Outlaw puppeteer

[Tom Sawyer]

Going after Julia...

[d_goddard]

I'm sure that either of the broken-record posters, USMC what's-his-name that always posts about suicide, and Gerard Beloin, both would count themselves as people abused by the AG

[dalebert]

If all the cops in town were enforcing the anti-puppet-show law, it might encourage some actual real crime while they're distracted.  I'd hate to get blamed for the successful escape of a bank robber or something.

But wouldn't that just further demonstrate how stupid the law is?

[d_goddard]

If all the cops in town were enforcing the anti-puppet-show law, it might encourage some actual real crime while they're distracted.

But wouldn't that just further demonstrate how stupid the law is?

No... it wouldn't just demonstrate the stupidity, for the reason mackler noted.
OTOH, bringing suit against the Aldermen would demonstrate the stupidity, and have no broader, unintended, adverse impact (that I can imagine).

[Tom Sawyer]

If all the cops in town were enforcing the anti-puppet-show law, it might encourage some actual real crime while they're distracted.

But wouldn't that just further demonstrate how stupid the law is?

No... it wouldn't just demonstrate the stupidity, for the reason mackler noted.
OTOH, bringing suit against the Aldermen would demonstrate the stupidity, and have no broader, unintended, adverse impact (that I can imagine).

In the words of Russell...
You should do that.

I wouldn't go to the NHLA forum and lobby for CD. 

[Dave Ridley]

Does anyone want to be the puppeteer for this if not me?

Who thinks this is a better idea than the TSA protest ? 

Does anyone have some puppets?

if profits are made from the endeavor, who should be the beneficiary?

If the puppeteer is the benficiary, that would make it easier to trigger an arrest and easier to come back repeatedly in the absence of an arrest. In other words, it would make the disobedience more sustainable.

If some pro liberty organization is the beneficiary, that would help advertise the organization and would make it clear the pupeteer is not motivated by greed.

[d_goddard]

I wouldn't go to the NHLA forum and lobby for CD. 

Of course not. The guy who started this thread already took care of that for ya

[Dave Ridley]

If the puppeteer were not to be the beneficiary of profits, then I had three ideas for organizations that could benefit:

1) NHFree.com
2) FIJA.org
3) The primary Ron Paul meetup group for New Hampshire: http://ronpaul.meetup.com/6/

if we used number three we'd need to make sure they had a proper url first like NH4RonPaul or something.

Your thoughts?

[J’raxis 270145]

If all the cops in town were enforcing the anti-puppet-show law, it might encourage some actual real crime while they're distracted.  I'd hate to get blamed for the successful escape of a bank robber or something.

But wouldn't that just further demonstrate how stupid the law is?

How about instead of a bunch of people all doing this in one town all at once, several people did it, one after the other? I remember when the manicurist thing happened, they ended up not repealing the law but just decreasing the licensing requirements. Now imagine if people kept breaking the stupid law, over and over, until they got rid of it completely...

[JosephSHaas]

Oh look!  She's a natural.  She looks just like a puppet.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/03/23/snl-works-ann-coulter-whats-b-talking-about-sketch 

"View video here".  ________ 

[JosephSHaas]

I think those are excellent cases for CD.  It's much easier to build the rep you want by starting with the cases that most people would agree are stupid.  Also, the more you keep the politickians busy with little crap like that, the less time they have to push nasty stuff on us all.

Keeping them busy is right.  This statute makes it mandatory for town selectmen to prosecute every illegal puppet-show.  I would find it highly amusing if an outlaw puppeteer sued the city for not imposing the penalty on him.

Thanks "Rasputin".   

And in reference to the 286:1 Showman "for pay" over at http://gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-XXIV-286.htm I see now how "they" take R.S.A. Ch. 286:2 out of context, that reads that: "No...drama...shall be performed...upon any public street or way, and no open-air public meeting upon any ground abutting thereon, shall be permitted, unless a special license thereof shall be obtained from the selectmen of the town or from the issuing committee from cities herein provided for."

