Keene Activist May Be Jailed Tomorrow Morning 8/15 Over a U-Turn!

[error]

I'm just curious Caleb...suppose a lone police officer was trying to arrest you for something illegitimate--some victimless "crime", say--and you had a gun.  Would you live free and defend yourself, or would you give two shits about what the silly little law is?

There's one societal problem to be solved: the tendency of most people to worship those goddamned pieces of paper on which the gangs of armed marauders write their so-called "laws."

[EthanAllen]

Our common sense tells us that no one's ability to travel on that sidewalk was being impaired when FSPers gathered around Dave. There was plenty of room to walk by and if anyone really was blocking the way, they would have stepped aside for someone wanting to get by. The police don't hassle a cluster of people waiting to board a bus or stopping and having a brief chat. What the hard and fast law does is let some prick who wants a badge because he was picked on in high school arbitrarily enforce it when behavior he doesn't personally like is happening, like a demonstration that makes him look foolish because he doesn't know NH law.

Hey, I like your use of the word "common", as in "common sense" and remember that jaqeboy started this out by talking about "common law".

The Manchester police officer who took the state police officer to the side to talk to him in private to assess the situation apparently knew that the stopping of Dave for open carry was was out of line. What he made a wrong assumption about though was that he thought that this was somehow a staged event and that the crowd had gathered with Dave prior to the police encounter and they had even put signs up (those were the girl scout's) to "advertise". The rules that we have set-up to insure that no one's individual right of ways are infringed upon is that during a demonstration (which he made the wrong assumption about) people can't stand three abreast and they have to keep moving otherwise the assumption is that other individuals trying to use the sidewalk will have their right of ways infringed upon (the Manchester officer was pretty clear about this but made a wrong assumption).

I think the best way to look upon this is: how did collectively owned paved roads and sidewalks that both contained common right of ways, which as part of natural rights theory pre-exists governance, evolve from common law theory? The first paths through the woods were probably traveled by foot where no specific individual was responsible for creating it and then by horses and we all must have had some sort of commonly accepted convention about who is to yield to whom when a rider on a horse encountered a human walking. Now sidewalks probably have evolved as a common sense way for getting foot traffic off of "roads" where the modes of transportations become sophisticated and the possibility for more harm could be done to pedestrians.

I speculate that as transportation evolved to motorized vehicles on paved roads the possibility of property and bodily harm escalated to a point where people via their elected representatives subordinated the common right of ways issue to the regulation of the collectively owned roads that require the issuing of license to try and establish a minimum level of competency out on the roads where so much damage can be inflicted upon property and life.

Because the same sort of risks are not associated with using the sidewalks (as all types of vehicles and human powered devices are banned) to exercise your common right of way they  have not been subordinated.

[armlaw]

You said; "All the cases cited are from other states." So it appears you are asserting that Article 4, Section 1 "judicial proceedings" don't exist or have validity?

You  avoided my question: The question was: "You said; "All the cases cited are from other states." So it appears you are asserting that Article 4, Section 1 "judicial proceedings" don't exist or have validity?
[/shadow] If the "judicial proceedings as expressed in Article 4, Section do have force and effect in all states, then your assertion is wrong.

[Russell Kanning]

I'm just curious Caleb...suppose a lone police officer was trying to arrest you for something illegitimate--some victimless "crime", say--and you had a gun.  Would you live free and defend yourself, or would you give two shits about what the silly little law is?

many of us might take a third way ... choose nonviolence and also ignore the silly laws .... maybe that is also what dave manning is doing

[jaqeboy]

BTW, does anyone yet know what the judge meant by "handle this the usual way" or what the judge said to the 2 who were videotaping the hearing?

Sorry for the long posts - thinking of starting a separate thread for the general discussion of the Right to Travel issue - a thread that hopefully can be a non ad-hominem attack zone.

[mackler]

You said; "All the cases cited are from other states." So it appears you are asserting that Article 4, Section 1 "judicial proceedings" don't exist or have validity?

You  avoided my question: The question was: "You said; "All the cases cited are from other states." So it appears you are asserting that Article 4, Section 1 "judicial proceedings" don't exist or have validity?
[/shadow] If the "judicial proceedings as expressed in Article 4, Section do have force and effect in all states, then your assertion is wrong.

Dick,

Would you please refresh my memory: during which sessions were you a New Hampshire State legislator?

I'd like to do some research and find out excatly which of our silly little laws you are personally responsible for.

