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

[FrankChodorov]

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).

what is your analysis of the legality of the law against passing out "handbills"in federal buildings?

[Dreepa]

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).

Frank.... does everyone know that law?
Would it not be fair to assume that Dada... went into to 'redress his grievances'  they then told him to leave.. and he did.

Are we to know all the 100s and 1000s of rules that the government (of the people, for the people by the people?) make?
what is your analysis of the legality of the law against passing out "handbills"in federal buildings?

[John]

Congress shall make no law . . .
What the hell were these boys thinking?

[FrankChodorov]

does everyone know that law?

ignorance is no defense...

Are we to know all the 100s and 1000s of rules that the government (of the people, for the people by the people?) make?

it was the same law that restricted Russell from doing the same thing.

he started the "silent protests" AFTER and in RESPONSE to Russell's arrest.

the critique against Russell action was that he told the law enforcement officials what he was going to do before he did it (here on forum and in person before he went into the building)...Russell was allowed to precede thru the common areas of the building (without handbills the second time) but when asked what his intentions were in going into the office he told them he was going to "ask the employees to quit" and was arrested before going in.

[John]

"Are we to know all the 100s and 1000s of rules that the government (of the people, for the people by the people?) make?"




The "atractive" lady from the IRS office in Nassua, who testified, did not even know what the rules were in her own office - let alone the "law."  She didn't even know what the sign in her office says . . .

I think a trained lawyer would/might have ended this case right on that point - alone.  But then that would not have gotten to the heart of the matter; would it?

[Michael Fisher]

Thanks for taking a hit for the team, Dave. You're becoming bolder each day.

[FrankChodorov]

The "atractive" lady from the IRS office in Nassua, who testified, did not  even know what the rules were in her own office - let alone the "law."  She didn't even know what the sign in her office says  . . .

well someone knew the law enough to issue him a ticket for a specific infraction...

I think a trained lawyer would/might have ended this case right on that point - alone.  But then that would not have gotten to the heart of the matter; would it?

what is the heart of the matter?

Dada has himself in a bit of a pickle you see because Russell and Lauren are not making a legal argument (the right of redress of greivances as part of the 1st amendment) they simply DON'T RECOGNIZE THE MORAL OR LEGAL AUTHORITY of the court and are willing to go to prison for that view (Lauren claimed to be homesteading...I don't think Russell was arguing anything specifically).

is Dada willing to do the same? because if he tries to argue the law he is going to loose big time...

[John]

It was only after Dave wrote an article in the Keene Free Press that the FEDS decided to come down on him.
Maybe this has more to do with his speaking about his actions than those actions themselves.  No harm was done by Dave.

Back to #1?

[John]

Thanks for taking a hit for the team, Dave. You're becoming bolder each day.

Michael,  More "ripples" happen every time.

[FrankChodorov]

It was only after Dave wrote an article in the Keene Free Press that the FEDS decided to come down on him.
Maybe this has more to do with his speaking about his actions than those actions themselves.  No harm was done by Dave.

probably because they had a slam dunk case with the public information Dada provided.

where would you draw the line as to the disruption of the business that is designated to occur in federal buildings?

[John]

if he tries to argue the law he is going to loose big time...

Back to #s 1 & 10?
Where would you draw the line on the Constitution?
Is it over?

[Russell Kanning]

Oh, the judge practically begged Dave to appeal. He gave a little speech for using the system to test the constitutionality of laws.

BOGUS B.S., IMHO!

&  

what a surprise ... a fed judge that wants us to use the system.

[Brock]

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.

The ignore button may have resulted in some missing this gem.  This is the current (since 1969) opinion of the SCOTUS, and a very, very good one IMHO.  I give you, Brandenburg v. Ohio.

For those that are scared of clicky things, following the link to the full opinion is well worth it; this is a unanimous opinion with two amplifying concurrences that affirms your right to say whatever, affirms individual property rights, and affirms a clear and easy test for time and place restrictions that give equal access to so-called public property.  As if that isn't enough, it SPECIFICALLY overturns the "clear and present danger" test and its follow-on corollaries.  If you aren't familiar with the "clear and present danger" test, shame on you - it is established in the same paragraph as the much-bastardized "fire in a theater" nonsense.

Quick background: in Schenck v. United States, Justice Holmes pens what he later described as a disastrous opinion, saying that first amendment rights are not protected if they pose a "clear and present danger" of inciting harm or rebellion.  This opinion was used in subsequent decisions (the later of which Holmes dissented on) to justify bills of attainder on Socialists (Whitney v. California), prohibitions on draft-card burning (United States v. O'Brien), and prohibitions on teaching Marxism (Denis v. New York).  In Brandenburg, however, the court went to great lengths to denounce "clear and present danger" and its subsequent erosion of civil liberties.

