Brian Travis invaded by bureaucrats

[ny2nh]

Quoted out of context. "Did nothing" and "kept quiet" in the sense of didn't let any other freestaters know about this situation. Many of us around here believe that there are private solutions—social pressure, ostracism, and the like—to convince someone to behave properly. I'm not going to rehash this topic because it's been posted about amply already (Here is a nice past example of how to do the right thing against someone doing something wrong), but simply put, [i]if[/i] Beth is telling the truth about Heidi's horses, and she had started a thread about it on these forums, with evidence, pictures, &c., I can assure you that virtually no one would support Heidi.

Except Beth was under contract with Brian to not discuss things having to with the "farm". So, she really couldn't post here.

Again, you don't know the whole story. You are presuming that Beth went to the authorities and I don't believe that was the case.

On a side note - would you be OK with....say.... someone inferring that Beth should not testify honestly under oath about the condition and care of the horses if she is subpoenaed to court? Completely hypothetically of course.

[aworldnervelink]

I'm going to do something a bit nutty and try to steer this thread in a constructive direction. Back to the Future was just a movie and we can't change the past. The fact is, twelve horses have been relocated and no amount of philosophical discussion will make one bit of difference.

So, I am operating under the assumption that a problem did exist. I have my opinion based on what I saw at the property, and Brian admitted as much when he said the SPCA could have arrived with grain and deworming paste. Given that, what positive steps can we take to repair the situation? My personal interests are (1) the welfare of the horses, and (2) repairing the damage done to the FSP image in the community. OK, (3) the return of Brian and Heidi's property, so y'all don't jump on me. Anyone have some helpful suggestions?

I will publicly state that if Brian wants to build a real barn with real stalls and real paddocks and fences, I'll gladly assist. I'm not interested in building crummy shelters out of sticks.

[J’raxis 270145]

Quoted out of context. "Did nothing" and "kept quiet" in the sense of didn't let any other freestaters know about this situation. Many of us around here believe that there are private solutions—social pressure, ostracism, and the like—to convince someone to behave properly. I'm not going to rehash this topic because it's been posted about amply already (Here is a nice past example of how to do the right thing against someone doing something wrong), but simply put, [i]if[/i] Beth is telling the truth about Heidi's horses, and she had started a thread about it on these forums, with evidence, pictures, &c., I can assure you that virtually no one would support Heidi.

Except Beth was under contract with Brian to not discuss things having to with the "farm". So, she really couldn't post here.

Kevin wasn't.

Beth could have alerted people to the conditions on the farm without discussing it with anyone and thus breaking her contract. Invite people over, let them see for themselves, and let things run their course: Let them post an "open letter" to start the pressure campaign.

Again, you don't know the whole story. You are presuming that Beth went to the authorities and I don't believe that was the case.

No, I don't. I suppose it'll all come out when this case makes it to court.

On a side note - would you be OK with....say.... someone inferring that Beth should not testify honestly under oath about the condition and care of the horses if she is subpoenaed to court? Completely hypothetically of course.

Should someone lie under oath, if subpoenaed?

On the one hand, subpœnaing someone to testify against someone else is an aggressive act of the State, and fraud, like force, is an acceptable response to aggression. So from a self-defense perspective, I see it as acceptable. If we were living in a police state and they were rounding up dissidents to put them in camps, would I lie to the thug at the door about the dissidents I was hiding in my attic? Sure, without a second thought. Lying under oath when the State is trying to stomp on someone else is just a lesser degree of the same principle.

But on a personal level, I think lying after having taken an oath is rather dishonorable. Even if the one whom you're lying to is dishonorable (the State), answering dishonor with dishonor isn't particularly respectable. If I were in that situation, I would simply refuse to testify. I probably wouldn't even take the oath, or even take the stand. I for one would rather stand up for myself—refuse to give in to coercion, outright refuse to testify, and swallow their punishment for noncompliance—rather than weasel my way out by lying.

