Nominations for the next silent demonstration?

[Kat Kanning]

OK, dress in hood/electrodes like the Abu Grahib guy and go do the silent thing in Bass' office.

I gave you this suggestion on page 1.

[lildog]

Clearly this thread has proven one thing... the need for school competition.

I for one see no problem with school buses having cameras, others apparently do.

If we had true choices of where to send kids, then you could avoid schools with cameras and avoid having your money go toward such things.  But since we have no competition, we have no true choice.

[Dave Ridley]

OK sorry i recant.  rather than getting no suggestions I got 1.5

[Kat Kanning]

lol

[Dave Ridley]

Hopkinton town hall is another option

http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=5683.msg99862#msg99862

[Dave Ridley]

kat has suggested i do one at this UN center in boston

[Braddogg]

The UN Center is holding their big UN Day event a week late, on Monday, October 30, at the Boston Harbor Hotel.

If you're going to be doing your thing on Tuesday, UN Day, though, I'll be in the city from 12:30-6:30.

[d_goddard]

kat has suggested i do one at this UN center in boston

I love the idea of telling the UN to get the hell out of our sovereign territory.
I can't say I'm enthusistic about the UN as a target for a silent demonstration.

This is one of the largest, most corrupt mafia on the planet. They chew up resistance movements and spit them out before breakfast. There are more important fish to fry right here in NH, for which a few silent demos and LTEs can actually succeed completely -- like opposing the anti-smoking nazis or the nazis that want to take our children away and "educate" them at the point of a gun, or the central-planners that want a "fair tax" (view tax, sales tax, income tax, take your pick)

THOSE are the ones to oppose, precisely because they represent an evil CAN be defeated, leaving us free to move on to the Next Thing.

[Dave Ridley]

  Local Government Center
  25 Triangle Park
  PO Box 617
  Concord, NH 03302
  TEL: 603.224.7447
  FAX: 603.224.5406
  info@nhlgc.org

opponents of the eminent domain amendment.  I did however make a point of reading their big letter to the editor before I added them to this list.  I wanted to make sure that they were implicated in their own words.


---

Insert from 12/6:

This is a printer-friendly version of an article from the Concord Monitor at http://www.concordmonitor.com.

Article published Feb 19, 2006
New Hampshire / Vermont

After court ruling, lawmakers debate eminent domain
Two different states, two different paths

By KRISTIN FOUNTAIN
Valley News
Feb 19, 2006

L
awmakers in New Hampshire and Vermont moved a step closer last week toward setting new rules for how cities, towns and state government agencies can wield "eminent domain," the power to take over private property for public use.

The proposed policies are as different as the states themselves and their historical pattern of handling the balancing act between individual rights and community needs.

Always controversial, eminent domain came under more intense scrutiny in states across the country last summer after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which some thought gave the government too much power and stripped private property owners of their rights.

In New Hampshire, the issue became more than theoretical last week when the city of Claremont began proceedings to take over the property beneath the incinerator on Grissom Lane. The land was sold by the area's municipal solid waste district to incinerator operator Wheelabrator Technologies Inc. City officials say they envision establishing a waste transfer and recycling center on the property.

The Supreme Court ruled in Kelo that there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids a municipality like New London, Conn., from taking nine homes in order to replace them with a research and office complex that would be privately owned and developed. (One of the homeowners is named Kelo.)

In essence, the Supreme Court left the issue to each individual state to resolve, said John Echeverria, a lawyer and takings law expert, before addressing a packed audience at Vermont Law School in Royalton on Thursday.

'Go ahead andchange your laws'

The decision told state legislatures, "If you want to make sure that this doesn't happen in your state, go ahead and change your laws and be more restrictive," said Odell, which is just what the New Hampshire committee set out to do.

The legislation it crafted would restrict the use of eminent domain to situations in which the new owner of the property would be the public or a governmental entity; the land would be used for a public or private utility; or if the property is abandoned and its structures are beyond repair. The bill also explicitly states that no private property can be seized for "the public benefit resulting from private economic development and private commercial enterprise."

All 24 state senators have co-sponsored the bill, making approval all but certain when it comes to the Senate floor this week.

