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

[mappchik]

Home?  Did you say Home?
New Hampshire is Home to Liberty lovers.
PLEASE COME HOME!

Just because I'd be ready to start packing tomorrow, doesn't mean that he is.
He needs time to think about it before I kick into persuasive mode.

[Tom Sawyer]

Great job everyone who stood in the rain... makes me proud.

Error, thanks for the photo coverage.

And Dave, well, you da man.

[John]

dave is next up on free talk live

[Dreepa]

I am so glad Matthew went up to NH for this morning. I've heard the short version of the protest, and look forward to hearing more details when he gets back home tomorrow.

Thank you for making him feel so welcome - and I can't wait to meet many of you in February at the Liberty Forum. 

Cool tell him he can post here as well.

Frank... you have it 80% right about what went down... but Dada held his own on the 1st Amend.  I hope that some people did listen and learn.

[FrankChodorov]

Frank... you have it 80% right about what went down... but Dada held his own on the 1st Amend.

what 20% did I get wrong?

[John]

Frank... you have it 80% right about what went down... but Dada held his own on the 1st Amend.

what 20% did I get wrong?

Take a look at Articles #s 1 & 10.
Just for the fun of it, try to be open-minded and see if you can find another point of veiw.

[Rosie the Riveter]

After hearing everything on FTL, I say appeal. I think you could have some fun with it, Dada, and maybe more impact as well.

[Quantrill]

1A  sounds good to me -  Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Though the Supreme Court has ruled different, it does very clearly state that Congress cannot abridge the freedom of speech.  

From Dictionary.com -

a?bridge? /??br?d?/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-brij] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

?verb (used with object), a?bridged, a?bridg?ing. 1. to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents: to abridge a reference book.  
2. reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one's freedom.  
3. to deprive; cut off.  



[Origin: 1350?1400; ME abreggen, abriggen < MF abreg(i)er < LL abbrevi?re to shorten. See a-4, abbreviate]

?Related forms
a?bridg?a?ble, a?bridge?a?ble, adjective
a?bridg?er, noun


?Synonyms 1. cut down; epitomize; condense, abstract, digest. See shorten. 2. contract, reduce. 3. divest.
?Antonyms 1. lengthen. 2. expand.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, ? Random House, Inc. 2006.

[FrankChodorov]

Frank... you have it 80% right about what went down... but Dada held his own on the 1st Amend.

what 20% did I get wrong?

Take a look at Articles #s 1 & 10.
Just for the fun of it, try to be open-minded and see if you can find another point of veiw.

I have thank you...

the 1st amendment is based on common rights

federal buildings are collective property.

one is an individual equal right and the other is a joint unequal right.

collective property is an unequal joint right because you MUST get permission prior to use from all the other owners (consensus) OR their delegated authority (the state).

the excercise of our 1st amendment rights of freedom of speech, assembly, redress of greivances being individual equal common rights require NO PRIOR PERMISSION before excercising them - the state sole role is to insure that while one individual is excercising their rights they are not infringing on anyone else's equal right to the same.

regarding freedom of speech, government acts rightfully when it insures that all may speak, but acts wrongfully when it decides, or lets the majority decide, who may speak or what may be said...in doing so, it subverts a common right into a collective right, effectively destroying the rights of those individuals who are excluded.

that is why the judge said you can carry a sign on the sidewalk where people are free to assemble and plead for a redress of greivances because there is a COMMON RIGHT OF WAY contained within the sidewalk...the only requirements are that you can not block anyone else's equal right to the common right of way - that is why you must keep moving.

in a public building - just as Russell had been instructed - you can freely use the halls and lobbies because they are general purpose areas (without asking anyone for permission) to get to the offices but you can not interupt the intended purpose of the building because you would have to get prior permission.

[error]

And another one. I never did figure out why Dada didn't want to protest WITH the rest of us!

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Kat Kanning]

So with the two visiting porcupines...which one is which in the pics?  There's a redheaded one and dark haired one with a beard...

[mappchik]

I'm sure Matthew (the dark-haired visitor) will be posting either tomorrow night or Wednesday, but he has an early morning date with the TSA at the airport in Manchester tomorrow, so.....

Here are a couple of pix he sent me earlier:

[John]

And another one. I never did figure out why Dada didn't want to protest WITH the rest of us!

That would be like saying that I didn't protest "with" the rest of us   - I was busy walking around the Fedbuilding; up and down the streets - and quite around the hood; where I might be seen from I different FEDwindow, or passers by, or home, or shop, or office ... I actualy had some folks come out from one place and ask if I was protesting them   to wich I answered "No. But is there something we should know?"    We had a freindly chat - - - and they HATE (that's just shorthand for what was said) the IRS to.  
Methinks we (and many others) are quite together on this.  Sorry I didn't spend more time on that corner with the group, but as we all know cats are rather hard to corral.  

I think we all compliment each other nicely.  Dave (I think) was just getting the attention of the traffic from that one direction . . .

[Spencer]

Dada, congratulations on arguing your first case.  I imagine a combination of Clarence Darrow, Johnnie Cochran, and Matlock.

Next time, don't testify or offer any evidence (i.e., the articles from the KFP); you can still argue all of your legal points, but I get the impression that this judge doesn't think that the government can often make its case without direct testimony from the accused.

I can't wait to get to NH and offer my assistance to freedom fighters (pro bono, of course).

[John]

BTW, 3.