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

[Tom Sawyer]

She chose not to mention that Dada's case was also dealing with the IRS. The story was plenty short, not like she didn't have enough space. It was relevent because of the IRS protest  connection. Omission is a powerful tool.

[Lloyd Danforth]

I hate it when John gets all maudlin on us

[Tom Sawyer]

I hate it when John gets all maudlin on us

OK I've heard that term used before, but never quite knew what it exactly meant...

maudlin |?m?dlin| adjective self-pityingly or tearfully sentimental, often through drunkenness : the drink made her maudlin | a maudlin ballad. See note at sentimental . ORIGIN late Middle English (as a noun denoting Mary Magdalen): from Old French Madeleine, from ecclesiastical Latin Magdalena (see magdalene ). The sense of the adjective derives from allusion to pictures of Mary Magdalen weeping.

Not my vision of our friend John. 

[Dan]

I would have hung around the courtroom, too, in Dave's case.  Even after the baliff dismissed him.  It's good there were witnesses for that.

I still can't believe the judge bailed like that.   

[Lloyd Danforth]

I hate it when John gets all maudlin on us

OK I've heard that term used before, but never quite knew what it exactly meant...

maudlin |?m?dlin| adjective self-pityingly or tearfully sentimental, often through drunkenness : the drink made her maudlin | a maudlin ballad. See note at sentimental . ORIGIN late Middle English (as a noun denoting Mary Magdalen): from Old French Madeleine, from ecclesiastical Latin Magdalena (see magdalene ). The sense of the adjective derives from allusion to pictures of Mary Magdalen weeping.

Not my vision of our friend John. 

I was applying it to his sentimentality, regarding Margot

[error]

It's likely she was there to cover Dada's hearing. Otherwise why would she bother? It's not like there was any Ed and Elaine stuff planned. Or maybe she just had nothing better to do than hang out at the federal courthouse and see if anything interesting happened? Not likely.

She was not there... as usual she read it here first.

Apparently I'm giving this "journalist" too much credit. I wonder if her editor knows about this.

[Tom Sawyer]

John is a sentimental guy... I think that goes along with being a nice guy.

John, just remember that the reporter is more interested in her future access to the power players than anything else. Remember how the reporter in New London behaved... she was taking notes and acting all interested in what you had to say. The article she wrote hardly seemed to cover the same event we were at. Their job is to shine you on to get you to open up and afterwards they can decide their version of events.

She was aware of Dada's trial and the issue it involved, but told him she would be out of the area.

[Russell Kanning]

Dada called Margot .... she then talked to me, Joe Haas, and Bernie.

She will learn that you better not turn your back on us .... we just might make a Judge loose it.

[Dave Ridley]

If anyone else has some detailed notes or recollections I would appreciate their posting...

picking up where I left off...

Once I got up into the court area and out of the area where spectators hang out, the judge had his court (reporter/clerk/I don't know what her job was) handed me a piece of paper.  The judge said this was a financial affidavit, and he asked me to fill it out.  I did not take it when she handed it to me; she put it on the table.  I glanced at it and said "I am not eager to fill out a financial affidavit."

Judge Muirhead sighed and asked me some other questions.  He wanted to know if I was employed.  I said yes.  He asked me where.  I refused to answer on the grounds that naming my employer could be misconstrued as speaking for my employer.  He asked if I had the means to pay.  I said I did.  He asked why I had not paid.   I told him I was eager and happy to explain to him why I hadn't paid.

Reading from a prepared statement, I said:

"I have not paid the fine because it appears to be a blatant violation of Constituional amendments One and Ten."  Amendment One guarantees the right of petition, Ten prohibits the U.S. from exercising any power not delegated by the Constitution.   I take this to mean they must have at least some indirect Constitutional authorization to levy this fine.   I said "Refusing to pay the fine is my way of delivering a message to you and everyone in this room.  Stop violating the constitution. When courts violate the Constitution it becomes the rsponsibility of average people to step in and protect it.  I have just stepped in for that purpose, if you want to hurt the constitution today; I will not help you in this manner."

Somewhere in here I gestured to all the Federal employees in the room and stated that they had taken an oath to the Constitution and should begin following it.  I wasn't very eloquent about this and I think I may in my improvisation have overstated the case; i.e. I am not sure that *every* Federal employee takes the oath, but anyway...

The judge at some point in here responded to the Constitutional complaint by saying that laws are passed by the Congress and signed by the president, etc...  I told him I was not asking for a law but for a Constitutional passage which would, at least vaguely, authorize the law or authorize him to levy this fine.  I said if he could provide this I would consider paying the fine. 
As in the past, he failed to provide such a passage and somewhere along in here began encouraging me to obtain an attorney.  I informed him that I had reservations about attorneys because they are somewhat beholden to the State.  He argued with me on this point with some eloquence and, I thought, without undue exaggeration.   He acknowledged that attorneys are officers of the court but said they serve both their clients and the court.   I did not get into the whole "no man can serve to masters" argument, and I appreciated him being willing to argue the point.   I said "I shouldn't have to be hiring an attorney, because I shouldn't be here."  At some point along in here I reiterated my displeasure with the failure to receive an answer to my Constitutional question.  I reminded him that I had brought it up at the November hearing, that he had failed to answer it then and that he was failing to answer it now.