But for Echeverria, New Hampshire's response to the federal court ruling raises another question about fairness.

Development projects that are part of a municipality's overall plan for economic growth can improve employment prospects and the general well-being of residents in the town or city, said Echeverria, who directs the environmental law clinic at Georgetown University Law Center. "Should one homeowner (who does not want to sell) be able to derail a project that is vital to a particular community?"he asked.

Odell said that if the New Hampshire bill is approved, the leaders of a community that supports an economic development project would simply have to negotiate and persuade the property owner. "If someone holds out, that just makes it more difficult."

'Not a bad thing'

But last week in the Vermont Senate, the answer to Echeverria's fairness question was no.

On Wednesday, all but three Vermont senators in attendance rejected an amendment to an eminent domain bill that would have taken away a municipality's power to use eminent domain for a planned urban renewal or economic development project.

"Eminent domain is not a bad thing. I look at it as a tool that should be used only under certain circumstances," said Sen. John Campbell. "If we strip our governmental entities of its total use, then what we are doing is hurting our communities as a whole."

The Vermont bill, which the Senate approved on Thursday, clarifies that no area can become a target of eminent domain "solely or primarily" because the land would be more valuable for tax purposes after a community redevelopment project. For example, a lakeside camp cannot be taken simply to build high-end condominiums.

With its bill, Echeverria said, Vermont is struggling to address a problem that arises from the use of eminent domain in economic development projects. In many states, the law by definition limits the kind of property subject to taking for economic purposes to deteriorating structures likely to be occupied by lower-income residents, he said. "Why should Park Avenue be categorically exempt?"

Vermont property owners are protected from a municipality's overuse of eminent domain by the state constitution and its 18-part takings process set out by statute, which requires that a judge ultimately determine the taking to be necessary and unavoidable, said Campbell.

"(The process) is extremely protective of private property rights,"he said. "I don't think that Kelo could happen here in Vermont."

Rarely used

Municipalities and municipal groups in both states said last week that the potential changes to eminent domain law would be unlikely to have a major impact on their activities.

The use of eminent domain is rare, and its use for economic development purposes is even more rare, said Cordell Johnston, a policy analyst and lobbyist for the New Hampshire Local Government Center, which represents municipalities. The last example his organization could find of the power being used that way in New Hampshire was by Portsmouth in 1969, he said.

The Vermont League of Cities and Towns told the Senate in hearings on the bill that it could find at most five examples of the use of eminent domain in any circumstance by a municipality in the last two decades, said Campbell.

"We only consider it as a very, very last resort," said Hartford Planning and Development Director Lori Hirschfield, "after several years have passed when we have tried to negotiate."

Over the last 10 years, Hirschfield remembers Hartford coming close to beginning eminent domain proceedings twice: for the construction of the Wilder bicycle path and for the municipal park along Railroad Row in White River Junction. But the town eventually reached agreements with the property owners, she said.

Officials with the Local Government Center have a number of concerns with New Hampshire's bill as written, said Johnston. For example, they are worried that it would make it impossible for a municipality to use eminent domain for a facility like a waste transfer station or recycling center that it wants a private company to own and operate on its behalf, he said.

The group also is worried about limiting the power completely in cases of economic development, but it is not pressing that point. "We are not convinced that this is the right result," said Johnston.

But, he said, "the political reality is that it's such a hot issue, and the public is so overwhelmingly on one side that even if we wanted to make an issue out of it, I don't think there is any chance of preventing it from passing."

------ End of article

By KRISTIN FOUNTAIN

Valley News
This article is: 290 days old.

[Dave Ridley]

Here's another one....

Just like the smoking ban -- it should be the right of the establishment to admit customers as they see fit. Nightclub problem? --please --I'm downtown at a bar at least one night a week and it doesn't seem like we have a problem. It seems like a good time is had by all.

No easy solution seen to nightclub problem
By MARK HAYWARD
Union Leader Staff
14 hours, 9 minutes ago


Manchester - Officials of organizations in and out of state government are looking at whether state laws should be changed to prevent nightclubs from admitting customers 18 to 20 years of age, according to people involved in the discussion.

