Mike Barskey's trial (one of them)

[Vitruvian]

What's SamIAm's last name?

Sam Dodson

Sam Sam Dodson

[Kat Kanning]

Thanks.

[AnarchoJesse]

Clarification on my hat wearing-- I didn't even file a motion, I simply pointed to their rulebook and said "I can wear a hat, so I'm going to". I was given a motion to fill out, but I didn't even get finished with it before they said "you can just wear it". So I tore up the motion, and threw it out.

Victory.

[Coconut]

Clarification on my hat wearing-- I didn't even file a motion, I simply pointed to their rulebook and said "I can wear a hat, so I'm going to". I was given a motion to fill out, but I didn't even get finished with it before they said "you can just wear it". So I tore up the motion, and threw it out.

Victory.

ahh... good clarification. They did not want to go through the trouble.

strange that they've now admitted that they wrongfully arrested AND CONVICTED you.

[Mike Barskey]

Update
There were six charges against me:

• speeding
  
• driving without license
  
• carrying bottles in the car
  
• failure to appear in court
  
• no car registration
  
• loaded weapon without license
  
  At the start of their trial, the prosecution dropped 2 charges: the bottle charge because Teri slashed their case on this last month, and the driver license charge (probably because I have since obtained their driver license).
  
  During the trial, I asked the cop questions and was eventually able to catch him in 2 dilemmas. I asked him to mark on a map where he detected my speed, where he made a u-turn, and where he pulled me over (he testified that he was traveling west-bound and i was traveling east-bound, that he radar-ed me and then u-turned and then pulled me over). I asked him to verify his markings 3 times. What he marked on the map, however, was that he made a u-turn before he used his radar to detect my speed! This was apparently not enough "reasonable doubt" for the judge.
  
  Also, the cop testified that my window tinting was so dark that he couldn't see into the car with his car's spotlight, yet he also testified that he looked through the passenger-side back-seat window (also tinted) and saw on the floor of the car (with no interior lights on) on the driver's side of the car in the back seat my gun - loaded - even though between the gun and him, also on the floor, was a 6-pack of bottles in a cardboard case. In Teri's trial last month (and I pointed this out again today), she pointed out that the beers were in fact in a 4 pack because that's the only way this beer is sold. Nonetheless, the cop testified he saw through 1% tinting (it lets only 1% of light through) in the dark on the floor of the back seat of a car without interior lights through another object that he saw my loaded gun. My gun was unloaded. This was also not enough "reasonable doubt" for the judge.
  
  In my closing statement/testimony, I pointed out that all 6 charges were victimless crimes - that there was not a single human in existence that I harmed or threatened or whose property I damaged or stole - and that there was not even a human that was claiming to be a victim. I also said that if the jidge found me guilty and assessed a penalty, I would not pay it.
  
  The judge found me guilty on all 4 remaining charges. She issued no penalty on the registration and speeding charges (!). On the failure to appear charge, she assessed a $300.00 fee that was satisfied by my already-served jail time. On the gun charge, she assessed 46 days in jail, 6 days satisfied by my already-served jail time and the remaining 40 days suspended for 1 year.
  
  In other words, according to their system of "justice," I was guilty on all charges and had to pay no more penalties, but they want me to "behave" (not have any criminal convictions) for 1 year.
  
  I am glad to not be in jail, but it's just so damn ridiculous that I was found guilty on the only of their charges that I was actually innocent of! (I expected to be found guilty on the other charges)

[Mike Barskey]

I think what Jesse did today was much more important towards the progress of liberty than anything I did*. 1 month ago he was arrested in this court because of this judge for wearing a hat. Today he wore a hat and told them it was his constitutional right, and they let him! Without their stupid paperwork! And so Charlie and Patrick also wore hats in court today! Great job, Jesse!

* Although I think my stating to the court that these crimes were victimless and that I would not pay fines was good. Actually, the judge asked me about my philosophy before pronouncing sentence: she asked me if I thought that if there was no victim could there be no crime. I said that that is what I thought. In fact, I was wearing a shirt that said "No victim, no crime."

[Kat Kanning]

http://newhampshirefreepress.com/?q=node/350

No Victim, No Crime

Mike Barskey was tried today on a number of charges stemming from one late-night traffic stop .  The charges were speeding, having an open container in his car, driving an unregistered car, not obtaining a New Hampshire driver's license, and having a handgun in his car without a permit.  Two were dropped at the beginning of the trial – the open container and driver's license charges. 

Prior to the start of the trial, Jesse "The Hat" Maloney began to file a motion to wear his hat into court.    Before he completed the motion, he was told it would be allowed.  So three of the 26 Freestaters present wore hats into the courtroom, unmolested, and without it disturbing the court proceedings.