Contempt of court came up as a topic, and the Judge informed me that I could face 30 days in jail for that.  At some point I indicated that I could not in good conscience pay the fine without a Constitutional authorization, since I had promised I wouldn't.  I said I would consider performing comunity service if it was liberty-friendly in nature.  He said this would have been an option if I had brought it up during the trial, but now it was a contempt of court issue and he was going to ask for some reason why the prosecution should not proceed with contempt of court charges.  He said they were guaranteed to proceed.

He offered to provide me a public defender.  He said there were three he had in mind in New Hampshire who were among the best and that I would enjoy speaking with them.  I replied that I would very much enjoy meeting them but that I did not feel comfortable forcing the taxpayer to underwrite my defense.

There was some discussion of the government's ability or lack thereof to defend individuals from itself.   I said that I knew it had been done, that I had just seen him do it ten minutes ago in the previous case.  I think I praised him for this, if not...I meant to.  But I reiterated my moral qualms about accepting a public defender.  I thanked him for offering one...perhaps that was going out on a limb a bit on his part, since they are supposed to be for indigent people.  But I'm not asking him to go out on a limb.  I'm asking him to obey Amendment Ten.

This came up again somehow, and Judge Muirhead moved to put me on the defensive.  He asked me to show *him* something in the Constitution.  Although I don't remember exactly how he phrased the question.  So I quoted Amendment Ten.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor denied by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
 
I don't remember if it happened immediately, or if it was after some further demand on my part for a Constitutional passage authorizing his action, but the Judge suddenly started to become angry.

He said "do you know who you are starting to sound like?"  He said I sounded like Elaine Brown (or perhaps he said Ed and Elaine Brown, I'm not sure.)  At this the "Rebel Alliance" side of the courtroom erupted in applause.  I could hear Russell saying "yayyy!" It was all very lighthearted.  And it got a response.  Looking past me at the celebrating audience, Judge Muirhad snapped a response that will likely be commented on for some time to come.   Here is my recollection of it:

He said something like "you folks are treating Elaine like she is a hero but she's a criminal.  She's destroyed Federal property and she's probably going to spend the rest of her life in prison." 

Then with equal suddenness he sprang from his dias and stormed out of the room, seemingly with half of his acolytes.   There barely was time for an "all rise."

Somehow it seemed that he had given instructions to the prosecuter however, I don't remember whether this happened before or after his Elaine Brown statement.

Then the prosecutor came over and introduced himself to me.  We shook hands with him, and I said to him that I was glad to know him but wished it could be under different circumstances.  I said it did not come natural to me to accuse people of violating the Constitution.  He said "That is what it is," and that I was entitled to my opinion.

He showed me copies of the statues and asked me if I would like one. I said "sure!"  However in restrospect I wish that I had declined his assistance, since we are supposed to not take help from the State, right?   

Then we left.  On the way out I had an interesting conversation with the man who is perhaps my chief tormentor in this case, Federal Protective Services official named Mike Therien.   I just call him Colonel, since he used to be in the Air Force.

I will plan to recount that later from my notes.

[Dave Ridley]

I actually didn't call margot but she did call me.

[Dave Ridley]

<< how about now?

http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=468&Itemid=36  >>


I'm sure it's fine!

thanks russell.

[Russell Kanning]

yea ... that judge didn't like seeing me over your shoulder giving a thumbs up to any mention of the Browns.

yea baby yea ... that Elaine Brown is one swingin cat.

[Dave Ridley]

I have no qualms about others failing to stand for a judge. I stand for judge muirhead because I genuinely like the guy, and think he has done some good things considering how wicked his system is.  Kind of like a tepid oscar schindler LOL.  I stand for most people I know when they enter the room, unless there is a crush of people.

I sometimes feel bad too, asking him this question that seems to generate such wild emotions and annoy him so much, but it must be asked and it should be answered:

Where does the Constitution, even vaguely, authorize his institution to levy this fine?  If it is not authorized, then it is disallowed by Amendment Ten.   I don't need an attorney to know that or say it, and I don't want an attorney to stand next to me and quash that message under the  incomprehensable weight of legalese.

[Dave Ridley]

Also in fairness to judge muirhead, if I recall correctly, he did not leave so fast that the baliff was unable to say all rise...I'm pretty sure the baliff said all rise before the judge was out of the room.

the article says otherwise.   

If I recall correctly from my conversation with margot I indicated to her that the court staff barely had time to say all rise, but I didn't say that they *failed* to give that "order"

not that the order is universally obeyed LOL.

[Kat Kanning]

That's the way I remember it too, Dada.