitution specifically enumerates free and fair competition by the people in all of their commercial endeavors. This right is to be preserved by the duty imposed on the legislature by their action to remove any monopoly or conspiracy which tends to hinder or destroy this right. The general court by this act therefore:
Finds that the New Hampshire Bar Association as established in 1873, chapter CXV, has become a constitutionally prohibited monopoly and conspiracy of power in the practice of law.
Sponsor: Lars Christiansen, (603) 889-0481
HB 210 (http://www.generalcourt.org/bills/2007/HB210) - establishing a committee to study the effects of rescinding the charter of the New Hampshire Bar Association
Quote from: HB210A party in any cause or proceeding may appear, plead, prosecute, or defend in his or her proper person, that is, pro se, or may be represented by any citizen of good character.
Sponsor: Greg Sorg, gregorysorg (at) aol.com, (603) 823-8856
HB 245 (http://www.generalcourt.org/bills/2007/HB245-FN) - establishing a common law court
Quote from: HB245Each judge appointed to the common law court shall be deemed to have common sense and shall not be an attorney, a lawyer, a law school graduate, a member of a bar association, or a former member of a bar association, or of any calling where assumptions, presumptions, or legal fictions are the custom and standard for review.
Sponsors: Dick Marple armlaw (at) hotmail.com, (603) 627-1837, Lars Christiansen, (603) 889-0481, Dan Itse itsenh (at) comcast.net (603) 642-5713
Ok recounting from the beginning as best I can.... we had a total of 15 turn out to demonstrate but to of these missed us and arrived after we'd left to eat...they missed the hearing as well. We spread to all four corners and John circled the walls of Jericho a few times then settled down to play some 'gitar.
Total turnout was 22 including the trial , the demo, one guy who joined us for hours after just biking past and four who arrived late. not everyone at the demo made the hearing, not everyone at the hearing made the demo.
In the fairly light traffic at that spot I counted 35 favorable responses to our demonstration, 4 negative over a 3 hr period not couting waves. We had an eclectic sign mix, the ubiquitous IRS with an x through it, an NHFREE.COM sign, 5 flags including one upside down u.s. flag to signal the nation is in distress from TOO MUCH WASHINGTON. We had a "feds: quit" sign, and russell wore an orange prison jumpsuit with a abu-gharib style torture hood over his head. He wore a sandwich board that said "less torture please!"
Once we went in they got to us within about 15 minutes, after we clapped for the prosecutor's defeat in the silly "disturbance of rusty litter" case before. Oh, there were about 10 of us there in the courtroom on our side, 8 of whom I think were there before it started. when judge muirhead came in I stood up and maybe 3 of the others among us did the same. Of course, shortly afterward we were reminded why Muirhead is perhaps one of the few fed judges halfway worthy of that, as he tore up the government prosecutor over a frivolous case.
Then they asked if I was in the room and when I said I was, the (clerk/secretary?) asked if I would like to come up forward. I said "not desperately." that got some laughs, the loudest of which seemed to be from judge muirhead himself LOL
more later as I compose it.
I'm not one of those "officers of the court" who works for the court. I work ONLY for my clients and would never do anything to jeopardize my clients' cases. I actually enjoy monkeywrenching the system. I can't wait to get to NH; once I pass the bar there and get there, I'll be glad to help any fellow freedom lovers in protest cases, etc. (although I understand the stand that Russell takes in not taking part in court proceedings at all, including having a lawyer).
Quote from: TackleTheWorld on March 12, 2007, 06:33 PM NHFT
An elderly man with a cane moved a rusted-out teapot off a pile of axles and leaf springs and took a picture of it.
I've read about that case somewhere before. It may have been in the Berlin Daily Sun, maybe as an LTE.
Wish I could remember where that was.
If anyone has a picture of Russell from the protest, I'd like to get a copy of that.
I wish I could have made it to the trial, but had to get to work. :(
Where there any notary present... Can I find the court-trial under Dave Vs. The United States of America or something so I can read it all?
There was a court reporter.
I'll get my photos up soon.
John got a bunch of photos too. These were taken by Kira and I.
(http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/tikiwiki/show_image.php?id=2659&nocount=y)
This one wasn't clear, but I thought it was interesting anyway.
(http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/tikiwiki/show_image.php?id=2660&nocount=y)
(http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/tikiwiki/show_image.php?id=2661&nocount=y)
(http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/tikiwiki/show_image.php?id=2662&nocount=y)
(http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/tikiwiki/show_image.php?id=2663&nocount=y)
(http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/tikiwiki/show_image.php?id=2664&nocount=y)
(http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/tikiwiki/show_image.php?id=2665&nocount=y)
(http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/tikiwiki/show_image.php?id=2666&nocount=y)
(http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/tikiwiki/show_image.php?id=2667&nocount=y)
(http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/tikiwiki/show_image.php?id=2668&nocount=y)
(http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/tikiwiki/show_image.php?id=2669&nocount=y)
John's photos:
(http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/tikiwiki/show_image.php?id=2670&nocount=y)
(http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/tikiwiki/show_image.php?id=2671&nocount=y)
(http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/tikiwiki/show_image.php?id=2672&nocount=y)
(http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/tikiwiki/show_image.php?id=2673&nocount=y)
(http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/tikiwiki/show_image.php?id=2674&nocount=y)
(http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/tikiwiki/show_image.php?id=2675&nocount=y)
(http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/tikiwiki/show_image.php?id=2676&nocount=y)
(http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/tikiwiki/show_image.php?id=2677&nocount=y)
(http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/tikiwiki/show_image.php?id=2678&nocount=y)
(http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/tikiwiki/show_image.php?id=2679&nocount=y)
(http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/tikiwiki/show_image.php?id=2680&nocount=y)
(http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/tikiwiki/show_image.php?id=2681&nocount=y)
Oh one more:
(http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/tikiwiki/show_image.php?id=2682)
I particularly liked this one.
Would someone be willing to write an article for the Keene Free Press this time... I have already written four articles about this i think.
I will put one up soon. You can let me know if it is inaccurate in any way or emphasizes something too much.
http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=468&Itemid=36
Great pictures!!!! I am glad it was a nice sunny day and not raining/snowing
Me too. I wasn't even cold. The sun was really nice.
one sentence currently reads
"Judge Muirhead asked Dave Ridley to appear in Federal Court Monday to explain why he had not paid the $125 fine yet."
Probably it could benefit from some background and read instead:
"Judge Muirhead asked Dave Ridley to appear in Federal Court Monday to explain why he had not yet paid a $125 fine. Washingon had charge Ridley with "Distribution of Handbills" after he handed anti-torture flyers to IRS workers last year."
i'd also change "related to the constitution" to read "authorized in the Constitution"
you may want to throw in that total turnout for our bunch was 22, though not all at the same time.
thanks for writing this russell and for all the great pics!
how about now?
http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=468&Itemid=36
Concord monitor story:
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007703140393
Oops, that link doesn't seem to work. I'll try and find it.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 14, 2007, 09:22 AM NHFT
Oops, that link doesn't seem to work. I'll try and find it.
Nope it works.
I liked the headlines in today's CM.
OK, here it is:
http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070314/REPOSITORY/703140393/1043/NEWS01
Offhand comparison stokes courtroom
Judge says Brown likely to spend life in jail
By MARGOT SANGER-KATZ
Monitor staff
March 14. 2007 8:00AM
Picture
Ed & Elaine Brown
A federal magistrate has told supporters of Ed and Elaine Brown that Elaine would probably spend the rest of her life in prison.
According to four witnesses who attended a hearing Monday to support David Ridley, a libertarian activist in court defending an unrelated act of civil disobedience, Magistrate Judge James Muirhead grew frustrated with Ridley and told him that he was starting to sound like the Browns.
The dozen or so supporters, many wearing T-shirts labeled, "I support Ed and Elaine Brown," began cheering when Muirhead made the comparison.
"The judge said it was terrible that people would clap for somebody who was breaking the law," said Bernie Bastian, who attended the hearing. "(He said) it was a shame people were supporting people who were breaking the law and destroyed government property and that Elaine Brown, because of what they did, was likely to spend the rest of her life in jail."
Muirhead was not the judge who presided over the Browns' trial in January. Throughout the proceedings, they argued that they had no obligation to pay federal taxes. They have since holed up in their Plainfield home, threatening violence if federal officials try to arrest them. When Elaine Brown joined her husband there, she removed an electronic monitoring bracelet, likely the federal property that Muirhead referred to.
The Browns are scheduled for sentencing in April.
Through his clerk, Muirhead said he could not comment on the hearing, because of the rules governing judicial ethics.
After making the declaration, witnesses said, Muirhead quickly left the courtroom. So quickly that court staff did not have time to ask the gallery to rise for his exit.
Ridley didn't know if his hearing was over until a bailiff told him he'd hear from the court by mail. "I didn't think he really fully explained to me if I could leave," he said.
MARGOT SANGER-KATZ
??? judicial ethics"
Quote from: John on March 14, 2007, 10:03 AM NHFT
??? judicial ethics"
That means he didn't want to talk about it ::)
maybe his judicial ethics kept him from coming over the desk at me when I was clapping and giving a thumbs up sign every time he mentioned Elaine Brown. :)
"So quickly that court staff did not have time to ask the gallery to rise for his exit."
Maybe the black-robed-courtroom- jester wanted to get out of the room before seeing THE PUBLIC - CONSCIOUSLY - NOT STAND for his holiness.
I feel kinda bad that I didn't stand for the judge.
After all Dave asked us to be respectful.
:angel1:
Sorry Dave, I just couldn't do it.
:brave: :protest: :smitten: :grouphug: :bow: :bow: :bow: :BangHead: :book1: :evil5: :evil5: :evil5: :headbang: :hello: :hello2: :icon_king: :icon_jokercolor: :icon_puke_l: :icon_salut: :icon_scratch: :icon_drummer: :independence: :icon_cheers2: :secession: :pitchforked: :icon_motor: :neener: :peace: :sunny:
I have never stood for that judge.
With all do respect: I really do feel sorry for the judge (and his gang.) Maybe, "They know not what they do."
It occurs to me that last Dave was ordered to appear before before this guy and this guy was suggesting that he would rule against Dave - but that Dave could appeal - this guy is trying to find a way to "wash his hands" of this case.
Shame on him. I really do feel sorry.
I have no sympathies for the judge he took an oath that he would preserve and defend the constitution and he is not following through with that oath. My feelings are that he is violating his honor and he should be treated like the scum that he has shown himself to be.
Margot was so hung up on "Elaine Brown" that she didn't even write the story on why Dave and 22 other people were there in the first place!
She didn't want to give wind to Dada's sail.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on March 14, 2007, 12:16 PM NHFT
She didn't want to give wind to Dada's sail.
It's likely she was there to cover Dada's hearing. Otherwise why would she bother? It's not like there was any Ed and Elaine stuff planned. Or maybe she just had nothing better to do than hang out at the federal courthouse and see if anything interesting happened? Not likely.
Quote from: error on March 14, 2007, 12:19 PM NHFT
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on March 14, 2007, 12:16 PM NHFT
She didn't want to give wind to Dada's sail.
It's likely she was there to cover Dada's hearing. Otherwise why would she bother? It's not like there was any Ed and Elaine stuff planned. Or maybe she just had nothing better to do than hang out at the federal courthouse and see if anything interesting happened? Not likely.
She was not there... as usual she read it here first.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on March 14, 2007, 12:23 PM NHFT
Quote from: error on March 14, 2007, 12:19 PM NHFT
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on March 14, 2007, 12:16 PM NHFT
She didn't want to give wind to Dada's sail.
It's likely she was there to cover Dada's hearing. Otherwise why would she bother? It's not like there was any Ed and Elaine stuff planned. Or maybe she just had nothing better to do than hang out at the federal courthouse and see if anything interesting happened? Not likely.
She was not there... as usual she read it here first.
Too bad she does not cite her sources that might get NHFree.com some press
There was Ed & Elaine Brown support here ALL DAY. Dave's first sign was . . .
One would only need to have driven by to see that. Look at the pictures.
Read the shirts . . . etc. etc.
One can not always blame the media for everything.
She chose not to mention that Dada's case was also dealing with the IRS. The story was plenty short, not like she didn't have enough space. It was relevent because of the IRS protest connection. Omission is a powerful tool.
I hate it when John gets all maudlin on us ;D
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on March 14, 2007, 01:02 PM NHFT
I hate it when John gets all maudlin on us ;D
OK I've heard that term used before, but never quite knew what it exactly meant...
Quote
maudlin |?m?dlin| adjective self-pityingly or tearfully sentimental, often through drunkenness : the drink made her maudlin | a maudlin ballad. See note at sentimental . ORIGIN late Middle English (as a noun denoting Mary Magdalen): from Old French Madeleine, from ecclesiastical Latin Magdalena (see magdalene ). The sense of the adjective derives from allusion to pictures of Mary Magdalen weeping.
Not my vision of our friend John. :)
I would have hung around the courtroom, too, in Dave's case. Even after the baliff dismissed him. It's good there were witnesses for that.
I still can't believe the judge bailed like that. :fencing:
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on March 14, 2007, 01:05 PM NHFT
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on March 14, 2007, 01:02 PM NHFT
I hate it when John gets all maudlin on us ;D
OK I've heard that term used before, but never quite knew what it exactly meant...
Quote
maudlin |?m?dlin| adjective self-pityingly or tearfully sentimental, often through drunkenness : the drink made her maudlin | a maudlin ballad. See note at sentimental . ORIGIN late Middle English (as a noun denoting Mary Magdalen): from Old French Madeleine, from ecclesiastical Latin Magdalena (see magdalene ). The sense of the adjective derives from allusion to pictures of Mary Magdalen weeping.
Not my vision of our friend John. :)
I was applying it to his sentimentality, regarding Margot
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on March 14, 2007, 12:23 PM NHFT
Quote from: error on March 14, 2007, 12:19 PM NHFT
It's likely she was there to cover Dada's hearing. Otherwise why would she bother? It's not like there was any Ed and Elaine stuff planned. Or maybe she just had nothing better to do than hang out at the federal courthouse and see if anything interesting happened? Not likely.
She was not there... as usual she read it here first.
Apparently I'm giving this "journalist" too much credit. I wonder if her editor knows about this.
John is a sentimental guy... I think that goes along with being a nice guy.
John, just remember that the reporter is more interested in her future access to the power players than anything else. Remember how the reporter in New London behaved... she was taking notes and acting all interested in what you had to say. The article she wrote hardly seemed to cover the same event we were at. Their job is to shine you on to get you to open up and afterwards they can decide their version of events.
She was aware of Dada's trial and the issue it involved, but told him she would be out of the area.
Dada called Margot .... she then talked to me, Joe Haas, and Bernie.
She will learn that you better not turn your back on us .... we just might make a Judge loose it. :)
If anyone else has some detailed notes or recollections I would appreciate their posting...
picking up where I left off...
Once I got up into the court area and out of the area where spectators hang out, the judge had his court (reporter/clerk/I don't know what her job was) handed me a piece of paper. The judge said this was a financial affidavit, and he asked me to fill it out. I did not take it when she handed it to me; she put it on the table. I glanced at it and said "I am not eager to fill out a financial affidavit."
Judge Muirhead sighed and asked me some other questions. He wanted to know if I was employed. I said yes. He asked me where. I refused to answer on the grounds that naming my employer could be misconstrued as speaking for my employer. He asked if I had the means to pay. I said I did. He asked why I had not paid. I told him I was eager and happy to explain to him why I hadn't paid.
Reading from a prepared statement, I said:
"I have not paid the fine because it appears to be a blatant violation of Constituional amendments One and Ten." Amendment One guarantees the right of petition, Ten prohibits the U.S. from exercising any power not delegated by the Constitution. I take this to mean they must have at least some indirect Constitutional authorization to levy this fine. I said "Refusing to pay the fine is my way of delivering a message to you and everyone in this room. Stop violating the constitution. When courts violate the Constitution it becomes the rsponsibility of average people to step in and protect it. I have just stepped in for that purpose, if you want to hurt the constitution today; I will not help you in this manner."
Somewhere in here I gestured to all the Federal employees in the room and stated that they had taken an oath to the Constitution and should begin following it. I wasn't very eloquent about this and I think I may in my improvisation have overstated the case; i.e. I am not sure that *every* Federal employee takes the oath, but anyway...
The judge at some point in here responded to the Constitutional complaint by saying that laws are passed by the Congress and signed by the president, etc... I told him I was not asking for a law but for a Constitutional passage which would, at least vaguely, authorize the law or authorize him to levy this fine. I said if he could provide this I would consider paying the fine.
As in the past, he failed to provide such a passage and somewhere along in here began encouraging me to obtain an attorney. I informed him that I had reservations about attorneys because they are somewhat beholden to the State. He argued with me on this point with some eloquence and, I thought, without undue exaggeration. He acknowledged that attorneys are officers of the court but said they serve both their clients and the court. I did not get into the whole "no man can serve to masters" argument, and I appreciated him being willing to argue the point. I said "I shouldn't have to be hiring an attorney, because I shouldn't be here." At some point along in here I reiterated my displeasure with the failure to receive an answer to my Constitutional question. I reminded him that I had brought it up at the November hearing, that he had failed to answer it then and that he was failing to answer it now.
Contempt of court came up as a topic, and the Judge informed me that I could face 30 days in jail for that. At some point I indicated that I could not in good conscience pay the fine without a Constitutional authorization, since I had promised I wouldn't. I said I would consider performing comunity service if it was liberty-friendly in nature. He said this would have been an option if I had brought it up during the trial, but now it was a contempt of court issue and he was going to ask for some reason why the prosecution should not proceed with contempt of court charges. He said they were guaranteed to proceed.
He offered to provide me a public defender. He said there were three he had in mind in New Hampshire who were among the best and that I would enjoy speaking with them. I replied that I would very much enjoy meeting them but that I did not feel comfortable forcing the taxpayer to underwrite my defense.
There was some discussion of the government's ability or lack thereof to defend individuals from itself. I said that I knew it had been done, that I had just seen him do it ten minutes ago in the previous case. I think I praised him for this, if not...I meant to. But I reiterated my moral qualms about accepting a public defender. I thanked him for offering one...perhaps that was going out on a limb a bit on his part, since they are supposed to be for indigent people. But I'm not asking him to go out on a limb. I'm asking him to obey Amendment Ten.
This came up again somehow, and Judge Muirhead moved to put me on the defensive. He asked me to show *him* something in the Constitution. Although I don't remember exactly how he phrased the question. So I quoted Amendment Ten.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor denied by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
I don't remember if it happened immediately, or if it was after some further demand on my part for a Constitutional passage authorizing his action, but the Judge suddenly started to become angry.
He said "do you know who you are starting to sound like?" He said I sounded like Elaine Brown (or perhaps he said Ed and Elaine Brown, I'm not sure.) At this the "Rebel Alliance" side of the courtroom erupted in applause. I could hear Russell saying "yayyy!" It was all very lighthearted. And it got a response. Looking past me at the celebrating audience, Judge Muirhad snapped a response that will likely be commented on for some time to come. Here is my recollection of it:
He said something like "you folks are treating Elaine like she is a hero but she's a criminal. She's destroyed Federal property and she's probably going to spend the rest of her life in prison."
Then with equal suddenness he sprang from his dias and stormed out of the room, seemingly with half of his acolytes. There barely was time for an "all rise."
Somehow it seemed that he had given instructions to the prosecuter however, I don't remember whether this happened before or after his Elaine Brown statement.
Then the prosecutor came over and introduced himself to me. We shook hands with him, and I said to him that I was glad to know him but wished it could be under different circumstances. I said it did not come natural to me to accuse people of violating the Constitution. He said "That is what it is," and that I was entitled to my opinion.
He showed me copies of the statues and asked me if I would like one. I said "sure!" However in restrospect I wish that I had declined his assistance, since we are supposed to not take help from the State, right?
Then we left. On the way out I had an interesting conversation with the man who is perhaps my chief tormentor in this case, Federal Protective Services official named Mike Therien. I just call him Colonel, since he used to be in the Air Force.
I will plan to recount that later from my notes.
I actually didn't call margot but she did call me.
<< how about now?
http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=468&Itemid=36 >>
I'm sure it's fine!
thanks russell.
yea ... that judge didn't like seeing me over your shoulder giving a thumbs up to any mention of the Browns. :)
yea baby yea ... that Elaine Brown is one swingin cat. :icon_thumleft:
I have no qualms about others failing to stand for a judge. I stand for judge muirhead because I genuinely like the guy, and think he has done some good things considering how wicked his system is. Kind of like a tepid oscar schindler LOL. I stand for most people I know when they enter the room, unless there is a crush of people.
I sometimes feel bad too, asking him this question that seems to generate such wild emotions and annoy him so much, but it must be asked and it should be answered:
Where does the Constitution, even vaguely, authorize his institution to levy this fine? If it is not authorized, then it is disallowed by Amendment Ten. I don't need an attorney to know that or say it, and I don't want an attorney to stand next to me and quash that message under the incomprehensable weight of legalese.
Also in fairness to judge muirhead, if I recall correctly, he did not leave so fast that the baliff was unable to say all rise...I'm pretty sure the baliff said all rise before the judge was out of the room.
the article says otherwise.
If I recall correctly from my conversation with margot I indicated to her that the court staff barely had time to say all rise, but I didn't say that they *failed* to give that "order"
not that the order is universally obeyed LOL.
That's the way I remember it too, Dada.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on March 14, 2007, 07:51 PM NHFT
"I have not paid the fine because it appears to be a blatant violation of Constituional amendments One and Ten." Amendment One guarantees the right of petition, Ten prohibits the U.S. from exercising any power not delegated by the Constitution. I take this to mean they must have at least some indirect Constitutional authorization to levy this fine. I said "Refusing to pay the fine is my way of delivering a message to you and everyone in this room. Stop violating the constitution. When courts violate the Constitution it becomes the rsponsibility of average people to step in and protect it. I have just stepped in for that purpose, if you want to hurt the constitution today; I will not help you in this manner."
An LTE from you to the various newspapers might go a long way to
accurately informing many more people about what you are trying to accomplish.
Handy links to the LTE submission emails/forms are at:
http://www.nhliberty.org/lte
I think that it is telling that the judge asked you if you could cite something in the Constitution that allows for what you contend. It was clear to me he is not one that believes that the Constitution restricts government, but believes that our rights are only what the Constitution states. Considering I have heard the same from other law school graduates, I am not suprised he has it exactly backwards.
My guess is he is a "New Deal" liberal... I have heard the same beliefs out of Law professors of his era.
Nahh, I believe he knew his authority was at gamble and acted like that crazy so to not reveal his ilegitimate force that he practice in the name of the fiction called government. I think he feared that the audience could have percieved that the fine is illegitimate and so would stop paying fines which would result in the end that his job would become less needed and because his living depends on that the public don't get that idea his whole livelyhood was at risk if he would have continued this loosing argument.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on March 14, 2007, 07:51 PM NHFT
He said something like "you folks are treating Elaine like she is a hero but she's a criminal. She's destroyed Federal property and she's probably going to spend the rest of her life in prison."
He said four things about Elaine Brown
She destroyed federal property.
She violated her probation.
She is going to have fines of $500,000,
and will spend the rest of her life in prison.
He added something like, "I don't see why you people are celebrating that".
Quote from: DadaOrwell on March 14, 2007, 07:51 PM NHFT
Somehow it seemed that he had given instructions to the prosecuter however, I don't remember whether this happened before or after his Elaine Brown statement.
The instructions to the prosecutor happened before you suggested public service, he explained that
this hearing was "to show cause why you haven't paid the fine" then after the prosecutor filed a complaint or writ or something with the court they would schedule
the next hearing to "show why you shouldn't be held in contempt for failing to pay the fine".
Quote from: TackleTheWorld on March 14, 2007, 09:54 PM NHFT
The instructions to the prosecutor happened before you suggested public service, he explained that this hearing was "to show cause why you haven't paid the fine" then after the prosecutor filed a complaint or writ or something with the court they would schedule the next hearing to "show why you shouldn't be held in contempt for failing to pay the fine".
Because of these goddamned pieces of paper? No?
(http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/images/visit_reopening_panorama_750.jpg)
here's a more spell-checked version of the tale and more or less all in one place
---
Ok recounting from the beginning as best I can.... we had a total of 15 turn out to demonstrate, but two of these missed us and arrived after we'd left to eat...they missed the hearing as well. We spread to all four corners and John circled the walls of Jericho a few times then settled down to play some 'gitar.
Total turnout was 22 including the trial , the demo, one guy who joined us for hours after just biking past and four who arrived late. not everyone at the demo made the hearing, not everyone at the hearing made the demo.
In the fairly light traffic at that spot I counted 35 favorable responses to our demonstration, 4 negative over a 3 hr period not couting waves. We had an eclectic sign mix, the ubiquitous IRS with an x through it, an NHFREE.COM sign, 5 flags including one upside down u.s. flag to signal the nation is in distress from TOO MUCH WASHINGTON. We had a "feds: quit" sign, and russell wore an orange prison jumpsuit with a abu-gharib style torture hood over his head. He wore a sandwich board that said "less torture please!"
Once we went in they got to us within about 15 minutes, after we clapped for the prosecutor's defeat in the silly "disturbance of rusty litter" case before. Oh, there were about 10 of us there in the courtroom on our side, 8 of whom I think were there before it started. when judge muirhead came in I stood up and maybe 3 of the others among us did the same. Of course, shortly afterward we were reminded why Muirhead is perhaps one of the few fed judges halfway worthy of that, as he tore up the government prosecutor over a frivolous case.
Then they asked if I was in the room and when I said I was, the (clerk/secretary?) asked if I would like to come up forward. I said "not desperately." that got some laughs, the loudest of which seemed to be from judge muirhead himself LOL
Once I got up into the court area and out of the area where spectators hang out, the judge had his court (reporter/clerk/I don't know what her job was) handed me a piece of paper. The judge said this was a financial affidavit, and he asked me to fill it out. I did not take it when she handed it to me; she put it on the table. I glanced at it and said "I am not eager to fill out a financial affidavit."
Judge Muirhead sighed and asked me some other questions. He wanted to know if I was employed. I said yes. He asked me where. I refused to answer on the grounds that naming my employer could be misconstrued as speaking for my employer. He asked if I had the means to pay. I said I did. He asked why I had not paid. I told him I was eager and happy to explain to him why I hadn't paid.
Reading from a prepared statement, I said:
"I have not paid the fine because it appears to be a blatant violation of Constitutional amendments One and Ten." Amendment One guarantees the right of petition, Ten prohibits the U.S. from exercising any power not delegated by the Constitution. I take this to mean they must have at least some indirect Constitutional authorization to levy this fine. I said "Refusing to pay the fine is my way of delivering a message to you and everyone in this room. Stop violating the constitution. When courts violate the Constitution it becomes the responsibility of average people to step in and protect it. I have just stepped in for that purpose, if you want to hurt the constitution today; I will not help you in this manner."
Somewhere in here I gestured to all the Federal employees in the room and stated that they had taken an oath to the Constitution and should begin following it. I wasn't very eloquent about this and I think I may in my improvisation have overstated the case; i.e. I am not sure that *every* Federal employee takes the oath, but anyway...
The judge at some point in here responded to the Constitutional complaint by saying that laws are passed by the Congress and signed by the president, etc... I told him I was not asking for a law but for a Constitutional passage which would, at least vaguely, authorize the law or authorize him to levy this fine. I said if he could provide this I would consider paying the fine.
As in the past, he failed to provide such a passage and somewhere along in here began encouraging me to obtain an attorney. I informed him that I had reservations about attorneys because they are somewhat beholden to the State. He argued with me on this point with some eloquence and, I thought, without undue exaggeration. He acknowledged that attorneys are officers of the court but said they serve both their clients and the court. I did not get into the whole "no man can serve to masters" argument, and I appreciated him being willing to argue the point. I said "I shouldn't have to be hiring an attorney, because I shouldn't be here." At some point along in here I reiterated my displeasure with the failure to receive an answer to my Constitutional question. I reminded him that I had brought it up at the November hearing, that he had failed to answer it then and that he was failing to answer it now.
Contempt of court came up as a topic, and the Judge informed me that I could face 30 days in jail for that. At some point I indicated that I could not in good conscience pay the fine without a Constitutional authorization, since I had promised I wouldn't. I said I would consider performing community service if it was liberty-friendly in nature. He said this would have been an option if I had brought it up during the trial, but now it was a contempt of court issue and he was going to ask for some reason why the prosecution should not proceed with contempt of court charges. He said they were guaranteed to proceed.
He offered to provide me a public defender. He said there were three he had in mind in New Hampshire who were among the best and that I would enjoy speaking with them. I replied that I would very much enjoy meeting them but that I did not feel comfortable forcing the taxpayer to underwrite my defense.
There was some discussion of the government's ability or lack thereof to defend individuals from itself. I said that I knew it had been done, that I had just seen him do it ten minutes ago in the previous case. I think I praised him for this, if not...I meant to. But I reiterated my moral qualms about accepting a public defender. I thanked him for offering one...perhaps that was going out on a limb a bit on his part, since they are supposed to be for indigent people. But I'm not asking him to go out on a limb. I'm asking him to obey Amendment Ten.
This came up again somehow, and Judge Muirhead moved to put me on the defensive. He asked me to show *him* something in the Constitution. Although I don't remember exactly how he phrased the question. So I quoted Amendment Ten.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor denied by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
I don't remember if it happened immediately, or if it was after some further demand on my part for a Constitutional passage authorizing his action, but the Judge suddenly started to become angry.