As for someone else testifying under subpœna... hmm. That might just fall into the sort of "unfortunate necessity" exception (e.g., calling the police when you've shot someone in self-defense, for fear that you'd be charged with murder if you don't) that I follow when evaluating other people's interactions with the State. I'd have to see the testimony myself, and try to determine if they were truly coerced, if the punishment for not doing so was excessively harsh, and there was no evidence they didn't initiate the subpœna process (e.g., "Just subpœna me so I have an excuse to coöperate.") in order to simply abrogate responsibility.

That I admit is a gray area, but only because of the practical statist reality that we live in.

[J’raxis 270145]

So, I am operating under the assumption that a problem did exist. I have my opinion based on what I saw at the property, and Brian admitted as much when he said the SPCA could have arrived with grain and deworming paste. Given that, what positive steps can we take to repair the situation? My personal interests are (1) the welfare of the horses, and (2) repairing the damage done to the FSP image in the community. OK, (3) the return of Brian and Heidi's property, so y'all don't jump on me. Anyone have some helpful suggestions?

Two more things:—

(4) Restitution by Beth to Heidi for whatever damage she caused. Ultimately, agreement between them that the situation is settled.

(5) Ending the existence of the NHSPCA, or at least their State-ordained authority to steal people's animals.

Suggestions: Convince Brian, Heidi, and Beth to sit down and discuss this situation like adults who know how to interact without going to the State. From what I know, Brian has evicted Beth and Heidi has lawyered up, so there's certainly some work to be done on convincing both sides to talk to each other, not just Beth's.

I'm not offering to mediate; I suck at it. I can sit back and see both sides of an issue, but I'm not good at actually talking to the parties into seeing each other's sides. And no one involved in this thread could possibly be trusted to truly see the other side, whichever side that is, since everyone's already so vocally taken sides. Anyone seen Mike Ruff around lately?

[ny2nh]

Again, Jeremy, you don't know the whole story at all.

I don't see that there is anything to mediate. Heidi failed to care for her horses....Beth got pulled in and honestly stated what happened....The State took horses that were in dire condition....Brian evicted Beth & Dan.

Yea - and somehow Beth would owe restitution to Heidi? Because Heidi didn't take proper care of her animals? OK then.

[J’raxis 270145]

Again, Jeremy, you don't know the whole story at all.

I don't see that there is anything to mediate. Heidi failed to care for her horses....Beth got pulled in and honestly stated what happened....The State took horses that were in dire condition....Brian evicted Beth & Dan.

How does not knowing the whole story impact, at all, my suggestions on how to handle this situation without the State? What makes you think that there's some bit of knowledge that, once possessed, would suddenly cause me to conclude, "okay, now let's sic the State on them!"?

Perhaps Beth honestly stated what happened. She stated it to the State—either with the intention to, or at the very least, with the knowledge that doing so would, turn their aggression against Brian and Heidi.

Mediation is how you solve conflicts in a non-coercive manner. Mediation, as opposed to prosecution, is how you get people who aren't convinced they've done anything wrong to come to some sort of agreement or understanding with the other party. Why are you actively trying to block them from doing so? Why do you argue with someone when they take an opposing side, and then keep arguing when they try to see your side, step back, and offer solutions that don't involve the State? Is your sole purpose here to convince people that State intervention is necessary?

Yea - and somehow Beth would owe restitution to Heidi? Because Heidi didn't take proper care of her animals? OK then.

Yes. Beth is the one who initiated (or at least enabled) the acts of aggression here. I honestly don't care what Heidi or Beth agree on as "restitution"; it could be a million dollars or just a handshake and forgiveness. Point is, this is how you solve conflicts non-aggressively, and what it would take for me (and probably a lot of others here) to not conclude that Beth is the bad guy in this situation.

[Peacemaker]

To my Dear Liberty Loving Friends!

We are brought together by the love of the principle of Liberty, with each of us, having our own varing definition.

We are from all walks of life and of all ages and thus there is bound to be debate/disagreement. 

And I know how easy it is to think, "we know it all" (myself included )!, but each day I'm constantly reminded of how much I don't know.

But something I do know is, passing judgement, on a situation, without talking to each person(s) involved, or knowing the Whole story, is begging for trouble.  I also know, if you're not asked, it's wise to keep your trap shut (if possible!), as you're better off just minding your own business.