Though I doubt if the "clear and present danger" test is congenial to the First Amendment in time of a declared war, I am certain it is not reconcilable with the First Amendment in days of peace. - Justice Douglas, concurring

My own view is quite different. I see no place in the regime of the First Amendment for any "clear and present danger" test, whether strict and tight, as some would make it, or free-wheeling, as the Court in Dennis rephrased it. - Justice Douglas, concurring

I agree with the views expressed by MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS in his concurring opinion in this case that the "clear and present danger" doctrine should have no place [450] in the interpretation of the First Amendment. I join the Court's opinion, which, as I understand it, simply cites Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951), but does not indicate any agreement on the Court's part with the "clear and present danger" doctrine on which Dennis purported to rely. - Justice Black, concurring

In his concurring opinion, Justice Douglas also affirms the newer "Free Speech Plus" test that is the standard to this date.  The "Plus" is an action that infringes upon the rights and liberties of others (blocking the sidewalk, tieing up traffic, etc.).  In the interest of fairness to all, reasonable time and place restrictions on the "Plus" are not only warranted, but desirable.

Picketing, as we have said on numerous occasions, is "free speech plus." See [list of citations] That means that it can be regulated when it comes to the "plus" or "action" side of the protest. It can be regulated as to [456] the number of pickets and the place and hours (see Cox v. Louisiana, supra), because traffic and other community problems would otherwise suffer. - Justice Douglas, concurring

Now, to put to bed the "fire in a theater" for all its horrible syntax (note, no "crowded" in Holmes' original cite):

The line between what is permissible and not subject to control and what may be made impermissible and subject to regulation is the line between ideas and overt acts.

The example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre.

This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action. See Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 536-537 (DOUGLAS, J., concurring). They are indeed inseparable, and a prosecution can be launched for the overt [457] acts actually caused. Apart from rare instances of that kind, speech is, I think, immune from prosecution. Certainly there is no constitutional line between advocacy of abstract ideas, as in Yates, and advocacy of political action, as in Scales. The quality of advocacy turns on the depth of the conviction, and government has no power to invade that sanctuary of belief and conscience. - Justice Douglas, concurring

IOW, there is no basis for restriction of yelling fire in a theater, but if you do you bear the responsibility for any actual criminal endangerment and civil damages from the theater owner for interrupting the performance.

Now, it seems to me from the accounts of both Dada and Russel appearing before this judge, he is BEGGING you to challenge the time and place restrictions imposed in this office in the light of this "Plus".  He is telling you (as best he can) that you are arguing the wrong half of the test.  Instead of arguing that handing out pamphlets at the office is free speech, you should be arguing that handing out pamphlets is NOT "Plus".

Dada, because you are such a defensible defendent (your silence and civility, you did nothing to impede access, you didn't pre-cast your intent to "turn over the desks") and because this office is THE place where they receive mail and transact business with people who regularly bring them documents, competent legal representation (especially a lawyer sympathetic to your cause) could have gotten this judge to overturn the time and place restrictions altogether.  My fear is that the opportunity is now squandered (the rules of appeal may limit arguments to specific things in the courtroom yesterday and not allow additional pleadings).  Get a lawyer![/list]

[FrankChodorov]

Now, it seems to me from the accounts of both Dada and Russel appearing before this judge, he is BEGGING you to challenge the time and place restrictions imposed in this office in the light of this "Plus".  He is telling you (as best he can) that you are arguing the wrong half of the test.  Instead of arguing that handing out pamphlets at the office is free speech, you should be arguing that handing out pamphlets is NOT "Plus".

Dada, because you are such a defensible defendent (your silence and civility, you did nothing to impede access, you didn't pre-cast your intent to "turn over the desks") and because this office is THE place where they receive mail and transact business with people who regularly bring them documents, competent legal representation (especially a lawyer sympathetic to your cause) could have gotten this judge to overturn the time and place restrictions altogether.  My fear is that the opportunity is now squandered (the rules of appeal may limit arguments to specific things in the courtroom yesterday and not allow additional pleadings).

so you are suggesting that the distribution of "handbills" as a redress of greivances is NOT "Plus" because it impedes no one and the handbills are "transacting business" pertinent in some way to the business of the IRS?

another post here suggested that it was prohibited for "safety considerations"...anyone care to expound on this?

there must be some explanation of where redress of greivances can occur that is not thought of as disruptive in nature because he was very explicit to Dada - on the sidewalk, write letters, etc.

[Dave Ridley]

Thanks everyone for coming out and supporting me, or supporting me in other ways!   I will post more details as the spirit leads, there were a lot of interesting interactions yesterday!