He said "do you know who you are starting to sound like?" He said I sounded like Elaine Brown (or perhaps he said Ed and Elaine Brown, I'm not sure.) At this the "Rebel Alliance" side of the courtroom erupted in applause. I could hear Russell saying "yayyy!" It was all very lighthearted. And it got a response. Looking past me at the celebrating audience, Judge Muirhad snapped a response that will likely be commented on for some time to come. Here is my recollection of it:
He said something like "you folks are treating Elaine like she is a hero but she's a criminal. She's destroyed Federal property and she's probably going to spend the rest of her life in prison."
Then with equal suddenness he sprang from his dais and stormed out of the room, seemingly with half of his acolytes. There barely was time for an "all rise."
Somehow it seemed that he had given instructions to the prosecutor however, I don't remember whether this happened before or after his Elaine Brown statement.
Then the prosecutor came over and introduced himself to me. We shook hands with him, and I said to him that I was glad to know him but wished it could be under different circumstances. I said it did not come natural to me to accuse people of violating the Constitution. He said "That is what it is," and that I was entitled to my opinion.
He showed me copies of the statues and asked me if I would like one. I said "sure!" However in retrospect I wish that I had declined his assistance, since we are supposed to not take help from the State, right?
Then we left. On the way out I had an interesting conversation with the man who is perhaps my chief tormentor in this case, Federal Protective Services official named Mike Therien. I just call him Colonel, since he used to be in the Air Force.
I will plan to recount that later from my notes.
Let me know when you want me to put up your version of the event on the Keene Free Press site.
I called the court clerk's office to see when Dada's next hearing is. They said that before it's scheduled, a motion needs to be filed and then maybe some order issued. Neither of those things have happened yet.
What's the name of this court event? How do I reference it properly?
"In the court action 3/12/07 regardig Dave Ridley vs. U.S."
It wasn't a trial, right?
It was a hearing to find out why Ridley hadn't paid.
I guess I'm really asking how do I call and ask for a transcript?
I want to see how the clerk annotated that the judge abandoned ship.
I would think asking for the Ridley hearing on 3/12 would be enough. They have about 5 things happening in there all day.
but they told me they work really hard LOL
in fairness they were pretty attentive and polite when I told them I might need to call in sick...and then griped to them about them eating up tax money LOL. they checked back in on me a day later when they didn't receive anything, to make sure they hadn't lost any faxes or anything.
they want to dot the i's and cross the t's I guess.
Last I checked the case was called "David Ridley vs. United States" I think -that sounds like an even battle!
I think they'll have some idea who I am by now if you ask.
She seemed a bit put out by me asking, like this wasn't the first time she'd been asked the question.
I think it's strange that they haven't set a court date. I think they've given up. ;D
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 15, 2007, 08:21 PM NHFT
She seemed a bit put out by me asking, like this wasn't the first time she'd been asked the question.
What was their answer to your question?
Maybe when a person wants to CHECK ON THE RULES of this Railroad Game -with the chief engineer - BEFORE playing the game/getting on the train, and the engineer doesn't want to answer those questions, he just figures it is a little less embarrassing to just play with others?
We hear about/talk about "Show Us The Law."
Methinks Dada came prepared with questions about "the law"/The Rules of the Game, and just wants to know if everyone is on the same page.
Maybe sometimes black-robed-bureaucrats just lose paperwork?
Quote from: Dan on March 22, 2007, 07:50 AM NHFT
What was their answer to your question?
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 15, 2007, 08:22 AM NHFT
I called the court clerk's office to see when Dada's next hearing is. They said that before it's scheduled, a motion needs to be filed and then maybe some order issued. Neither of those things have happened yet.
Maybe we should let that gang "forget" about this little mistake?
Maybe that is what the judge intended - until one badge & gun wearing ICE bureaucrat decided to flex his mussels, because he apparently has nothing important to do?
By "this little mistake," I mean THEIR MISTAKE.
I could see how that judge would not want to replay that last hearing .... next time there would just be more people there. :)
And many more - PUBLIC - questions about The Rules of The Railroad Game.
All aboard? No???? Um, what did I do with that paperwork?
Quote from: DadaOrwell on March 15, 2007, 07:49 PM NHFT
.
Last I checked the case was called "David Ridley vs. United States" I think -that sounds like an even battle!
It is probably US vs David Ridley.... they are suing you.
i am not into arguing law with lawyers but I'll argue the constitution with them since that I do understand somewhat, maybe a little better than some of them. It trumps all the fed laws and rules anyway and they know they're wrong.... otherwise they would have answered back with a constitutional argument and maybe obtained my compliance.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on March 22, 2007, 08:19 PM NHFT
i am not into arguing law with lawyers but I'll argue the constitution with them since that I do understand somewhat, maybe a little better than some of them. It trumps all the fed laws and rules anyway and they know they're wrong.... otherwise they would have answered back with a constitutional argument and maybe obtained my compliance.
(Warning, we're going into goddamned piece of paper land again.)
There's something you need to know before you walk into the courtroom again -- or for that matter, before anyone else does.
You may believe that the Constitution trumps all other laws, and that may even be true, but in the minds of federal judges, court decisions trump the Constitution.
Still nothing from the court? Sure seems like Ridley backed them down.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on March 22, 2007, 08:19 PM NHFT
I'll argue the constitution with them since that I do understand somewhat, maybe a little better than some of them.
I hate to be the one to break it to you... but they don't agree with you on that point!
Quote from: d_goddard on March 29, 2007, 06:44 PM NHFT
Quote from: DadaOrwell on March 22, 2007, 08:19 PM NHFT
I'll argue the constitution with them since that I do understand somewhat, maybe a little better than some of them.
I hate to be the one to break it to you... but they don't agree with you on that point!
Quote from: error on March 22, 2007, 09:01 PM NHFT
You may believe that the Constitution trumps all other laws, and that may even be true, but in the minds of federal judges, court decisions trump the Constitution.
It's been one month, and no word from the court. I'm declaring Dada the winner in the next issue of the KFP.
You know you're in a revolution when you get re-threatened with 30 days in jail and forget to mention it for three days...
Anyhow last week I received a notice from the dept. of justice indicating i will probably have to appear at a petty violations docket in mid july, to show cause why I shouldn't be held in contempt of court for refusing to pay the $125 "distribution of handbills" fine.
kat has a copy of the scan of it and kat you are welcome to post it here.
This remains, what it always has been, a good hill to die on.
Such hoops to make a subject show respect for authoritah! ... Wonder how much all these court sessions cost them, not that I expect money-making to be the goal here.
They want an answer for why you won't submit to punishment - it seems that your answer that the court has no authority to fine you for petitioning for the redress of grievances wasn't acknowledged? Did they even bother trying to explain why they think they are in the right?
Here it is:
http://newhampshireunderground.com/page1.jpg
http://newhampshireunderground.com/page2.jpg
United States vs David Ridley
Damn the whole country has turned against you. Well at least a couple of guys in Concord doing business as the United States.
Wonder if we can fill the court to overflowing this time. :)
Hm. For making such a big deal out of contempt being shown for "the court", they sure are going out of their way to invite it!
Dada can go hole up with Ed and Elaine. :)
dada banneded by ed from property for being honest with him!
Quote from: DadaOrwell on May 28, 2007, 09:15 AM NHFT
dada banneded by ed from property for being honest with him!
You can come here Dada but no bleach it makes me sneeze! ;D We have a dishwasher anyway. :D
Quote from: DadaOrwell on May 28, 2007, 09:15 AM NHFT
dada banneded by ed from property for being honest with him!
Dada might do what feds have failed.......drive them out
Quote from: DadaOrwell on May 27, 2007, 09:33 PM NHFT
a good hill to die on.
I would prefer you not die, of course...
Dada is already winning. Just check out the first sentence of the second page of the scan: "Wherefore, pursuant to Title 18, Untied States Code Section 401(3) . . . "
Dada's starting to untie the binds of the Union.
Quote from: raineyrocks on May 28, 2007, 09:18 AM NHFT
Quote from: DadaOrwell on May 28, 2007, 09:15 AM NHFT
dada banneded by ed from property for being honest with him!
You can come here Dada but no bleach it makes me sneeze! ;D We have a dishwasher anyway. :D
do u live near plainfield?
I like Judy Miller...altho i've never met her.
I wouldn't criticize a reporter who went to jail for along time for refusing to give up sources to the State.
but maybe you're talking about a different case
So do you want protesters there for this, Dada.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on May 29, 2007, 09:33 AM NHFT
Quote from: raineyrocks on May 28, 2007, 09:18 AM NHFT
Quote from: DadaOrwell on May 28, 2007, 09:15 AM NHFT
dada banneded by ed from property for being honest with him!
You can come here Dada but no bleach it makes me sneeze! ;D We have a dishwasher anyway. :D
do u live near plainfield?
No, I live in Campton near Plymouth.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on June 17, 2007, 09:31 PM NHFT
So do you want protesters there for this, Dada.
yes i do want demonstrators assuming the court date is still on. i'll probably also write an article, in that case.
i'm kind of vague on whether i really have a court date then or not. it was requested by the prosecutor but it may not have been granted. standby for details!
Interesting :)
If it's July 16, there's about a 90% chance I can be there.
Fed. Marshalls just came to the door to give Dave a summons for court on 7/17 10 am.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 02, 2007, 10:36 AM NHFT
Fed. Marshalls just came to the door to give Dave a summons for court on 7/17 10 am.
They have to do something while they're waiting for Ed Brown.
Very good chance I can make it 7/17, but as before, I refuse to enter the courthouse. I will be more than happy to demonstrate outside and ensure the safety of courtroom attendees' electronic devices (and other things they don't allow inside), though.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 02, 2007, 10:36 AM NHFT
Fed. Marshalls just came to the door to give Dave a summons for court on 7/17 10 am.
"Dave's not here, man!"
;D
Will this be the Fed court in Concord, again?
Quote from: KBCraig on July 02, 2007, 11:42 AM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 02, 2007, 10:36 AM NHFT
Fed. Marshalls just came to the door to give Dave a summons for court on 7/17 10 am.
"Dave's not here, man!"
;D
Good one Cheech good one!
Yessir.
ya me be at the federal compound again....demonstration good
Not that it will do any good, but I've just sent the following letter to the two Persecuters listed in the summons. Dada, do you know which Judge will hear your contempt charge? I may not be in that part of the country yet but I can type and make phone calls from Wisconsin.
Mr. Colantuono and Mr. Irish,
I find this consistent attack on Mr. Ridley (case #07MJ22) not only a phenomenal waste of time and tax money but also an insult to all Americans and the supposed freedoms we share. In the first place Mr. Ridley's original "offense" of handing out flyers to IRS officials could have been much more effectively handled by the offended agents simply tossing out the flyer. The prosecution of Mr. Ridley was obscene and this added action seems to me to be purely punitive.
In addition to being Federal officers, you are also citizens of this country. You too well feel the effects of the actions you take. Please consider dropping this frivolous action against the very peaceful and honest Mr. Ridley.
Thank you for your time,
Mark Sahba
BTW, he's being threatened with up to $5000 fine and 30 days in jail for not paying the $125 fine.
It could be tight, but I might actually be able to show. That'll be right around the time I'm planning to arrive in N.H. I have to check with my landlord.
90% chance I will be there
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 03, 2007, 05:44 AM NHFT
BTW, he's being threatened with up to $5000 fine and 30 days in jail for not paying the $125 fine.
Wow! :worship: See, this is what happens when you don't bow down before the king.
I know a guy who works at HUD. He's a Lawyer. Anyone surprised that he sees nothing wrong with what the Feds are doing to Dada. His response whenever I point out this kind of obscene behavior is always "well, you must not have all the facts." When I pointed out the added contempt attack he said, well, he did not pay the fine did he?" I keep forgetting that to Lawyers, the LAW takes precedent over humanity.
Quote from: Revmar on July 03, 2007, 10:40 AM NHFT
to Lawyers, the LAW takes precedent over humanity.
YES
Remember that.
It is one of the key things to learn to become an effective liberty advocate: the Attorney General, and all the minions she sends to lobby for draconian ant-freedom legislation, are all lawyers. Hence, they act like robots: totally predictable. It's like fighting NPC's in a videogame that has a piss-poor AI engine.
Should you ever want to kill or pass a bill in the legislature, by (a) doing some research ahead of time and (b) constructing your questions properly, you can make them say exactly the words you want the legislators to hear.
Quote from: d_goddard on July 03, 2007, 11:58 AM NHFT
Remember that.
It is one of the key things to learn to become an effective liberty advocate: the Attorney General, and all the minions she sends to lobby for draconian ant-freedom legislation, are all lawyers. Hence, they act like robots: totally predictable. It's like fighting NPC's in a videogame that has a piss-poor AI engine.
Should you ever want to kill or pass a bill in the legislature, by (a) doing some research ahead of time and (b) constructing your questions properly, you can make them say exactly the words you want the legislators to hear.
Confused. Aren't you the one always begging people to get a lawyer?
Quote from: Revmar on July 03, 2007, 10:40 AM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 03, 2007, 05:44 AM NHFT
BTW, he's being threatened with up to $5000 fine and 30 days in jail for not paying the $125 fine.
Wow! :worship: See, this is what happens when you don't bow down before the king.
I know a guy who works at HUD. He's a Lawyer. Anyone surprised that he sees nothing wrong with what the Feds are doing to Dada. His response whenever I point out this kind of obscene behavior is always "well, you must not have all the facts." When I pointed out the added contempt attack he said, well, he did not pay the fine did he?" I keep forgetting that to Lawyers, the LAW takes precedent over humanity.
Please amend your last sentence to read: "I keep forgetting that to MOST lawyers, the LAW takes precedence over humanity."
I, for one, never respond to tales of government abuses with, "Well, you must not have all of the facts." But, then again, I don't work for the federal government, let alone an unconstitutional agency like HUD (where in the Constitution does it authorize Congress to legislate with regard to Housing and Urban Development? Could something possibly get more local / state than housing and urban development?).
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 03, 2007, 12:00 PM NHFT
Quote from: d_goddard on July 03, 2007, 11:58 AM NHFT
the Attorney General, and all the minions she sends to lobby for draconian ant-freedom legislation
Confused. Aren't you the one always begging people to get a lawyer?
The lawyers who work for the AG's office are bureaucrats, whose salaries are paid for by extortion, and who purport to work on behalf of "the public" while taking away the freedoms of individual members of said public.
This is in stark contrast to a lawyer that one voluntarily hires as one's own counsel and advocate.
The difference is exactly the same as the difference between a Law Enforcement Officer versus a private bodyguard.
Quote from: d_goddard on July 03, 2007, 08:11 PM NHFT
The difference is exactly the same as the difference between a Law Enforcement Officer versus a private bodyguard.
We'll make an anarchist out of you yet! ;D
Quote from: Spencer on July 03, 2007, 06:49 PM NHFT
Please amend your last sentence to read: "I keep forgetting that to MOST lawyers, the LAW takes precedence over humanity."
I, for one, never respond to tales of government abuses with, "Well, you must not have all of the facts." But, then again, I don't work for the federal government, let alone an unconstitutional agency like HUD (where in the Constitution does it authorize Congress to legislate with regard to Housing and Urban Development? Could something possibly get more local / state than housing and urban development?).
You are right. I so amend my statement. I forgot- Never ever speak in absolutes. Never. ;)
Quote from: Revmar on July 04, 2007, 12:50 AM NHFT
Quote from: Spencer on July 03, 2007, 06:49 PM NHFT
Please amend your last sentence to read: "I keep forgetting that to MOST lawyers, the LAW takes precedence over humanity."
I, for one, never respond to tales of government abuses with, "Well, you must not have all of the facts." But, then again, I don't work for the federal government, let alone an unconstitutional agency like HUD (where in the Constitution does it authorize Congress to legislate with regard to Housing and Urban Development? Could something possibly get more local / state than housing and urban development?).
You are right. I so amend my statement. I forgot- Never ever speak in absolutes. Never. ;)
No problem; I'm just glad that I can be the exception to the rule. I almost always speak in absolutes. Almost always.
Quote from: error on July 04, 2007, 12:36 AM NHFT
Quote from: d_goddard on July 03, 2007, 08:11 PM NHFT
The difference is exactly the same as the difference between a Law Enforcement Officer versus a private bodyguard.
We'll make an anarchist out of you yet! ;D
What makes you think I'm not?
Someone you trust is one of us.
Dada, it is clear from your prior appearances that the judge doesn't care about your arguments. Have you considered an alternative approach?
http://adventuresinlegalland.com
http://thinkfree.ca
Interesting article about "persons" and court...
http://freetalklive.com/temp/Birth%20certificate%20article%201.pdf
I've looked into that stuff and didn't find the ideas very appealing because of their complex nature....i only made it 10 minutes into the think free video. however if a lot of people do it and have luck with it I might tag along.
What: Demonstration outside Concord federal building, Dave Ridley in Fedcourt charged with petitioning govt. for redress of grievances
Why: Chance to show your opposition to Washington's attacks on the Constitution and on Dave
Where: U.S. District Court, 55 Pleasant St., Concord NH
When: 8:00 a.m. - 9:45 a.m. Tuesday July 17. Hearing scheduled to start 10:00 a.m., but could start much later.
Who: Activists from NHfree.com. Projected turnout: 20
Contacts: Kat Kanning 603.357.2049, Dave Ridley 603.721.1490, Michael Hampton 603.854.0856
Sent this to KFP for publication
------
Washington resumes assault on Nashua leafletter
Would you like to have fun and help defend the Constitution in Concord this month? If you're reading the online version of this article....you may still have time. If reading the print version, this story may still be of interest and is not likely to end anytime soon.
On July 17th I'll be appearing in Federal court charged, essentially, with petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. Starting at 8:00 a.m that day we'll rally in front of Concord's federal eyesore/building...then two hours later my hearing begins.
Last year, as you may recall from previous KFP articles, I went on trial before a Federal magistrate...charged with "distribution of handbills." I had entered the Nashua IRS office and handed flyers to the employees there, asking "Is it right to work for the Internal Robbery Squadron?" The flyers were, in the purest sense, petitions for a redress of grievances.
Subsequently Homeland Security officers came looking for me, attempted to issue a $125 citation and summoned me to court after I declined to accept the paperwork.
Thus far Washington has dragged me before their local magistrate twice, but I've told him I won't pay the fine or use lawyers, especially taxpayer funded lawyers. Judge Muirhead has now ordered me to appear again on July 17, to "show cause" why I should not be held in contempt of court, a charge which carries a maximum $5,000 / 30 day sentence.
I will tell him what I have always told him: I should not be held in contempt of court because his court is operating in contempt of the U.S. Constitution.
As you may be aware, Amendment One guarantees "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Amendment Ten tells us "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Citing a New Hampshire resident for handing petitions to government workers, at a government office, constitutes a breach of both amendments. I have four times asked Judge Muirhead to tell me where in the Constitution he is even vaguely delegated the power to levy or enforce such a citation. If there is an answer, he has refused to provide it.
The strange thing is I am not even a Constitutionalist. The USC gives too much power to Washington, and like Patrick Henry I would have voted against ratification if this were 1788. So why am *I* having to defend the Constitution from people who swore *they* would defend it?
Well I don't see any harm in asking Washington officials to keep their oaths to this imperfect document. Certainly if they did so, we'd have a better world. The only way I know to bring us closer to that world is to tell them "no" when they ask me to cooperate with them in violating the Constitution. I hope you will tell them no as well, in whatever ways you can.
Fortunately, Washington's power is not yet unlimited, and not all her ministers are evil people. I personally like most of the officials I have met at the Ugly Gray Compound in Concord. It's our job to open their minds to the possibility that they are doing something very wrong. Every time they drag me to court we make sure to have a party outside first, a demonstration to remind the human beings inside that concrete machine that they should put their oath in front of their orders.
I look forward to seeing you there on the 17th.
What: Demonstration outside Concord federal building
Why: Show your opposition to Washington's attacks on the Constitution
Where: U.S. District Court, 55 Pleasant St., Concord NH
When: 8:00 a.m. - 9:45 a.m. Tuesday July 17. Hearing scheduled to start 10:00 a.m., but could start much later.
Who: Activists from NHfree.com. Projected turnout: 20
Contacts: Dave Ridley 603.721.1490, Kat Kanning 603.357.2049, Michael Hampton 603.854.0856
Question: do you guys have any suggestions of ways we further demonstrate the degree to which resistence is stiffening? the first time they hauled me in we had maybe 18 demostrators or supporters....the second time it was more like 23...having more people there this time would be fun. But what else can we do? what else can *I* do?
also what else could we do that would make for good pics?
If someone can bring a video cam and is willing to post raw video to u-tube....
i can probably shoot one or two videos during the demonstration, edited in the camera so all you have to do is dub them.
rev thanks a bunch! It does good to my heart if nothing else LOL
also it sets an example and yes i think it does have an impact on them.
in answer to your question judge muirhead has heard all my other hearings and will presumably hear this one too.
Quote from: Revmar on July 03, 2007, 12:53 AM NHFT
Not that it will do any good, but I've just sent the following letter to the two Persecuters listed in the summons. Dada, do you know which Judge will hear your contempt charge? I may not be in that part of the country yet but I can type and make phone calls from Wisconsin.
Mr. Colantuono and Mr. Irish,
I find this consistent attack on Mr. Ridley (case #07MJ22) not only a phenomenal waste of time and tax money but also an insult to all Americans and the supposed freedoms we share. In the first place Mr. Ridley's original "offense" of handing out flyers to IRS officials could have been much more effectively handled by the offended agents simply tossing out the flyer. The prosecution of Mr. Ridley was obscene and this added action seems to me to be purely punitive.
In addition to being Federal officers, you are also citizens of this country. You too well feel the effects of the actions you take. Please consider dropping this frivolous action against the very peaceful and honest Mr. Ridley.
Thank you for your time,
Mark Sahba
Quote from: DadaOrwell on July 05, 2007, 08:54 AM NHFT
If someone can bring a video cam and is willing to post raw video to u-tube....
i can probably shoot one or two videos during the demonstration, edited in the camera so all you have to do is dub them.
we can bring Caleb's camera that day
I wouldn't miss this court date .... the judge might go nuts when he sees a few blue t-shirts :)
Quote from: DadaOrwell on July 05, 2007, 12:30 PM NHFT
rev thanks a bunch! It does good to my heart if nothing else LOL
also it sets an example and yes i think it does have an impact on them.
in answer to your question judge muirhead has heard all my other hearings and will presumably hear this one too.
Quote from: Revmar on July 03, 2007, 12:53 AM NHFT
Not that it will do any good, but I've just sent the following letter to the two Persecuters listed in the summons. Dada, do you know which Judge will hear your contempt charge? I may not be in that part of the country yet but I can type and make phone calls from Wisconsin.
Mr. Colantuono and Mr. Irish,
I find this consistent attack on Mr. Ridley (case #07MJ22) not only a phenomenal waste of time and tax money but also an insult to all Americans and the supposed freedoms we share. In the first place Mr. Ridley's original "offense" of handing out flyers to IRS officials could have been much more effectively handled by the offended agents simply tossing out the flyer. The prosecution of Mr. Ridley was obscene and this added action seems to me to be purely punitive.
In addition to being Federal officers, you are also citizens of this country. You too well feel the effects of the actions you take. Please consider dropping this frivolous action against the very peaceful and honest Mr. Ridley.
Thank you for your time,
Mark Sahba
Thanks Dada, I'll give Judge Muirhead a call on Monday. When looking for the number to call I ran across an intresting bit of- wait for it- bureaucracy. Who would have thought that would happen! The following are the "rules for calling":
Main Information Line:
603-225-1423
Please contact the appropriate case manager directly on any case-related matters. Refer to the suffix following the case number: SM is a Chief Judge McAuliffe case, PB Judge Barbadoro, JD Judge DiClerico, and JM Magistrate Judge Muirhead. Then, based on the case number-odd or even-contact the deputy listed below.
The Clerk's Office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. each business day. The telephone hours, during which the main public office number will be answered, are 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Should an emergency occur between 8:30 a.m. and 9 a.m. or between 4:00 p.m. and 5 p.m., an emergency contact number will be given on the answering system. Otherwise, please try to limit your calling to the usual telephone hours.
CASES ASSIGNED TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE MUIRHEAD - CASE SUFFIX JM
Jan Bushold Case Manager: Cases ending in numbers 1-7 225-1485
Ann Mulvee Case Manager: Cases ending in numbers 8-0 226-7326
As best I can figure it out, I'll be calling (603) 226-7326 and talking to an Ann Mulvee. At least that's what it looks like to me.
You could ask him if there's any special reason you shouldn't have contempt for his court.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on July 05, 2007, 07:57 PM NHFT
the judge might go nuts when he sees a few blue t-shirts
I'm curious... what blue T-shirts are you talking about?
They say "I support Ed & Elaine Brown. Show me the law"
(http://www.newhampshireunderground.com/wiki/show_image.php?id=2673)
Quote from: Caleb on July 05, 2007, 10:58 PM NHFT
You could ask him if there's any special reason you shouldn't have contempt for his court.
Judge:
|
Madame, are you attempting to display contempt for this court?
|
Mae West:
|
No, your honor, I'm attempting to conceal it.
|
Quote from: d_goddard on July 06, 2007, 09:11 AM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on July 05, 2007, 07:57 PM NHFT
the judge might go nuts when he sees a few blue t-shirts
I'm curious... what blue T-shirts are you talking about?
Mr. Muirhead doesn't seem to like the Browns very much.
Dada saw your idea on Ron Pauls website about dropping off some Ron Paul literature at IRS offices. Did you go to the picnic yesterday and participate in the straw poll? It was a pretty good turnout. The biggest thing Ive been doing for Ron Paul is standing in front of my local town hall with a Ron Paul banner every couple of weeks handing out his cards, etc. Response has been fantastic and the majority of people who stop have never even heard of him. Hoping just by giving out the information at least some of them will look into him and realize hes our best bet. Also if you drive down my road my 700ft of road frontage is peppered with Ron Paul signs, have actually had a bunch of people stop by and ask who he is. Word is getting out.
romak i am out West this week so i didn't go. However i was hiking up a mountain today with my ron paul shirt on. one of the five hikers who passed us said "nice shirt!" I invited him to ronpaulforums.com and he said he was already familiar with it.
thanks for carrying the signs. have you signed up for the meetup group yet? or u can just keep an eye on the calendar here to know what's comin up next.
Quote from: Romak on July 08, 2007, 02:10 PM NHFT
Ive been [...] standing in front of my local town hall with a Ron Paul banner every couple of weeks handing out his cards
YEAH!!!
Karma for you!!!
I check whats going on locally in that meetup group. Talked to Kate at the picnic going to pick up some 4x8 signs, just not sure whether to put them on my roof or out in front of my home :) Think my neighbors will think Im nuts considering Im the only person in town it seems with political signs on their lawn when the election is over a year away. The main thing Im doing right now is to tell them to vote in the primaries, youd be surprised how many people dont even realize there is a primary election. Its amazing how most are not informed at all. Ive always voted in every election even in my small town elections, etc. This is the first election where I honestly feel that we could elect the perfect candidate. It drives me to become more involved than Ive ever been. I post quite often about how I dont support Ed Brown at all but in the case of Ron Paul Im completely on board with you Dada and others who feel that this man is the answer. He may not resolve everything but its a great start. Imagine him debating Hitlery one on one. It would be awesome. I would pay to see that. Lets hope he gets that chance. Im going to do everything I can to make that happen. Have fun out west, Ive never had the pleasure of being west of Utah, must be pretty country. Just stay out of California people says it has a feel of Nazi Germany.
thanks romak
sent this to union leader
Pro-Constitution demonstration in Concord
Dear Editor and readers:
On Tuesday, July 17 from 8:00 - 10:00 a.m. there will be a small demonstration in front of the Federal compound/eyesore in Concord. We'll be protesting Washington's routine violations of the Constitution, yet another of which is scheduled to occur immediately after the demo.
In apparent breach of Amendments One and Ten, Washington's local ministers will seek to inflict retribution on a local demonstrator....me. I'm charged, essentially, with peaceably petitioning the government for a redress of grievances and then refusing to pay their "distribution of handbills" fine. In fairness to our rattled overlords, I should note that I was leafleting in an IRS lobby, not on a street corner. But if you can't petition the government in its lobbies, how are you to personally reach its officers?
In any event, you're invited join our demonstration. For more details visit calendar.nhfree.com or ring me up at ______ . We look forward to seeing you.
Looks like I won't make it out until the end of July so I won't be able to make this one.
Quoteif you can't petition the government in its lobbies, how are you to personally reach its officers?
You can't petition in the federal government's place of business in a way that will disrupt the business the building was intended for. In the case you are involved in, that would be the IRS's lobby and was the same reason that Russell was arrested for. You can petition for a redress of grievances in the office of our elected representatives (Congressmen & Senators) within proper offices hours. Some protesters were arrested there recently because they would not leave after office hours. The IRS employees are not "officers" of the federal government. You can also gather signatures for your petitions from fellow citizens upon the public sidewalks so long as you keep moving because it contains a common right of way which we all have an equal right to use so long as we do not infringe on the equal right of any other individual.
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 10, 2007, 01:09 PM NHFT
public sidewalks so long as you keep moving because it contains a common right of way which we all have an equal right to use so long as we do not infringe on the equal right of any other individual.
What if you don't move but aren't blocking the whole way?
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 10, 2007, 01:09 PM NHFT
Quoteif you can't petition the government in its lobbies, how are you to personally reach its officers?
