Coconut will not pay : 9-26-08

[Kat Kanning]

That would be funny 

[Roycerson]

I was wondering last night...

The officer is asked to identify the offender, so he points over to the person sitting at the defendant table. What happens if when someone's name is called, someone else goes up to begin the trial? Then the officer identifies him?

A guy I used to know used that trick.  It was the lawyers first case out of law school and he put the older brother in the chair.  The undercover narcotics officer identified the guy at the defendant's table and the case was dismissed without prejudice and they picked him up and tried him again about 6 months later.  He was convicted and went to prison.

[Luke S]

I was wondering last night...

The officer is asked to identify the offender, so he points over to the person sitting at the defendant table. What happens if when someone's name is called, someone else goes up to begin the trial? Then the officer identifies him?

A guy I used to know used that trick.  It was the lawyers first case out of law school and he put the older brother in the chair.  The undercover narcotics officer identified the guy at the defendant's table and the case was dismissed without prejudice and they picked him up and tried him again about 6 months later.  He was convicted and went to prison.

Isn't that double jeopardy?

[Pat McCotter]

I was wondering last night...

The officer is asked to identify the offender, so he points over to the person sitting at the defendant table. What happens if when someone's name is called, someone else goes up to begin the trial? Then the officer identifies him?

A guy I used to know used that trick.  It was the lawyers first case out of law school and he put the older brother in the chair.  The undercover narcotics officer identified the guy at the defendant's table and the case was dismissed without prejudice and they picked him up and tried him again about 6 months later.  He was convicted and went to prison.

Isn't that double jeopardy?

Legalese - dismissed without prejudice. It says "Oops, we screwed up but we may want to try again later."

[Luke S]

I was wondering last night...

The officer is asked to identify the offender, so he points over to the person sitting at the defendant table. What happens if when someone's name is called, someone else goes up to begin the trial? Then the officer identifies him?

A guy I used to know used that trick.  It was the lawyers first case out of law school and he put the older brother in the chair.  The undercover narcotics officer identified the guy at the defendant's table and the case was dismissed without prejudice and they picked him up and tried him again about 6 months later.  He was convicted and went to prison.

Isn't that double jeopardy?

Legalese - dismissed without prejudice. It says "Oops, we screwed up but we may want to try again later."

I don't think they should be able to do that. It still smells too much like double jeopardy to me.

[Josh]

I don't think they should be able to do that.

They do lots of things they shouldn't be able to do. Like breaking into peoples' houses because someone told them there might be contraband in it.

[David]

I don't think they should be able to do that.

They do lots of things they shouldn't be able to do. Like breaking into peoples' houses because someone told them there might be contraband in it.

Yup.  When you give gov't power, they like to use it.  No one has ever been able to restrain gov't, so it will always use its power in ways that they weren't supposed to, and against the 'wrong' people.  For some reason the dems and repubs can't seem to understand this basic principle.  When you give gov't power to do something you want them to do, that same power in the hands of the opposition can and will be used against you at some point.  Political winds change.  That lovely patriot act, and the wiretapping of 'terrorists', will be used by the opposition against the 'wrong' people at some point.  It is not an if, but a when.  And they are likely to get away with it, because they usually do anyway. 

[Dave Ridley]

Inbound to judge burke via private "Canario Courier...."

What:  Attempted "Illegal camera panning"
Where:  Keene District Court, 3 Washington Street, Keene, New Hampshire
When:  Friday, Sept. 26, 2008.  7:45 a.m.
How: Videographer will attempt to man, and pan, his video camera during trial of Keene freedom activist.  Camera movement is forbidden under
  http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/dmcr/dmcr-1_4.htm
  And Judge Edward Burke has said he'll begin enforcing the ban.

Why:  There are two objectives...
  1)  Document Nick Ryder's controversial refusal to pay traffic fine (something that can't be done well without panning the camera)
  2)  Protest - and draw attention to - an unacceptable, actively enforced court rule that unnecessarily limits freedom of press

Who:  Dave Ridley, 42, Manchester videographer


Open letter for Judge Edward Burke
Presiding Justice, Keene District Court:

Dear Judge Burke:

Your restraint and politeness in the handling of David Krouse's civil disobedience case this spring...turned me into an unlikely fan.  It was a reminder to liberty lovers that judges in New Hampshire tend to be less violent than those in other places.

However I'm concerned regarding your stated intent to begin enforcing a bizarre rule against video camera panning.   In my fifteen years of service as a TV news videographer, I've never seen anything like it.  To tell a videographer he can't pan or tilt his camera...that's like telling a writer she can't hold a pen.   It violates the spirit of a "speedy and *public* trial." That's dangerous. 

Apparently this is a district court regulation, but it's not acceptable and must be openly challenged.  Unfortunately, I don't have the skills, money or time to effectively use 'the means the state has provided me for changing it."  So I'll follow Thoreau's example and undertake constructive disobedience.

Over the next few days, I will go through the usual process that a videographer undertakes to film in your chambers.  I'll seek clearance to record Nick Ryder's speeding ticket hearing, currently scheduled for 8:30 a.m. September 26th.   In the absence of emergencies or illness, I'll attempt to enter the courtroom with my camera.  I'll try to follow any reasonable rules - and perhaps some unreasonable - that you may wish to impose.  I'll operate as unobtrusively as possible.

But I will not comply with the "pan ban," or any rule that intolerably restricts a videographer's ability to document this taxpayer-funded event.

If you forbid me from entering the courtroom with a camera, I'll ignore the ban and repeatedly attempt peaceable entry.   If allowed in, but ordered to cease panning, I'll respectfully refuse to comply with the command.  If ordered to leave the courtroom for any reason that seems unacceptable, I will politely decline.  I'm ready to undergo arrest or detention, if that's what it takes to bring attention to this First Amendment matter.

This is happening, not becuase of your decent treatment of Krouse, nor your allowance of cameras.  I respect and appreciate those things; they were almost enough to stop me from bothering you with this.  But your court's unacceptable regulations on videographers, and your statement to Ryder indicating that you will begin enforcing them....makes this act of constructive disobedience imperitive.

You have various courses of action to pick from, but in the end...you will either allow me to aim and operate my camera in the courtroom or use force against a harmless citizen.

Yours,


Dave Ridley
RidleyReport.com
(addie, contact info)

[FTL_Ian]

Posted press release to Free Keene and blasted it to the news list.  (Sentinel, WKBK, etc.)   

[Dave Ridley]

that's cool but bear in mind the version above doesn't have much contact info and thus isn't the version that goes to the media.   can i list you as backup media contact?

[FTL_Ian]

I noticed and added:

If you would like to get in touch with Dave Ridley or have questions,
please get in touch with me,

Then put my info.   

[Dave Ridley]

anyone got a cheap tripod and tripod-plate i could borrow?
how about a cheap video camera?   i can bring mine if need be but my cheap backup camera is out on loan right now to a crimewatch guy. 

bear in mind there's probably about a 20 percent chance your camera or pod could get confiscated.

[Coconut]

anyone got a cheap tripod and tripod-plate i could borrow?
how about a cheap video camera?   i can bring mine if need be but my cheap backup camera is out on loan right now to a crimewatch guy. 

bear in mind there's probably about a 20 percent chance your camera or pod could get confiscated.

I have 2 or 3 cheap tripods, of varying cheapness.

2 cheap cameras too.

[TackleTheWorld]

Dave's open letter has been delivered to Judge Burke and Larry the court clerk.

Let the fun begin.

[Kat Kanning]

Should be an interesting day