[dalebert]

Finally, there was a very uncomfortable situation where Caleb and I were asked to meet with the judge in a private room.  Lance, the very friendly police officer asked us to sit down at a table and when the judge came in perhaps out of habit Lance said, "All rise."  Normally if I were to simply be an observer in the courtroom, I would not rise.  In this case I was a little torn as I did not want to jeopardize my ability to video the proceedings.  Caleb and I sort of looked at each other and began to get up maybe a few inches off our chairs, but then sat back down again looking confused.  The whole situation is a bit of a blur and I don't even recall if we said anything, but Lance started to indicate that we didn't really have to, so we didn't.  Perhaps Caleb can remember little bit more detail than I can.

So what happened then? What did the judge say?

[TackleTheWorld]

Mystery Sentence Pronounced by Keene Judge
15, August, 2007
Yesterday David Manning thought he would be in jail soon, but has a big smile today, and a mysterious future.  He was cited for an illegal late night U-turn and couldn't afford the fine, in more ways than one.  Manning points out, "It's extortion, like what the mafia does, they say 'give us some money for protection, or something bad will happen to you'",   Appearing before Justice Burke, Manning said he would not pay the fine, "I think it's immoral to pay extortion", Burke replied, "Then we will handle this in the normal fashion.  You are free to go".

Buoyed by his lack of shackles, Manning left the courtroom quickly but one wonders what exactly the normal fashion is.  Courtrooms are designed to be confusing and intimidating for normal people, but this verdict is willful obscuring of the punishment or lack of it.  Will he make a warrant for Manning's arrest or is the matter closed?   

Manning doesn't know.  He does know he didn't help pay for the immoral system that fines people for obeying their own judgement.

[jaqeboy]

I wonder if the judge considered that to be exercising his Rights of Conscience? The key there would be the statement that "I think it's immoral to..." See: New Hampshire Constitution, Bill of Rights, Article 4: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html .

I have always thought that this was an extremely powerful civil right. the Rights of Conscience Project begins the exploration of this at: http://conscienceproject.org, but they could use some volunteer researcher help. Maybe mackler would be interested in this.

[mackler]

Maybe mackler would be interested in this.

*examines teetering pile of projects on plate*

While I think about that one, here's a moderately interesting article on the right to travel.

Warning: contains a graphic image of one scary M.F.

[jaqeboy]

good article - glad to see they did go all the way back to Magna Carta.

[armlaw]

You said; "All the cases cited are from other states." So it appears you are asserting that Article 4, Section 1 "judicial proceedings" don't exist or have validity?

You  avoided my question: The question was: "You said; "All the cases cited are from other states." So it appears you are asserting that Article 4, Section 1 "judicial proceedings" don't exist or have validity?
[/shadow] If the "judicial proceedings as expressed in Article 4, Section do have force and effect in all states, then your assertion is wrong.

Dick,

Would you please refresh my memory: during which sessions were you a New Hampshire State legislator?

I'd like to do some research and find out exactly which of our silly little laws you are personally responsible for.

You continue to avoid an answer to my question. Look up the Latin Maxin you like to use, since I am not a Latin scholar, it means;  "One does Not answer a question with a question". When you answer my question, as the the validity of Article 4, Section one "judicial proceedings", then we can continue.

[Caleb]

 

[Caleb]

jaqe, the 2 who were in a meeting with a judge were me and Ian. The meeting was quite unanticipated on my part, but the judge simply wanted to explain the rules governing the use of camaras in the courtroom. They are 1) prior notice is expected so the court can accomodate us  2) none of the defendents may be taped without their consent 3) press credentials must be shown 4) a tripod must be used. Since I had not followed 1, 2, or 4, I was told that I would not be allowed to film.  I intended on taping anyway, but my camara was confiscated until after we had left the courtroom.

As Ian explained, there was an uncomfortable moment when the judge entered the private chamber, as the bailiff yelled "All Rise" as the judge entered. This was unexpected, and I didn't really know what to do. We sat for a few moments until the judge walked to his chair and started to sit down. I did my best to look confused, and said as I inched about half an inch off my chair, "Oh ... are we supposed to stand for this?" The judge said, "It's no big deal" and the event was over. We got up before the bailiff could say all rise on exit, because we were anxious to get back.

[Dave Ridley]

anybody want to post some action items for ways we can help, numbers we should call, etc? 

david has been a very important activist for free minds tv!