You can't petition in the federal government's place of business in a way that will disrupt the business the building was intended for. In the case you are involved in, that would be the IRS's lobby and was the same reason that Russell was arrested for. You can petition for a redress of grievances in the office of our elected representatives (Congressmen & Senators) within proper offices hours. Some protesters were arrested there recently because they would not leave after office hours. The IRS employees are not "officers" of the federal government. You can also gather signatures for your petitions from fellow citizens upon the public sidewalks so long as you keep moving because it contains a common right of way which we all have an equal right to use so long as we do not infringe on the equal right of any other individual.
Hey... Bill Grennon's back. ;D
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on July 10, 2007, 01:25 PM NHFT
Hey... Bill Grennon's back. ;D
Good lord...you're right. :P
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 10, 2007, 01:09 PM NHFT
Quoteif you can't petition the government in its lobbies, how are you to personally reach its officers?
You can't petition in the federal government's place of business in a way that will disrupt the business the building was intended for.
I was going to put up with your economic rent and such .... but if you keep telling me and my friends that the IRS and such have a right to conduct "business" on their "property" .... then I will have to cast you into outer darkness.
the government apologist must be purged from our midst :)
Quote from: Russell Kanning on July 11, 2007, 07:32 AM NHFT
I will have to cast you into outer darkness.
Please Russ... no....
There
is still good in him. I can feel it!
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 10, 2007, 01:09 PM NHFT
Quoteif you can't petition the government in its lobbies, how are you to personally reach its officers?
You can't petition in the federal government's place of business in a way that will disrupt the business the building was intended for. In the case you are involved in, that would be the IRS's lobby and was the same reason that Russell was arrested for. You can petition for a redress of grievances in the office of our elected representatives (Congressmen & Senators) within proper offices hours. Some protesters were arrested there recently because they would not leave after office hours. The IRS employees are not "officers" of the federal government. You can also gather signatures for your petitions from fellow citizens upon the public sidewalks so long as you keep moving because it contains a common right of way which we all have an equal right to use so long as we do not infringe on the equal right of any other individual.
at last it's all clear! We are free as long as we continue to follow all of the rules and hand over all of our money. Oh, and you can object as long as it does not inconvenience the crooks. :duh:
I'd buy your argument if we were talking about Wallmart of some private business. Any grievance I'd have with them I could respond by just not doing business with them. I do not have that choice with the IRS. With Wallmart the consequence of dispute is I keep my money, they keep there goods. With the IRS, if I choose not to do business with them I go to jail.
anybody or any group putting a gun to my head to take my property by force deserves to be inconvenienced by my responce.
Okay, I'm done feeding the troll now.
Below is some contact information for the govt. employees who have been involved in this "distribution of handbills" case. While they are doing a thing that is wrong, they have been polite to me, so if you contact them I ask that you do the same. If you have additional contact info of this type, please put it on this thread.
From Revmar:
<< Main Information Line:
603-225-1423
Please contact the appropriate case manager directly on any case-related matters. Refer to the suffix following the case number: SM is a Chief Judge McAuliffe case, PB Judge Barbadoro, JD Judge DiClerico, and JM Magistrate Judge Muirhead. Then, based on the case number-odd or even-contact the deputy listed below.
The Clerk's Office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. each business day. The telephone hours, during which the main public office number will be answered, are 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Should an emergency occur between 8:30 a.m. and 9 a.m. or between 4:00 p.m. and 5 p.m., an emergency contact number will be given on the answering system. Otherwise, please try to limit your calling to the usual telephone hours.
CASES ASSIGNED TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE MUIRHEAD - CASE SUFFIX JM
Jan Bushold Case Manager: Cases ending in numbers 1-7 225-1485
Ann Mulvee Case Manager: Cases ending in numbers 8-0 226-7326
As best I can figure it out, I'll be calling (603) 226-7326 and talking to an Ann Mulvee. At least that's what it looks like to me. >>>
other offices off the top of my head:
Federal Protection Agency (the instigators of the whole thing apparently)
55 Pleasant Concord
224-1261
U S Attorney 55 Pleasant Concord (they use a different attny. every hearing for some reason)
225-1552
U S Marshal 55 Pleasant Concord (have been involved in issuing me summonses).
225-1632
How you can help
Some folks are wondering what they can do to help me in the context of my July 17 appearance at Federal court. Here's a list of possible action items, some of which you can do even if you're outside NH. If you are willing to do one or two of them, that will make my minor act of civil disobedience all the more worthwhile.
As you probably already know, I'm charged with "Distribution of Handbills" because I briefly entered a Nashua IRS office last year to petition the government for a redress of grievances. I've also refused to pay the $125 fine Washington has levied against me as punishment and have promised that I will never pay it unless perhaps they can demonstrate for me that they are Constitutionally authorized to levy it.
1) First and maybe easiest, I hope some of you will consider just doing something on your own initiative to support this endeavor. I have no idea what that would be. All I care is that it's constructive and peaceful.
2) If you like, drop by our demonstration which starts 8:00 a.m. July 17 at 55 Pleasant Street, Concord NH.
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=7057.msg165932#msg165932
3) Come to the trial itself two hours later, same day, same place.
4) Call liberty lovers in or near New Hampshire and invite them to the demonstration or trial.
5) Make a sign or two for it, or bring a flag.
6) As you may know, my original "crime" was an imitation of Russell Kanning's attempted distribution of flyers at the Keene IRS office. It would mean a lot to me if one or more of you were willing to imitate him in some fashion, as I did. This would remind our rulers our movement is growing.
7) If you aren't in a position to commit "civil dis," consider setting your life on a course that will allow you to do so in the future. This is what Mike Fisher and Russell Kanning inspired me to do. It may take a long time to prepare for that sort of thing, so if you ever want to do it the time to start may be now.
8) Check out the latest article about this trial:
http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=559&Itemid=36
...and post it to other web forums. Here's a list of forums where it might be appropriate:
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?&topic=2613.0
Leverage this minor sacrifice as an opportunity to spread the word about liberty activity in New Hampshire.
9) Write a letter to the editor. The Keene Free Press, the Monitor and the Union Leader seem to print most of what they get.
10) Call Free Talk Live about it and update them: (800) 259-9231 7p-10p Eastern, Mon-Sat. You can change the topic they are on, no problem. Average hold time is 20 minutes, average actively-listening audience is perhaps 200,000
11) Touch base with the bureaucrats and enforcers behind this case if you like; let them know how you feel about their activities. They've been polite to me so I ask that you return the favor if you contact them:
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=7057.msg167182#msg167182
That's all I can think of for now, as always it comes back to the "do what you feel like doing" approach. Often the things you come up with yourself will be the most effective, but if you were at a loss as to what's needed...now at least you have some ideas.
Dave
Quote from: Dreepa on July 10, 2007, 01:12 PM NHFT
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 10, 2007, 01:09 PM NHFT
public sidewalks so long as you keep moving because it contains a common right of way which we all have an equal right to use so long as we do not infringe on the equal right of any other individual.
What if you don't move but aren't blocking the whole way?
Unfortunately "aren't blocking the whole way" is a subjective determination I would not like to leave in the hands of the police authority. Whereas "not moving" is objective by all reasonable standards.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on July 11, 2007, 07:32 AM NHFT
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 10, 2007, 01:09 PM NHFT
Quoteif you can't petition the government in its lobbies, how are you to personally reach its officers?
You can't petition in the federal government's place of business in a way that will disrupt the business the building was intended for.
I was going to put up with your economic rent and such .... but if you keep telling me and my friends that the IRS and such have a right to conduct "business" on their "property" .... then I will have to cast you into outer darkness.
I believe that the income tax is immoral because it violates the absolute right of self-ownership. I am just giving you the constitutional justification for the law . Having said that, I also understand that some people believe that they have not personally consented to the federal constitution that we live under. I would have only been in favor of updating the articles of confederation had I been living at that time. I believe that non-violent, civil disobedience is a just way to attempt to change society, but I also believe that one must willingly and lovingly suffer the consequences of one's acts of public conscience in the hopes of change as Ghandi did. Not the course I would personally choose though.
He's not being charged for obstructing a public thoroughfare, nor with preventing public officials from doing their jobs in any way. Those would at least be reasonable charges (though they wouldn't hold up in this case, as he left when asked and did not attempt to disrupt them)
He's being charged for the act of putting a piece of paper into one person's hands (who accepted it willingly) and leaving another piece of paper on a counter-top. Both pieces of paper were petitions for redress of grievance.
Score for d_g... Ding for Billy boy. ;D
Quote from: d_goddard on July 11, 2007, 12:57 PM NHFT
He's not being charged for obstructing a public thoroughfare, nor with preventing public officials from doing their jobs in any way. Those would at least be reasonable charges (though they wouldn't hold up in this case, as he left when asked and did not attempt to disrupt them)
He's being charged for the act of putting a piece of paper into one person's hands (who accepted it willingly) and leaving another piece of paper on a counter-top. Both pieces of paper were petitions for redress of grievance.
1. There is no "public thoroughfare" within the IRS office itself. That is why Russell was
free to use the lobby to get to the office but stopped before he was allowed to enter the IRS office in Keene after publicly stating what his intentions were when asked and it was determined that it would disrupt the intended purpose of the office. There is a common right of way though within the sidewalk itself that is an individual equal right.
2. Delivering a petition for redress of grievances in this case is by it's very nature
an act of disruption because it is not transacting the official business that the office was intended for. You can also not "post" anything within the office without prior approval. Petitions for redress of grievances can be solicited from your fellow citizens wherever there is a common, individual, equal right of way (sidewalks) and delivered to your elected representatives of the government where they have designated offices for that purpose (offices, state house, etc).
Having said all of that, one of my favorite books of all time is Frank Chodorov's "The Income Tax: Root of all Evil"
http://www.mises.org/etexts/rootofevil.asp (http://www.mises.org/etexts/rootofevil.asp)
Quote from: RattyDog on July 11, 2007, 10:16 AM NHFT
I have your number here and am going to call you to ask a couple of "newbie" questions about the demonstration.
You can ask your questions here also.
It will be helpful if you just show up.
Then you can add any and/or all of these and more:
telling jokes to the rest of us
looking unapprovingly towards the fed building
holding a sign
holding a flag
bringing your own stuff
wearing a cool t-shirt
introducing yourself to the rest of us
taking pictures or video
entering the building for the trial
talking to fed thugs and letting you know how well you think they are doing their jobs
tell your best bill grennon jokes
explain your stand and actions to those that ask
write a letter for our paper describing your level of respect for the U.S. justice system
join us for lunch after the feds give up and apologize to Dada
cheer every time you hear the Browns names :)
I will be doing some of these things. :)
Quote from: RattyDog on July 11, 2007, 10:16 AM NHFT
The fact that you have been arrested in the first place is beyond ridiculous.
he has not been arrested ... they have tried to hand him bills ... they have asked him to pay money .... they have asked him to bow to caesar.
They have petitioned Dada ... but he has not threatened them with jail time. Isn't he nice? :)
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 10, 2007, 01:09 PM NHFT
Quoteif you can't petition the government in its lobbies, how are you to personally reach its officers?
You can't petition in the federal government's place of business in a way that will disrupt the business the building was intended for. In the case you are involved in, that would be the IRS's lobby and was the same reason that Russell was arrested for. You can petition for a redress of grievances in the office of our elected representatives (Congressmen & Senators) within proper offices hours. Some protesters were arrested there recently because they would not leave after office hours. The IRS employees are not "officers" of the federal government. You can also gather signatures for your petitions from fellow citizens upon the public sidewalks so long as you keep moving because it contains a common right of way which we all have an equal right to use so long as we do not infringe on the equal right of any other individual.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Are you saying, basically, "I believe that there is a law that Dada broke, and therefore his actions are illegal. (But, personally, I find his actions moral.)"
Or are you saying, "I believe that Dada did something immoral by handing a piece of paper to an agent of an extremely immoral agency." Because you've already admitted that the IRS is a form of slavery. By the same logic, would it have been immoral to hand a piece of paper to a person enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act?
Is disrupting the duties of an agency immoral when, by your own admission, the duties of the said agency are to enslave us? Wouldn't it follow that disrupting the duties of a person when those duties are in and of themselves immoral is actually the moral thing to do?
Understand that I am speaking about moral vs immoral. Not legal vs. illegal. I imagine that Dada probably broke one of their silly little rules.
I am asking whether you think he acted morally?
QuoteI am asking whether you think he acted morally?
He will act morally if and when he willingly accepts the punishment for the law that he broke in order to bring the conscience of the citizenry upon the immorality of the income tax. That is the purpose of non-violent, civil disobedience. The protesters occupying Senator Sununu's office know exactly what law they are breaking before they enter the office. They purposely stayed in his office after hours to be arrested after petitioning for their redress of grievances which they freely did. They are not claiming that they were just exercising their constitutional guaranteed rights of petitioning for redress of grievances and they just inadvertently stayed after hours by mistake. It was a very purposeful act.
Dada's claim is that he has a constitutionally guaranteed right of redress of grievances to petition the "officers" of the federal government within the offices of the IRS. I am sorry. He doesn't.
And if he and other so-called "non-violent, civil disobedience" activists don't understand what laws they are breaking and for what purpose, then maybe they should re-think their NVCD strategy. I'd be happy to advise anyone on a pro bono basis.
Maybe not. But Dada is still willing to go to jail to show these thugs for what they are.
Quote from: Caleb on July 11, 2007, 09:32 PM NHFT
Is disrupting the duties of an agency immoral when, by your own admission, the duties of the said agency are to enslave us?
Not that I was specifically asked, but Caleb you're asking some damn good questions and I can't resist chiming in :)
The degree of disruption matters, and matters in proportion to the time-sensitivity of the job.
Let's start with the extreme. Paramedics take public money, but to hand them a piece of paper of any kind while they are saving a life, it damn well better be directly related to the life they're trying to save.
Now let's take a far more common scenario. If the person was in the middle of a meeting with someone else, or was in training, or for that matter was just busy with some absorbing computer task, bothering them would simply be rude. I truly do believe there is no reason for someone to be intentionally rude to another person. One can argue where the lines fall, but it's quite clear when that person is not being directly (much less intentionally) rude to you, it's hard to justify why your complaint of many moons must be heard
right now.
Now, let's the other extreme. If the person were basically idle -- say, between customers and taking a breather for a minute, then surely their time at that point is properly directed to members of the general public who have any information or opinion about the general nature of the service ostensibly being provided.
And that last situation is precisely the scenario for which Dave is being persecuted.
QuoteThe degree of disruption matters, and matters in proportion to the time-sensitivity of the job.
The law doesn't say you can disrupt the IRS business office with petitions for redress of grievances while employees are idle because that calls for subjective interpretation of what the meaning of the term "idle" is. The law says you can't conduct any actions within the confines of the office that is not within the intended normal business purpose of the office (paraphrasing from memory). That is why Russell was arrested outside the office (2nd time) when he stated publicly that he was going to ask (not hand them anything) the employees to quit. Had he gone into the office and then casually gone around to idle employees and asked them to quit he might of been asked to leave like Dave and that would have been it. If he made a habit of doing it repeatedly and deliberately, I believe he would have received the same summons that Dave did. If he had not willingly left the office when asked to, I believe he would have been subject to immediate arrest like he was outside the office when the told him he could not go in to ask people to leave. Whether those employees were idle or not.
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 11, 2007, 10:59 PM NHFT
QuoteThe degree of disruption matters, and matters in proportion to the time-sensitivity of the job.
The law doesn't say you can disrupt the IRS business office with petitions for redress of grievances while employees are idle because that calls for subjective interpretation of what the meaning of the term "idle" is.
How about: "sitting behind a counter, waiting to service the next member of the public" ?
So you guys missed Bill Grennon so much you're willing to spend time arguing with him as soon as he gets back? ::)
welcome back bill.... always amusing how no one can stay away from us when they leave.
So bill....if Washington's prosecution is constitutional, why have washington's ministers declined four times to answer my question? I've asked that they show me something in the constitution that at least vaguely authorizes them to levy the fine. They answer with regulations and talk about congress but won't touch the Constitution.
Maybe they need a chart?
Print page 8 of this smallish pdf:
http://fms.treas.gov/fr/06frusg/06mda.pdf
Remind them that your argument is regarding the top of the tree labeled "The Constitution".
BTW: this is a good site ... it's the US Governments financial sheets, like you learned in Accounting.
Quote from: d_goddard on July 11, 2007, 10:31 PM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on July 11, 2007, 09:32 PM NHFT
Is disrupting the duties of an agency immoral when, by your own admission, the duties of the said agency are to enslave us?
Not that I was specifically asked, but Caleb you're asking some damn good questions and I can't resist chiming in :)
The degree of disruption matters, and matters in proportion to the time-sensitivity of the job.
With all due respect, Denis, I fail to see how the "time-sensitivity" of an inherently immoral job matters much. By this logic, it *would* be immoral to hand a piece of paper to the guy trying to enforce the fugitive slave act IF the slave was about to get away, and therefore the man's job was very time-sensitive.
QuoteLet's start with the extreme. Paramedics take public money, but to hand them a piece of paper of any kind while they are saving a life, it damn well better be directly related to the life they're trying to save.
A paramedic job is not *inherently* evil. In fact, it is a noble job. There is obviously some immorality connected to the whole system in terms of how the invididual is often paid, but the paramedics job is, in and of itself, a noble profession. The life he is trying to save is far more important than the general injustice of the system.
QuoteNow let's take a far more common scenario. If the person was in the middle of a meeting with someone else, or was in training, or for that matter was just busy with some absorbing computer task, bothering them would simply be rude. I truly do believe there is no reason for someone to be intentionally rude to another person. One can argue where the lines fall, but it's quite clear when that person is not being directly (much less intentionally) rude to you, it's hard to justify why your complaint of many moons must be heard right now.
So ... if the guy enforcing the fugitive slave act is occupied by trying to hunt down a slave, you should wait until he is idle to try to interfere?
QuoteI've asked that they show me something in the constitution that at least vaguely authorizes them to levy the fine. They answer with regulations and talk about congress but won't touch the Constitution.
There were no federal IRS buildings in 1787 when the constitution was written either.
<<There were no federal IRS buildings in 1787 when the constitution was written either.>>
there ya go...!
I find dada's logic more compelling.:)
Quote from: DadaOrwell on July 12, 2007, 06:55 PM NHFT
<<There were no federal IRS buildings in 1787 when the constitution was written either.>>
there ya go...!
They certainly had sidewalks and roads.
Private roads, too!
Good grief, the roads, THE ROADS!
http://nogov4me.net/archive/roads1.htm (http://nogov4me.net/archive/roads1.htm)
Quote from: Bald Eagle on July 12, 2007, 08:45 PM NHFT
Good grief, the roads, THE ROADS!
http://nogov4me.net/archive/roads1.htm (http://nogov4me.net/archive/roads1.htm)
So what happens to our individual equal rights held in common which are contained within the roads and sidewalks where we can exercise our first amendment rights which include collecting signatures for petitions to redress grievances?
What grievances?
Quote from: error on July 12, 2007, 11:11 PM NHFT
What grievances?
Ask Dave. They were his petitions.
Quote from: DaveJudge Muirhead has now ordered me to appear again on July 17, to "show cause" why I should not be held in contempt of court
Have you considered: Because I haven't hurt anyone and it would be wrong to initiate force on me?
That's my prepared answer which I hope will not be needed in a few hours. I'm a bit worried it will though since I also plan to refuse a PD or to pay any fines on basically the same grounds.
Then there's always: Because that's not what Jesus would do. That one always frustrates the hell out of my mom.
8)
Quote from: RattyDog on July 13, 2007, 10:32 AM NHFT
Will there be flags there to hold? Or do I have to go find one...and if so, where?
Will there be signs to hold, or should I make my own....
I don't really have a cool t-shirt.
I'm very excited to go...I would like *really* like pictures, should I bring my own camera
we will have flags
your own sign will be great ... the more simple and handmade the better sometimes
take your own pictures and then upload them here or anywhere
:)
Quote from: RattyDog on July 13, 2007, 10:32 AM NHFT
I don't really have a cool t-shirt. Where do I go to get one before tuesday?
If Dada's going to have to defend himself in the arena, I will be in full Battle Dress, and armed with that weapon mightier than the sword.
she could always get one a Dreepa Farm shirt.. ;)
I still have about 15-20 Bureaucrash shirts
Hey that gives me an idea... how about a shirt that says Dreepa Farm on it... hmm gotta think that one through.
You could have a photo of pot being farmed on your t-shirt, with Dreepa Farm. That would get some interesting reactions.
Maybe we should go with the farmers/pitchforks attire on Tuesday.
Quote from: Dreepa on July 13, 2007, 10:08 PM NHFT
she could always get one a Dreepa Farm shirt.. ;)
I still have about 15-20 Bureaucrash shirts
Hey that gives me an idea... how about a shirt that says Dreepa Farm on it... hmm gotta think that one through.
One with a pocket
So protest starts at 8 am? What kind of signs do you want?
8am! I was hoping to get a ride, but, wasn't paying attention to what time things start. If I can gt a ride, I can probably get there early enough.
I wonder if error has ever experienced 8am
FYI, here's a Google-map link to the courthouse
http://tinyurl.com/2cxgj9
Quote from: Russell Kanning on July 16, 2007, 05:11 PM NHFT
I wonder if error has ever experienced 8am
Sure, all the time. I once got up at 7:30am for a whole week.
Guess who's been here in this thread.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/a/a4/20060219060745!Doj.png)
Message from Dada:
This is Dada reporting in without any urgency and requesting a verbatim transcription of this message. I guess it is a little bit time sensitive. I would like to know if any of you are from Amherst, Hollis, Brookline, Milford, or Wilton - please respond on the Dada in Fed Court thread, and announce that you exist and are from there - and a reporter may want to contact you. Please give them some way to contact you. That's all I can think of in terms of instructions, but I guess there's a reporter from the Cabinet newspaper that wants to report on this but wants to find someone who is from one of those five towns so that they have a local hook on the story. Anyway, that's all I can think of. If you have questions, please give me a shout. I won't be on the internet today or tomorrow, however, I don't think I will be anyway. Thank you very much. If you would, please put this on the Dada in Fed Court thread. Thanks guys.
Dada called in a second message:
Also if you could add this to my last message. Please private message your information to RattyDog if you're from one of those towns, to R-a-t-t-y-D-o-g on our forum, any of the information to be placed on the Dada in Fed Court thread, for the reporters. Thanks!
[attachment deleted by admin]
Got this message from Dick Marple.
I don't entirely follow it... any lawyers able to decode it?
###
I am concerned with the fact that in reading the background on this matter I see that Muirhead
presided over the "CRIMINAL" trial where the $125.00 fine was imposed. If you can convey this to all that have eyes to see and ears to hear, please do so as I guess I am not very persuasive,
If this is the case, then many students believe that the first thing that should be considered, is a demand for JURISDICTION to be placed upon the record. Both "In Personam" and "Subject Matter" jurisdiction is required to be "on the record" before any proceedings start.
The second issue for consideration is to produce statutory authority for an employee of a bankrupt municipal corporation, appointed for a specific term of years in office, to be known as a Magistrate, to have any "criminal jurisdiction" in the Administrative Article IV "inferior tribunal", as defined in 1-8-9 and known as a "territorial court".
A search Title 28 of the United States Code reveals that only "Civil" jurisdiction has been delegated by congress to the territorial magistrates, hence Muirhead Has NO CRIMINAL JURISDICTION. He is NOT an Article III judge and the "United States District Court" in Concord is NOT an Article III constitutional Court. I have lectured on this many times but it goes over the heads of most listeners. A USDC is NOT the same as a DCUS ! Only a DCUS has "Criminal Jurisdiction". What follows is the supreme courts specific definition in Mookini v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201 concerning the the differences between corporate government (defined at: 28 USC 3002(15) ) and constitutional government.
"The term 'District Courts of the United States,' as used in the rules, without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance. It describes the constitutional courts created under article 3 of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories are legislative courts, properly speaking, and are not District Courts of the United States. { DM's comment- Courts of the Territories are Article IV courts, created by congress and have only the jurisdiction congress has delegated to them. Concord, N.H. has not been delegated "Criminal Jurisdiction". At least I can not find any in Title 28 }We have often held that vesting a territorial court with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the District Courts of the United States does not make it a 'District Court of the United States.' {The following are stare decisis} Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 , 154; The City of Panama, 101 U.S. 453 , 460; In re Mills, 135 U.S. 263, 268 , 10 S.Ct. 762; McAllister v. United States, 141 U.S. 174, 182 , 183 S., 11 S.Ct. 949; Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U.S. 445, 476 , 477 S., 19 S.Ct. 722; Summers v. United States, 231 U.S. 92, 101 , 102 S., 34 S.Ct. 38; United States v. Burroughs, 289 U.S. 159, 163 , 53 S.Ct. 574. Not only did the promulgating order use the term District Courts of the United States in its historic and proper sense, but the omission of provision for the application of the rules to the territorial courts and other courts mentioned in the authorizing act clearly shows the limitation that was intended.
As the Criminal Appeals Rules were not made applicable to the District Court"...........
The above is crystal clear to me. Hope it is for You.
Sincerely, Dick Marple
so who else is headed to the courthouse tomorrow?
0% chance I'll be there, unless I'm fired tomorrow morning, in which case it's 100%.
Man, good luck Dada, maybe the judge will storm out again.
Quote from: Dan on July 16, 2007, 09:00 PM NHFT
0% chance I'll be there, unless I'm fired tomorrow morning, in which case it's 100%.
Hurry up and get fired, so you can move home!!
See you guys tomorrow morning.
I may show up. What kinds of signs are there that I may be able to carry on the sidewalk? I hope that some of the DHS and/or court personnel will read the US and/or NH Constitution and realize that Dave is being unjustly persecuted. Does anyone have a stack of pocket constitutions that could be handed out to those who took an oath to support, defend and/or uphold the constitution? Way back when I first took the oath, I didn't know what the US Constitution said, so soon after I was released from my initial training, I got myself a copy of the US Constitution and read it so that I would know what I was supposed to be supporting and defending. Unfortunately it seems that many who take an oath to support, defend, and/or uphold the constitution never bothered to read it. Read it, learn it, know it, share it, support it, defend it, uphold it, and live by its principles. If the constitution is just a piece of paper, then so are all of the other (lesser) laws.
woo hoo! At the last minute I was able to get tomorrow off. I'll be there. I'll aim for about 8:00 am if that is when others will likely be there.
I can't make it prior to 10 am. Possibly not at all. :(
If you watched the videos of his peaceful protests and/or read the summaries, I think you would understand. He didn't interfere with business. He just walked into the buildings with a sign, handed out a couple flyers, and stood in the corner until asked to leave, when he subsequently left. At one of the protests, people didn't react to him and just went about their business. He did not infringe on anyone else's rights. He did not block the right of way or interfere with anyone's movements. He was charged with "distributing handbills" IIRC. In other words, his "crime" was handing a piece of paper to a federal employee and placing another one on a table, desk, or other horizontal surface. You seem to be confused about what actually happened.
blocking an IRS agent while he works is a decent and upright thing to do
the ICE DHS guy carries a constitution with him .... that is his weapon against us
They think it is a tool to hold us back .... and it seems to be.
As of 8AM, I can confirm Dada is at the intersection of Pleasant and Green streets (aka state road 202 & state road 13)
Unfortunately, I'm not feeling well enough this morning to drive all the way out to Concord. :sad4: I hope everything turns out OK.
Trial complete.
Sentence: Dada gets 4 days' incarceration
injustice >:(
Wow. 4 days for exercising his RIGHT to petition the government for a redress of grievances??? I had lost faith in the "justice" system before, but this is just a slap in the damn face. Judges need to be held directly accountable to the people.
Just another piece of evidence that the constitution is no longer in effect. I hope that judge has nightmares for the rest of his days on this earth for putting a innocent man in jail.
Free Dave Ridley :jailbird:
Quote from: d_goddard on July 17, 2007, 10:05 AM NHFT
Trial complete.
Sentence: Dada gets 4 days' incarceration
Police State, anyone? :'(
Who can we call at the jail?
Any other ideas as to who would be appropriate to call? Normally Dave comes up with this information...
He will be at Strafford County Jail in Dover. Some folks are heading over there now.
Heading to the jail is a better idea than writing/calling. I doubt you'll cause them enough greif to shorten a 4 day sentence, but support can be shown.
Political Prisoner
Dave Ridley
c/o Strafford County House of Corrections
266 COUNTY FARM ROAD
DOVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03820
603.742.3310
They have kidnapped Dave for 4 days I wonder if today will count as one of those days and will he get released on Friday or Saturday?
I just called there, spoke with Officer Britton.
David Ridley is not there and never was there.
She instructed me to call Merrimac? County Jail 603 796 2107.
I am working but will try and call asap.
kola
I just spoke with Merrimac County Jail. correct tel # 603 796 3600
David is not there nor never was.
Kola
Would the Concord Police have records of where he was shipped to?
Kola
fear gitmo
Local talk show host Dan Belforti has agreed to focus on Ridley's trial for his show this Friday.
The show "Right, Left, and Correct" runs from Noon till 1PM in the Seacoast area.
Show site: http://leftrightandcorrect.com/
Station: WCSA 106.1FM http://www.wscafm.org ; live streams (http://mail.wscafm.org/_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2&Itemid=5)
Dan would like to put on the air any other Free-Staters that have been imprisoned for acts of Civ Dis.
Contact him at: dan (at) belforti.com
Wait a minute, Dave's disappeared?
