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

[d_goddard]

"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."

An LTE from you to the various newspapers might go a long way to accurately informing many more people about what you are trying to accomplish.

Handy links to the LTE submission emails/forms are at:
http://www.nhliberty.org/lte

[Tom Sawyer]

I think that it is telling that the judge asked you if you could cite something in the Constitution that allows for what you contend. It was clear to me he is not one that believes that the Constitution restricts government, but believes that our rights are only what the Constitution states. Considering I have heard the same from other law school graduates, I am not suprised he has it exactly backwards.

My guess is he is a "New Deal" liberal... I have heard the same beliefs out of Law professors of his era.

[lordmetroid]

Nahh, I believe he knew his authority was at gamble and acted like that crazy so to not reveal his ilegitimate force that he practice in the name of the fiction called government. I think he feared that the audience could have percieved that the fine is illegitimate and so would stop paying fines which would result in the end that his job would become less needed and because his living depends on that the public don't get that idea his whole livelyhood was at risk if he would have continued this loosing argument.

[TackleTheWorld]

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." 

He said four things about Elaine Brown
She destroyed federal property.
She violated her probation.
She is going to have fines of $500,000,
and will spend the rest of her life in prison.
He added something like, "I don't see why you people are celebrating that".

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.

The instructions to the prosecutor happened before you suggested public service, he explained that this hearing was "to show cause why you haven't paid the fine"  then after the prosecutor filed a complaint or writ or something with the court they would schedule the next hearing to "show why you shouldn't be held in contempt for failing to pay the fine".

[error]

The instructions to the prosecutor happened before you suggested public service, he explained that this hearing was "to show cause why you haven't paid the fine"  then after the prosecutor filed a complaint or writ or something with the court they would schedule the next hearing to "show why you shouldn't be held in contempt for failing to pay the fine".

Because of these goddamned pieces of paper? No?

[Dave Ridley]

here's a more spell-checked version of the tale and more or less all in one place

---

Ok recounting from the beginning as best I can.... we had a total of 15 turn out to demonstrate, but two of these missed us and arrived after we'd left to eat...they missed the hearing as well. We spread to all four corners and John circled the walls of Jericho a few times then settled down to play some 'gitar.

Total turnout was 22 including the trial , the demo, one guy who joined us for hours after just biking past and four who arrived late. not everyone at the demo made the hearing, not everyone at the hearing made the demo.

In the fairly light traffic at that spot I counted 35 favorable responses to our demonstration, 4 negative over a 3 hr period not couting waves. We had an eclectic sign mix, the ubiquitous IRS with an x through it, an NHFREE.COM sign, 5 flags including one upside down u.s. flag to signal the nation is in distress from TOO MUCH WASHINGTON. We had a "feds: quit" sign, and russell wore an orange prison jumpsuit with a abu-gharib style torture hood over his head. He wore a sandwich board that said "less torture please!"

Once we went in they got to us within about 15 minutes, after we clapped for the prosecutor's defeat in the silly "disturbance of rusty litter" case before. Oh, there were about 10 of us there in the courtroom on our side, 8 of whom I think were there before it started. when judge muirhead came in I stood up and maybe 3 of the others among us did the same. Of course, shortly afterward we were reminded why Muirhead is perhaps one of the few fed judges halfway worthy of that, as he tore up the government prosecutor over a frivolous case.

Then they asked if I was in the room and when I said I was, the (clerk/secretary?) asked if I would like to come up forward. I said "not desperately." that got some laughs, the loudest of which seemed to be from judge muirhead himself LOL

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 Constitutional 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 responsibility 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 community 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 dais 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 prosecutor 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 retrospect 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.

[Russell Kanning]

Let me know when you want me to put up your version of the event on the Keene Free Press site.

[Kat Kanning]

I called the court clerk's office to see when Dada's next hearing is.  They said that before it's scheduled, a motion needs to be filed and then maybe some order issued.  Neither of those things have happened yet.

[Dan]

What's the name of this court event?  How do I reference it properly?
"In the court action 3/12/07 regardig Dave Ridley vs. U.S."
It wasn't a trial, right?

[Kat Kanning]

It was a hearing to find out why Ridley hadn't paid.

[Dan]

I guess I'm really asking how do I call and ask for a transcript?

I want to see how the clerk annotated that the judge abandoned ship.

[Kat Kanning]

I would think asking for the Ridley hearing on 3/12 would be enough.  They have about 5 things happening in there all day.

[Dave Ridley]

but they told me they work really hard LOL

in fairness they were pretty attentive and polite when I told them I might need to call in sick...and then griped to them about them eating up tax money LOL.  they checked back in on me a day later when they didn't receive anything, to make sure they hadn't lost any faxes or anything. 

they want to dot the i's and cross the t's I guess.

Last I checked the case was called "David Ridley vs. United States"  I think -that sounds like an even battle!

I think they'll have some idea who I am by now if you ask.

[Kat Kanning]

She seemed a bit put out by me asking, like this wasn't the first time she'd been asked the question.

[Kat Kanning]

I think it's strange that they haven't set a court date.  I think they've given up.