It's too easy to get upset at what others can say so if find yourself thinking about Name Calling, then please take that as a sign you're too upset at the moment and you should speak later, after you've calmed down. 

And as far as this being terrible for the FSP, I think not.  I think most people are busy living their own lives and don't give two hoots about some Liberty Activists' dispute.

Well that's my 2 cents.  Please don't misunderstand that I'm trying to say I don't think people should talk about events that happen in the community.   

In the Pursuit of earning more Liberty,  Meet you at the Top!

Markus

[MaineShark]

Look, I am not necessarily in support of what the state did. However, there was clearly a problem, and clearly something was going to happen regardless of any amount of jawboning on the forums. As evidenced by postings on the Union Leader, this is yet another thing that the general public is using to paint all Porcs as wackos. Is it not possible that we can do a little better?

It would have been possible, if those who believed there was a problem had chosen to seek voluntary assistance in remedying it.

I tentatively believe that Brian has no reason to lie about Beth being the "snitch," although I will refrain from making a final judgment until I see hard evidence.  If that is the case, then Beth is directly the responsible party for any "painting" that occurs.  If she is that party, then I would like to see her step up to the plate and offer what damage control she can.  I would hope that others who were aware of a problem and chose to ignore it might feel some desire to assist in that endeavor.

For example: Up until Beth turned against Ivy over her private dealings, I thought Beth was a decent person.

I hate to go off on a tangent, but since you still don't get it I'll make another attempt: Bill was married to Kate! Marriage! A contract! Get it? Any synapses rubbing together?

And?  We get it.  Bill violated a contract with Kate.  Ivy was an accessory to his actions.  Kate suffered some amount of harm as a result.  Kate, by her statements to me and others, considers the apologies offered by Bill and Ivy to be sufficient restitution for that harm.  Since the victim is satisfied that restitution has been made I, as a libertarian, am not about to second-guess her.  That's how justice works.

This is actually topical to the case at-hand, because Beth (or whomever, if not her) caused substantial harm to the Brian and Heidi, and no self-respecting libertarian is going to have anything to do with her until she makes restitution to the satisfaction of those victims.  It's up to them to determine what will be sufficient to make them whole again in response to the damage that was done.  They might be as magnanimous as Kate and accept an apology.  They might demand a thousand ounces of gold.  Only the victim knows how much the victim was harmed, and only the victim can make that determination.  I, as a libertarian, will respect their determinations in that matter, and will act accordingly with regards to the individuals who aggressed against them, until such time as those individuals make full restitution. (I know some of this overlaps what Jeremy posted, but I wrote it before he posted, and just got around to posting it now)

Other than in the case of a proven habitual offender, once restitution is made, I will "forgive and forget," as the saying goes.

Assuming Beth is guilty, she has a lot of harm to deal with (not just the theft, itself, but the fact that it was accomplished by means of armed robbers who constituted an obvious threat to the health, safety, and lives of the victims), and it will be up to Brian and Heidi to determine what they will accept as restitution for that harm.  If she is not guilty, then Brian will owe her restitution for libeling her here.  I find it unlikely that he would risk that but, as with previous cases, I will reserve final judgment until all the facts that seem likely to appear, have done so.

Joe

[Keyser Soce]

Again, Jeremy, you don't know the whole story at all.

If her name is on the affidavit, that will be the whole story.

[AntonLee]

if people are so worried about the FSP's stellar image enough to call thugs in to steal people's property then perhaps I don't get the mission of this group.

Frankly, I don't really know any of you.  I've never met Ivy, Bill, Beth, Tammy, Brian, or Heidi.  What I see is *some* people claiming abuse yet they never spoke of it here.  I would have expected if this issue was so important to someone who supposedly loves freedom (enough to grant others the freedom to treat their PROPERTY as they wish) they would have posted here a thread about how a certain FSP member was, in their opinion, abusing an animal.  They could have started their own ostracism campaign and told others that these people were scumbags and deserved to be ostracized.