Where else might they have taken him? Is this a case of he's not officially there until all their paperwork is done?
My guess is they've probably still got him sitting in a holding cell in the federal courthouse while they try to figure out how to sneak him out.
Here's that message again.
[attachment deleted by admin]
It would be nice to find who is responsible for deciding where Dave goes.
and yeah.. wtf with shipping him into Mass?
grrrr
Kola
Essex County Correctional Facility & Sheriff's Headquarters
20 Manning Rd (http://www.google.com/maps?q=20+Manning+Rd,+Middleton,+MA+01949,+USA)
Middleton, MA 01949-2807
Telephone: (978) 750-1900
Ext. 3301 - Central Control/Ext. 3370 Sheriff's Office
Tonight we're all going to Taproom Tuesday (http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=8812.0) to drink one for Dave Ridley. Officially we start around 7 pm, though I'll likely be arriving a bit earlier than that.
Quote from: RattyDog on July 17, 2007, 02:12 PM NHFT
Quote from: error on July 17, 2007, 02:10 PM NHFT
Tonight we're all going to Taproom Tuesday (http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=8812.0) to drink one for Dave Ridley. Officially we start around 7 pm, though I'll likely be arriving a bit earlier than that.
I'll see you there then....I'm so mad about this. I'm just so disappointed that someone would cage a man for handing out pamphlets. What a sad day. Poor Dave. Can we visit him in jail??
Probably. But first we have to find out which jail! And that probably won't happen in time to do anything about it today. Hopefully by this evening we'll know where he is and be able to arrange visits for the rest of the week.
Rattydog -- thanks for the update via the voice mail blast
Quote from: Rosie the Riveter on July 17, 2007, 02:27 PM NHFT
Rattydog -- thanks for the update via the voice mail blast
Here here I second that.
+1 karma for Rattydog for figuring out what the hell they are doing with Dave.
Are we sure that's where he's going? At this point I don't think I'll believe it until somebody admits to actually holding Dave.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: error on July 17, 2007, 02:36 PM NHFT
Are we sure that's where he's going? At this point I don't think I'll believe it until somebody admits to actually holding Dave.
Good point error
Quote from: RattyDog on July 17, 2007, 02:44 PM NHFT
Quote from: Rosie the Riveter on July 17, 2007, 02:27 PM NHFT
Rattydog -- thanks for the update via the voice mail blast
Thanks...I was so nervous someone would be mad...like maybe I shouldn't have done that. I just wanted to make sure everyone knew where he was going so they wouldn't worry.
I just spoke with the Marshalls at the Concord Court and they have confirmed that Dada is still sitting there waiting.
I worry about my friend Dave anyway in jail or out ;)
I'm glad you had the guts to call even though you thought someone might be mad -- remember Dave called Porc411 just the other day b/c we were drinking at Murphy's -- If he can call to announce drinking you can call to announce anything ;)
Free Dada!!
Kudos Rattydog for call Lynch's office, the Marshalls, and writing Dada a letter -- I'm sending --
Never Give In!: The Best of Winston Churchill's Speeches by Winston S. Churchill
Quote from: RattyDog on July 17, 2007, 03:31 PM NHFT
Quote from: Rosie the Riveter on July 17, 2007, 03:21 PM NHFT
Kudos Rattydog for call Lynch's office, the Marshalls, and writing Dada a letter -- I'm sending --
Never Give In!: The Best of Winston Churchill's Speeches by Winston S. Churchill
Ooooooh, good idea. That is good. Are we allowed to send a book or crossword puzzle??
I don't know if it's allowed -- even if he doesn't get to read the book the individuals holding him will have to read the title... "Never Give In!" and they will know it's being sent to him. I sent it overnight so it will be there in Lawrence tomorrow. ;D
and if he does get it he loves Churchill's writing so he'll enjoy it :)
Its a sad day when they lock you up for handing out a note ::) not even a nasty one .
I bet they give dave road therapy. :-\ which is a different jail every night . Been done before to problamatic inmates who like to file papers in court against jails. i think dave fits that criteria. Just to give the freestaters something to chase >:D
Quote from: jose on July 17, 2007, 03:58 PM NHFT
Its a sad day when they lock you up for handing out a note ::) not even a nasty one .
I bet they give dave road therapy. :-\ which is a different jail every night . Been done before to problamatic inmates who like to file papers in court against jails. i think dave fits that criteria. Just to give the freestaters something to chase >:D
Respectfully -- I highly doubt he will be filing anything. He is simply and openly not paying the fine.
Quote from: LiveFree on July 17, 2007, 10:50 AM NHFT
Wow. 4 days for exercising his RIGHT to petition the government for a redress of grievances???
I guess he doesn't have that "right".
Quote from: FTL_Ian on July 17, 2007, 11:06 AM NHFT
Who can we call at the jail?
Any other ideas as to who would be appropriate to call? Normally Dave comes up with this information...
Muirhead .... ICE .... Therian
Quote from: citizen_142002 on July 17, 2007, 11:15 AM NHFT
Heading to the jail is a better idea than writing/calling. I doubt you'll cause them enough greif to shorten a 4 day sentence, but support can be shown.
Writing and calling are great ideas for those that cannot make it. He will be treated better if they know we care about him.
Quote from: kola on July 17, 2007, 01:55 PM NHFT
and yeah.. wtf with shipping him into Mass?
grrrr
to make you say grrrrr
they wanted him out of the Shire .... but they cannot hide him .... the truth will out :)
Quote from: error on July 17, 2007, 02:10 PM NHFT
Tonight we're all going to Taproom Tuesday (http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=8812.0) to drink one for Dave Ridley. Officially we start around 7 pm, though I'll likely be arriving a bit earlier than that.
How about you head on down the road and visit dada's jail?
Quote from: error on July 17, 2007, 02:17 PM NHFT
Probably. But first we have to find out which jail! And that probably won't happen in time to do anything about it today. Hopefully by this evening we'll know where he is and be able to arrange visits for the rest of the week.
I doubt it ..... he will not be in for long .... and it takes a while for them to let you visit ... and he has to go along with their rules .... and you have to have proper ID
the judge decided that dada needed to be taught something .... so he did not give him probation ... he got a little time in the clink ....
the problem is .... that it will only radicalize dada :)
Kat is planning on replicating some of dada's methods at the Keene IRS office.
Quote from: RattyDog on July 17, 2007, 03:09 PM NHFT
I didn't know who else to call
News media.
TV, radio, newspapers!
you can call wmur .... and say .... my friend was thrown in jail .... for no good reason.
I could use some photos from today and links to video .... and first hand observations and reactions for a story for the paper.
Thank you :)
Dada was our media expert.
Quote from: RattyDog on July 17, 2007, 05:03 PM NHFT
BTW...I am trying to organize myself and send over some observations I had from today. Are you looking for snippets/quotes or may/should I really write something?
Write something short. That would be perfect.
Tell us how or if you want to sign it.
time to visit the Keene IRS office
http://www.irs.gov/localcontacts/article/0,,id=98312,00.html
Thursday 9-3
Don Quixote 0 vs. the IRS 2
maybe we can take them this time 8)
Quote from: RattyDog on July 17, 2007, 05:16 PM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on July 17, 2007, 05:13 PM NHFT
Quote from: RattyDog on July 17, 2007, 05:03 PM NHFT
BTW...I am trying to organize myself and send over some observations I had from today. Are you looking for snippets/quotes or may/should I really write something?
Write something short. That would be perfect.
Tell us how or if you want to sign it.
Aweome...and please, if it's no good, tell me so!
I would like everything signed: Ratty Dog.
FYI
Feel free to post anything you want edited to the board.
I know that Error & Quantrill are great writers/editors - as are so many of my fellow nhfreers - I'm glad to be "back up" editor if no one "good" is available.
I'll be offline until about 11:00pm and then I'll be checking back.
Quote from: d_goddard on July 17, 2007, 10:05 AM NHFT
Trial complete.
Sentence: Dada gets 4 days' incarceration
Sorry I couldn't,t make it. Did you get a chance to read my reply to your invitation. I was in hopes some of what was shared could have been used in defense of the so-called "criminal" charges. It is reported that Mr. Muirhead is a "magistrate", a mere employee of the bankrupt municipal corporation known as the "United States" Federal Government. If so, that inferior "Tribunal", as defined in Article 1, Section 8, clause 9 he is a mere "employee" and he is subject to
26 USC 6331(a) and is therefore,
NOT an Article III judge who, not only has "Criminal Jurisdiction" delegated to him but he is exempt from having his compensation "diminished" as this is prohibited by Article III. Just put
28 USC 3002 into google and then read Clause 15. This is positive Law, enacted by congress. I have been lecturing for 40 years and no one believes me? What we need is those who use existing law to defeat the FRAUD now being perpetrated upon our people. I am no Bible Thumper but Hosea 4, 6 says it all,
"Our people are destroyed for lack of Knowledge"
I'm listening to FTL, and someone suggested that 100 people line up at the IRS office and each place a duplicate of Dave's "handbill" on a desk at the IRS office. I was thinking that it might be more dramatic if everyone were wearing V masks. >:D
Dave's dad left a message here and Dave would like the phone number for porc 911 sent to him as soon as possible - so if anyone is sending him a letter right away it's 413-0411
(http://www.newhampshireunderground.com/wiki/show_image.php?id=2811)
One of John's photos. Dave has this strange purple glow around him. I assume the photo is unaltered?
Quote from: Defender of Liberty on July 17, 2007, 08:03 PM NHFT
I'm listening to FTL, and someone suggested that 100 people line up at the IRS office and each place a duplicate of Dave's "handbill" on a desk at the IRS office.
that is a great idea .... it can also be done in any city in the US
I have NEVER altered ANY of my photos.
I prommiss you that!
What you see is what I captured with my camera.
Quote from: John on July 17, 2007, 09:02 PM NHFT
I have NEVER altered ANY of my photos.
I prommiss you that!
What you see is what I captured with my camera.
OH, and I am unable to see the picture here . . . not sure why but . . . I'll reveiw the pictures I have...
QuoteAre you claiming that breaking a law is necessarily immoral??
No, I said that the income tax is immoral because it violates the absolute right of self-ownership - the fundamental tenet of libertarianism.
QuoteSince WHEN does a demand backed up by force (which is ALL a law is) equal morality??
Force is neither moral nor immoral - what determines whether force is moral is whether or not it is justified.
QuoteThe Founders disobeyed the law because they viewed it as immoral and wrong; for them to have gone back and then said: yes, I declared independence to make a point and will now submit to hanging, is complete lunacy.
The Founder didn't have to resort to non-violent, civil disobedience because they believed they could win their freedom using force. Do you believe you can today?
Quoteyou only make this argument when dealing with the gov't
What do you think non-violent, civil disobedience means? Those who participate in it know exactly what law they are breaking and then are willing to happily submit to the punishment in order to bring the conscience of the citizenry to bear on changing the law - either politically or make the situation so ungovernable that the law can not possibly be prosecuted because the costs are too high. When the Birmingham bus boycott ended the protesters just returned to riding the buses, the laws were still on the books, but no one was arrested.
QuoteI somehow doubt you'd make the same argument if it were a mugger
A mugger is an unjustified use of force and protecting oneself in a defense use of force is legally justified.
QuoteDo you have any evidence for your claim?
An understanding of the foundational principle that underlies individual rights held in common (speech, assembly, redress of grievances, etc) and where they may be legally exercised is essential. Any distribution of "handbills" as a petition for redress of grievances within a collectively owned, government building that is not intended for that purpose (elected representative's office, within a legislative hearing, etc) is by definition interfering with the business purposes of the building.
The common right of way only exists within the public space of these buildings (like a lobby, hallway or stairs, etc) that ONLY allows free access but nothing else (no speech, assembly, or petitioning). ALL of those activities are guaranteed where common individual right of ways exists (within roads, sidewalks, and public parks with some restrictions).
More photos here. I didn't resize one of them, I guess. Maybe someone will fix it.
http://www.newhampshireunderground.com/wiki/tiki-browse_gallery.php?galleryId=86
Quote from: armlaw on July 17, 2007, 07:59 PM NHFT
Did you get a chance to read my reply to your invitation.
Yes, I posted it here:
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=7057.msg168249#msg168249
Quote from: armlaw on July 17, 2007, 07:59 PM NHFT
I was in hopes some of what was shared could have been used in defense of the so-called "criminal" charges.
Actually there was some humor in the courtroom, the public prosecutor had prepared his case thinking it was a CIVIL trial when it was indeed CRIMINAL.
That made little difference though... Dave's argument was based purely on the Constitutionality of the specifics of the original case. Since this was a Contempt of Court hearing, those arguments were deemed not relevant to the proceedings.
The trial lasted about 15 minutes.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on July 17, 2007, 04:33 PM NHFT
Quote from: error on July 17, 2007, 02:10 PM NHFT
Tonight we're all going to Taproom Tuesday (http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=8812.0) to drink one for Dave Ridley. Officially we start around 7 pm, though I'll likely be arriving a bit earlier than that.
How about you head on down the road and visit dada's jail?
HMMMM!
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 17, 2007, 09:16 PM NHFT
More photos here. I didn't resize one of them, I guess. Maybe someone will fix it.
http://www.newhampshireunderground.com/wiki/tiki-browse_gallery.php?galleryId=86
Was that sign supposed to say "leafleteer"?
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 17, 2007, 08:36 PM NHFT
Dave's dad left a message here and Dave would like the phone number for porc 911 sent to him as soon as possible - so if anyone is sending him a letter right away it's 413-0411
I thought I'd made it easy to memorize. I guess I didn't. :(
It also cannot accept collect calls, and there's nothing I can do about it. :(
Quote from: RattyDog on July 17, 2007, 05:12 PM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 17, 2007, 05:10 PM NHFT
Dada was our media expert.
Damn. I'll just have to do my best then. I will call WMUR and bug them a little and see what we can accomplish there.
BTW, Kat, is was really nice to meet you today! Nice to put a face to a name! I'm sad we all live so spread out!
We are closer than you think.
THINK POSITIVE!
Quote from: CNHT on July 17, 2007, 09:48 PM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 17, 2007, 09:16 PM NHFT
More photos here. I didn't resize one of them, I guess. Maybe someone will fix it.
http://www.newhampshireunderground.com/wiki/tiki-browse_gallery.php?galleryId=86
Was that sign supposed to say "leafleteer"?
I also thought the spelling was wrong, but all I could think of was leaf lettier.
Dave Ridley is the Outlaw Leafleteer. Free the Outlaw Leafleteer. Thanks to those that were able to make it for Dave. He is a good man, and a good friend.
I called the jail/prison. I talked to the guy there. I am from that area (his (the gaurds's) town/area, etc.)
I grew up with these guys (today's gaurds) and or their brothers and sisters . . . and their prisoners . . .etc.
I did my best to tell him that we have a perfectly good guy in their custody . . .
Desent conversation with the night guy.
I hope my connection to these guys helps.
YOUR CALLS WILL HELP AS MUCH - CALL TODAY/TONIGHT!
Be polite. Ask polite questions!
Remind them that Dave is a peaceful man.
Recap
The Essex County Jail is at: 978.750.1900 (records is ex. 3400).
David Ridley
Outlaw Leafleteer
Essex County Jail
165 Marston Street
Lawrence, Mass. 01841
The following is the address I was originally told about.
Essex County Correctional Facility & Sheriff's Headquarters
20 Manning Rd
Middleton, MA 01949-2807
Telephone: (978) 750-1900
Ext. 3301 - Central Control/Ext. 3370 Sheriff's Office
Good advice John.
My thoughts and prayers are with Dave. The thugs are shameless. How any judge can even maintain the pretense that he is protecting people when he throws a harmless man in prison for handing someone a piece of paper is beyond me. :(
"Please wait, line busy, thank you for your patience."
We must be flooding them with calls. ;D
Can someone confirm which jail he's at? There are at least three in Essex County.
He is in the county facility. The guy told me that there are 1300 inmates, there, most of them federal and state inmates.
He also told me that, while he couldn't speak as to Mr. Ridley's case individually, as a general rule an individual is not eligible for visitation until after a week has passed. He also told me that an inmate generally is only considered for time off for good behavior if his sentence is longer than six months. I had hoped that he would be released early, but that's looking unlikely.
Oh hell he's in MIDDLETON? :'(
Quote from: CNHT on July 17, 2007, 10:39 PM NHFT
Oh hell he's in MIDDLETON? :'(
EEEK! I had to post again, so my posts would not be 6666
It would seem he's in Middleton, though I'm still waiting on someone to actually post confirmation.
My LTE to the Keene Sentinel
-----
Last September, Keene resident David Ridley walked into an IRS office in Nashua to petition for redress of grievances. Reminiscent of Thoreau's claim that "[w]hen the subject has refused allegiance, and the officer has resigned his office, then the revolution is accomplished", Ridley entered the IRS for the sole purpose of encouraging the IRS officers to resign. To this end, he held a sign which asked "Is it right to work for the Internal Robbery Squadron?" He also distributed a flyer with the same message.
It was then that his legal troubles began. First, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security visited his home. He wasn't home, but DHS met him the next day in a parking lot, and issued him a citation, fining him $125. Ridley attended his court hearing, was found guilty of "distributing handbills", and the judge upheld the fine. In good conscience, believing that he has a first amendment right to petition for redress of grievances, Ridley refused to pay the fine. He attended several more court hearings on the matter, until finally on July 17, the judge magistrate held him in contempt, and ordered that he be held in prison for four days.
You probably won't read about this on the front page of the paper, or see the story on the evening news. But here in America, here in New Hampshire, a man was jailed by the US government for the crime of handing a government employee a piece of paper. Young men are being asked to fight overseas and die for "freedom", but what sort of freedom is this that jails a man for petitioning for redress of grievance? I don't recognize America anymore.
While Dave being jailed does not surprise me in the least.
It still pisses me off.
Quote from: Caleb on July 17, 2007, 10:55 PM NHFT
My LTE to the Keene Sentinel
-----
Last September, Keene resident David Ridley walked into an IRS office in Nashua to petition for redress of grievances. Reminiscent of Thoreau's claim that "[w]hen the subject has refused allegiance, and the officer has resigned his office, then the revolution is accomplished", Ridley entered the IRS for the sole purpose of encouraging the IRS officers to resign. To this end, he held a sign which asked "Is it right to work for the Internal Robbery Squadron?" He also distributed a flyer with the same message.
It was then that his legal troubles began. First, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security visited his home. He wasn't home, but DHS met him the next day in a parking lot, and issued him a citation, fining him $125. Ridley attended his court hearing, was found guilty of "distributing handbills", and the judge upheld the fine. In good conscience, believing that he has a first amendment right to petition for redress of grievances, Ridley refused to pay the fine. He attended several more court hearings on the matter, until finally on July 17, the judge magistrate held him in contempt, and ordered that he be held in prison for four days.
You probably won't read about this on the front page of the paper, or see the story on the evening news. But here in America, here in New Hampshire, a man was jailed by the US government for the crime of handing a government employee a piece of paper. Young men are being asked to fight overseas and die for "freedom", but what sort of freedom is this that jails a man for petitioning for redress of grievance? I don't recognize America anymore.
A "petition for the redress of grievances" and a "handbill" are very specific documents serving completely different purposes. So we have two immediate problems:
1. The claim that Dave was issuing a petition vs. a handbill.
2. The claim that an IRS building is a proper place for Dave to submit a petition vs. a place so designated for that purpose.
Now before someone engages in non-violent, civil disobedience they have to be very specific about what exact law they are breaking, why they are breaking it, and be willing to suffer the consequences for breaking the law.
What exact law did Dave intend on breaking and for what specific purpose?
maybe you can write your own rebuttal of my letter, and submit it to the sentinel. I bet you'd be a big hit. ;)
Does anyone know exactly what law he was charged with breaking? I'd like to know as I prepare my copy of Dave's original handbill that I'm mailing off to the Keene IRS office...from North Carolina...
While soldiers are 'enablers', they are hardly 'showered' with money, and, of course, lucky to get home with all of their limbs.
You Tube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIoEFF5JSP4) of yesterday morning's demonstration and a message from Dave.
Cool video :)
Both of these say county jail. Which one is it? You need his Unit and Cell number to send him a letter to the second one.
Quote from: David on July 17, 2007, 10:18 PM NHFT
Recap
The Essex County Jail is at: 978.750.1900 (records is ex. 3400).
David Ridley
Outlaw Leafleteer
Essex County Jail
165 Marston Street
Lawrence, Mass. 01841
The following is the address I was originally told about.
Essex County Correctional Facility & Sheriff's Headquarters
20 Manning Rd
Middleton, MA 01949-2807
Telephone: (978) 750-1900
Ext. 3301 - Central Control/Ext. 3370 Sheriff's Office
Good advice John.
Quote from: RattyDog on July 18, 2007, 08:15 AM NHFT
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on July 18, 2007, 07:31 AM NHFT
While soldiers are 'enablers', they are hardly 'showered' with money, and, of course, lucky to get home with all of their limbs.
Yes, they are lucky to get home with all of their limbs, plus they are not receiving proper medical treatment for mental illness etc. when they come home shattered emotionally/mentally. It is a hard life for a soldier because while they *do* sign up for it and they are paid tax free dollars and given incentives like homebuyers grants, etc...war is hard, killing is hard and it's not pretty over there. A lot of troops are coming home in bad shape and they aren't receiving good care.
I'm sorry to have made such a general, blanket statement about our men/women in uniform. I had jumped in the shower and was turning this all over in my head and the only thing I could think of was a person I know who has just been deployed overseas. He is a Major in the NHANG and was telling me about all the money he is making while he's over there. It is a lot of money...it's a lot of money...he was showing me the paperwork that detailed how much money was going to be direct deposited into his bank account every month and then said "But I'm really rearin' to get over there because the best part is, it's the only chance I'll ever get to kill people legally" and then made a "shooting a gun" motion. When I told him that disgusted me, he said "Hey, freedom isn't free" and laughed.
So...I just got mad. I know the reason this guy I know will make tons of money (tax free earnings) while he;s over there is because he is a Major...I also know that because he is a Major assigned to a "behind the scenes" mission he won't get close to the action and probably won't get to "have" his "one chance at killing someone legally"...but it made me mad to think that he is being called a hero for "fighting for freedom" while Dave Ridley is sitting in jail.
I apologize again for my blanket statement...I'm jsut so mad. I'm heartbroken that such a nice person who hasn't broken any laws is in a cold hard place with people he doesn't know who may or may not be friendly.
With the draft, during Vietnam, soldiers were, clearly, victims. Not the ones who wanted to go kill Yellow People, of course. Some of the folks serving in Iraq and Afganistan want to be there, but, most, are, probably, just victims of thinking they could join the military and get some 'free' education or training and avoid actual war. Many joined the National Guard with the idea they would be able to help the people in their state in emergencies and get some help paying for school. Sure, they could refuse deployment, but, along with what the military will do to them, it will bring a change in the attitude in their immediate community, as well.
But, one agrees to do their bidding when thy join and I see these people as Enablers.
what piece of paper did Dada hand out in the Nashua office?
Quote from: RattyDog on July 18, 2007, 08:15 AM NHFT"But I'm really rearin' to get over there because the best part is, it's the only chance I'll ever get to kill people legally" and then made a "shooting a gun" motion. When I told him that disgusted me, he said "Hey, freedom isn't free" and laughed..
I think by definition .... "freedom" is "free"
:)
Thank you for helping Dave in so many ways RattyDog. He will feel the effects of your concern in a very real way.
http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=572&Itemid=36
any other comments you want to add .... this will be a living document. :)
This was Dave's flyer:
IS IT RIGHT TO WORK FOR THE "INTERNAL ROBBERY SQUADRON?"
I have the right to remain silent. IRS agents have the right to quit their jobs. If that is not possible, they have a responsibility to work as inefficiently as possible when taking our money, and as quickly as possible when returning it. Smiley
I'm here to respectfully ensure they know that I do not appreciate what they are doing and to make them feel uncomfortable...morally, not physically.
IRS taxes fund torture, waste and unconstitutional Federal mandates like the privacy-killing "Real ID."
If you would like to join New Hampshire's peaceful resistance to IRS tyranny, come to
NHFREE.COM
The state's most active web forum
"Keeping NH Free
From Keene to Shining Sea"
the horror
I'm just still in shock. I posted a copy of Dave's handbill on my blog and someone actually commented that they thought the "morally uncomfortable" could be interepreted at "mental abuse." Oh, I dearly hope they were kidding.
This is just literally beyond insane. I really want to find the law that says that "distribution of handbills" is illegal. I'm guessing it's a federal law since it's somehow a homeland security issue and he's been transported across state lines to imprison him. I'm going to send a modified version of that handbill to the IRS office in Keene (maybe about 6 of them, 1 a day) -- and I want to know what law it violates so I can be talking to my US Rep and Senators. If there really is a federal law that says that's illegal, it has got to go.
This is the old thread on the subject, if anyone wants the older info:
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=5243.0
I have searched Thomas and the US Code, and handbills are not there. Well, the only places you can find "handbill" is in regards to Federal Election campaigns (and candidates printing them), advertising with them for devices that are illegal, using them to advertise for veteran's benefits, using them to advertise illegal drugs, or using them to print fake money.
That's it.
Anyone know where I can find the initial court case, file number, ticket number, or SOMETHING that actually lists the federal law which he broke?
it could be a "regulation"
I hate to see anyone running on the government treadmill.
it's posted in all the post offices, I bet.
The docket for Ridley's case, in its entirety:
QuoteU.S. District Court
District of New Hampshire (Concord)
CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07-mj-00022-JM-1
Case title: USA v. Ridley
Date Filed: 11/13/2006
Date Terminated: 12/08/2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assigned to: Magistrate Judge James R. Muirhead
Defendant
David K. Ridley (1)
TERMINATED: 12/08/2006 represented by David K. Ridley
88 Sparrow St
Keene, NH 03431
721-1490
PRO SE
Pending Counts
Disposition
None
Highest Offense Level (Opening)
None
Terminated Counts
Disposition
None
Highest Offense Level (Terminated)
None
Complaints
Disposition
41 CFR 102-74.415(C)DISTRIBUTION OF HANDBILLS ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY Fine: $100.00; Special Assessment $25.00 Total due: $125.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff
USA represented by Donald A. Feith
US Attorney's Office (NH)
53 Pleasant St, 4th Flr
Concord, NH 03301-0001
603 225-1552
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark A. Irish
US Attorney's Office (NH)
53 Pleasant St, 4th Flr
Concord, NH 03301-0001
603 225-1552
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Date Filed # Docket Text
11/13/2006 1 VIOLATION NOTICE (NH40 H5000901) as to David K. Ridley (1). (jgb, ) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
11/13/2006 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge James R. Muirhead : BENCH TRIAL - begun on 11/13/2006 as to David K. Ridley (1) Count Complaint. Witnesses Appearing: Margaret Post; David K. Ridley. Plea of Not Guilty entered by the court for the defendant; trial held; Defendant found guilty; Fine: $100.00 and Special Assessment $25.00; total due: $125.00. Defendant advised of appeal rights. (Tape #10:40) (Govt Atty: Donald Feith) (Defts Atty: pro se)(Total Hearing Time: :20) (jgb, ) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
11/13/2006 3 EXHIBIT LIST by USA as to David K. Ridley. Exhibit returned to Government 12/7/06. (jgb, ) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
12/08/2006 4 Redacted Petty Offense Docket; as to David K. Ridley (1), Fine: $100.00; Special Assessment $25.00 Total due: $125.00 So Ordered by Judge James R. Muirhead. (jgb, ) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
12/12/2006 8 ORDER as to David K. Ridley [7] Letter. Matter referred to US Attorney for his consideration/action. So Ordered by Judge James R. Muirhead. (jgb, ) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
01/12/2007 9 MOTION for Order to Show Cause re failure to pay fine and special assessment.by USA as to David K. Ridley (jgb, ) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
01/16/2007 ENDORSED ORDER granting 9 Motion for Order to Show Cause as to David K. Ridley (1). Text of Order: Motion granted. So Ordered by Judge Paul Barbadoro. Show Cause Hearing set for 3/12/2007 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge James R. Muirhead. (jgb, ) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
03/12/2007 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge James R. Muirhead : SHOW CAUSE HEARING as to David K. Ridley held on 3/12/2007. Government to file a further motion. Further hearing to be scheduled. Defendant may file a financial affidavit for appointment of counsel if he decides to. (Tape #1:11) (Govt Atty: Arnold Huftalen) (Defts Atty: pro se)(Total Hearing Time: :11) (jgb, ) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
05/22/2007 10 FILED IN ERROR: see document #11; MOTION for Contempt - Failure to Pay Fine by USA as to David K. Ridley Follow up on Objection on 6/11/2007 (Irish, Mark) Modified on 5/23/2007 to add: "FILED IN ERROR, see document #11" (jgb). (Entered: 05/22/2007)
05/23/2007 11 Amended MOTION for Contempt - Failure to Pay Fine by USA as to David K. Ridley Follow up on Objection on 6/11/2007 (Irish, Mark) (Entered: 05/23/2007)
05/23/2007 Terminate Motions PUBLIC 10 MOTION for Contempt - Failure to Pay Fine filed by USA. (jgb) (Entered: 05/23/2007)
06/18/2007 12 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Hearing - Evidentiary/Trial set for 7/17/2007 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge James R. Muirhead. So Ordered by Judge James R. Muirhead. (jgb) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
06/18/2007 Summons Issued as to David K. Ridley for Show Cause Hearing 7/17/07 10:00 AM (jgb) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
07/11/2007 13 Summons Returned Executed on 07/02/07 as to David K. Ridley. (kad) (Entered: 07/12/2007)
07/17/2007 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge James R. Muirhead : EVIDENTIARY HEARING as to David K. Ridley re: Amended MOTION for Contempt - Failure to Pay Fine held on 7/17/2007. Witnesses Appearing: Michael Therrien. (Court Reporter: D. Churas) (Govt Atty: Mark Irish) (Defts Atty: David Ridley)(Total Hearing Time: 15 min) (amm) (Entered: 07/17/2007)
The text of 41 CFR 102-74.415(c):
QuoteDistributing materials, such as pamphlets, handbills or flyers, unless conducted as part of authorized Government activities. This prohibition does not apply to public areas of the property as defined in § 102-71.20 of this chapter. However, any person or organization proposing to distribute materials in a public area under this section must first obtain a permit from the building manager as specified in subpart D of this part. Any such person or organization must distribute materials only in accordance with the provisions of subpart D of this part. Failure to comply with those provisions is a violation of these regulations.
thanks richardr, that's interesting. Useful to have a fedguy on the forum, I guess. on this:
07/11/2007 13 Summons Returned Executed on 07/02/07 as to David K. Ridley. (kad) (Entered: 07/12/2007)
is the (kad) the initials of the person receiving the summons? cause I never gave them my name
The authority for this regulation comes from 40 U.S.C. 121:
QuoteTITLE 40. PUBLIC BUILDINGS, PROPERTY, AND WORKS
SUBTITLE I. FEDERAL PROPERTY AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
CHAPTER 1. GENERAL
SUBCHAPTER III. ADMINISTRATIVE AND GENERAL
§ 121. Administrative
(c) Regulations by Administrator.