I think this is THE statute (286:2) the State House guards read BEFORE they charge out of their guard dog house of a State House to those demonstrators on the lawn asking: Ver R Yer Papers? You got a permit? THEN when the demos say no: we don't need no stinkin' permit, they go back inside to consult with their "legal counsel" A.G. Ayotte et al, who tells the "dogs" that the demos are right and to leave them alone to do their Art. 22, N.H. Free Speech plus Assembly as guaranteed by the First Amendment; emphasis on not speech, as by acting or drama is body language too, and so the word: "free" as in not a "fee"!  so NOT to take 286:2 out of context, away from section 1. So when your free speech turns into pay speech or acting withOUT a license THEN it can result in that RSA 286:5 penalty of a misdemeanor of up to a year in jail and a $2,000 fine if Class A, or just up to a $1,000 fine if Class B, and :"they" like you to think that the "opinion" is a final "decision" by their District Court judge, but if you ever get charged with such, be sure to claim your right to a jury trial by Article III, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution for "all" crimes, not just major and minor crimes of Class A + B respectfully. And Art. 18 for the penalty to be proportional to the offense.

But the question still remains in RSA Ch. 105:9,I http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VII/105/105-9.htm of: Is such a puppet act a carnival?  Of course not! A carnival is "A traveling amusement show." So if you've not traveled in from elsewhere, like going from point A to point C, stopping here at point B, your show of singular duration is not really "A public exhibition or entertainment" as for that definition #4 for the word show @ page 646 of "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language" (c)1973, but that other definition #1 of "A display; demonstration", the latter word of "to point out" but not take in, as money therefrom the pointing out. When the latter happens and withOUT this application for police attendance, then whatever misdemeanor above can increase to this "violation" of up to an additional $1,000, so watch out IF you start charging money, but in the meantime to dare them to what? take 286:2 OUT of context? Or in other words to dare them to take the rifle approach, rather than the shotgun approach? *

Good luck, - - Joe

* Compare this to the Ed Brown case and those of the supporters, trying to get the judge to acknowledge he has no jurisdictional authority as from 1-8-17 U.S. Const. to N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1.  The judge, in effect, has no peripheral vision (as is a part of vision  that occurs outside the very center of gaze.) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/peripheral_vision of the rod and cone cells, or the periphery and concentrated mostly in the center of the retina respectfully.  Or in other words: the judge is like a Beldar Conehead from S.N.L. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106598/

[JosephSHaas]

Here's another one:

In the city of Manchester, it is illegal to exhibit "natural or artificial curiosities" outdoors after 10:00 pm or indoors before 9:00 am without a license.  Ordinances § 111.71

And even with a license it is illegal to do so for more than two days in a row.

Yeah!  This looks like a good one to test out. At least from the start.

Since any exhibit, performance or other show (in the singular) is not a shows (in the plural), as like a carnival with many shows therein the boundary of their property, then Manchester Ordinance Sec. 111.71 on page 33 of 98 does NOT apply.

But they might think so, but then again if not on any public street or way, as not on the sidewalk, nor on the steps leading up to or in and toward a clerk's office, etc., then O.K. in the alcove, right? And so not an RSA Ch. 286:1 crime either on the ground and in the open-air, when performed indoors.

Yup, that's the place to be: in the alcove of IN-side a public building with the puppet show, and like from 8:00 to 9:00 o'clock a.m. when they're open, as the prohibited time. 

Although Sec. 111.71 (A) makes reference to Sec. 111.75(B)(1) [on page 34 of 98] over to the Sec. 111.99(C)(4) penalty of up to a $1,000 fine, [on page 38 of 98], that ONLY applies to a violation of the OUTdoor section of 111.71(A); and per each "15-minute period."   There is NO penalty for indoor violation(s).  So in other words: that would just be a waste of time if your intentions are to dare them to do anything, as they are not required to fine and prosecute.

[John Edward Mercier]

Its giving the municipality the authority to require a license on municipal properties used in for-profit ventures.

[Dave Ridley]

can anyone look into the law a little more closely to absolutely ensure that a puppet show for pay, in front of the the AG's office would in fact be illegal?  would it be illegal if held on private property with the consent of the owner?

also does anyone have any puppets that are absolutely clearly puppets?   anyone have a copy of "the night thoreau spent in jail?"  any one have a *digital* copy of that play? the ag's office is at 33 capitol street....can anyone tell me if the sidewalk in front of that office is right of way or state house grounds?  which jail would a person be taken to, and then held at pending trial, if arrested at this spot for this lawbreaking?

do you think it would be beneficial to bill this as a bunch of ron paul supporters gathering to do the civil disobedience he has vaguely called for?

[Dave Ridley]

also can someone tell us more about this bill that was voted down, which would have repealed some archane laws?   how did the democrats vote on this comapred to republicans?

if we did this, it would be nice if we were able to tie it in to the democrats' nanny state votes, show mounting opposition to democrat control in concord, AND pull in the interest of the RP community.