No such thread.  No discussion here, on one of the liberty movement's biggest forums.  I would have been interested in finding out who in the FSP was someone I wouldn't want to hang out with.   Nothing.  No using the brain to figure out how to remedy situations, just a kneejerk reaction to call in the thugs to steal and possibly beat up others who are harming no one.

So, one side defends a person's right to treat their PROPERTY as they see fit.  The other side claims abuse and is in love with the fact that someone was stripped of their property by force, and on taxpayer's dime.  Frankly, if that's your principle, it fucking blows.  Dragging the situation of marriage infidelity (a private contract matter) and calling names only further pushes me to one side.  As I said, I don't know any of you really.  To a person who is an outsider, it's pretty damn disgusting the amount of bullshit I've seen lobbed at the Travis'. 

If only you had thought for a few minutes, used the old noggin to come up with a way to let people know that there's an animal abuser in the midst, perhaps your argument would be stronger.  Instead you've shown it to be more of an immature way to get what you want and then claim that you are in the right for doing so.

You're not.  Using other people's money to get what you want is wrong.  Denying others the right to treat their property as they see fit is wrong.  I personally don't want to associate with people who are going to turn me into the police if they don't like what I do with my property.  Are you going to call the popo because you catch me smoking weed?  Is this what the FSP is all about?  Sticking your nose in other people's business and then calling the police when you see something you don't like?  If that's the case, maybe this FSP thing isn't for me.  I was under the assumption that people would treat others as they would like to be treated.

this seemed to become more of a grudge against some supporters of one side of a failed marriage that I don't even need to know the details of to understand that it's not something that's any of your business.  To attack those who defend others' rights to life, liberty, and property I find downright heinous.  To demean Jraxis in such a manner truly offends me, and shows me how pathetic some of this FSP crowd can be.  What I saw was Jraxis defending someone's right to property against those who decided to fuck off on the NAP.  How disgusting.

All in all, I've decided I'm done listening to people spout off about Bill and Ivy being assholes and people I don't want to associate with.  When it comes down to it, I'm more fearful of some of you calling the police on me because I smoke weed and drive fast than I am Bill and Ivy.  I look forward to finding out for myself sometime about these so called "evil people" as was explained to me once.  As for Mr. Pervert Android, my one time at Taproom he couldn't have been more friendly and welcoming.  Not once did I think he would have called the popo because I had a bag of pot in my pocket.  Some others, I'm not so sure about anymore.

If you'll call to steal people's property what's to stop you from calling on me?

[J Leblanc]

I think its time to tell the whole story .My next post will do just that but I need to get rid of the anger first .I'll give you this much now .Beth tried for months to get Brians wife to listen ,when it didn't work she came to me .Tell you the rest later!

[MistyBlue]

This wasn't directed at you personally. It's my estimation of how a now–50-page thread about someone being attacked by the State was hijacked and turned into a thread about animal cruelty, seemingly with the implication that if cruelty was proven, that that somehow justifies the State pointing guns at people.

I assumed it was directed to me since I seemed to be the only one passing along equine information. I also assumed the thread was both about the seizure *and* the animals...since that was the reason for the seizure and what they seized. Also, since the video was posted...I did not see a single sidearm drawn, so am confused about the "pointing guns" comment unless it was used for dramatic effect.

Quoted out of context. "Did nothing" and "kept quiet" in the sense of didn't let any other freestaters know about this situation. Many of us around here believe that there are private solutions—social pressure, ostracism, and the like—to convince someone to behave properly. I'm not going to rehash this topic because it's been posted about amply already (Here is a nice past example of how to do the right thing against someone doing something wrong), but simply put, if Beth is telling the truth about Heidi's horses, and she had started a thread about it on these forums, with evidence, pictures, &c., I can assure you that virtually no one would support Heidi.