(1) General authority. The Administrator may prescribe regulations to carry out this subtitle.
(2) Required regulations and orders. The Administrator shall prescribe regulations that the Administrator considers necessary to carry out the Administrator's functions under this subtitle and the head of each executive agency shall issue orders and directives that the agency head considers necessary to carry out the regulations.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 18, 2007, 10:20 AM NHFT
thanks richardr, that's interesting. Useful to have a fedguy on the forum, I guess.
I'm not a federal employee. Never have been, never will be. Repeating the false accusation over and over does not make it true.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 18, 2007, 10:20 AM NHFT
is the (kad) the initials of the person receiving the summons? cause I never gave them my name
That's likely the initials of the court clerk who put that entry into the docket.
Anyone can look up dockets on PACER, but before you sign up, be aware they charge 8 cents a page.
I think the term is "Uncle Tom". ;D
Quote from: d_goddard on July 17, 2007, 12:48 PM NHFT
Local talk show host Dan Belforti has agreed to focus on Ridley's trial for his show this Friday.
The show "Right, Left, and Correct" runs from Noon till 1PM in the Seacoast area.
Show site: http://leftrightandcorrect.com/
Station: WCSA 106.1FM http://www.wscafm.org ; live streams (http://mail.wscafm.org/_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2&Itemid=5)
Dan would like to put on the air any other Free-Staters that have been imprisoned for acts of Civ Dis.
Contact him at: dan (at) belforti.com
I can do that.
Quote from: richardr on July 18, 2007, 10:15 AM NHFT
41 CFR 102-74.415(C)DISTRIBUTION OF HANDBILLS ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY Fine: $100.00; Special Assessment $25.00 Total due: $125.00
§102-74.415—What is the policy for posting and distributing materials?
All persons entering in or on Federal property are prohibited from—
(a) Distributing free samples of tobacco products in or around Federal buildings, as mandated by Section 636 of Public Law 104-52;
(b) Posting or affixing materials, such as pamphlets, handbills, or flyers, on bulletin boards or elsewhere on GSA-controlled property, except as authorized in 102-74.410, or when these displays are conducted as part of authorized Government activities; and
(c) Distributing materials, such as pamphlets, handbills or flyers, unless conducted as part of authorized Government activities. This prohibition does not apply to public areas of the property as defined in 102-71.20 of this chapter. However, any person or organization proposing to distribute materials in a public area under this section must first obtain a permit from the building manager as specified in subpart D of this part. Any such person or organization must distribute materials only in accordance with the provisions of subpart D of this part. Failure to comply with those provisions is a violation of these regulations. The definition of "public areas" as supplied in 102.71.210:
"Public area" means any area of a building under the control and custody of GSA that is ordinarily open to members of the public, including lobbies, courtyards, auditoriums, meeting rooms, and other such areas not assigned to a lessee or occupant agency.And while I can't find a fine schedule for the New Hampshire district, the fine for the Vermont district is only $40.
Quote from: Caleb on July 17, 2007, 10:55 PM NHFT
My LTE to the Keene Sentinel
[...]
Young men are being asked to fight overseas and die for "freedom", but what sort of freedom is this that jails a man for petitioning for redress of grievance? I don't recognize America anymore.
Damn fine wordsmithing. +1 to you, Caleb.
For the record (and Dave is well aware of this), I have my own opinions about how Dave's principled bravery could have been much more effectively used to strike down a piece of The Beast (as Reagan called it).
When I was a young lad, my father was a judo instructor. Judo literally translates to "gentle way" -- using an attacker's own momentum to bring him down. It is clear to me that it is orders of magnitude more effective to use the tools of the legal system against the legal system: indeed, it was intentionally set up to be used that way.
Dave is partially acknowledging validity, by voluntarily showing up to the hearings, and attempting to argue the Constitution to the judge. Seems to me that if you start playing by the rules, your best bet is to play a masterful game, not play a half-assed amateur one. You don't pitch softballs to a pro player and expect to strike him out. As such, it seems to me that Russel's approach of granting ZERO validity, and not playing the game at all, has more effectiveness.
That said, it's Dave's own ass that's sitting in jail, and not mine. While his tactics in this specific case leave ZERO chance that the unconstitutional statutes will be nullified, he can and is demonstrating a more poignant fundamental point, and that is "the gun in the room" -- the ultimately violent nature of all laws, no matter how ostensibly "inconsequential" the initial levied fine may be.
Get out of jail, free Dave Ridley.
The point is not to overturn stupid statutes about distribution of handbills, it was to draw attention to the fact that the IRS does evil things to fund evil government programs.
Thanks so much for the details about the "law" that was broken. They had to search deep to find that one, I'm sure.
Two things:
1. There's literally no way to get rid of the "law." It wasn't passed by a legislative body, so you cannot ask any representative at any level to get rid of the law. I'm sure most people here realize that, but it's damn scary to me. We have people making rules that send people to jail and they are literally completely unaccountable to voters in any way. Once again, strong evidence that freedom will not be easily attained, even with voters and saying within the system.
2. The way I read those laws, they only apply to people who physically enter the buliding. So I can send as many damn letters that say exactly the same thing to them as I want. And I shall.
Quote from: Ogre on July 18, 2007, 11:38 AM NHFT
1. There's literally no way to get rid of the "law." It wasn't passed by a legislative body, so you cannot ask any representative at any level to get rid of the law.
Nonsense. Congress can overwrite any regulation they don't like in a heartbeat. They gave the authority to the agency to write the reg. They can take that authority back any time they want. I doubt you'll get much traction, though, in changing a law that effectively protects receptionists and low level front office staff from bearing the brunt of the anger that should have been aimed at their boss' boss' boss' boss.
Quote2. The way I read those laws, they only apply to people who physically enter the buliding. So I can send as many damn letters that say exactly the same thing to them as I want. And I shall.
Quite true.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 18, 2007, 10:55 AM NHFT
The point is not to overturn stupid statutes about distribution of handbills, it was to draw attention to the fact that the IRS does evil things to fund evil government programs.
Agree.
Quote from: Ogre on July 18, 2007, 11:38 AM NHFT
Two things:
1. There's literally no way to get rid of the "law." It wasn't passed by a legislative body, so you cannot ask any representative at any level to get rid of the law. I'm sure most people here realize that, but it's damn scary to me. We have people making rules that send people to jail and they are literally completely unaccountable to voters in any way. Once again, strong evidence that freedom will not be easily attained, even with voters and saying within the system.
In my opinion, the most effective thing to do, is to 'push back' the enforcers of the laws. In this case that would be the federal protective service. They can 'Arrest you or Ignore you'. As routine, law enforcement ignores 'crimes' all the time. They will likely never admit it, but they are very selective about what they decide to pursue. If we can convince law enforcement to ignore us, then it does not matter what law is made, or weather the dems or gop is in office. Dave attempted to do this exact thing.
Has anyone who's called the jail found out what date/time Dave will be released?
Is anyone planning on holding signs outside his jail before he gets out?
Quote from: David on July 18, 2007, 01:38 PM NHFT
In my opinion, the most effective thing to do, is to 'push back' the enforcers of the laws.
That's attacking the hired musclemeat, who do as they are told and are not paid to think -- no matter what they're told to the contrary.
BTW, hello DHS guys! Hope you're enjoying the read!Surely it's more efficient to attack the "brains" of the outfit. A few dozen minarchists in the legislature can eliminate whole bureaucracies with a vote and a stroke of the pen. Well, maybe "brains" ain't the right word. "Ganglion" is a more accurate term. Same point.
Do be aware, the current NH legislature -- in stark contrast to the tradition of the entire 20th century in this state -- is creating whole new bureaucracies at a breakneck pace >:(
We're getting more agencies with the presumed authority to create rules backed by force than in living history.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Quote from: d_goddard on July 18, 2007, 03:30 PM NHFT
Quote from: David on July 18, 2007, 01:38 PM NHFT
In my opinion, the most effective thing to do, is to 'push back' the enforcers of the laws.
That's attacking the hired musclemeat, who do as they are told and are not paid to think -- no matter what they're told to the contrary.
I think a multi pronged approach to the issue is the way to go. I think people working in the system to remove the laws and people from showing the force that is being used is the ways to go. D_goddard does make a point the people who are enforcing the laws are going to do what their bosses want and going after them is practically useless they have been conditioned to not care about suffering.
I like to think that what we are trying to accomplish is mowing a golf course with a pair of the scissors they give children in 1st grade. It may take a long time but if we all do a little bit in our own way it can be done.
P.S. If the DHS guys are reading this "Please release Dave Ridley immediately"
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 18, 2007, 10:55 AM NHFT
The point is not to overturn stupid statutes about distribution of handbills, it was to draw attention to the fact that the IRS does evil things to fund evil government programs.
Of course! But if you can ALSO overturn a stupid regulation along the way, then why not?
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 18, 2007, 10:55 AM NHFT
The point is not to overturn stupid statutes about distribution of handbills, it was to draw attention to the fact that the IRS does evil things to fund evil government programs.
That is why Dave's action was ineffective. Did he even know what law he would be breaking before his non-violent, civil disobedience action? He seemed to think he was petitioning officials at the IRS for a redress of grievances which is in the bill of rights as amendments to the constitution.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Quote from: RattyDog on July 18, 2007, 09:40 AM NHFT
Last year, he walked into an IRS office to silently and politely hold a sign and distribute leaflets to people in the lobby of the building.
Natalie,
Dave wasn't in the lobby of the IRS building, he was in the offices.
On his second arrest, Russell freely walked thru the lobby of the IRS building in Keene and up the stairs where he was arrested before entering the office because he verbally told the police that he was going to ask the employees to resign.
hey all . . .
this is dave's little brother steve.
just wanted to chime in and say thank you to all of you who are supporting him.
i know he would do the same for each one of you were the roles reversed.
i believe in what he's doing and i'm very proud of him.
i'm glad he has so many amazing friends out there.
let's hope that what is happening to him and others like him will not go un-noticed by the public.
truly,
steve ridley
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 18, 2007, 04:41 PM NHFT
Quote from: RattyDog on July 18, 2007, 09:40 AM NHFT
Last year, he walked into an IRS office to silently and politely hold a sign and distribute leaflets to people in the lobby of the building.
Natalie,
Dave wasn't in the lobby of the IRS building, he was in the offices.
On his second arrest, Russell freely walked thru the lobby of the IRS building in Keene and up the stairs where he was arrested before entering the office because he verbally told the police that he was going to ask the employees to resign.
Doesn't change anything... they will prevent you from handing out the papers in the lobby.
Hey Billy... maybe you and Richie should hang out in your own forum. ;D
Just cause some group of men gave authority to another group of men to write their own rule book doesn't make it right to lock up someone for communicating. Abusive governments through out history wrote laws.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on July 18, 2007, 04:47 PM NHFT
they will prevent you from handing out the papers in the lobby.
Correct. But as Russell's case shows, you have a right of egress thru the common lobby to get to the office if you are not visibly carrying handbills nor having told the guards that you plan on disrupting the business of the office.
Welcome, Steve!
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on July 18, 2007, 04:47 PM NHFT
Hey Billy... maybe you and Richie
First a racist insult, then a demeaning nickname. Very nice.
If the only people who are allowed to post are those who march lock step with the party line, then the "Free" in NHFree is just a pretence.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on July 18, 2007, 04:47 PM NHFT
Just cause some group of men gave authority to another group of men to write their own rule book doesn't make it right to lock up someone for communicating. Abusive governments through out history wrote laws.
I posted no judgment of the law in my message. Someone asked what law was Ridley accused of breaking and I answered the question.
You moving to NH "Uncle Tom" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom) Richie? ;D
You contributing anything positive to the effort?
Or are you critiquing from the sidelines?
Welcome to the Underground Steve.
Quote from: richardr on July 18, 2007, 05:30 PM NHFT
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on July 18, 2007, 04:47 PM NHFT
Hey Billy... maybe you and Richie
First a racist insult, then a demeaning nickname. Very nice.
If the only people who are allowed to post are those who march lock step with the party line, then the "Free" in NHFree is just a pretence.
Seems like you can post here just fine, Richie, but that does not mean
some folk won't make fun of you.
Maybe you can find or sponsor a law against it.
A new mantra for the letter of the law types
"I'm not lock-stepping to the beat of freedom. I'm lock-stepping to the steady drum of the LAW."
8)
Quote from: shyfrog on July 18, 2007, 05:50 PM NHFT
"I'm not lock-stepping to the beat of freedom. I'm lock-stepping to the steady drum of the LAW."
And some of us individual types don't feel the need to lockstep with any group at all.
We need to give Richie a break he lives in a police state... MD, where the state police love to tear apart cars on the side of 95.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on July 18, 2007, 05:37 PM NHFT
You moving to NH "Uncle Tom" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom) Richie? ;D
Do you feel that repeating a racist insult somehow makes it better?
Quote from: KBCraig on July 18, 2007, 10:43 AM NHFT
(c) Distributing materials, such as pamphlets, handbills or flyers, unless conducted as part of authorized Government activities.
Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but wouldn't exercising your first amendment rights be included in "authorized government activities"?
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 18, 2007, 01:39 PM NHFT
Has anyone who's called the jail found out what date/time Dave will be released?
I asked, but was told that he was not permitted to release that information.
Quote from: Caleb on July 18, 2007, 06:29 PM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 18, 2007, 01:39 PM NHFT
Has anyone who's called the jail found out what date/time Dave will be released?
I asked, but was told that he was not permitted to release that information.
So the kidnappers won't tell you when he will be released. I guess they have not got the ransom money yet.
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 18, 2007, 04:35 PM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 18, 2007, 10:55 AM NHFT
The point is not to overturn stupid statutes about distribution of handbills, it was to draw attention to the fact that the IRS does evil things to fund evil government programs.
That is why Dave's action was ineffective. Did he even know what law he would be breaking before his non-violent, civil disobedience action? He seemed to think he was petitioning officials at the IRS for a redress of grievances which is in the bill of rights as amendments to the constitution.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I'm not sure what part of "Congress shall MAKE NO FUCKING LAW" you don't understand ethan. NO LAW! None. They can't say, "well, you must petition certain people" or "you must go to certain areas to petition" or "you have to mail it in, you can't do it in person" or "it must be in this certain format." CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING ... THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE ... TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES!!!!!
Hope that clarified for you, so you'll quit with the ridiculous parroting of rules, regulations, and philosophical mumbo jumbo when the government's compact clearly says that they cannot regulate this right in any way whatsoever.
Quote from: richardr on July 18, 2007, 06:00 PM NHFT
Quote from: shyfrog on July 18, 2007, 05:50 PM NHFT
"I'm not lock-stepping to the beat of freedom. I'm lock-stepping to the steady drum of the LAW."
And some of us individual types don't feel the need to lockstep with any group at all.
::)
And yet you parrot the government line as a matter of course. How free can you be when you're mind is enslaved to the federal government?
Quote from: slim on July 18, 2007, 06:32 PM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on July 18, 2007, 06:29 PM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 18, 2007, 01:39 PM NHFT
Has anyone who's called the jail found out what date/time Dave will be released?
I asked, but was told that he was not permitted to release that information.
So the kidnappers won't tell you when he will be released. I guess they have not got the ransom money yet.
yeah, they hide behind the "we're protecting the inmate's privacy" crap
The Spirit of Liberty is alive and well among the Sons of Liberty in NH
Free Dave Ridley
QuoteThey can't say, "well, you must petition certain people" or "you must go to certain areas to petition" or "you have to mail it in, you can't do it in person" or "it must be in this certain format."
They don't say you must petition certain people.
You can't petition on private property without consent of the owner. You must petition where you have a common right of way because that is where our common rights derive.
You can petition local, state, and federal governments & courts in person or mail it.
There is a difference between a handbill and a petition. A petition has to be made to our elected representatives who make the laws or judges. Not to federal employees. Otherwise you could in essence shut them down by continual petitioning.
The Courts have routinely held that First Amendment rights may be limited so as to protect the rights of others (e.g. libel, privacy), or to guard against subversion of the government and the spreading of dissension in wartime. Thus, the Court's majority has remained firm – the First Amendment rights are not absolute.
And of course, the Courts are the final arbiter of what is right and wrong. -1 for you.
Quote from: error on July 18, 2007, 08:09 PM NHFT
And of course, the Courts are the final arbiter of what is right and wrong.
We are a system of laws and not of men.
Quote from: Caleb on July 18, 2007, 06:36 PM NHFT
And yet you parrot the government line as a matter of course. How free can you be when you're mind is enslaved to the federal government?
I learn what the law says and then pick and choose my battles. You remain ignorant of the laws you protest and pick and choose your battles based on ignorance and hyperbole. I've gotten laws changed, have you?
Hey Richard,
Let's start our own forum where we can explain to everyone why they must follow the LAW!
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 18, 2007, 08:19 PM NHFT
Quote from: error on July 18, 2007, 08:09 PM NHFT
And of course, the Courts are the final arbiter of what is right and wrong.
We are a system of laws and not of men.
It seems that we have a system of men and not of laws.
Quote from: Bill Grennon on July 18, 2007, 08:25 PM NHFT
Hey Richard,
Let's start our own forum where we can explain to everyone why they must follow the LAW!
+ karma for you, the good Bill Grennon.
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 18, 2007, 08:07 PM NHFTA petition has to be made to our elected representatives who make the laws or judges. Not to federal employees.
The First Amendment reads:
QuoteCongress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people . . . to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Note that it says "government," not "legislature" or "The Congress" (as it is referred to elsewhere in the Constitution).
Here's an interesting overview of the history of the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/petition/overview.aspx
Quote from: Bill Grennon on July 18, 2007, 08:25 PM NHFT
Hey Richard,
Let's start our own forum where we can explain to everyone why they must follow the LAW!
Yeah, right.
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 18, 2007, 08:19 PM NHFT
Quote from: error on July 18, 2007, 08:09 PM NHFT
And of course, the Courts are the final arbiter of what is right and wrong.
We are a system of laws and not of men.
John Adams was a great man. I feel as kin to him...literally.
Which means Samuel is also an ancestor of mine. I like his take on it a little better:
"The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule."
When the laws serve men, and not liberty, they are wholly improper and repugnant, and due no allegiance or respect.
Actually there was some humor in the courtroom, the public prosecutor had prepared his case thinking it was a CIVIL trial when it was indeed CRIMINAL.
That made little difference though... Dave's argument was based purely on the Constitutionality of the specifics of the original case. Since this was a Contempt of Court hearing, those arguments were deemed not relevant to the proceedings.
The trial lasted about 15 minutes.
[/quote]
That is strange! Jurisdiction IS the ISSUE ! "Criminal contempt" requires a JURY TRIALas does all criminal proceedings. "Civil contempt" can only assess a fine. All "Criminal proceedings" are reserved to Article III courts with Article III Judges who have life tenure and do not pay any tax as Article III exempts them from having their compensation "diminished". Mr. Muirhead is a Magistate, appointed for 10 years only, subject to re-appointment if he protects the bankrupt municipal corporation he works for and known as the "United States" Goverment. Put 28 USC 3002 into google and read definition 15. That is who Mr. Muirhead has for an employer.
We are a system of laws and not of men.
[/quote]
It seems that we have a system of men and not of laws.
[/quote]
How about a system of corporations and contracts? That appears to be what it has come to. ie: IRS is not an agency of the "United States Government". Is is a "Trust Fund" operating out of the Department of Treasury for Puerto Rico, not U.S. Treasury. Want Proof - Check the 62nd Trust Fund below. Here tis:
TITLE 31 > SUBTITLE II > CHAPTER 13 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 1321 Prev | Next
§ 1321. Trust funds
How Current is This?
(a) The following are classified as trust funds:
(1) Philippine special fund (customs duties).
(2) Philippine special fund (internal revenue).
(3) Unclaimed condemnation awards, Department of the Treasury.
(4) Naval reservation, Olangapo civil fund.
(5) Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund.
(6) Return to deported aliens of passage money collected from steamship companies.
(7) Vocational rehabilitation, special fund.
(8) Library of Congress gift fund.
(9) Library of Congress trust fund, investment account.
(10) Library of Congress trust fund, income from investment account.
(11) Library of Congress trust fund, permanent loan.
(12) Relief and rehabilitation, Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.
(13) Cooperative work, Forest Service.
(14) Wages and effects of American seamen, Department of Commerce.
(15) Pension money, Saint Elizabeths Hospital.
(16) Personal funds of patients, Saint Elizabeths Hospital.
(17) National Park Service, donations.
(18) Purchase of lands, national parks, donations.
(19) Extension of winter-feed facilities of game animals of Yellowstone National Park, donations.
(20) Indian moneys, proceeds of labor, agencies, schools, and so forth.
(21) Funds of Federal prisoners.
(22) Commissary funds, Federal prisons.
(23) Pay of the Navy, deposit funds.
(24) Pay of Marine Corps, deposit funds.
(25) Pay of the Army, deposit fund.
(26) Preservation birthplace of Abraham Lincoln.
(27) Funds contributed for flood control, Mississippi River, its outlets and tributaries.
(28) Funds contributed for flood control, Sacramento River, California.
(29) Effects of deceased employees, Department of the Treasury.
(30) Money and effects of deceased patients, Public Health Service.
(31) Effects of deceased employees, Department of Commerce.
(32) Topographic survey of the United States, contributions.
(33) National Institutes of Health, gift fund.
(34) National Institutes of Health, conditional gift fund.
(35) Patients' deposits, United States Marine Hospital, Carville, Louisiana.
(36) Estates of deceased personnel, Department of the Army.
(37) Effects of deceased employees, Department of the Interior.
(38) Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County Battlefields memorial fund.
(39) Petersburg National Military Park fund.
(40) Gorgas memorial laboratory quotas.
(41) Contributions to International Boundary Commission, United States and Mexico.
(42) Salvage proceeds, American vessels.
(43) Wages due American seamen.
(44) Federal Industrial Institution for Women, contributions for chapel.
(45) General post fund, NaMiscellaneous trust fund deposits, District of Columbia.
(56) Surplus fund, District of Columbia.
(tional Homes, Department of Veterans Affairs.
(46) Repatriation of American seamen.
(47) Expenses, public survey work, general.
(48) Expenses, public survey work, Alaska.
(49) Funds contributed for improvement of roads, bridges, and trails, Alaska.
(50) Protective works and measures, Lake of the Woods and Rainy River, Minnesota.
(51) Washington redemption fund.
(52) Permit fund, District of Columbia.
(53) Unclaimed condemnation awards, National Capital Park and Planning Commission, District of Columbia.
(54) Unclaimed condemnation awards, Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway Commission, District of Columbia.
(55) 57) Relief and rehabilitation, District of Columbia Workmen's Compensation Act.
(58) Inmates' fund, workhouse and reformatory, District of Columbia.
(59) International Center for Middle Eastern-Western Dialogue Trust Fund.
(60) Chamber Music Auditorium, Library of Congress.
(61) Bequest of Gertrude Hubbard.
(62) Puerto Rico special fund (Internal Revenue).
(63) Miscellaneous trust funds, Department of State.
(64) Funds contributed for improvement of (name of river or harbor).
Quote from: richardr on July 18, 2007, 08:23 PM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on July 18, 2007, 06:36 PM NHFT
And yet you parrot the government line as a matter of course. How free can you be when you're mind is enslaved to the federal government?
I learn what the law says and then pick and choose my battles. You remain ignorant of the laws you protest and pick and choose your battles based on ignorance and hyperbole. I've gotten laws changed, have you?
:laughing4: You are one hilarious fed goon. Where, in anything that I have ever said, have you even received the slightest indication that my goal is to change your stupid little laws? I despise the US Government, and my goal is to expose you for the NAZIs that you are, not change you. Mene, Mene, Tekal, Upharsin. The time for reform is over and passed.
The tabloids are reporting that Dave is sharing a cell with Paris Hilton. :o
Dave may be staying in just a bit longer..by his request.. ^-^
Kola
just some humor..I hope no one takes offense. :)
Quote from: kola on July 18, 2007, 09:55 PM NHFT
The tabloids are reporting that Dave is sharing a cell with Paris Hilton. :o
Dave may be staying in just a bit longer..by his request.. ^-^
Kola
just some humor..I hope no one takes offense. :)
Yes and Martha Stewart will be broadcasting live from the jail, with special
guest Dave Ridley.
She will be showing him how to make fabulous signs and flyer's,
quick and easy.
LOL :)
I can just imagine Dave locked in a little room - all you hear from the outside is zombie noises, like some mournful wounded wookie.
Hey, another question about the specifics of the case (and yes, I mailed a near-exact copy of the dreaded handbill to the IRS office in Keene this morning) --
I wonder if the 4 days punishment is ONLY for the "contempt of court" -- and if the original fine is still outstanding. In other words, I'm sure if the judge was a mean enough bastard, he could have ordered 4 days in prison for disobeying him -- and Dave would still be ordered to pay the fine...
And I'm sure he could have requested a jury trial for the contempt case, but it would have been pointless because I'm sure the judge would not have allowed the jury to hear any details about the actual case of "dangerous silent distribution of handbills."
I don't know about the fine .... the judge stopped talking about it. They seem determined to punish dada ... just a little bit.
BTW .... we met a nice lady outside the Strafford Co. jail .... she recognized Dave Ridley's name from our sign and talked with us a while. She is the mother of one of Ed and Elaine Browns biggest supporters.
Quote from: Caleb on July 18, 2007, 09:35 PM NHFT
:laughing4: You are one hilarious fed goon. Where, in anything that I have ever said, have you even received the slightest indication that my goal is to change your stupid little laws? I despise the US Government, and my goal is to expose you for the NAZIs that you are, not change you. Mene, Mene, Tekal, Upharsin. The time for reform is over and passed.
Why change laws you don't like when you can simply whine about them on the internet?
Got it.
They're going to haul him back to Concord to release him?!
By this point, they'll have spent more than $125 just in gasoline on this case.
What a sick, ridiculous, giant waste of taxpayer money.
Quote from: RattyDog on July 19, 2007, 09:51 AM NHFT
I'd say so...all these tax dollars because a judge threw a hissy fit.
Makes you wanna pay more taxes, doesn't it?
Who me?
I think that ONE SECOND beyond 4 days after the time that they put those handcuffs onto Dave is BEYOND what the judge ordered.
What are 4 days after all?
Dave was ordered - AND TAKEN - into fed custody at the EXACT time they stole him from the real word!
Those unanti-constitutional freaks took Dave away, and the judge said that it was for 4 days.
I don't get angry often, but I am as mad as a hornet right now!
They have my freind for "4 days"; but you know what, they "have to" live in this fucking hell every day - and that seems sooooo apropriate!
Quote from: RattyDog on July 19, 2007, 09:43 AM NHFT
BTW, is his car in Concord? Who has his personal items? Did they take them or did he give them to someone before he went into the courthouse?
Dave had the foresight to arrange all those details before entering the courthouse.
Quote from: richardr on July 18, 2007, 08:23 PM NHFT
I've gotten laws changed, have you?
Which ones?
I'm honestly curious.
Anything that has
demonstrably worked has my interest.
Quote from: d_goddard on July 19, 2007, 10:59 AM NHFT
Quote from: richardr on July 18, 2007, 08:23 PM NHFT
I've gotten laws changed, have you?
Which ones?
I'm honestly curious.
Anything that has demonstrably worked has my interest.
I'm not willing to post identifiable info here. This isn't a site for grown up conversation when there are two moderators accusing me of being a fed, another one making nasty childish comments about statism, and a yet another throwing racist insults at me.
Quote from: richardr on July 19, 2007, 11:08 AM NHFT
I'm not willing to post identifiable info here. This isn't a site for grown up conversation when there are two moderators accusing me of being a fed, another one making nasty childish comments about statism, and a yet another throwing racist insults at me.
What did you do to them? :o
richards quote: I'm not willing to post identifiable info here.
Pm it to me or post it someone else where we can all view it. Thanks!
