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

[Lance]

This is what he's accused of being in violation of

ARTICLE XI.  OUTDOOR EVENTS*

__________
*Cross references:  Environment, ch. 38.
State law references:  Open-air meetings, RSA 286:2 et seq.; shows, carnivals, RSA 321-A:1 et seq.

__________

DIVISION 1.  GENERALLY

Sec. 46-621.  Description.
Outdoor periodic events shall include athletic exhibitions, public dances, circuses, carnivals, live performances, exhibitions, promotional activities and any similar periodic activity open and available to the public which is conducted outdoors. For the purposes of this article, "promotional activities" shall not include promotional sales activities which are held at the normal place of business of the sponsor unless they are activities of a type that involve exhibitions, public dances, circuses, carnivals, live performances and other activities of a similar type which do not relate directly to the sale of the product of the business.
(Code 1970, § 1814.0)
Secs. 46-622--46-640.  Reserved.

DIVISION 2.  LICENSE

Sec. 46-641.  Required.
Any person who wishes to have an outdoor event as described in section 46-621 shall obtain a license from the city clerk.

Sec. 46-642.  Fee.
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.
(Code 1970, § 1814.0)
Secs. 46-643--46-670.  Reserved.

How will they prove that the event was a "periodic" event?  The ordinary meaning of that word is synonymous with the word recurring.  How will they prove that the defendant "wishe[d] to have" the event?  One way would be for a cop to testify: "I talked to Barskey and he told me he was responsible for putting the event together and that it happens every October" or something like that...  Barskey, did you confess?

I think your letter is a good idea and since you have a case open against you it would be most appropriate to include the prosecutor and the judge in the conversation.  It happens in most cases but the conversation usually takes place in the form of motions (with or without supporting briefs), responses to motions (or simply argument at a hearing of the motion), and rulings on the motions.  This is because a court won't usually take any action unless one of the parties (you or the prosecutor) asks for something by way of moving the court (a motion) for a ruling on a controverted issue.  Your issue is that you can't tell WTF they say that you did wrong. They are only complaining about half of the offense conduct and giving you no notice whatsoever about how they intend to prove the other half. You know they wanted you to apply for a license and pay a fee or have it waived, but for what conduct?

Turn your letter into a motion for more definite statement, or motion for bill of particulars or whatever it is called in NH.  That means you want the judge to order the prosecutor to amend the complaint to include specific allegations of behavior that constitutes prohibited activity.  I'm sure you did a lot of different things on the day of the alleged violation, about which one(s) are they complaining that you did without getting their license?  It is a legitimate question.  File your motion with the court clerk and when you do you need to ask how to get it set for a hearing - you may need to file a request for hearing or you might simply be able to "notice it up" and above all else don't forget to send a copy to the prosecutor and a courtesy copy to the judge. 

That is, if you want.  Cheers.

[Dave Ridley]

anyone going to the may 1 thing from manch?   anyone want to give me a ride?  anyone want to *receive* a ride? 

If you want a ride or want to give one PM me.  Not watching thread closely.

[David]

I'm ordered to appear at 8:30a at the Keene court. This likely means that they'll make me (and Andrew) wait until the rest of the arraignments are done before doing ours - so I'm guessing they'll deign to talk to us around 10:00a or 11:00a. But I'll be there bright and early at 8:30a! I wouldn't want to "force" them to put me in jail again!

Requoted for the newbies.  I'll be there. 

[Mike Barskey]

I think what David quoted was from the arraignment long ago. The trials tomorrow (May 1) are at 1:30p.

[Sam A. Robrin]

But the protest begins at noon.  I thought I'd bring some songs to sing and signs to wear--If you dare!

[Coconut]

I'm ordered to appear at 8:30a at the Keene court. This likely means that they'll make me (and Andrew) wait until the rest of the arraignments are done before doing ours - so I'm guessing they'll deign to talk to us around 10:00a or 11:00a. But I'll be there bright and early at 8:30a! I wouldn't want to "force" them to put me in jail again!

Requoted for the newbies.  I'll be there. 

I hope you won't... there's nothing going on at 8:30 tomorrow

[Russell Kanning]

per porc411 call

they dropped the charges

you are now free to Barskey railroad square

[Josh]

That pesky first amendment got the best of them, perhaps?

[Mike Barskey]

they dropped the charges

you are now free to Barskey railroad square

hehe. And Barskey it we shall!

That pesky first amendment got the best of them, perhaps?

I think they were hung up by a technicality (we never claimed exclusive use of Railroad Square), so they may not even realize this is a freedom of speech issue.

[Russell Kanning]

i guess that fits ... you were not planning on inconveniencing anyone ... just holding an event

[Josh]

I think they were hung up by a technicality (we never claimed exclusive use of Railroad Square), so they may not even realize this is a freedom of speech issue.

That's a nice technicality to keep in mind for the future
Glad they didn't cage you!

[Sam A. Robrin]

they may not even realize this is a freedom of speech issue.

All they realized was that it was a "harass Mike Barskey and the Free Staters" issue. 

[TackleTheWorld]

Yay Mike!  You showed us how much resistance it takes to wear them down.