Sam Dodson and Ian Freeman filed motions to film the supposedly public proceedings for public access TV.  They were denied.  They did have a meeting to discuss it with Judge Crocker, but were again denied.  Sam left the courtroom railing about Freedom of the Press being trashed.

As the trial got underway, it was apparent that Amherst Officer Day-Lewis was not giving accurate testimony.  Day-Lewis testified at Teri Kaneshiro's trial (from the same incident) that he asked Barskey if he had any weapons on him.  Barskey was standing at the back of his car so answered (in typical accurate computer geek fashion) that no he didn't.  For Barskey's trial, Day-Lewis insisted that what he had asked was if Barskey had any weapons, not if he had any weapons on him. 

Mike questioned officer Day-Lewis about how fast he had to go to do a U-turn and intercept Barskey's speeding car.  Day-Lewis testified that he would have had to go at least as fast as Mike was going.  When Mike asked why it was safe for Day-Lewis to drive that way, but not for Mike to do so, the prosecution objected and the question was deemed irrelevant to the court.  It may be a relevant question to the rest of us, though, as to why officers routinely get away with doing what we're all punished for.

After the testimony of Officers Day-Lewis and Mahoney, Barskey contradicted Day-Lewis' testimony that his gun was loaded.  Mike testified that he always unloads his gun as he gets into his car and that he always keeps 10 rounds in his clip, not the 4 that Day-Lewis testified were in there.  He showed how other testimony from Day-Lewis was highly questionable, like Day-Lewis' ability to see a gun on a dark floor through tinted windows at night, around a six pack of beer.

Barskey stated that there was no victim in any of the "crimes" he was accused of, and that he would be willing to pay restitution if there had been a victim.  He said he felt he'd done no wrong and if fined, he would not pay.

Apparently Officer Day-Lewis' testimony was impeached enough that the prosecutor felt like he had to defend the officer during his closing statement, saying that Day-Lewis had used the least restrictive measures possible during the traffic stop.  This statement was included, "For the press present."

But Day-Lewis was not impeached to the extent that Barskey was exonerated of the charges against him.  He was found Guilty on all charges.  The speeding and car registration charges had no penalty. He was fined $300 on the Failure to Appear charge, which was taken care of with his 6 days in jail.  On the gun charge he was sentenced to 46 days in jail, with 6 days of that taken care of by his previously mentioned  imprisonment, and 40 days suspended for 1 year.  Barskey walked out of court technically guilty in the view of the government, but without further punishment.

[Mike Barskey]

Nice brief, accurate article, Kat. Thanks.

[thinkliberty]

Ok... shocking no update here.

Porc 411 said mike got a suspended sentence I think. While Jesse filed a motion to wear his hat in court.

As long as you are pretending the court is important and runs things the control freaks can keep their cool. It's when you stop pretending that their insanity is fun and can't remember which is the correct way to follow every single one of their OCD rules that they flip out and start caging people.  

[Tom Sawyer]

Glad you aren't in the pokie Mike... although the axe hanging over your head for a year sucks.

Wished we had been able to attend.

It bothers me greatly that the cop just flat out lied about the gun being loaded... it doesn't necessarily surprise me, but it is very disturbing... they could have said you had 10 grams of crack cocaine or anything they wanted to, to get a tough conviction. The fact that the judge found you guilty even when reality pointed to the fact that the cop couldn't have even seen the gun...

I am no longer able to give them the benefit of the doubt, when small, decent town USA justice is corrupt...

[280]

Glad to hear things went so well.

Congrats Mike, and congrats Jesse!!!

[J’raxis 270145]

I am no longer able to give them the benefit of the doubt, when small, decent town USA justice is corrupt...

Indeed. Two things I noticed:—

When the State presented its case, with the prosecutor asking Day-Lewis questions about what happened, the cop's answers were immediate, detailed, and thorough. No confusion, no misunderstandings, a nice, down-pat dialogue. When Mike asked questions, even nearly identical questions to what had already been asked by the prosecutor, the cop hesitated, stumbled, answered with single words, and so on. Yeah, no witness coaching going on there.

And when Mike was cross-examining the second cop, the first one (Day-Lewis) was whispering back and forth with the prosecutor at the prosecution table.

[J’raxis 270145]

I think what Jesse did today was much more important towards the progress of liberty than anything I did*. 1 month ago he was arrested in this court because of this judge for wearing a hat. Today he wore a hat and told them it was his constitutional right, and they let him! Without their stupid paperwork! And so Charlie and Patrick also wore hats in court today! Great job, Jesse!

I wonder how Burke's court is going to handle the same.

[Russell Kanning]

I am glad you stood your ground and Barskeyed the court.

It seems the more we push the more ground they give ... sometimes.
If we give ground ... they take it.

[280]

It seems that when one court cracks down, others eventually follow. Hopefully the opposite will be true also.