Kola
Quote from: error on July 19, 2007, 11:12 AM NHFT
Quote from: richardr on July 19, 2007, 11:08 AM NHFT
I'm not willing to post identifiable info here. This isn't a site for grown up conversation when there are two moderators accusing me of being a fed, another one making nasty childish comments about statism, and a yet another throwing racist insults at me.
What did you do to them? :o
None of the above.
Quote from: richardr on July 19, 2007, 11:08 AM NHFT
I'm not willing to post identifiable info here. This isn't a site for grown up conversation when there are two moderators accusing me of being a fed, another one making nasty childish comments about statism, and a yet another throwing racist insults at me.
No one is forcing you to be here.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 19, 2007, 12:31 PM NHFT
No one is forcing you to be here.
Which has nothing to do with why I won't post identifiable info.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 19, 2007, 04:39 AM NHFT
LOL :)
I can just imagine Dave locked in a little room - all you hear from the outside is zombie noises, like some mournful wounded wookie.
:icon_biggrin:
Dave stands!
Others bow.
It has been happening forever.
Let's stand with Dave!
They tried it centuries ago.
They've always tried to kill "Barleycorn"
Barleycorn stands for FREEDOM!
I'm thinking Dave's spirit is just as strong!
>.>>> THERIAN and two boys came out of the west, their fortunes for to find.
And these three men made a solumn vow: This Barleycorn must die!
They've plowed, they've sown, they've harrowed him in...
And these three men made a solomn vow - this Barleycorn was dead!
They let him lie for a very long time . . .
'till the rains from heaven did fall [today].
And little sir john [Barleycorn] sprung up his head . . .
And so amazed then all!
etc.
They let him stand 'till mid summer's day
etc., etc.
They hired men . . . to cut him off at the knees
etc.,etc., etc.,
They've bound him to the cart
etc.
They've wheeled him around and around the field
etc.
And there, they made a solmn oath . . .
They hired men [again] ... They cut him - skin & bone
etc.
And, they ground him between two stones
etc.
etc.
In the end Barleycorn proved a stronger man!
In the end, they know that they'll never get by without a little Barleycorn!
Barleycorn always lives!
Dave helps keep this spirit alive - - - PLEASE HELP DAVE!
Quote from: RattyDog on July 19, 2007, 09:40 AM NHFT
And maybe snacks for him? Smokes? What does he like...? What would be a nice thing for him to have upon leaving the jail?
Kudos again RattyDog for making so many phone calls.
The only things I know for sure that he likes are Winston Churchill and bleach -- I wonder how he's doing in there without disinfectant..other than that I don't really know ;D -- oh yea, he doesn't smoke. He may be fasting in captivity so snacks would be good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q4LvXZNOuI
Damn it!! Why does it say Chelmsford and not Lawrence as it was addressed to Lawrence. :-[
Track your package
Date Time Location Event Details
July 19, 2007 10:56:00 AM CHELMSFORD MA US Customer refused delivery
:-[ Now Dave won't be getting his reading material.
Because that's where the big UPS distribution center for the Boston area is.
Quote from: John on July 19, 2007, 01:31 PM NHFT
They tried it centuries ago.
They've always tried to kill "Barleycorn"
Barleycorn stands for FREEDOM!
The song comes from a Robert Burns poem about alcohol.
http://www.davidpbrown.co.uk/poetry/robert-burns.html
Quote from: error on July 19, 2007, 01:53 PM NHFT
Because that's where the big UPS distribution center for the Boston area is.
Thanks, I'm glad to understand now.
Oh that's good news :)
Dada like chili. He always seems to appreciate home cooked food.
Quote from: John on July 19, 2007, 01:31 PM NHFT
Dave stands!
Others bow.
It has been happening forever.
Let's stand with Dave!
They tried it centuries ago.
They've always tried to kill "Barleycorn"
Barleycorn stands for FREEDOM!
I'm thinking Dave's spirit is just as strong!
...
Dave helps keep this spirit alive - - - PLEASE HELP DAVE!
Nice, John. :)
Quote from: richardr on July 19, 2007, 02:16 PM NHFT
Quote from: John on July 19, 2007, 01:31 PM NHFT
They tried it centuries ago.
They've always tried to kill "Barleycorn"
Barleycorn stands for FREEDOM!
The song comes from a Robert Burns poem about alcohol.
http://www.davidpbrown.co.uk/poetry/robert-burns.html
No. I'm thinking from much, much - very much earlier. Maybe about the 15th centuty?
However - It is (admittedly) my personal interpretation that Barleycorn = Freedom. Artistic licence if you don't mind! :kermit:
Tomorrow? Dang, my letter won't make it there in time, I think. Tell him to go back in! ;D
The return address is NHFREE.COM...
Quote from: RattyDog on July 19, 2007, 02:18 PM NHFT
I make a damn fine chili...it's nice and hearty...if I made some of that, would he eat it? It might be a good switch from prison food.
If I were up there, I'd make him a loaf of fresh-baked bread to have with it.
This is absolutely absurd. What can we do to draw attention to this? This judge is acting like someone insulted his penis-size. Dave didn't even put up a fight when they asked him to leave. I saw the video.
Quote from: RattyDog on July 19, 2007, 09:40 AM NHFT
So....I hope we can know by the end of the day today. Even if we can't be at the Essex Jail when he leaves...we'll know where they're taking him (Concord?) to turn him loose and we can be waiting there. With signs. And tee shirts. And maybe snacks for him? Smokes? What does he like...? What would be a nice thing for him to have upon leaving the jail?
Thanks for all the info. Are they going to release him in Concord?
Regarding the care and feeding of Dada:
If we bring Dada his car .... it will have all of his favorite non-perishable food inside, but Dada like fresh bananas and fruit smoothies. Dada does not like to spend money at restaurants in NH (to avoid taxes). Dada has very unusual diet.
Quote from: RattyDog on July 19, 2007, 09:43 AM NHFT
BTW, is his car in Concord? Who has his personal items? Did they take them or did he give them to someone before he went into the courthouse?
Someone watching this forum has his car and personal items. We will coordinate that when we know where he is getting out. :)
Quote from: RattyDog on July 19, 2007, 02:18 PM NHFT
I make a damn fine chili...it's nice and hearty...if I made some of that, would he eat it? It might be a good switch from prison food.
If he has been fasting, he might have to take it easy on the first meal or two.
But otherwise, I would guess that Dave would fall all over himself thanking you for a bowl of homemade chili. :)
Dada like beans.
Dada like creamed wheat.
Dada like Raisin Bran Crunch.
I wish I was up there to repeat Dave's act. Dave - When you read this, thank you for taking a stand. The more people like you willing to stand up and say enough is enough, the quicker we will see change on a large scale. Your letter to the judge was truly a masterpiece.
There was some discussion about the law, and I wanted to add my 2 cents for next time. I looked up the word Handbill in Black's Law Dictionary, and it has the following:
Handbill. A written or printed notice displayed, handed out, or posted usu. to inform interested people of an event or of something to be done.
Petition. A formal written request presented to a court or other official body.
Dave's document didn't seek to inform people of an event or something to be done. It did make a request of IRS employees (an official body) to quit their job. By legal definition, what Dave distributed was a petition. I'm not sure if this point was argued, but it could have unraveled the charge, especially in a jury trial.
Another interesting definition in Black's is:
Petition of Right. 1. One of the four great charters of English liberty. . . . establishing that "no man be compelled to make or yield any gift, loan, benevolence, tax, or such like charge without common consent by act of parliament.
The other 3 great chargers are the Magna Carta, the Habeas Corpus Act, and the Bill of Rights. Hey, one out of 4 ain't bad right? :) Not sure how to get around the act of parliament yet, but the answer may be in common consent.
I want to make a comment about Richardr. As libertarians, if one of us went onto a police/government forum and presented our moral arguments, how do you think they would respond? Would we be morally "right" in our ideas, and would it make any difference? The members would likely insult and demean our views, much I have seen in this thread.
Is it effective to choose the same course, when that is the very behavior we seek to change? Treat others as you would like to be treated. I think it's equally important to live this principle in small ways as much as it is in our bigger more visible actions.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on July 19, 2007, 03:29 PM NHFT
Someone watching this forum has his car and personal items. We will coordinate that when we know where he is getting out. :)
Actually, someone has his car and someone else has his personal items.
We need to coordinate based on where and
when he is getting out.
It would be a terrible missed opportunity to skip out on the radio show at noon.
It would be SUPREMELY AWESOME to have Dave on the airwaves literally moments after his release.
Hey Russ... I know you've had a pretty hectic day to say the least... but can you shoot a mail or phone call to Belforti? I emailed you his phone#
Quote from: SamIam on July 19, 2007, 04:27 PM NHFT
I wish I was up there to repeat Dave's act.
Since Dave was going up against the Feds ... at an IRS office, you can repeat it in your city. :)
I had an idea for a bit of civil disobedience, but it's going to take me a few days to put together. So I'll miss doing it at Dave's release. But I'll have it ready by the time the feds come for Kat and Lauren. I promise you'll like it.
Cool :)
Wow, I'll bet you won't even have to leave your house to do it.
Quote from: TackleTheWorld on July 19, 2007, 08:09 PM NHFT
Wow, I'll bet you won't even have to leave your house to do it.
Actually, for this idea, I'll not only have to leave my house, I'll have to get up at the crack of dawn! And, I'll need help.
Quote from: error on July 19, 2007, 08:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: TackleTheWorld on July 19, 2007, 08:09 PM NHFT
Wow, I'll bet you won't even have to leave your house to do it.
Actually, for this idea, I'll not only have to leave my house, I'll have to get up at the crack of dawn! And, I'll need help.
It could take three or four helpers just to get you up at the crack of dawn! ;D
It's quite possible that I could sleep through a tornado. Or a SWAT raid. I've been known to sleep through earthquakes.
Quote from: SamIam on July 19, 2007, 04:27 PM NHFT
There was some discussion about the law, and I wanted to add my 2 cents for next time. I looked up the word Handbill in Black's Law Dictionary, and it has the following:
Handbill. A written or printed notice displayed, handed out, or posted used to inform interested people of an event or of something to be done.
Petition. A formal written request presented to a court or other official body.
Dave's document didn't seek to inform people of an event or something to be done. It did make a request of IRS employees (an official body) to quit their job. By legal definition, what Dave distributed was a petition. I'm not sure if this point was argued, but it could have unraveled the charge, especially in a jury trial.
Isn't a single individual giving a written request asking an IRS employee to quit their job "seeking for something to be done"?
Employees of the IRS are not an "official body". Official bodies are our elected representatives (local, state, federal) and the courts. A petition asks them to take action (legislation or adjudication) via a written request.
The IRS can not take petitions for redress of grievances because they could be effectively shutdown by the disruption, preventing them from completing their official duties. Nor can they allow freedom of speech nor distributing of handbills in the IRS office for the same reason.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on July 19, 2007, 05:57 PM NHFT
Quote from: SamIam on July 19, 2007, 04:27 PM NHFT
I wish I was up there to repeat Dave's act.
Since Dave was going up against the Feds ... at an IRS office, you can repeat it in your city. :)
Very true Russell. However, it wouldn't quite have the same support or effect in Texas. Dave and I discussed a few things at Porcfest. We are going to have some fun next year.
In the mean time, I was inspired by a comment Mark Edge made about handing giving the TSA a story about the TSA missing 90% of explosives/guns/knives. So I put that on one side, and based on Dave's adventures a petition for redress of grievances on the other. An artist friend is turning it into a really nice professional looking tri-fold brochure with the World's smallest political quiz on it as well. It should be a nice tool for my travels. :)
Once it's done I'll post it for comments and others to use.
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 19, 2007, 10:52 PM NHFT
Quote from: SamIam on July 19, 2007, 04:27 PM NHFT
There was some discussion about the law, and I wanted to add my 2 cents for next time. I looked up the word Handbill in Black's Law Dictionary, and it has the following:
Handbill. A written or printed notice displayed, handed out, or posted used to inform interested people of an event or of something to be done.
Petition. A formal written request presented to a court or other official body.
Dave's document didn't seek to inform people of an event or something to be done. It did make a request of IRS employees (an official body) to quit their job. By legal definition, what Dave distributed was a petition. I'm not sure if this point was argued, but it could have unraveled the charge, especially in a jury trial.
Isn't a single individual giving a written request asking an IRS employee to quit their job "seeking for something to be done"?
Employees of the IRS are not an "official body". Official bodies are our elected representatives (local, state, federal) and the courts. A petition asks them to take action (legislation or adjudication) via a written request.
The IRS can not take petitions for redress of grievances because they could be effectively shutdown by the disruption, preventing them from completing their official duties. Nor can they allow freedom of speech nor distributing of handbills in the IRS office for the same reason.
you keep going down those same paths that get you horribly negative karma ...
maybe you ought to have a policy that you just won't comment on CD actions. Or else that you will only say nice things about people that are trying to stop the empire, rather than trying to find some technical loophole as to why they aren't doing it right.
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 19, 2007, 10:52 PM NHFT
Isn't a single individual giving a written request asking an IRS employee to quit their job "seeking for something to be done"?
Employees of the IRS are not an "official body". Official bodies are our elected representatives (local, state, federal) and the courts. A petition asks them to take action (legislation or adjudication) via a written request.
The IRS can not take petitions for redress of grievances because they could be effectively shutdown by the disruption, preventing them from completing their official duties. Nor can they allow freedom of speech nor distributing of handbills in the IRS office for the same reason.
EthenAllen - Look at the word you used in your own question! ". . .giving a written
request asking an IRS. . ."
To ask your question you used a term actually in the definition of petition! The distinction between the two is one is to inform the other is a request. If the document makes a request, I think it would fall under petition. So, I would say no! :)
Blacks Dictionary defines official as "
One who holds or is invested with a public office."
I would say the IRS is a public office, and any employee would be considered invested, which is defined as "
To supply with authority or power <the U.S. Constitution invests the presidents with the power to conduct foreign affairs>" Given IRS agents supposedly have the "power" to handle IRS matters that would make them a official body in the legal sense. We have to remember words don't mean the same thing in legal land, as the law cult has made up it's own dictionary to use. Otherwise we could simply have common law courts.
Quote from: Caleb on July 19, 2007, 11:12 PM NHFT
you keep going down those same paths that get you horribly negative karma ...
maybe you ought to have a policy that you just won't comment on CD actions. Or else that you will only say nice things about people that are trying to stop the empire, rather than trying to find some technical loophole as to why they aren't doing it right.
Caleb,
It's ok. I appreciate what EA replied with because the bureaucrats will make the exact same arguments! I thought they were very valid points, that caused me to break out the dictionary again, learn some more, and in the process increase our knowledge.
I really hope as libertarians we cherish critical thinking, especially when it doesn't agree with our own. Turn the tables and that's exactly how a majority of Americans see us! How can we ask people to consider our views, when we do not extend the same courtesy?
Love thy enemy,
SamIam
Quotemaybe you ought to have a policy that you just won't comment on CD actions. Or else that you will only say nice things about people that are trying to stop the empire, rather than trying to find some technical loophole as to why they aren't doing it right.
Believe it or not I am trying to help people be more effective. How can you go into a CD action and not know exactly what law you are breaking and why? The point is to accept the punishment to bring societal focus on the issue. Mike the manicurist's CD effort was well done. Yes the income tax is immoral and they do immoral things with the money. I hate to inform you though, this is not a startling revelation!
The anti-war protesters who have been arrested in Sen. Gregg's and Sununu's office know exactly what laws they are breaking and why. I am afraid this is more from those who follow an "emotive anarchism" that is in my book ineffective. But then again, no one has to listen to me.
Quote from: SamIam on July 19, 2007, 11:20 PM NHFT
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 19, 2007, 10:52 PM NHFT
Isn't a single individual giving a written request asking an IRS employee to quit their job "seeking for something to be done"?
Employees of the IRS are not an "official body". Official bodies are our elected representatives (local, state, federal) and the courts. A petition asks them to take action (legislation or adjudication) via a written request.
The IRS can not take petitions for redress of grievances because they could be effectively shutdown by the disruption, preventing them from completing their official duties. Nor can they allow freedom of speech nor distributing of handbills in the IRS office for the same reason.
EthenAllen - Look at the word you used in your own question! ". . .giving a written request asking an IRS. . ."
To ask your question you used a term actually in the definition of petition! The distinction between the two is one is to inform the other is a request. If the document makes a request, I think it would fall under petition. So, I would say no! :)
Blacks Dictionary defines official as "One who holds or is invested with a public office."
I would say the IRS is a public office, and any employee would be considered invested, which is defined as "To supply with authority or power <the U.S. Constitution invests the presidents with the power to conduct foreign affairs>" Given IRS agents supposedly have the "power" to handle IRS matters that would make them a official body in the legal sense. We have to remember words don't mean the same thing in legal land, as the law cult has made up it's own dictionary to use. Otherwise we could simply have common law courts.
You are not requesting that the "official body" change a law (a petition). You maybe requesting that employees of the IRS, who have no authority to change a law, quit their job (a handbill) because you are informing them that the income tax pays for torture and torture is immoral.
QuoteThe IRS can not take petitions for redress of grievances because they could be effectively shutdown by the disruption, preventing them from completing their official duties. Nor can they allow freedom of speech nor distributing of handbills in the IRS office for the same reason.
Interesting.
They cannot allow freedom of speech because they could be shut down? While I understand your premise, that makes no sense. For example, let's take Dave's case -- they were not shut down. Not one single person was prevented from doing their job in any way. A crowd did not gather. No one was harmed. No fire regulations were exceeded. No one at the IRS was forced to do, well, anything. They could continue doing their official duties completely and totally. And when asked to leave, Dave even did that.
So how is preventing Dave from walking in the office and stopping his freedom of speech "preventing them from completing their official duties?" I can understand outlawing disruptions. I can understand them arresting protesters that have sit-ins and block entrances -- but Dave did not of that. How about we, as the Constitution suggests, allow freedom of speech everywhere, but just arrest those that actually DO interrupt those official duties? (Now if you're going to argue that Dave did prevent them from doing their official duties, we really have nothing more to discuss).
Quote from: KBCraig on July 19, 2007, 08:57 PM NHFT
It could take three or four helpers just to get you up at the crack of dawn! ;D
the FPS guys can bring that many to carry you around :)
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 19, 2007, 10:52 PM NHFT
Employees of the IRS are is not an "official body". Official bodies are our elected representatives (local, state, federal) and the courts. A petition asks them to take action (legislation or adjudication) via a written request.
Thus the IRS cannot create a law requiring anyone to do anything.
Quote from: SamIam on July 19, 2007, 11:05 PM NHFT
In the mean time, I was inspired by a comment Mark Edge made about handing giving the TSA a story about the TSA missing 90% of explosives/guns/knives. So I put that on one side, and based on Dave's adventures a petition for redress of grievances on the other. An artist friend is turning it into a really nice professional looking tri-fold brochure with the World's smallest political quiz on it as well. It should be a nice tool for my travels. :)
very cool idea
QuoteHow about we, as the Constitution suggests, allow freedom of speech everywhere, but just arrest those that actually DO interrupt those official duties?
Everywhere? We don't allow freedom of speech for libel, slander, yelling "fire" in a crowded building or inciting a riot. We don't allow freedom of speech on private property without permission of the owner (btw - in anarcho-capitalism where all land is private, where would we have freedom of speech rights?).
If freedom of speech were allowed in the offices of the IRS then it COULD be shutdown with enough people exercising their rights. So we make a law that no one can.
8)
Called Essex County Jail just now. Records says Dave's there still. Visiting says Dave Ridley's in the infirmary and not recieving visitors. :(
I've got Dave's phone and backpack.
When I hear he's not at Essex anymore, I'll head out to Concord.
I bet he's in the infirmary because he's fasting.
Careful Ratty.................he may not be the same Data that you knew......plus........you know.........prison pallor :P
To you, the proponents of protection and safety:
Freedom isn't comfortable
Freedom isn't safe
Freedom is not static
Freedom requires responsibility
Freedom requires eternal vigilance
Freedom is hard work
Your "system" is about creating clinical, uncompromising, ruthless, and phlegmatic "law".
Thinking men cannot be ruled. You seek to enslave, not exalt. You seek to control, not edify.
I want to be there when Dada comes back home. I'll see what I can do.
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 20, 2007, 07:17 AM NHFT
QuoteHow about we, as the Constitution suggests, allow freedom of speech everywhere, but just arrest those that actually DO interrupt those official duties?
Everywhere? We don't allow freedom of speech for libel, slander, yelling "fire" in a crowded building or inciting a riot. We don't allow freedom of speech on private property without permission of the owner (btw - in anarcho-capitalism where all land is private, where would we have freedom of speech rights?).
If freedom of speech were allowed in the offices of the IRS then it COULD be shutdown with enough people exercising their rights. So we make a law that no one can.
Actually, the freedom of speech is absolute. The circumstances you list are all examples of irresponsible speech, those that many people believe should carry consequences. The "fire in a crowded theater" is a canard that has been misused to restrict speech and legalize criminal action against speech that has no victim. Go ahead -- yell fire. Most likely you will not cause an injury, but may get detained or arrested from the legal precedent.
Speech should always be 100% free. Speech that
directly causes harm can be a factor in the injured party bringing suit. Without a victim, speech cannot be a crime.
Quote from: RattyDog on July 20, 2007, 09:05 AM NHFT
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on July 20, 2007, 08:57 AM NHFT
Careful Ratty.................he may not be the same Data that you knew......plus........you know.........prison pallor :P
Oh no...please tell me you are making a joke!!! Remember, I'm new to this, the whole...people getting locked up thing. Will he be ill? Would it make sense to bring him a tooth brush and some toothpaste or anything like that? Anything to help get the taste and feel of that place off of him??
Will he be okay?
Just Joking. One of my jobs
Don't worry, rattydog. He's OK.
No, your sign in fine. :)
Quote from: RattyDog on July 20, 2007, 09:38 AM NHFT
I have the rage to do civ dis that would get me locked up...but my life is not prepared for that yet
Two thoughts:
1. If you observe yourself being motivated by rage, Civ Dis is the
last thing to consider. Effective Civ Dis seems to require Ghandi-like (if you prefer, Jesus-like) love for the individuals who will persecute you.
2. If your blood is boiling with rage,
the power of the pen is a perfect weapon. Write LTE's. Start a blog. Pass out FTL flyers or copies of the KFP or FIJA flyers (in places where it's "acceptable", of course... unless or until you are in a position to realistically contemplate item #1 above)
d goddard. you nailed it! ;)
kola
LOL :)
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 20, 2007, 09:30 AM NHFT
Don't worry, rattydog. He's OK.
Don't pay attention to Kat. Jail's rattled her brain.
I'm right there with you, RattyDog. I understand the rage.
Me, I'm also in a little different position. I'm often told that my appearance is rather "intimidating." So there's lots of different rules that end up in place when I'm confronted by the police, believe me. I hope and pray that non-violent resistance will work. I'm working towards a financial place where I can quickly and easily participate -- and not be phased by being arrested or spending times in jail. In the meantime, I'm working on other underground skills -- like writing and using a camera.
But yes, you're indeed not the only one who feels the rage and doesn't have a good target for release of it.
Quote from: RattyDog on July 20, 2007, 10:10 AM NHFTWhen I say rage....it's not like any I've felt before. It's like I'm in the twilight zone or something, I just don't get why people aren't more upset about this when I tell them about it. It's an intellectual rage. I cannot understand how the logic of "First Dave Ridley, Kat, then your neighbor....now who is left to hold and sign and protest when they're carrying you off?" doesn't make sense to people. My brain cannot understand how all people don't understand that this is all so wrong...so so wrong. It is as logical and clear to me as "the sky is up". Why is this so clear to us....why isn't everybody upset? I tell people and they say "Oh, well I'm sorry about your friend, but he just shouldn't go to the IRS office anymore." - everyone is missing the point. Ugh. It's so frustrating...but I guess I didn't get it fora long time....so, I guess I can't be too angry at them. I guess my wish now, is to engage in activities that can infect others with this knowledge.
To put it bluntly people see protesters as nuts. When you say Dave went to the IRS office to hand out fliers asking them to quit their jobs and he was arrested for it, people don't see that as a first amendment violation of his trying to address his grievances... they simply see it as someone doing something they see as nutty.
If you stop 20 people on the street anywhere in NH and asked them what the first amendment says you'll get freedom of speech and religion but I doubt any of them will know about the grievance part.
Mark Hounsell actually wrote about it this week on NHInsider:
http://www.nhinsider.com/mark-hounsell/2007/7/20/what-things-are-americans-suppose-to-know-and-when-did-so-ma.html
People are uninformed and as a result view things differently from those who are informed. I've had this same discussion with my sister who can't understand why people do some of the things they do (she's actually a card carrying member of MENSA).
Quotewhile a man does have a right to question the ethics of an obviously corrupt government, if he does it really loud or with many other people at the same time, it could be disturbing to this corrupt government....so they just outlawed it all together.
It is not "outlawed all together". Today, you and as many of your friends as you can muster could peaceably assemble on the sidewalk in front of the federal courthouse and as loudly as possible condemn the federal income tax and the morality of the torture it pays for because your common right of way to exercise your first amendment rights are contained within the sidewalk - so long as you do not interfere with any other individuals equal right to the same (you have to keep moving). The police are instructed to insure no one's equal rights are being infringed upon. I might even join you.
But you have none of these rights within a collectively owned building not designated for those purposes because there is no common right of way within the building except for rights of egress to get to the offices via lobbies, halls, stairs etc.
If someone told me my job for the day would be putting people like my heroes dave, kat and lauren or anyone fighting for their god given rights (and im not religous) i would have to quit that job ,and expose the powers within if its just your job your job sucks.
Best wishes to you dave i have nothing but respect for what you do. Firecracker Joe
QuoteSpeech should always be 100% free. Speech that directly causes harm can be a factor in the injured party bringing suit. Without a victim, speech cannot be a crime.
Freedom of speech, assembly, conscience, petitioning for redress of grievances, etc. are common rights. Common rights are individual equal rights which means in expressing your first amendment right you can not infringe upon the equal rights of any other individual to the same. So you do not have first amendment rights on private property without permission of the owner and you do not have first amendment rights within collectively owned property not designated for those purposes.
Hypothetical:
You are petition for a redress of grievances within a collectively owned building by testifying in front of your elected representatives (an official body) verbally explaining your written complaint and what actions you and other petitioners would like to see to rectify the situation. While you start speaking, a group of protesters stand up and shout so loudly that your speech can not be heard by the elected officials and other members of the audience who have voluntarily come to hear the proceedings.
What are the obligations of the police to protect the first amendment?
Congratulations, Judge Muirhead and Cmd. Therrien, you created another radical on Tuesday.
:icon_pirat:
Quote from: RattyDog on July 20, 2007, 09:38 AM NHFT
I'm just so completely pissed....the whole world is just hummin along, people in their cars, goign to work....and an innocent man is locked in jail.
I bet Dada is learning the same lesson that Thoreau did while in jail for 1 night. You look at everyone else differently. It is happening to you. You know that the government is doing bad things .... because you have 1st hand knowledge of 1 case ... and people are funding these activities and just want to pretend it isn't happening.
Quote from: lildog on July 20, 2007, 10:36 AM NHFT
To put it bluntly people see protesters as nuts. When you say Dave went to the IRS office to hand out fliers asking them to quit their jobs and he was arrested for it, people don't see that as a first amendment violation of his trying to address his grievances... they simply see it as someone doing something they see as nutty.
Bingo.
Acts of Civ Dis
have to be absolute master-strokes of intentional planning and knowing the pulse of the public.
I still hold Mike Fisher's "outlaw manicure" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kx0HH5FIScU) as the perfect act of Civ Dis.
Masterstroke.
QuoteIf you stop 20 people on the street anywhere in NH and asked them what the first amendment says you'll get freedom of speech and religion but I doubt any of them will know about the grievance part.
If you asked 20 libertarians what common rights are I bet you would get the same result. Most libertarians erroneously believe common rights are collective rights.
Quote from: d_goddard on July 20, 2007, 11:09 AM NHFT
Quote from: lildog on July 20, 2007, 10:36 AM NHFT
To put it bluntly people see protesters as nuts. When you say Dave went to the IRS office to hand out fliers asking them to quit their jobs and he was arrested for it, people don't see that as a first amendment violation of his trying to address his grievances... they simply see it as someone doing something they see as nutty.
Bingo.
Acts of Civ Dis have to be absolute master-strokes of intentional planning and knowing the pulse of the public.
I still hold Mike Fisher's "outlaw manicure" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kx0HH5FIScU) as the perfect act of Civ Dis.
Masterstroke.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Quote from: d_goddard on July 20, 2007, 09:48 AM NHFT
1. If you observe yourself being motivated by rage, Civ Dis is the last thing to consider. Effective Civ Dis seems to require Ghandi-like (if you prefer, Jesus-like) love for the individuals who will persecute you.
I think that is the right way to live all the time. Civ Dis only cranks up the intensity.
Quote from: RattyDog on July 20, 2007, 10:17 AM NHFT
What is it like in jail, BTW? I've been in a holding cell before, but never a real jail. Is it really scary?
The jails I have been have been similar to holding cells. They try to keep everyone separate most of the time (meals, showers, sleep). The 1st night in a holding cell is usually the worst time.
Quote from: Ogre on July 20, 2007, 10:30 AM NHFT
Me, I'm also in a little different position. I'm often told that my appearance is rather "intimidating."
I have done some things to bring down the tension level when dealing with cops and such. They seem to get worked up when you stand your ground, especially if you are bigger or just taller than they are. I like sitting down or other things to calm them down. I don't want to scare them. I do want to let them know that most of the time I will not back down.
