Barskey pulled over per P411 (01-28-09)

[FTL_Ian]

Is this considered a "violation"?  That's not made clear.

[FTL_Ian]

Also, it seems last time they used the Railroad square section of their "ordinances" which was easily provable by their own rules they had no case.  This time they are using a different section.  Noncooperation seems to be the only possible response in this case.  The question is how much do you want to do?  Not show?  Show and disobey?  Obey the court rules and refuse payment?

The first two will probably land you in jail, based on my experience.  The third has resulted in people walking free.

[BillKauffman]

I looked up 46-642 as well. All it says on the complaint is KCO 46-642. Does that mean the only complaint from the Keene PD is that I didn't pay a fee? In other word, they're not "complaining" that I assembled without a permit, just that i didn't pay?

That you didn't have a permit to assemble to conduct an "open-air meeting" that is "open to the public".

[Mike Barskey]

...an "open-air meeting" that is "open to the public".

Are those legal terms? If so, what do they mean in English?

[FTL_Ian]

I wonder what would happen if those questions were asked in court.  Their language looks the same as ours but can mean different things.  It's likely however they will get angry if such a thing is revealed to the court's viewers.

[Mike Barskey]

Noncooperation seems to be the only possible response in this case.  The question is how much do you want to do?  Not show?  Show and disobey?  Obey the court rules and refuse payment?

The first two will probably land you in jail, based on my experience.  The third has resulted in people walking free.

I'm not yet sure what I want to do. I was considering sending a letter like you did, but I'm not sure what I'd say. Maybe something like:

Your piece of paper says "complaint," but I never heard any complaint except from the police. Who did I harm or threaten? No one. Whose property did I steal or destroy? No one's.

According to your piece of paper, your rule called KCO 46-642 was violated. This rule says:
"The fee for a license granted under this division shall be as set forth in the schedule of fees in appendix B to this Code for the duration as specified on the license for activities of a commercial nature. However, no fee shall be required for activities conducted by charitable organizations, by governmental agencies, by neighborhood groups, or by religious organizations, unless such activity is generally considered to be a commercial enterprise."

From this, I understand that the complaint is that I didn't pay you to use a public space. Assuming that I did use that public space, why would I need to pay you? As a public space, it is available to the public. I understand that by creating arbitrary rules and boundaries, you or your superiors or those before you are trying to generate revenue, but saying "here is public land that the public may use for free, except when we demand money for the use of this public land" is the same thing as saying "you are free to walk down this public street beside me, except when I turn to you and demand some of your money." It is theft at the threat of violence. The violence can be witnessed now: what will you do now that I refuse to pay you?

Any thoughts? Should I send a letter? If so, is my tone in this one too mean (or do you have other suggestions)? Should I say this in their court, which would give others the opportunity to not stand for Burke the Jerk? Other possibilities?

[Ogre]

Wow.  Reading that law, if I walk down the sidewalk and dance a jig, I'm breaking the law.  Even more amazing, I know the vast majority of the selected officials will defend the law as "protecting" people.  Utterly insane.

As for what to do, I don't think sending a letter will have any effect.  The bureaucrats who open the mail will not care.  It will be completely ignored.  If you want to talk to them and ask them questions, they're only going to listen when you're in a courtroom.  Of course, once you've entered the courtroom, you will have lost already.

[FTL_Ian]

Whether you'd get through all that in court would likely revolve around whether you obey the court's rules.  Even then, I question whether you'd be allowed to speak in such a manner.  Perhaps I am being too negative.  

Whatever you choose will be enlightening.  (You could choose both and send a letter and speak your mind in their court.)  Thank you for your courage.

[BillKauffman]

...an "open-air meeting" that is "open to the public".

Are those legal terms? If so, what do they mean in English?

"open air" means not in an enclosed space like a building that access can be restricted to.

"open to the public" means anyone can attend without restrictions.

[BillKauffman]

I understand that the complaint is that I didn't pay you to use a public space.

