Dada in Federal Court 7/17 .... leads to 4 days in jail

[Michael Fisher]

I feel a great responsibility at this moment to remind you Dave ..... that this is a "Federal" offense you are looking at.



You cannot handle this alone .... you will need competent council.

We have an anarchist planning meeting this Tuesday ... you can ask some of our underage drinkin' campus radicals what to do in this delicate situation.

LOL!!!

Can I give anti-legal counsel, too?

[PowerPenguin]

would that be "illegal council" then? 8-) Seriously though, hide the personal goods before they decide to pounce on them. At the same time, figure out what your defense plan is. My IANAL suggestion is that you look into what Marc Stephens does vis a vis "Adventures in Legalland". Remember, above all else, (to paraphrase Fight Club), the (in)justice system doesn't like you. In fact, in all likelihood, it HATES YOU! After all, power is extremely conservative and spends 99% of it's time defending itself from challenges to that power, because those who have it realize that everyone hates their punk butts.

[Dave Ridley]

I never got around to posting a full report about the encounter with Homeland Security, so here it is!

As you may know the first clue I got that something was up, was when Kat called me on my cell the morning of Thursday, Sept. 28.   I visiting New London, CT for a day getting ready to do some silent demonstrations.   I was planning visit all the Kelo vs. New London perp offices as well as the offices of those who are complicit in the arrest and detention of Free Stater Lauren Canario.  Kat left a message telling me "ICE police were just here, and it's like they wanted to arrest you or something!"  So I called her back and she gave me the number they had left (one ICE guy and one Keene P.D. guy - not too happy the latter are involved with the former). 

Anyway, I called the number, and a guy answered who identified himself as "Operator number zero three."   I BS you not!  I told him that is a very interesting way to refer to yourself; I said most folks want to avoid having a number but you've gone out of your way to have one?  He laughed and said well his real name was John but he uses this number.  Anyway I asked to speak to the guy who left the number, Officer Schmitt.   They wanted to know what this was regarding, I told them sure, he's looking for me!

About a half hour later he called me back and told me he was seeking to meet with me in relation with the day I visited Nashua's IRS office.  He said he wanted to "give me some details" about what one can and can't do at federal offices   I said that's very interesting you want to "give me some details," but why is it necessary to do that in person?  You could certainly give me details over the phone.  I asked if one of the details might include arresting me.  He said no this is not an arrest type situation.  I said *I* would certainly enjoy meeting with him because I enjoy telling Federal officials what they're doing wrong.  But I said I felt uncomfortable about the fact that such a meeting was a waste of tax dollars.   Eventually we concluded that it would be appropriate to keep taxpayer costs down by settling on a place he would be anyway, Nashua.   He said where in Nashua should we meet.  I said "how about the IRS office?"  That got him laughing.  Between this and a second phone call we decided we'd meet right next to the IRS building at the Nashua Building 19.  Also he mentioned he'd read what I'd written about him driving past me in the Building 19 parking lot the day I visited the IRS. He didn't specify whether he'd read that in the Keene Free Press or on NHfree.com.  Kat thinks it was probably the print edition of KFP, since they came by the day after it printed.

Somewhere in there I asked him if this was what expected to be doing when he signed on with his job, chasing down sign wavers instead of bad guys.  He said it was.  Mostly the tone of the conversation was amused, or at least I think *I* sounded amused.  Although sure I was scared too.  He seemed pretty quick to go along with the jovial mood of the conversation.  Somewhere in there I said something to the effect that probably both of us could agree that we each hope these wavers are the only kinds of "problems" America has to face...sign wavers and loyal opposition.  He was enthusiastic in his agreement with this.

I had Kat post all the details she knew on NHfree.com and went on with my plans for the day doing silent demonstrations inside six bureaucrat offices around Connecticut.  As I was heading home I made a couple phone calls and arranged to have an observer, Matt.

The next day at 11:00 I actually had three observers.  Matt, Katt, Russell and I met Inspector Schmitt in the Building 19 parking lot.  Russell and Kat were already there with their vehicle, Matt and I walked in after parking a ways away so I could conduct the meeting without having an ID.   We went to Russell and Kat first after waving at Schmitt, who was already parked in the lot alone.   Then we walked straight over to him and I introduced myself and shook hands with him.  I was wearing one of Kat's NHfree.com T-Shirts, made of hemp cloth!  He was wearing a flack vest LOL.   The conversation was cordial and I tried to look friendly; in fact I didn't feel unfriendly.  He was polite, so were we.

I told him it was good to meet him; he thanked me for returning his phone call, and I thanked him for returning mine.   I showed him a tape recorder I'd brought and told him that, in the absence of objections, I intended to record the conversation.  He said he did object.  I asked why.  I don't remember his answer.  I think somewhere in there the idea came up that he works for us not the other way around; maybe Russell injected that.   

He asked if I was carrying ID, I said no.  He asked my date of birth; I gave it, but I do not claim that is the best thing to do.  He asked for my address, I gave that too.  Then he said "May I ask for your social security number?" 