Yesterday I didn't talk with them and just walked away when they started giving me orders.
Quoteso long as the IRS continues to rob me biweekly, I own the goddamn building.
In the system we live under - a constitutional democratic republic - you have delegated authority to make laws that regulate the collectively owned buildings to your elected representatives.
QuoteThat I cannot stand in the lobby, in a peaceful and nonthreatening manner....is bullshit.
You can in the lobby, as you have a common right of egress to get to the office to conduct the business designated as the purpose of the collectively owned building. You may not block others common right of egress as you can not do it on a sidewalk either. But because a lobby is typically wider than a sidewalk, I have no idea how they would enforce this.
QuoteHis being there was not a hindrance
The law states that handbills can not be given to employees because it interferes with (hinders) their duties. If it were allowed then you could essentially shut down the duties of the office by continually giving employees handbills so that they could not complete their work. You can hand them handbills on the way out of their office on common property (sidewalks) and may even be able to slip it under a windshield wiper on their car (I have no idea legally whether this is true) if you don't touch the car with your hands.
Quotehave the guts to say that you think Dave Ridley got what he deserved.
But that is the point of non-violent, civil disobedience. To willingly and lovingly accept the punishment in order to focus attention on the particular law you are breaking and the larger principle. I believe the income tax laws are morally wrong and that the money pays for torture - which is also morally wrong.
QuoteThere come s time when I reasonable person has to say "ENOUGH".
I agree and each of us as individuals will subjectively determine where and under what circumstances that point comes.
QuoteA person, a human, has the right to step into the lobby of his oppressors and say "Stop oppressing me".
You have that right. Within the buildings designated for that purpose in exercising your first amendment rights to petition your elected officials for redress of grievances. You also have it on collectively owned sidewalks and roads where we all have individual common right of ways that are protected for that purpose.
If you want my opinion, yes, it's a waste of time to talk to Ethan. He's a broken record. I always have him on ignore.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 20, 2007, 11:41 AM NHFT
If you want my opinion, yes, it's a waste of time to talk to Ethan. He's a broken record. I always have him on ignore.
It is a waste of time to even read his posts. I too have him on ignore.
yeah richard,romak and ethan are one in the same...their names are on my train to Iggyville.
quote Yesterday I didn't talk with them and just walked away when they started giving me orders.
That is a great way to handle them. Just ignore them and walk away whenever possible. It takes away their power.
Kola
QuoteIs it a waste of time to talk to you?
You mean talking at me or discussing issues with me? I am giving you the logic behind the laws based on first principles and precedent. Discussing the issue with means giving reasons as to why my logic is faulty and then I decide whether or not to change my opinion of the facts based on the new knowledge. Talking at me would be saying I am wrong without giving any reasons. Your choice.
I just got off Dan's show. His primary concern was that he wanted to be appealing to his audience, which apparently is "light-libertarian"... people who (in his words) "don't trust the government but haven't given it much thought". As such, the discussion about Dave and his protest was liberally sprinkled with indignation about the IRS, the Iraq war, and the terrible state of public schools.
He had me on for about 45 minutes. Discussion was split about equally between Dave's situation, why the Income Tax is the most perverse of all taxes, why the Federal government is worse than State and Local government, and NH politics & the NHLA.
In discussing Dave's protest, I clearly conveyed how polite he is: that he wasn't yelling or blocking peoples' way. Nobody's day was inconvenienced during his protest, except of course for the IRS lady who overreacted, and the law enforcement officers who she called in.
I also mentioned that in just the past 24 hours, more people have performed similar protests, and been handed similar fines for their so-called "crimes"
Quote from: RattyDog on July 20, 2007, 11:01 AM NHFTIt's that we're mad about the way the government runs things that people think we're nuts...which only goes to show that the propaganda and brainwashing has been successful.
I heard a great quote on the radio that hit it right on the head. I'm paraphrasing but basically they said he who controls the knowledge controls the way people view things.
To expand a little on my last post... it isn't so much what is presented in the news that should be questioned but HOW it is presented. The same story can be told many different ways as I'm sure you all know.
Just called Essex correctional facility, Dave's still there.
Thx for the info, Lauren.
We were thinking we'd show up at Concord around 4:00 with Free Dave signs.
Income Tax is unconstitutional, therefore illegal.
In this case the chicken came before the egg.
All arguments supporting laws concerning "right of egress, designated purpose, etc" are completely moot given that they are protecting illegal activities and jobs.
Original intent, Spirit of the law
Get with the Spirit
The sophist spins a marvelous web of truth so lithely with expertise and accuracy, only to throw that subtle, sticky, dark thread of lie in divers places. Entrapping their prey, unaware and unarmed, injected with the numbing poison of consensus and popularity. Move away from that which leads you into a false sense of security and safety.
Quote from: shyfrog on July 20, 2007, 01:34 PM NHFT
The sophist spins a marvelous web of truth so lithely with expertise and accuracy, only to throw that subtle, sticky, dark thread of lie in divers places. Entrapping their prey, unaware and unarmed, injected with the numbing poison of consensus and popularity. Move away from that which leads you into a false sense of security and safety.
Is this your work or someone elses... well done. 8)
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on July 20, 2007, 01:39 PM NHFT
Quote from: shyfrog on July 20, 2007, 01:34 PM NHFT
The sophist spins a marvelous web of truth so lithely with expertise and accuracy, only to throw that subtle, sticky, dark thread of lie in divers places. Entrapping their prey, unaware and unarmed, injected with the numbing poison of consensus and popularity. Move away from that which leads you into a false sense of security and safety.
Is this your work our someone elses... well done. 8)
It's mine. :)
Thanks
Quote from: shyfrog on July 20, 2007, 01:34 PM NHFT
Income Tax is unconstitutional, therefore illegal.
The income tax is constitutional thus legal but immoral as it violates the absolute right of self-ownership - the fundamental tenet of libertarianism.
The infirmary says that Dave is in court. We assume that just means he's on his way to the Concord court to be released.
Has it been made clear to him that he no longer owes 150 bucks?
If not, they will summons him again.
If there are no penalties due, I would request something in writing to prove it.
Kola
I'll be arriving at around 5 pm. Don't leave without me!
Hmm... I guess it's too late to head down now.
We're in Peterborough, call me if there's anything going on with Dada (dinner, sitting around a campfire and telling prison ghost stories, etc) that my daughter and I can attend and be supportive in.
801-319-6294
WELCOME HOME DADA !>!<!>!<!>!<
GET FOOD IN HED
LOV
STEVESTEVE
Quote from: Russell Kanning on July 20, 2007, 11:25 AM NHFT
Yesterday I didn't talk with them and just walked away when they started giving me orders.
I know this is not your style Russell, but I think it would be fun to have a fee schedule prepared and notarized. That way when the police start placing orders for your services, you can clearly relay the costs to them. One court settlement against an officer's personal possessions or wages would go a long way.
I'm still learning, but that's what Robert Menard has put into place. It seems to be working for him. Although you don't join their system, it does require understanding their corrupt wacky methods.
Quote from: d_goddard on July 20, 2007, 11:09 AM NHFT
Quote from: lildog on July 20, 2007, 10:36 AM NHFT
To put it bluntly people see protesters as nuts. When you say Dave went to the IRS office to hand out fliers asking them to quit their jobs and he was arrested for it, people don't see that as a first amendment violation of his trying to address his grievances... they simply see it as someone doing something they see as nutty.
Bingo.
Acts of Civ Dis have to be absolute master-strokes of intentional planning and knowing the pulse of the public.
I still hold Mike Fisher's "outlaw manicure" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kx0HH5FIScU) as the perfect act of Civ Dis.
Masterstroke.
With all due respect, Denis ... you're full of it.
"Acts of civ dis have to be absolute master-strokes of intentional planning and knowing the pulse of the public"
::)
In other words, stand around planning perfection, but don't actually do anything.
I wonder if Thoreau took a poll to get his fingers on the "pulse" of the public.
Let me state something that I think should be obvious: the goal of persuading the "public at large" when you do an act of civil disobedience is only secondary. The main goal is to get at the conscience of those who are enforcing the law. Since they are the ones who actually have to use the violence to stop you, it is their conscience that is most plagued by the action.
Quote from: RattyDog on July 20, 2007, 11:40 AM NHFT
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 20, 2007, 11:37 AM NHFT
Quoteso long as the IRS continues to rob me biweekly, I own the goddamn building.
In the system we live under - a constitutional democratic republic - you have delegated authority to make laws that regulate the collectively owned buildings to your elected representatives.
QuoteThat I cannot stand in the lobby, in a peaceful and nonthreatening manner....is bullshit.
You can in the lobby, as you have a common right of egress to get to the office to conduct the business designated as the purpose of the collectively owned building. You may not block others common right of egress as you can not do it on a sidewalk either. But because a lobby is typically wider than a sidewalk, I have no idea how they would enforce this.
QuoteHis being there was not a hindrance
The law states that handbills can not be given to employees because it interferes with (hinders) their duties. If it were allowed then you could essentially shut down the duties of the office by continually giving employees handbills so that they could not complete their work. You can hand them handbills on the way out of their office on common property (sidewalks) and may even be able to slip it under a windshield wiper on their car (I have no idea legally whether this is true) if you don't touch the car with your hands.
Quotehave the guts to say that you think Dave Ridley got what he deserved.
But that is the point of non-violent, civil disobedience. To willingly and lovingly accept the punishment in order to focus attention on the particular law you are breaking and the larger principle. I believe the income tax laws are morally wrong and that the money pays for torture - which is also morally wrong.
QuoteThere come s time when I reasonable person has to say "ENOUGH".
I agree and each of us as individuals will subjectively determine where and under what circumstances that point comes.
QuoteA person, a human, has the right to step into the lobby of his oppressors and say "Stop oppressing me".
You have that right. Within the buildings designated for that purpose in exercising your first amendment rights to petition your elected officials for redress of grievances. You also have it on collectively owned sidewalks and roads where we all have individual common right of ways that are protected for that purpose.
Is it a waste of time to tak to you? I'm not trying to be rude....but before I type and type and type a response to all of this...I would just like to know if ti is a waste of my time.
Yes. it is a waste of your time. I like bill Grennon, as a person. But online ... you're wasting your time.
Quote from: RattyDog on July 20, 2007, 11:35 AM NHFT
I was arrested when I lived in Amherst for driving without a license. I had paid a fine for a ticket, but somebody missed a key stroke and didn't register that I'd paid it and I was stopped. (...) I paid the fine and left.
Was arrested about a year ago for the same thing. Had a registration violating ticket...paid the fine, thought either not the full amount fo something and so they arrested me... (...) they let me go, I did pay a fee for something though. They didn't call it a fine...it was about $30-50.
So... they screwed up, and arrested you when you had done nothing wrong. They took your valuable time, interfered with your job, caused you public embarrassment, finally figured out they'd screwed up, and
still made you pay money before letting you go! What a system!
They should have been paying
you!
Quote from: Caleb on July 20, 2007, 06:21 PM NHFT
Let me state something that I think should be obvious: the goal of persuading the "public at large" when you do an act of civil disobedience is only secondary. The main goal is to get at the conscience of those who are enforcing the law. Since they are the ones who actually have to use the violence to stop you, it is their conscience that is most plagued by the action.
I think they should be well planned, not unplanned. Indeed, the perfect is the enemy of the good, but a half-assed civil dis that isn't thought out to maximize the clarity of what you're trying to do is lost on SO many people including the idiots who are going to be enforcing the law. I think you could have gotten a lot more people to really think about why a license is needed for manicures if right beside Mike's "illegal" manicure was another identical manicure being done for FREE. AFAIK, you can't be arrested unless you're charging money, and so you could really point out that both people were doing the EXACT SAME THING - only, one person DIDN'T get arrested - maybe COULDN'T be arrested - WHY? Money?
It would really underscore that licenses aren't really there to "protect the public," but to ensure business for schools that prepare you for licensure, protect an existing business hierarchy and stifle new business and innovation.
So Caleb, I don't think Denis is full of anything except enthusiasm and contemplation. Chill.
Quote from: Caleb on July 20, 2007, 06:21 PM NHFT
Let me state something that I think should be obvious: the goal of persuading the "public at large" when you do an act of civil disobedience is only secondary. The main goal is to get at the conscience of those who are enforcing the law. Since they are the ones who actually have to use the violence to stop you, it is their conscience that is most plagued by the action.
I think they should be well planned, not unplanned. Indeed, the perfect is the enemy of the good, but a half-assed civil dis that isn't thought out to maximize the clarity of what you're trying to do is lost on SO many people including the idiots who are going to be enforcing the law. I think you could have gotten a lot more people to really think about why a license is needed for manicures if right beside Mike's "illegal" manicure was another identical manicure being done for FREE. AFAIK, you can't be arrested unless you're charging money, and so you could really point out that both people were doing the EXACT SAME THING - only, one person DIDN'T get arrested - maybe COULDN'T be arrested - WHY? Money?
It would really underscore that licenses aren't really there to "protect the public," but to ensure business for schools that prepare you for licensure, protect an existing business hierarchy and stifle new business and innovation.
So Caleb, I don't think Denis is full of anything except enthusiasm and contemplation. Chill.
Different people same thoughts!!! ;D
QuoteYes. it is a waste of your time.
So much for a "discussion forum". What is the point if everyone agrees?
Dave is Out!!!
Is anyone transcribing the voicemails?
Quote from: Dreepa on July 20, 2007, 07:05 PM NHFT
Different people same thoughts!!! ;D
As opposed to Frank... same person same old thoughts again and again and again.
Quote from: porcupine kate on July 20, 2007, 06:58 PM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on July 20, 2007, 06:21 PM NHFT
Let me state something that I think should be obvious: the goal of persuading the "public at large" when you do an act of civil disobedience is only secondary. The main goal is to get at the conscience of those who are enforcing the law. Since they are the ones who actually have to use the violence to stop you, it is their conscience that is most plagued by the action.
I think they should be well planned, not unplanned. Indeed, the perfect is the enemy of the good, but a half-assed civil dis that isn't thought out to maximize the clarity of what you're trying to do is lost on SO many people including the idiots who are going to be enforcing the law. I think you could have gotten a lot more people to really think about why a license is needed for manicures if right beside Mike's "illegal" manicure was another identical manicure being done for FREE. AFAIK, you can't be arrested unless you're charging money, and so you could really point out that both people were doing the EXACT SAME THING - only, one person DIDN'T get arrested - maybe COULDN'T be arrested - WHY? Money?
It would really underscore that licenses aren't really there to "protect the public," but to ensure business for schools that prepare you for licensure, protect an existing business hierarchy and stifle new business and innovation.
So Caleb, I don't think Denis is full of anything except enthusiasm and contemplation. Chill.
Excellent point. With a little more planning and forethought this would have made a good CD event into a great one. Why don't libertarian activists ever coordinate with the folks from Peace Action on CD events?
Quotethe goal of persuading the "public at large" when you do an act of civil disobedience is only secondary. The main goal is to get at the conscience of those who are enforcing the law. Since they are the ones who actually have to use the violence to stop you, it is their conscience that is most plagued by the action.
Another excellent point. The Birmingham bus boycott ended while the laws were still on the books but no one was willing to enforce them.
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 20, 2007, 07:17 PM NHFT
Quote from: porcupine kate on July 20, 2007, 06:58 PM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on July 20, 2007, 06:21 PM NHFT
Let me state something that I think should be obvious: the goal of persuading the "public at large" when you do an act of civil disobedience is only secondary. The main goal is to get at the conscience of those who are enforcing the law. Since they are the ones who actually have to use the violence to stop you, it is their conscience that is most plagued by the action.
I think they should be well planned, not unplanned. Indeed, the perfect is the enemy of the good, but a half-assed civil dis that isn't thought out to maximize the clarity of what you're trying to do is lost on SO many people including the idiots who are going to be enforcing the law. I think you could have gotten a lot more people to really think about why a license is needed for manicures if right beside Mike's "illegal" manicure was another identical manicure being done for FREE. AFAIK, you can't be arrested unless you're charging money, and so you could really point out that both people were doing the EXACT SAME THING - only, one person DIDN'T get arrested - maybe COULDN'T be arrested - WHY? Money?
It would really underscore that licenses aren't really there to "protect the public," but to ensure business for schools that prepare you for licensure, protect an existing business hierarchy and stifle new business and innovation.
So Caleb, I don't think Denis is full of anything except enthusiasm and contemplation. Chill.
Excellent point. With a little more planning and forethought this would have made a good CD event into a great one. Why don't libertarian activists ever coordinate with the folks from Peace Action on CD events?
Why don't you head that up Bill?
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 20, 2007, 07:17 PM NHFT
Quote from: porcupine kate on July 20, 2007, 06:58 PM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on July 20, 2007, 06:21 PM NHFT
Let me state something that I think should be obvious: the goal of persuading the "public at large" when you do an act of civil disobedience is only secondary. The main goal is to get at the conscience of those who are enforcing the law. Since they are the ones who actually have to use the violence to stop you, it is their conscience that is most plagued by the action.
I think they should be well planned, not unplanned. Indeed, the perfect is the enemy of the good, but a half-assed civil dis that isn't thought out to maximize the clarity of what you're trying to do is lost on SO many people including the idiots who are going to be enforcing the law. I think you could have gotten a lot more people to really think about why a license is needed for manicures if right beside Mike's "illegal" manicure was another identical manicure being done for FREE. AFAIK, you can't be arrested unless you're charging money, and so you could really point out that both people were doing the EXACT SAME THING - only, one person DIDN'T get arrested - maybe COULDN'T be arrested - WHY? Money?
It would really underscore that licenses aren't really there to "protect the public," but to ensure business for schools that prepare you for licensure, protect an existing business hierarchy and stifle new business and innovation.
So Caleb, I don't think Denis is full of anything except enthusiasm and contemplation. Chill.
Excellent point. With a little more planning and forethought this would have made a good CD event into a great one. Why don't libertarian activists ever coordinate with the folks from Peace Action on CD events?
I think that's a fantastic idea, Bill. I have weekly discussions with the Peace Action people here in Keene, and I think that they are on board with a lot of these ideas. I think one of them went out and joined in a libertarian protest a few weeks ago here in Keene. They are generally very positive about what is being done. They don't mention the "right to common access on the sidewalk, but not in the office area, where the officials have a legitimate business to go about trying to enslave people" and other such nonsense. They just say, "keep up the good work," give their ideas, and what not. From talking with some of them, the line that you are trying to sell, that the peace action people know "precisely what law they are breaking" is a bunch of nonsense. They are trying to make a point, and don't have any clue what law, specifically, will be used against them. Trespassing. Criminal trespass. Willfully ignoring the lawful order of a fed thug. Disturbing the peace. They don't have a clue with what they will actually be charged, they just intend to stick around long enough to make them do *something*. Not much different than what Dave did, actually, except Dave didn't originally intend to have this end up in court, he was just doing his protests, not expecting the thugs to do anything. But they decided to come after him. And Dave just said, "No" when they tried to order him to pay a fine. You couldn't ask for a more pure form of civil disobedience than that.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on July 20, 2007, 07:20 PM NHFT
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 20, 2007, 07:17 PM NHFT
Quote from: porcupine kate on July 20, 2007, 06:58 PM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on July 20, 2007, 06:21 PM NHFT
Let me state something that I think should be obvious: the goal of persuading the "public at large" when you do an act of civil disobedience is only secondary. The main goal is to get at the conscience of those who are enforcing the law. Since they are the ones who actually have to use the violence to stop you, it is their conscience that is most plagued by the action.
I think they should be well planned, not unplanned. Indeed, the perfect is the enemy of the good, but a half-assed civil dis that isn't thought out to maximize the clarity of what you're trying to do is lost on SO many people including the idiots who are going to be enforcing the law. I think you could have gotten a lot more people to really think about why a license is needed for manicures if right beside Mike's "illegal" manicure was another identical manicure being done for FREE. AFAIK, you can't be arrested unless you're charging money, and so you could really point out that both people were doing the EXACT SAME THING - only, one person DIDN'T get arrested - maybe COULDN'T be arrested - WHY? Money?
It would really underscore that licenses aren't really there to "protect the public," but to ensure business for schools that prepare you for licensure, protect an existing business hierarchy and stifle new business and innovation.
So Caleb, I don't think Denis is full of anything except enthusiasm and contemplation. Chill.
Excellent point. With a little more planning and forethought this would have made a good CD event into a great one. Why don't libertarian activists ever coordinate with the folks from Peace Action on CD events?
Why don't you head that up Bill?
:) +1
QuoteThey are trying to make a point, and don't have any clue what law, specifically, will be used against them. Trespassing. Criminal trespass. Willfully ignoring the lawful order of a fed thug. Disturbing the peace. They don't have a clue with what they will actually be charged, they just intend to stick around long enough to make them do *something*.
They are specifically going to their representatives office and asking for a constituent meeting to discuss a redress of grievances. That is what the offices of our elected representatives are for. When they are denied the meeting they stay after hours and are arrested for trespassing.
HMmmm. I haven't heard of the Peace Action folks - Do they have a website/forum so I can learn what they're about?
I never said that just going out and doing something was bad - depending on the situation, it can be - and any message you had can be lost on people who misinterpret your civil dis action as just some dumb disruptive jerk. 99% of the people out there don't know what civil disobedience is, don't know anything about Thoreau, don't know anything about Ghandi (Indira? Mahatma?), and won't expend an erg of energy to find out. If you want to reach people, you have to REACH OUT to them and make your message:
1. accessible
2. understandable
3. palatable
I often react VERY differently to people once I understand where they're coming from. It's especially hard to reach people if there's negative media spin, so effective communication with your audience - whether intended or not - is crucial. You may do a great civil dis that connects with the LEO's, but because of media spin stirring up the soccer moms and busybodies results in the dreaded NEW LAW.
1. You've got to come to grips with the fact that most people out there have a 5th grade reading level, don't grasp abstract concepts very well, don't "put the pieces together" very well, and have a VERY short attention span. Your message needs to short, simple, and built with big square blocks and primary colors. Spell it out for them in crayon.
2. I've talked to a lot of people in the liberty movement, and sometimes they're doing things that don't even make sense to ME, and I'm already on board with the basic concepts and tenets of freedom. What they're doing is never going to be understood by the average person walking by, hearing about it secondhand, or flipping through the channels and seeing the news coverage. The goal of the civil dis action needs to be clear, it needs to be ethical, it needs to address an issue that people can get on board with - OR - address an issue in a WAY that people can get on board with it.
3. This brings us to palatability. The same raw materials in different people's hands will yield products that your average Joe will either WANT or AVOID. We're trying to build a freedom movement, get people's attention, wake them up, educate them, gain them as allies, and get them involved. We can't do that if we have an unpalatable message, either by design, ignorance, or accident.
Protesting against DEA agents dragging terminal cancer patients out of their hospital beds at gunpoint is going to be WAY more effective than just protesting the WOD.
Protesting stupid laws statutes that don't protect anyone and put otherwise good people in jail is better than trying to decriminalize cocaine or child Pr0n.
Spending the extra half hour to consider who your audience is before launching into a civil dis action may make or break it. Spending the time to observe your audience and be flexible in your approach may take an average civil dis action and turn it into a national cause.
Having a well-planned, organized, and photogenic civil dis action will likely get you a better first impression, gain you better media coverage and attract better attention from the people in TV land who are conditioned to see actors with toothpaste smiles. You need them to pay attention in a receptive frame of mind if you want to communicate your message and have them agree with you. Lots of people hate dirty hippies who hold REPENT signs and just complain. Soccer moms with their daughters in flowery dresses and Easter bonnets will hold people's attention, and they'll stay tuned in long enough to hear what you have to say.
This isn't my manifesto for what I say civil dis has to be, it's just a few reasonable and logical observations about the facts of life and society, and how to maximize our interaction with them in our favor.
I HATE the socialists, but the Student Action Union used to do some great protests and civil dis. They got together and taught classes about what to do, how to do it, and how to deal with the media. CLASSES. They groomed people for PR positions and social manipulation. They made a huge impact.
We can't afford to be marginalized because of poor planning and lack of consideration.
Porc-411, message 1:
"It's Dave Ridley reporting in from 55 Pleasant Street. Just got out of lockup half an hour ago for my 'distribution of handbills' charge and walked out of the building to see this wonderful group of people here. It looks like there are almost eight of us here now. It's pretty cool.
"So anyway, I'm out now almost a day early, and just wanted to announce that, and don't know what to announce... so there are lots of details, a lot that I'll have to tell, but overall it was a positive experience, I learned a lot from it. I think it was worthwhile, but we haven't had a chance to see all the benefits and costs yet.
"It's a real honor that you guys have come to my defense so much, and that's what makes this worth doing.
"Anyway, I look forward to seeing this on the forum as soon as possible. Please transcribe....yadda-dada."
QuoteI haven't heard of the Peace Action folks - Do they have a website/forum so I can learn what they're about?
http://www.nhpeaceaction.org/ (http://www.nhpeaceaction.org/)
excerpts:
On Wednesday May 9th, nine New Hampshire residents committed civil disobedience at Senator John Sununu's Manchester office in protest of the Senator's continued support for the war in Iraq. About 30 other antiwar protesters from NH Peace Action, Seacoast Peace Response and other organizations throughout the state demonstrated outside in support.
+++++++++
Monday is the day the Dover 6 go on trial for daring to stay in the Congressional offices occupied by Jeb Bradley after closing time.
The trial of the Dover 6, originally scheduled for Sept. 21 in the Dover District Court, will take place on Monday, October 30, at 1:00 pm. The defendants participated in a civil disobedience action at Congressman Jeb Bradley's office in Dover on May 31 with the goal of ending the Iraq war. Please attend the trial and dress all in black to show your support for the Dover 6.
The defendants took part in a civil disobedience action sponsored by NH Peace Action and Seacoast Peace Response. They were arrested for criminal trespass, a Class A Misdemeanor (RSA 635:2) that carries a maximum penalty of one year in jail and a $2000 fine. Attorney Patrick Fleming of Portsmouth will represent the Dover 6: Adam Carine, 39, of Dover; Randall Kezar, 70, of Kingston; Macy Morse, 85, of Portsmouth; Nina Jordan, 67, of Lee; Lee Roberts, 70, of Portsmouth; and William R. Woodward, 62, of Durham.
This civil disobedience action was based on a letter to US Representative Jeb Bradley that asked the Representative to respond to the public by letting them know that he would support one of several bills in Congress to end the hostilities and remove our troops and permanent bases from Iraq. Due to lack of a response from the Representative, the six, named above, remained in Bradley's office after the 5 pm closing time.
Approximately 50 concerned citizens spent the afternoon of May 31 in Bradley's office reading the names of soldiers and civilians killed in Iraq, remaining peaceful and non-confrontational before either leaving or being arrested after the office closed at 5 pm. The arrestees were arraigned on June 23 in Dover District Court and were released on their own recognizance. Their trial, originally scheduled for August 21, was postponed until Monday, October 30th.
Porc-411, Message 2:
"Hello everyone, this is error, and I am calling to let you know that Dave Ridley and a bunch of other people are going to celebrate tonight at Murphy's Taproom, 494 Elm Street in Manchester. Please join us. We'll be there probably from about 7:30 through late evening. We'll see you there. Bye!"
Porc-411, Message 3:
"Hello, this is Russell, and we are standing here with Dave the Free Man, he's been free for like a half hour, anyway, you can hear Dave here in just a second..."
(Dave) "Hello, what? Who am I talking to?"
(Russell) "You're talking to the machine."
(Dave) "Oh, you mean the voice machine."
(Russell) "It's Porc-411"
(Dave) "I've already done that!"
(laughter)
(Russell) "Oh, okay, we are going to go from here in Concord to Murphy's Taproom to celebrate. We'll be there in like a half hour or something like that. So if anyone wants to join us, Dave Ridley will be there in person telling stories about jail at Murphy's Taproom. Talk to you guys later, 'bye!"
Quote from: SamIam on July 20, 2007, 05:15 PM NHFT
I know this is not your style Russell, but I think it would be fun to have a fee schedule prepared and notarized. That way when the police start placing orders for your services, you can clearly relay the costs to them.
I like the idea. >:D
We had fun with the gang at Murphy's until we had to leave for the drive back to Keene.
Dave is alive and well and out of the clutches of the enemy. :)
;D 8)
That Rocks! I want to hear jail stories. Can somebody post one for us to read?
Congratulations Dave. I don't have any smart, witty, or any sentamental things to say, other than job well done. My apologies for not making your getting out party.
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 20, 2007, 07:19 PM NHFT
Quotethe goal of persuading the "public at large" when you do an act of civil disobedience is only secondary. The main goal is to get at the conscience of those who are enforcing the law. Since they are the ones who actually have to use the violence to stop you, it is their conscience that is most plagued by the action.
Another excellent point. The Birmingham bus boycott ended while the laws were still on the books but no one was willing to enforce them.
Yup. I have been preaching this a lot lately, because I know it can work.
Quote from: shyfrog on July 20, 2007, 04:04 PM NHFT
Hmm... I guess it's too late to head down now.
We're in Peterborough, call me if there's anything going on with Dada (dinner, sitting around a campfire and telling prison ghost stories, etc) that my daughter and I can attend and be supportive in.
801-319-6294
Hey, we missed you! You need to subscribe to Porc-411.
Quote from: error on July 20, 2007, 11:06 PM NHFT
Quote from: shyfrog on July 20, 2007, 04:04 PM NHFT
Hmm... I guess it's too late to head down now.