The compliant is that you didn't apply for a permit for an "open-air meeting" which requires a fee.

Using the term "public" is confusing. People use it to mean two entirely different concepts - "collective" and "in common".

One refers to joint rights (collective) and the other equal, individual rights (in common).

If the "public space" is owned collectively then you must get permission for it's use (other than what it is designed to be used for) from all the other owners or their delegated representatives (government) prior to use/access.

If the "public space" is owned in common, then your use is only restricted by the equal right use of anyone else - which you or no other individual can't infringe upon. You need not ask anyone's permission. The government then is constituted to protecting individual rights from being infringed upon with the rightful use of force.

[Mike Barskey]

The only affect that sending a letter would have, I think, is to plant the seed of a concept inside the head of the one bureaucrat that reads it. Even if it's just a secretary* reads it, she may get the glimmer of a glimpse of the idea that at least one law is harming innocent people for the purpose of taking their money.

If I send a letter, it would be not because I expect them to drop their "case" or change their minds (I expect them to continue their thuggery and arrest me). It would be because I want to treat these thugs like they were people, and I would respond to a person, even if my response was to not comply with that person.

I'm still debating about whether to send the letter, but I think I will. Ian's correct, I think, when he says "I question whether you'd be allowed to speak in such a manner." Especially with Burke the Jerk! I don't think Ian's being too negative; he's experienced it first hand! I don't think appearing in court will serve me any purpose, but it might allow other activists to not stand for the judge (I wouldn't stand either, if I appeared). And the result of my appearing would very likely be that they find me "guilty" and demand money from me immediately, which I would not pay, and so they'd arrest me. If I do not appear in court, they'll also eventually arrest me, but they'll have to work harder and spend more of their stolen money to do it.


* not that secretarying is bad, but a secretary doesn't have the power to enforce or not enforce the laws

[BillKauffman]

Reading that law, if I walk down the sidewalk and dance a jig, I'm breaking the law.

No, you are using the sidewalk as intended (walking) and dancing a jig while walking does not infringe on anyone else's individual equal access right of way to use the sidewalk to walk upon either.

If you were to block the right of way (a common right) on a collectively owned sidewalk then it would be a rightful use of force to remove you because you are violating anothers individual right.

There are no specific rules against "dancing a jig" so long as you don't block the common right of way.

[Mike Barskey]

If the "public space" is owned collectively then you must get permission for it's use (other than what it is designed to be used for) from all the other owners or their delegated representatives (government) prior to use/access.

If the "public space" is owned in common, then your use is only restricted by the equal right use of anyone else - which you or no other individual can't infringe upon. You need not ask anyone's permission. The government then is constituted to protecting individual rights from being infringed upon with the rightful use of force.

Which of these two versions of "public space" is Railroad Square? I'm curious, but it hardly has any bearing on my decision. Both of these versions of "public space" rely on the monopolistic use of initiated aggression (i.e., govt). If either of these were private property (held in collective or in common) then I would treat it and the owner(s) with respect.

[Mike Barskey]

No, you are using the sidewalk as intended (walking) and dancing a jig while walking does not infringe on anyone else's individual equal access right of way to use the sidewalk to walk upon either.

If you were to block the right of way (a common right) on a collectively owned sidewalk then it would be a rightful us of force to remove you.

There are no specific rules against "dancing a jig" so long as you don't block the right of way.

The Keene Freedom Fest did not infringe on anyone else's individual equal access right of way to use Railroad Square. There was plenty of space for other people to set up booths, or dance, or play music, or sell stuff, or do whatever they wanted. If you argue that a table/tent set up for the KFF was infringing upon another's right to set up a table at that exact same spot, then you'd have to also argue that someone dancing a jig on a sidewalk prevented someone else from walking at that exact same space on the sidewalk at that moment.

[BillKauffman]

We instinctively do treat individual, common rights with respect.

We use the terms on a sidewalk like "pardon me", "excuse me" and "allow me"...

private property and ownership in common ARE individual rights.