Brian has employees promise to not discuss anything that happens on his property. And seemingly for good reason...past and present prove that point. Beth is telling the truth about the horses...as are the 2 independent vets and the video released of the horses showing their condition. Plenty of people in that area also called the PD and SPCA about the conditions of those horses BTW. Plenty...they recognized emaciated poor condition shivering horses out in the worst winter in decades better than the owner of those horses did. So everyone is wrong? The video was false? Beth could not state a thing...but had talked to Heidi repeatedly over a long period of time letting her know that the money had to be released to bring those horses back to health or that too many reports from drive by's would come in and the SPCA would be back. Heidi ignored her and was rude to her over that. So Beth did what she could with her own supplies and money. So she tried to save their hides...once by keeping the SPCA off the property in November, multiple times since them warning to care for those horses and then again by spending her own money to care for someone else's property. Now it's *still* her fault that they had their horses seized? Nobody else from the FSP had ever been to that property and noticed the poor conditions?

But that's not what happened. Beth answered an alleged wrong with another wrong. Two wrongs don't lead to a right. Now, this issue has become defending someone who's been attacked by the State for illegitimate reasons. The condition of the horses has unfortunately become secondary.

That couldn't happen...if the FSP members are supposed to be so independent...why do they need Beth to babysit them and try talking them into acting like compassionate mature adults? The wrong isn't alleged...already proven that with the video and vet reports. Beth all she could and IMO went above and beyond what others would have done considering the piss poor attitude of Heidi. Heidi is already proven to have done wrong by those horses whether anyone wants to admit it or not...Heidi and Brian are already proven liars by their own admissions and *Beth* is the one who is wrong???  And as has been said ad nauseum on here...even if Beth broke her word to Brian and posted an open letter on here as you suggest...few would have cared because the condition of the horses doesn't matter and the right to treat property however owners' wish does matter and that other people have no rights to infringe on that. So that's no solution at all, is it? If I understand correctly your solution is:
Heidi and Brian can lie all they want
They can neglect and cause suffering of their animals all they want
They can ignore the information given to them by mutliple people including Beth all they want
Brianis to be believed NOW because well...he said so! So this time he must mean it.
And yet somehow Beth owes THEM restitution after buying their horses hay because both lied and neglected their animals to the point of suffering. And none of the other many people who called the SPCA on them count anyways.

If the allegations are true, you're probably right. If the allegations against them had been presented on our forums here, like that "open letter" post above, and they turned out to be true, you're probably right. But instead this situation was turned over to the police. So a bunch of us are rallying to support Brian & Heidi, because regardless of what they're doing with their horses, being threatened by the State over it isn't a legitimate answer.

So if everything is true...and Brian and heidi are totally in the wrong...everyone still needs to shun Beth because the state got involved. Makes absolutely no sense to me. Support the liars because the remedy you suggest which you also admit wouldn't work anyways wasn't implemented to *your* satisfaction...so rally those troups against the one person who tried for months.

I don't mean to be harsh, but why wasn't any of this done before this situation turned into "Brian Travis invaded by bureaucrats"?

I didn't know about it before the seizure. I wasn't surprised after hearing it, but didn't know beforehand. And since it's been stated by many on here...it wouldn't have mattered since nobody has a right to tell other people how to treat their property. It's a Catch 22 no matter how you look at it.

Beth got yanked into this...I am assuming if/when she was asked after a multitude of other people called in numerous complaints about the obviously visible from the road horses that were in horrible shape (despite the blatant lies about their health from Brian and Heidi, if so healthy why all the calls and complaints that Beth was warning them would happen???)...when the authorities got a crapload of complaints from everyone else in the area and then IF they asked Beth about the condition of the horses and the quality of care Heidi allowed for...why would Beth have to lie to them? Because they're the law, she needs to lie when asked anything about suffering animals? Even though her requests to the owner were either ignored or cause for her to receive rude treatment from the owner? Even though she knows the FSPers think that an owner can do whatever the hell they want to their property? Even though she was running out of her own money to care for horses that weren't hers? And even if she knew some of those wouldn't make it much longer? But BETH needs to be blamed for the whole thing...huh. Why am I not surprised?
So the moral of the story is: Do whatever you can to help out, spend your own money, educate and warn all you can, protect them more than once, allow them to blame you and lie about you and then tell every other FSPer what's really going on in an open letter so they can do absolutely nothing about it because it's not their property and knowing that Heidi won't listen to them anyways and that Brian will lie to them anyways and that few of them know anything about horses anyways and then get dragged into a mess YOU did not create in the first place, be shunned by your own community on the say-so of one or two people who have zero to do with any of this but are just pissed off that other people called the authorities on any FSPer. Oh...and the kicker is then according to the FSP *you* owe the lying abusers money for this in order to be accepted back into your own community of like-minded folks who are leaving you hanging out to dry anyways. And forget about seeing a dime of your own hay money back that you fed the liars horses with.