We're in Peterborough, call me if there's anything going on with Dada (dinner, sitting around a campfire and telling prison ghost stories, etc) that my daughter and I can attend and be supportive in.
801-319-6294
Hey, we missed you! You need to subscribe to Porc-411.
Indeed...how do I go about doing that?
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=5248.0
We were thinking that we need a communications center set up for the evening before we head out to an event like yesterday. That way we know who to call on our cell phones to ask questions and get the word out on the internet and phone tree.
We could just find out who will be available to take calls and be on the internet for the evening. The person/s could be out of the area also.
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 20, 2007, 07:17 AM NHFT
QuoteHow about we, as the Constitution suggests, allow freedom of speech everywhere, but just arrest those that actually DO interrupt those official duties?
Everywhere? We don't allow freedom of speech for libel, slander, yelling "fire" in a crowded building or inciting a riot. We don't allow freedom of speech on private property without permission of the owner (btw - in anarcho-capitalism where all land is private, where would we have freedom of speech rights?).
If freedom of speech were allowed in the offices of the IRS then it COULD be shutdown with enough people exercising their rights. So we make a law that no one can.
first point- no you don't have "Freedom of speech" on private property like a theater or my home. Don't forget that the constitution is a document meant to LIMIT the scope of government, not grant "rights" to people. Your property is an extention of yourself, being the product of your labor and time. If you own yourself and are not the property of any group of people (even one that calls itself an authority) than you can control and take the responsibility for your own actions. The IRS is "owned" by that governing body that is supposedly controlled by that piece of paper called the constitution. It's not that Dada has the "right" to free speech in the IRS office, it's that the IRS does NOT have the right to stop him. They are the ones controlled by the first amendment.
Second point. Would it really be so bad if the IRS office was shut down? :)
It's great to hear you are free Dave! :jailbird:
Quote from: Revmar on July 21, 2007, 08:32 AM NHFT
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 20, 2007, 07:17 AM NHFT
QuoteHow about we, as the Constitution suggests, allow freedom of speech everywhere, but just arrest those that actually DO interrupt those official duties?
Everywhere? We don't allow freedom of speech for libel, slander, yelling "fire" in a crowded building or inciting a riot. We don't allow freedom of speech on private property without permission of the owner (btw - in anarcho-capitalism where all land is private, where would we have freedom of speech rights?).
If freedom of speech were allowed in the offices of the IRS then it COULD be shutdown with enough people exercising their rights. So we make a law that no one can.
first point- no you don't have "Freedom of speech" on private property like a theater or my home. Don't forget that the constitution is a document meant to LIMIT the scope of government, not grant "rights" to people. Your property is an extention of yourself, being the product of your labor and time. If you own yourself and are not the property of any group of people (even one that calls itself an authority) than you can control and take the responsibility for your own actions. The IRS is "owned" by that governing body that is supposedly controlled by that piece of paper called the constitution. It's not that Dada has the "right" to free speech in the IRS office, it's that the IRS does NOT have the right to stop him. They are the ones controlled by the first amendment.
Second point. Would it really be so bad if the IRS office was shut down? :)
Wow! I could not have stated it better. +1 for Revmar!!!
Dave freed!
(http://www.newhampshireunderground.com/wiki/show_image.php?id=2858)
Quote from: error on July 21, 2007, 02:36 AM NHFT
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=5248.0
Thanks :)
I have to say, it's great that Dave did his time wareing a "Free Russell Kanning" shirt!
More photos from John ( the previous one was John's too )
http://www.newhampshireunderground.com/wiki/tiki-browse_gallery.php?galleryId=86
Quote from: Revmar on July 21, 2007, 08:32 AM NHFT
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 20, 2007, 07:17 AM NHFT
QuoteHow about we, as the Constitution suggests, allow freedom of speech everywhere, but just arrest those that actually DO interrupt those official duties?
Everywhere? We don't allow freedom of speech for libel, slander, yelling "fire" in a crowded building or inciting a riot. We don't allow freedom of speech on private property without permission of the owner (btw - in anarcho-capitalism where all land is private, where would we have freedom of speech rights?).
If freedom of speech were allowed in the offices of the IRS then it COULD be shutdown with enough people exercising their rights. So we make a law that no one can.
first point- no you don't have "Freedom of speech" on private property like a theater or my home. Don't forget that the constitution is a document meant to LIMIT the scope of government, not grant "rights" to people. Your property is an extention of yourself, being the product of your labor and time. If you own yourself and are not the property of any group of people (even one that calls itself an authority) than you can control and take the responsibility for your own actions. The IRS is "owned" by that governing body that is supposedly controlled by that piece of paper called the constitution. It's not that Dada has the "right" to free speech in the IRS office, it's that the IRS does NOT have the right to stop him. They are the ones controlled by the first amendment.
Second point. Would it really be so bad if the IRS office was shut down? :)
If all lands are privately owned, then where will individuals who don't own have the ability to excercise their first amendment rights?
Do you understand that first amendment are common rights - individual EQUAL rights?
What does that mean to you?
I would like the IRS to be shutdown too because the tax is immoral and it pays for immoral actions.
Thanks for the pictures... beautiful, happy day. :)
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 21, 2007, 09:16 AM NHFT
More photos from John ( the previous one was John's too )
Is that RattyDog and her ...umm.. ratty little dog? ;D
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 20, 2007, 09:44 PM NHFT
The defendants took part in a civil disobedience action sponsored by NH Peace Action and Seacoast Peace Response. They were arrested for criminal trespass, a Class A Misdemeanor (RSA 635:2) that carries a maximum penalty of one year in jail and a $2000 fine.
That's INSANE.
Do we have any friendly reps who would _allow_ us to stay as long as we wanted outside their office? The attribute that seems to make for effective civil dis is the ability for people to put the action into context - to compare and contrast it with other similar actions and thus be able to objectively evaluate the official response to the action for themselves.
"6 people stayed outside Senator Z's office for an entire week, peacefully protesting Q. When asked what he thought of the protesters camping outside his office, Senator Z replied, 'These are REAL American patriots. I wish that all of my constituents were this active in the community and cared as much as these people obviously do. If what they are doing is a 'crime,' then there isn't any America left - and that's the REAL crime."
Do the same thing somewhere else, but outside the building and on public property. We could do it near an activist's home so that people could shower and have access to communications and other creature comforts, or just have a bunch of people rent out an apartment near the State house specifically for that purpose. It could be an office to house signs, donated computer equipment, act as a staging area for protests, and serve as a place to stay for people testifying for/against legislation. It would vastly simply life for people travelling from great distances.
Wow, that idea just popped into my head from nowhere while I was writing this, and I'm REALLY starting to like it a lot.
Quote from: error on July 20, 2007, 11:06 PM NHFT
Hey, we missed you! You need to subscribe to Porc-411.
Is there any way to automate Porc-411 so that I can have the messages forwarded to my cell phone's voice mail?
That way people out on the road could be notified even if they were away from their computer.
Quote from: Bald Eagle on July 21, 2007, 09:47 AM NHFT
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 20, 2007, 09:44 PM NHFT
The defendants took part in a civil disobedience action sponsored by NH Peace Action and Seacoast Peace Response. They were arrested for criminal trespass, a Class A Misdemeanor (RSA 635:2) that carries a maximum penalty of one year in jail and a $2000 fine.
That's INSANE.
Do we have any friendly reps who would _allow_ us to stay as long as we wanted outside their office? The attribute that seems to make for effective civil dis is the ability for people to put the action into context - to compare and contrast it with other similar actions and thus be able to objectively evaluate the official response to the action for themselves.
"6 people stayed outside Senator Z's office for an entire week, peacefully protesting Q. When asked what he thought of the protesters camping outside his office, Senator Z replied, 'These are REAL American patriots. I wish that all of my constituents were this active in the community and cared as much as these people obviously do. If what they are doing is a 'crime,' then there isn't any America left - and that's the REAL crime."
Do the same thing somewhere else, but outside the building and on public property. We could do it near an activist's home so that people could shower and have access to communications and other creature comforts, or just have a bunch of people rent out an apartment near the State house specifically for that purpose. It could be an office to house signs, donated computer equipment, act as a staging area for protests, and serve as a place to stay for people testifying for/against legislation. It would vastly simply life for people travelling from great distances.
Wow, that idea just popped into my head from nowhere while I was writing this, and I'm REALLY starting to like it a lot.
If we did not have any "public" property then where would anyone who does not own be able to exercise their first amendment rights which are common rights that individuals have EQUAL rights to exercise?
Dave and Rattydog look like they would make a nice couple? yes?
Kola ;D
Quote from: Bald Eagle on July 21, 2007, 09:51 AM NHFT
Quote from: error on July 20, 2007, 11:06 PM NHFT
Hey, we missed you! You need to subscribe to Porc-411.
Is there any way to automate Porc-411 so that I can have the messages forwarded to my cell phone's voice mail?
In theory, yes. But I don't yet have the infrastructure to make 72 simultaneous calls. (That's how many subscribers there currently are.)
Instead, I'm thinking I will see if I can deliver to cell phones via MMS.
Sorry rattydog.. :blush: I am glad Dave is out and I hope he is enjoying a bit of freedom once again.
Hey I am big animal lover too. I got me a big ol german shepherd, Cheeko, a nutty cat Bongo, two Paint horses named Kola and Bugs.... And I am going to be a Dad, as I have just bought a 4 month old filly. Once she is weaned from her mom I can bring her home.
here she is:
(http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s225/kola58/149499x1.jpg)
You don't need equipment; I do.
When I'm ready to test it, I'll let people know.
Quote from: error on July 21, 2007, 11:14 AM NHFT
In theory, yes. But I don't yet have the infrastructure to make 72 simultaneous calls. (That's how many subscribers there currently are.)
Instead, I'm thinking I will see if I can deliver to cell phones via MMS.
Don't know what MMS is.
Can you sequentially make 72 calls or make them in small blocks?
More jailhouse stories from Dada, who says he hasn't been able to catch up on the forum yet.
P.S. Dada, please speak into the phone. :)
[attachment deleted by admin]
Awww kola, what a cute baby!
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on July 21, 2007, 09:29 AM NHFT
Thanks for the pictures... beautiful, happy day. :)
I'm HAPPY to be a small part. We have lots of fun as we do these things.
I had MUCH FUN with these folKs!
Playing photo journalist is just something that needed to happen . . . MUCH FUN! I was going to be there for Dave anyway - ;D
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 21, 2007, 09:16 AM NHFT
Quote from: Revmar on July 21, 2007, 08:32 AM NHFT
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 20, 2007, 07:17 AM NHFT
QuoteHow about we, as the Constitution suggests, allow freedom of speech everywhere, but just arrest those that actually DO interrupt those official duties?
Everywhere? We don't allow freedom of speech for libel, slander, yelling "fire" in a crowded building or inciting a riot. We don't allow freedom of speech on private property without permission of the owner (btw - in anarcho-capitalism where all land is private, where would we have freedom of speech rights?).
If freedom of speech were allowed in the offices of the IRS then it COULD be shutdown with enough people exercising their rights. So we make a law that no one can.
first point- no you don't have "Freedom of speech" on private property like a theater or my home. Don't forget that the constitution is a document meant to LIMIT the scope of government, not grant "rights" to people. Your property is an extention of yourself, being the product of your labor and time. If you own yourself and are not the property of any group of people (even one that calls itself an authority) than you can control and take the responsibility for your own actions. The IRS is "owned" by that governing body that is supposedly controlled by that piece of paper called the constitution. It's not that Dada has the "right" to free speech in the IRS office, it's that the IRS does NOT have the right to stop him. They are the ones controlled by the first amendment.
Second point. Would it really be so bad if the IRS office was shut down? :)
If all lands are privately owned, then where will individuals who don't own have the ability to excercise their first amendment rights?
Do you understand that first amendment are common rights - individual EQUAL rights?
What does that mean to you?
I would like the IRS to be shutdown too because the tax is immoral and it pays for immoral actions.
And the answer to your question is.....nowhere. See, on my property you don't have the right to say anything you want because I have soul ownership of it. as to the second part of the question regarding the "rights" of people who don't own, well, at the risk of being redundant- They have no such rights. The First amendment to the constitution is, as I mentioned, a document meant to Limit the scope of government. Period. end of story. If there is no government then there is nothing to limit. (boy that sounds like nirvana to me!)
Look, if I want to I can make a rule in my house that you are not allowed to talk about Vermont furniture makers. You don't have a right to disregard that rule and expect me not to toss you off my land. If I can't afford to own my land I well shop for a landlord to rent from that will allow me to stipulate that in my lease. I believe it would be known as the VFM clause in the contract.
I own my property, you own yours. I don't see why that is hard to grasp. There are no "Collective rights" in the mix. even today the idea of "Collective rights" is a fiction. No group of people have a "collective right" that morally empowers them to trump my life, my liberty, or my property. The state would claim otherwise, but why would I chose to listen to the gang of thugs that want to use force against me. They are, quite simply, wrong.
QuoteAwww kola, what a cute baby!
Thanks Kat, she has my nose.
so..umm dave? How was Paris?
Kola
i bak at thinking machine
thanks all for all you've done! mo latah
I can't figure out how to contact dan belforti to thank him for bringing this up on his radio show. can someone forward the following message to him:
Dan: Just wanted to give you a quick shout and thank you for discussing my "distribution of handbills" imprisonment the other day on your show! I haven't had a chance to hear it but it means a lot to me that you thought the issue was important enough to discuss.
Yours,
Dave Ridley
"the Outlaw Leafletter"
Dave, you can send him email at: dan@belforti.com
QuoteI own my property, you own yours. I don't see why that is hard to grasp. There are no "Collective rights" in the mix. even today the idea of "Collective rights" is a fiction. No group of people have a "collective right" that morally empowers them to trump my life, my liberty, or my property. The state would claim otherwise, but why would I chose to listen to the gang of thugs that want to use force against me.
I already stated that no one has first amendment rights on anyone else's property. You are conflating collective rights which are joint rights that inevitably lead to inequality and positive liberty with common rights which are individual equal rights that are the basis of negative liberty.
One of the ways you can get phone calls about these events is to be part of the phone tree ... and then get ahold of 2 people that haven't heard the news ... and let it spread. This time .... too much of the phone tree was with us on site. Next time we can set up a contact who is not at the event and that person can get the word out by phone/internet while it is happening. :)
Quote from: Russell Kanning on July 22, 2007, 08:33 AM NHFT
One of the ways you can get phone calls about these events is to be part of the phone tree ... and then get ahold of 2 people that haven't heard the news ... and let it spread. This time .... too much of the phone tree was with us on site. Next time we can set up a contact who is not at the event and that person can get the word out by phone/internet while it is happening. :)
You should be able to activate a messaging system from a cell phone by recording a message and having it sent to a group list. I use to sell a service that did just that.
John asked for this to be posted. I'm sure he'll explain.
(http://www.newhampshireunderground.com/wiki/show_image.php?id=2868)
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 22, 2007, 11:27 AM NHFT
John asked for this to be posted. I'm sure he'll explain.
QuoteA great peaceful yoga position. Notice the (porcupine) hands!
Pic is from the July 2007 "Fit Yoga" mag.
(http://www.newhampshireunderground.com/wiki/show_image.php?id=2868)
There is no need to twist any part your body into any uncomfortable position (in this case the feet and legs could feel too much stress) but, one can sit comfortably in any chair and do this (or on the floor) and breath deeply into those centers of the heart & belly . . . think positive thoughts ... breath deeply . . . from the bottom of our hearts (and bellys) change will come.
This position helps to bring courage, peace, and compation. With courage one can forgive!
Try this and see: Breath. Breath deeply! Hold your hand nere your heart (in that pocupine position) for a few moments. Breathe . . . (when you are ready you will meditate on this)...
Free your heart, and your mind will follow.
Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
More recollections from Dada's experience.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Free your mind, and your heart will follow.
With Freedom comes peace.
Please find Freedom.
You can do it!
http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=579&Itemid=36
More recollections from Dada which I can't hear very well.
[attachment deleted by admin]
More of Dada's jailhouse adventures.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Dada left another message, but it is too large to post.
Subscribe to Porc-411 (http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=5248.0) to get these and other messages for yourself.
Merged the long saga of dave vs. feds.
Found some more of John's photos from Dave's release gathering:
http://www.newhampshireunderground.com/wiki/tiki-browse_gallery.php?galleryId=86
(http://www.newhampshireunderground.com/wiki/show_image.php?id=2870)
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 23, 2007, 08:18 AM NHFT
http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=579&Itemid=36
Excellent article Kat.
How about someone (or perhaps more than one person at different days and times) dressing up in a complete "V" outfit, running into the IRS building, dropping off dangerous leaflets, then running out.
Four or five times a day -- until the feds actually have to put a "guard" on the IRS office.
Can you imagine the press opportunities there:
"Excuse me, you're with the department of Homeland Security, right? And you're guarding the IRS office? What, exactly, is the current terrorist threat level of this office? Should individuals be concerned? Have you considered evacuating the building due to this dangerous threat?"
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 23, 2007, 08:18 AM NHFT
http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=579&Itemid=36
Kat, you've inspired me.
http://www.nhinsider.com/richard-barnes/are-1st-ammendment-rights-still-protected.html
NHInsider gets a much different audience then Keene Free Press (not to mention about 1000 unique hits a day) so I wanted to bring as much attention to Dave's story as possible.
Dave, when you read this, if you would like to post any information in the comments as far as what people can do, ways to contact you directly etc I think that would be helpful as well.
Cool :) I didn't realize that's who you are, lildog.
Quote from: Richard BarnesMost new sources
Should be "new
s sources"
Quote from: Richard Barnesdocument who's meaning changes with time
whoseTypically, you shouldn't use a personal pronoun to reference an inanimate object, but probably you were just being very clever with the reference to the "living document" :)
Several of the sentences end with prepositions (ie, "to"). Try to avoid this in the future.
Your friendly neighborhood grammar-nazi
Because that is the sort of bad grammar up with which we will not put!
Quote from: TackleTheWorld on July 24, 2007, 03:02 PM NHFT
Because that is the sort of bad grammar up with which we will not put!
:laughing1: +1
More recollections from Dave Ridley.
[attachment deleted by admin]
A nice quote (to me) from one of the Dada calls:
" . . . The night passes; the morning comes open. . . ."
Quote from: d_goddard on July 24, 2007, 12:42 PM NHFTYour friendly neighborhood grammar-nazi
Oh no! And maybe spelling to?
I'm out of here . . . ;D
Well actualy, maybe I could offer some grammar points. Though not so much with the spelling. 8)
There are surely many issues regaurding useage around the Freedom movement.
Some words work; others work even better. Some are correct usage, while others detract.
lildog u have my permission to post this article on NH Insider if u wish, which I just submitted to the Keene Free Press.
----
Jailed in Defense of the Constitution
by Dave Ridley
From NHfree.com
One placid July day in 2006, a jovial free marketeer approaches the Keene, New Hampshire IRS office on an illegal mission. Upon his head is a straw farmer's hat. Over his shoulders a bib and blue overalls. Each hand holds an instrument of defiance, a specimen of contraband restricted from use inside the confines of this remote Federal outpost. One is a pitchfork, the other a wad of leaflets.
These devices, strangely feared and controlled by Washington regulation, are destined to set in motion a lasting, disturbing series of events. But the tall pacifist, backed by a collection of reporters and onlookers...broadcasts only mirth.
He has, some days before, announced his outlaw plans to drop the pitchfork, enter the office of this "Internal Robbery Squadron" and petition for a redress of grievances. His flyers ask that workers contemplate the ill uses to which their revenues are put, renounce torture and quit their jobs. Washington agents are waiting for him at the entrance, in force. They seize him and his straw hat long before he is able to present his handbills or trouble in person the minds of tribute collectors.
He is arrested, released, and immediately intercepted attempting the same endeavor. A court date is presented to him, along with petty charges of Federal origin. He assures authorities he will not attend such trial unless physically dragged to the Concord courtroom, one hour east. The next business day, agents from the increasingly resented Department of Homeland Security oblige him. Streaming through his front door they carry him to that very place, his wife of two years snapping a hasty but dramatic photo of the seizure.
Inside the courtroom he constructs paper airplanes as a shocked national magistrate ponders his fate. He is jailed for three weeks, released without fine or follow-up, left to pursue his libertarian agenda. Media attention is moderate. But an explosion of excitement and interest overtakes his New Hampshire-centric website and the small local paper he produces.
He is Russell Kanning, the Outlaw Leafletter.
A month passes. Then, disgruntled by news of the Federal overreaction at Keene, an imitator enters IRS facilities in nearby Nashua. Unannounced, he stands silent in the lobby, bearing a sign, a friendly expression and more forbidden but respectful pamphlets. Two reach the hands of "Robbery Squadron" agents, who eventually order him out. Upset by the slow speed of his backward withdrawal, they light Homeland Security hotlines and crowd the exit in manic impatience.
He is me, Dave Ridley, the Second Outlaw Leafletter.
Some weeks later, an article about this second protest appears in the Keene Free Press. Within days Homeland Security agents are again on the trail of a pacific petitioner. They attempt to levy me a $100 "Distribution of Handbills" fine. I am thrice summoned to petty violation dockets, thrice appear, thrice refuse to deploy lawyers. Thrice I fail or refuse to remit the fine, and swear I will never pay until our Federal overlords answer me one question.
U.S. Constitution, Amendment Ten states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So I ask to know where, in the U.S. Constitution, is Washington authorized (at least vaguely) to levy this "Distribution of Handbills" fine? No answer is ever provided or attempted by the magistrate, nor any federal employee involved. I am told of regulations, of precedent, of fires in crowded theatres and a representative Congress which generates laws. But it is almost as though they are unwilling to speak of the Constitution itself, the flawed but acceptable document that overrules all laws with which it is in conflict.
That is the backdrop. Now we resume the story, and march it toward the climactic events of this July.
At the third hearing, on July 17 2007, I am asked to give some reason why I should not be held in contempt of court for refusing to pay the fine. As usual, I rally beforehand with a dozen or so demonstrators near the front of the courthouse. I introduce myself to the latest prosecutor of the case, Mark Irish. I treat him with initial respect and ask him if he feels comfortable with the task he is being being asked to perform.
I'm doing my job, he says. That is sometimes a valid excuse in the eyes of history, I reply, sometimes not. He ends the conversation. Another new prosecutor appears.
I greet the Federal employees whose names I know. Normally chatty, they look down or away. I converse with friends who have come to observe, most memorably a grinning, excited Russell Kanning. I wear a T-shirt bearing his name.
Then the hearing begins. Courtroom decorum wavers. Clerks are already angry I was two minutes late and unhappy with our complacent reactions to their scoldings. The judge lectures his prosecutors on a matter of criminal vs. civil contempt and the need for witnesses. He says the trial is criminal and the attorneys retreat from their desk in disarray. I make a sort of zombie face at the scrambling lawyers; the audience laughs but I immediately regret it. Gloating isn't good, and I know in any event I won't have long to do it. They are sure to win this case, and I am sure to pay a price.
When given opportunity to declare why I should not be held in contempt I give the same answer I have always given, basically: No one should ever be punished for peaceably defending the Constitution. But I would be honored to suffer for this cause if need be, and consider this a good hill to die on. I question the lone witness, perhaps my chief tormentor. He is Mike Therrien, a ex-Air Force colonel now directing Homeland Security bureaucracies for northern New England. I ask him if he has sworn an oath to the Constitution. He has. I ask if he is familiar with Amendment Ten. He is not. I quote it and attempt to inform him that he is in violation. Attorney Irish objects and is sustained. Therrien looks uncomfortable. He is meant to be. But, to his credit, he seems to take no pleasure depositing his sabre in my gut.
The judge provides me three backhanded compliments. He says he believes I will pay no fines, that I will not likely comply with any probationary sentence and that I am not a threat to the community.
Then he finds me in contempt, sentences me to four days incarceration. You're coming with me, says a gruff voice behind. The voice orders me to place my hands behind my back, but I just stand there. A Marshal seizes my wrists, places them behind me and secures handcuffs. I leave the room slowly to the chagrin of the officer, but our interaction is not destined to remain harsh.
Once away from onlookers our conversation evolves. Did *you* take an oath to the Constitution, I ask. None of your business, he replies...a little louder than need be. Is this the kind of thing you signed on for, locking people up for handbill distribution? I don't lock people up, he says. He presses the button on an elevator which takes me to lockup. I thank him, and note that button pressing is easier for him than for me.
"That it is," he replies.
Now more questions ensue, and he begins to answer them. Would you shoot Ed Brown? He would in certain circumstances, but would prefer not to. He refers to the Marshals' relative restraint in the case. I inform him I appreciate that, as far as it goes.
A second Marshal or security person joins us. We enter a processing area. The environment continues to ease. Who is Russsell Kanning, they ask me. He's the last guy you arrested for doing this. He's the man your boys inflicted pain on because he wouldn't walk where they told him to. We discuss physical noncompliance, the "go limp" approach, which I've never tried. They are glad of this, inform me it serves no purpose and just makes it harder on the prisoner. Jailers arrive. I discover, or at least recall, the second Marshal's name is Tom. They all react comfortably when I refuse to answer most questions and enter my birthdate as "1/1/20."
Four of them are now with me in the room and engage me regarding my concerns. I thank them for this. One says he'd rather go after sex offenders than demonstrators like me. I say I would rather he did that and nothing else. His name is Deputy Barry, the picture of friendly professionalism. I should probably check the constitutionality of Federal sex crime hunts, but granting his wish would certainly would be an improvement over this!
I suggest they quit their jobs, but am half joking. I tell them if I were a Fed I'd probably keep my job and, from that station, try to minimize the harm such a job inflicts on the public.
Now I am moved to a holding cell in leg irons. This is where you'll spend the afternoon, they tell me. Alone, I get to work scrawling "NHfree.com" on the seatbacks. The Marshal Mark returns to ask me a question. Instead he shakes his head in mild exasperation...are you doing that with your fingernails? Nothing else to do, I respond...does it look okay? He turns to leave. Didn't you have a question for me? Seems to have slipped my mind, he responds dryly.
After six hours, men in blue appear with chains. County deputies. Secretly, they load me into a vehicle ominously decorated with Massachusetts tags. They ship me to the Essex County Jail in Middleton, Mass. Meanwhile a half dozen of my friends, perhaps cleverly tricked, proceed to besiege the New Hampshire facility I am mistakenly expected to enter.
Destined instead for an increasingly alien land, condemned to grapple with a more hardened and malevolent system than exists in New Hampshire...I jostle and squirm in a deathtrap excuse for a paddy wagon. Soon I will enter the dark world of penal Massachusetts, and my real trial will begin.
TBC
Very well written and compelling, dada....I'll look forward to the next chapter ;)
Done!
http://www.nhinsider.com/richard-barnes/jailed-in-defense-of-the-constitution.html
Thanks Dave. I'm sure that will draw more attention to your cause.
thanks dog!
Also reposted to FreeStateBlogs... hope that's OK!
http://www.freestateblogs.net/jailed_in_defense_of_the_constitution
Quote from: d_goddard on July 26, 2007, 12:49 PM NHFT
Also reposted to FreeStateBlogs... hope that's OK!
http://www.freestateblogs.net/jailed_in_defense_of_the_constitution
blanket permission is hereby granted to all.... post the article anywhere u like
At the IRS office? ;D
Heck, why not at the IRS office? I doubt the office has had anything more exciting happen there before or since, and as such would almost guarantee some eyeball exposure...
... before they were removed, anyway.
I have noticed that most fed offices don't want to be contacted.
LOL :)
Find your local IRS office (http://www.irs.gov/localcontacts/). Note the phone number. Call it. You'll hear a stupid automated message which has absolutely no option to speak to a human being in that office.
Now start dialing consecutive numbers, going up from that number, until you get an IRS bureaucrat.
"Is this the IRS?" - "No" - "Oh, sorry, wrong number."
"Is this the IRS?" - "Yes but you have the wrong number, call" - "Oh, thank you, how do I fill out form 9876A? I got to the part where it says I should mail in the DNA samples for my children and then I got really confused!..."
It's not me. Bald Eagle is kind of inspiring. :)
If they thought we were crazy, wait'll Bald Eagle gets here! Things is gonna go wild :)
I like the part where dadaorwell writes that he 'inscribed' nhfree.com in the back of the chair. ;D ;D Maybe some future victim of the gov't will look us up.
http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=591&Itemid=36
Well done.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on August 16, 2007, 11:54 AM NHFT
http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=591&Itemid=36
this latest installment is wonderful ... it is funny how quickly the conversations turn to "your philosophy". :)
I like your torture comments .... it does seem a good way to deal with their double entendre threats
did I mention that a reader called to say he couldn't wait for the continuing story ... now you are going to really drive him crazy :)
Here's a follow up on this one --
The day after I heard about this, I fired off some letters. I sent a few to the Keene IRS office with nearly the same wording as Dada's sign. And just for laughs, I sent one to my Congressman (Patrick McHenry from North Carolina). Today I got a message on my cell phone:
QuoteThis is Casey with Congressman Patrick McHenry's office. This is regarding the um gentleman Mr. Ridley ah and about the 4-day jail sentence about handing out the information on the property and definitely um thank you for bringing this to our attention and we'll have to kind of look at that regulation and start to see really you know what the premise of that is, but do thank you for bringing to this our attention and we'll take look at this and if there's anything else, please give us a call at 202-225-2576. Thank you.
Gee, don't you get the feeling they are really going to do something with that one?
Well, maybe I just got my name added to another federal government list.
thanks ogre!