I said "You may ask, but I will not give it to you."  I think I had kind of an amused look.   This got a bit of a response from him but didn't seem to surprise him that much.  The information I did give him he wrote down on what looked like a traffic ticket.

He asked me if I was at the Nashua IRS office on the date in question.  I declined to answer but told him I was Dave Ridley and he could find out what he needed to know in the Keene Free Press article which everyone was so excited about.  Then he finished writing on the "ticket," ripped it off his clipboard and held it out to me.  He said it was a citation for handing out handbills on Federal property.   Kat says he was shaking when he held it out but I didn't notice that.

I didn't reach out to accept the citation, so he began to look frustrated.  I asked him if he would like to tell me a little bit about the citation.  He said it was for $125, if I recall correctly.  He said there was an appeal process and if that expired then something else would happen; I don't remember what.  He said the details were on the citation.  He also handed me a sheet of paper with rules about what you can't do on Federal property.  I didn't take that either.   Russell said something to him to the effect that "You government guys sure like your paperwork."  But it was more banter than anger.

Inspector Schmitt said something about me refusing to take these pieces of paper; I said something to the effect that I hadn't necessarily refused to take them, I just hadn't done so yet or reached out my hand. He said ok well if I put the citation down here on the hood of my vehicle will you take it?  I said "You may put it on the hood if you wish."  But I was kind of looking amused again at that point so he knew what that meant...the thing would just blow away LOL.

He looked pretty upset about all this.

He said alright well your refusal to take this will go in my report.  I said I appreciated his polite demeanor and handling of this and that I did not hold what he was doing against him personally.  But I said "I think you're working for the wrong institution.  There are much more moral institutions you could be working for."

That really got a reaction out of him but it was a silent reaction, hard to define.   He almost looked like he'd been hit, shocked or something.  Then he left and as he was driving off the gal from the Telegraph showed up.

I think we were all pretty calm and comfortable, and maybe that was what unnerved him.  I felt scared too in a way but not the heart pumping way.  Russell of course wasn't scared at all, he just kept injecting little amused digs heh heh.

That's all I remember off the top of my head.

[KBCraig]

 

Thanks, Dave!

[d_goddard]

Three things:
1) Thank God for Dave Ridley (said in the deeply heartfelt way only an Atheist can!)
2) Can this report itself please be published in the KFP?!?!??!
3) Because of #1 above, I really do wish you'd at least talk to a lawyer, at least so you have real professional information about what's next, instead of hearsay and theory. Don't surround yourself with sycophants like me (or like anyone else on NHFree); get input from "within the system"

And one more time cause the first time wa so fun:
Thank God for Dave Ridley!

[Kat Kanning]

2) Can this report itself please be published in the KFP?!?!??!

Yup.  It won't be til Oct. 25th though.

[Dave Ridley]

Let me comb it again for spelling or grammatical errors before publishing, if you wish.


Thanks for the kind words DG

DG wrote:

<<really do wish you'd at least talk to a lawyer,>>

Who says I haven't?   Also anyone on this forum who's a lawyer is welcome to give me information.

[David]

Dada, your handling of this is really really good.  You kept it completly non-confrontational, while maintaining nonviolent resistance. 

[aries]

Why do you think all these cops shake when dealing with you?
Intimidation?
Or maybe they feel bad about what they're doing... Maybe they want to stop..

I doubt it

They won't take your papers don't take theirs, IMO.
You done good. Not my favorite type of CD since you're kind of lending legitimacy to the government, but confronting the individuals about who they work for and what they do is useful.

[Russell Kanning]

This is the first time I have seen a cop shaking that much. Lucky he only had a piece of paper and not a gun in his hand.

[Spencer]

Next time, just inform them that you'll be recording your interaction with them, and that they're free to walk away if they wish.

Here's a guy who works for the fedgov (I know, I know, the unprincipled b@stard) who had a similar run-in with ICE:

http://www.boiseweekly.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A158729

There's a transcript of his dealings with ICE after he parked his private vehicle in a government parking lot to go to his fedgov job (his car was covered in anti-war messages); he was accused of violating the same bogus federal regs as you (41 CFR 102-74.415), just a different subsection.

The "government" (I don't think that adminstrative regulations of the executive branch should be given the power of "law" since they are not provided for in the Constitution and constitute a violation of the theoretical separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches) has been kind enough to make the penalty a fine or 30 days imprisonment (meaning that constitutionally they do not have to provide you with a public defender -- the courts have repeatedly held that a sentence of less than 6 months in prison does not require the provision of counsel because it constitutes a mere petty offense).

[FrankChodorov]

There's a transcript of his dealings with ICE after he parked his private vehicle in a government parking lot to go to his fedgov job (his car was covered in anti-war messages); he was accused of violating the same bogus federal regs as you (41 CFR 102-74.415), just a different subsection.

clearly the guy in Boise was not violating the law because of the Hatch Act* but are you claiming that Dada hasn't violated section (c) by not getting prior permission to carry a sign in the general use area of a federal property?