Hmmm...that'll make anyone reading this public available forum want to join ranks or support you guys. You so obviously do the same for your own. (insert sarcasm here)

[MistyBlue]

Anton...

What I see is *some* people claiming abuse yet they never spoke of it here.  I would have expected if this issue was so important to someone who supposedly loves freedom (enough to grant others the freedom to treat their PROPERTY as they wish) they would have posted here a thread about how a certain FSP member was, in their opinion, abusing an animal.

Not to argue...especially since you crack me up...but those two statements are oxymorons. How can someone claim someone is treating their property badly to a BB of people who grant others to treat their own property as they see fit?

[leetninja]

We are not going to be able to keep anyone from posting lies here.
Since the front door is once again open to this forum, then anyone can join here and post. We have had many horsey people join lately and tell us all what to do and how to stay on topic in threads complaining about bureaucrats. Maybe they can start threads about horse care.

I don't know who posted or what they posted, since it is gone now. Kat is not wanting to accept Ivy onto this forum with open arms. She can post on many other forums across the internet.

Maybe you guys will want to take your discussions elsewhere. Many people don't read this thread or skip the long posts  about horses. Most people won't have read this long post.

The thugs are putting the pressure on us and we will realize who our real friends are and who will actually help others. It will be interesting.

well they can join and they can post until youban them and remove their posts right?  are you going to ban them as well?  because they dont agree with your point of view?  or have you done that already?

[AntonLee]

Misty, I believe people have the right to ostrasize people as they see fit and for whatever reason.  If someone here had stated that there was someone who was abusing their animals on purpose or by neglect, they are choosing to point out that they are not associating with such people and suggest others do the same.  

It's a matter of OPINION.  If I don't like the way people are treating the animals, then I will not associate with them.  If enough people decide that they will not associate with these people because they're treating an animal badly. . . the world will become a very very lonely place for them.  In this case, the person was not ostracized, they were stolen from.  Ostracism = ok. . . aggression against people = not ok.

For example.  I'm very angry that a farm would participate in the theft of animals from another. . .for whatever reason that might make them feel good.  I, in turn, am voting with my opinion and ostracizing them.  It might not mean much to them, I'm just one person.  However anyone that ever asks me about horse farms, I'll have one name in mind and make sure that I explain how that farm participated in an horse theft along with Candia Police.  The people I tell will have a choice whether or not to follow my suggestion and take their business elsewhere.  If they agree with the theft, they will use the business.  If not, they won't.

No force initiated, no aggression.  If I were to act like these thugs who use the gun of the state to hurt others and steal from them, I would not have ostracized the farm, I would have broken into the farm and stolen some of their valuables.  After all, they're behaving in a way that I don't like.  Heck, I wouldn't even need to do it myself, I could pay some assholes to put a badge on and do it for me.  If the owner of that farm didn't like it, tough shit, I make the rules.

Thankfully, I'll stick to ostracizing them, and they'll continue not to care.  Frankly, I've told the 5 horse people I know about the situation, and like me, they do not agree that starving an animal is a nice thing to do.  What's worse is pushing forward the silly and evermore dangerous idea that you have a right to steal someone else's property for whatever reason you decide.  I guarantee that a few of those horse people disagreed with the theft of the horses.  Those people have explained how disingenuous they are about the "horse community" and wish that they could operate without the "uppity" and "bureaucratic" nature.  There were others that disagreed with me and thought that it was in the best interest of the horses.  At the very least, the idea has been put in their heads about having their own horses stolen.  One in particular vehimently disagreed with the ranch's role in the theft of those horses and said that he knows the owner of the farm personally.

There are ways to figure out how to stop things without using force.  In my humble opinion, IF the horses were abused, the "savior" crowd lost me when they decided to stop using their head and move to have others steal someone else's horses.