*Hatch Act lays out exactly what political activities federal employees are allowed to participate in. According to the Hatch Act, political bumper stickers are allowed on cars parked on federal property, with no stated limitation on either size or number of stickers. So by the current rules, Scarbrough's car would seem to be legit--unless the "elsewhere" of the pamphlet rule is meant to extend to personal property as well as government property.

excerpt:
TITLE 41--PUBLIC CONTRACTS AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

CHAPTER 102--FEDERAL MANAGEMENT REGULATION

PART 102-74--FACILITY MANAGEMENT--Table of Contents

                 Subpart C--Conduct on Federal Property

Sec. 102-74.415  What is the policy for posting and distributing materials?

    All persons entering in or on Federal property are prohibited from:
    (a) Distributing free samples of tobacco products in or around
Federal buildings, under Public Law 104-52, Section 636.
    (b) Posting or affixing materials, such as pamphlets, handbills, or
flyers, on bulletin boards or elsewhere on GSA-controlled property,
except as authorized in Sec. 102-74.410, or when these displays are
conducted as part of authorized Government activities.
    (c) Distributing materials, such as pamphlets, handbills or flyers,
unless conducted as part of authorized Government activities. This
prohibition does not apply to public areas of the property as defined in
Sec. 102-71.20 of this chapter. However, any person or organization
proposing to distribute materials in a public area under this section
must first obtain a permit from the building's manager as specified in
subpart D of this part. Any such person or organization must distribute
materials only in accordance with the provisions of subpart D of this
part. Failure to comply with those provisions is a violation of these
regulations.

[FrankChodorov]

maybe Russel action fall under this section...

Sec.  102-74.385  What is the policy concerning conformity with
official signs and directions?

    Persons in and on property must at all times comply with official
signs of a prohibitory, regulatory or directory nature and with the
lawful direction of Federal police officers and other authorized
individuals.

Disturbances

Sec.  102-74.390  What is the policy concerning disturbances?

    All persons entering in or on Federal property are prohibited from
loitering, exhibiting disorderly conduct or exhibiting other conduct on
property that--
    (a) Creates loud or unusual noise or a nuisance;
    (b) Unreasonably obstructs the usual use of entrances, foyers,
lobbies, corridors, offices, elevators, stairways, or parking lots;
    (c) Otherwise impedes or disrupts the performance of official
duties by Government employees; or
    (d) Prevents the general public from obtaining the administrative
services provided on the property in a timely manner.

[Spencer]

There's a transcript of his dealings with ICE after he parked his private vehicle in a government parking lot to go to his fedgov job (his car was covered in anti-war messages); he was accused of violating the same bogus federal regs as you (41 CFR 102-74.415), just a different subsection.

but are you claiming that Dada hasn't violated section (c) by not getting prior permission to carry a sign in the general use area of a federal property?

I'm claiming that the "law" itself is not valid in that it was created by the executive branch via adminstrative "regulations."  The executive branch is supposed to enforce (execute) the laws, not create them.

As one who frequently enjoys quoting Justice Scalia, allow me to offer the following regarding the separation of powers, contained in his dissent in Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 697-699 (1988) (Scalia was the sole dissenter against the Court's decision upholding the constitutionality of the Independent Counsel Act):

Without a secure structure of separated powers, our Bill of Rights would be worthless, as are the bills of rights of many nations of the world that have adopted, or even improved upon, the mere words of ours.

The principle of separation of powers is expressed in our Constitution in the first section of each of the first three Articles. Article I, 1, provides that "[a]ll legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." Article III, 1, provides that "[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." And the provision at issue here, Art. II, 1, cl. 1, provides that "[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

But just as the mere words of a Bill of Rights are not self-effectuating, the Framers recognized "[t]he insufficiency of a mere parchment delineation of the boundaries" to achieve the separation of powers. Federalist No. 73, p. 442 (A. Hamilton). "[T]he great security," wrote Madison, "against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack." Federalist No. 51, pp. 321-322.

***

That is what this suit is about. Power. The allocation of power among Congress, the President, and the courts in such fashion as to preserve the equilibrium the Constitution sought to establish - so that "a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department," Federalist No. 51, p. 321 (J. Madison), can effectively be resisted. Frequently an issue of this sort will come before the Court clad, so to speak, in sheep's clothing: the potential of the asserted principle to effect important change in the equilibrium of power is not immediately evident, and must be discerned by a careful and perceptive analysis. But this wolf comes as a wolf.

[FrankChodorov]

I'm claiming that the "law" itself is not valid in that it was created by the executive branch via adminstrative "regulations."

if you were his attorney and he was arrested for carrying a political sign inside a federal building claiming excercise of his free speech rights and they inturn claim that it is is disrupting the business of the federal office as outlined in Sec. 102-74.390 you would urge him to argue (if he choose to argue in court) that the "law" itself "is not valid in that it was created by the executive branch via adminstrative "regulations""??