No proposals have been finalized, and Liquor Commission Enforcement Chief Eddie Edwards said there is no consensus on how to go about it. But Edwards said the effort is needed to address a serious problem with nightclubs in downtown Manchester and communities throughout the state.

Time and time again, Edwards said, his enforcement officers see problems when drinkers and underage drinkers mix late at night in clubs where alcohol is sold.

"The real issue we're dealing with is 10, 11, 12 (at night), and the only thing there is entertainment, dancing and alcohol. That's difficult for these establishments to control," Edwards said.

But the head of a lobbying organization that represents restaurants does not want any liquor laws changed.

"Instead of creating a law that makes it easier for them to do the job they do, you enforce the laws you have on the books," said Kevin Sullivan, chairman of the 700-plus member New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association.

"We don't want to do anything to hurt business," said state Sen. Lou D'Allesandro, who has been part of discussions. "But we want to prevent 18-year-olds from getting into the kind of difficulties that have presented themselves in Manchester. We have to come up with a way to deal with that."

Edwards said he is only at the brainstorming stage at this point. He has conferred with restaurant owners, Mayor Frank Guinta's office, state senators from Manchester and New Futures, an Exeter-based organization working to reduce problems associated with underage drinking, he said.

Some are worried about the effect any changes would have on a restaurant such as an Applebee's, which serves food to people of any age but also sells drinks.

In fact, a committee of Manchester aldermen earlier this week killed a suggestion that the city prohibit unaccompanied minors from entering city-licensed establishments in the late-night hours.

"It means kids can't go into a pizza place that's selling beer," said Alderman Dan O'Neil, who opposed the suggestion. Committee members killed the proposal but said legislation was needed to address nightclubs and underage drinkers.

One possibility involves prohibiting underage drinkers from a full-service establishment after a certain time at night. Another possibility would be to issue a nightclub license. A business with a nightclub license would not be required to sell food, but underage drinkers would be prohibited from the club.

"It's a system that works in many states," Edwards said. The former nightclub Omega and the Millyard restaurant Fratello's -- two vastly different businesses -- both operated under the same kind of license, Edwards said.

Currently, a business that holds a full-service liquor license must generated half of its revenue from food sales and half from alcohol, up to $75,000 a year. After that threshold is reached, the ratio is lifted and a business can generate revenue either way.

Nightclubs get around the provision by offering snacks for sale. Also, soft drinks, juice and bottled water -- much of it purchased by the underage drinkers -- qualify as food sales, Edwards said.

But Sullivan said he doesn't favor a nightclub license. It would seriously threaten the family atmosphere of New Hampshire establishments, he said. Also, it would also put a restaurant owner, who has to invest thousands of dollars in restaurant equipment, at a disadvantage to a nightclub.

A late-night ban on underage drinkers would penalize clubs with a good track record, such as the Hampton Beach Casino Ballroom, Sullivan said.

Edwards said there is a difficult balance involved, and he doesn't want to hurt a business that doesn't have a problem.

"In order to resolve this issue," he said, "everyone's got to be at the table."

[MaineShark]

Okay, how about this?  Those silly signs at the Post Office saying that you can't have guns on Postal property, and quoting a section of US Code.

Title 18, United States Code, Section 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

Which convinced many people that it is illegal to carry a firearm on Postal property.

Of course, if anyone actually looks up the Code, to see what the exception is...

(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to?

...

(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

(emphasis added)

In other words, if it's legal for you to carry, then the whole thing doesn't apply to you.  The Section really just increases the penalties if you are already violating the law.  But they don't quote that part on the signs, because they like to be sneaky.

So I'm thinking someone should make up stickers with the text of "subsection (d)" on them, and just quietly add them to the existing signs.  Just walk in, stick the sticker to the sign, and walk out.  What can they do to you?  Charge you with posting sections of their own laws?

Joe

[Dave Ridley]

that is  a really interesting idea

[error]

Weapons prohibited except for hunting or other lawful purposes.

Who the hell decides what "other lawful purposes" are?

[KBCraig]

Who the hell decides what "other lawful purposes" are?

The same people who decide whether or not you're required to file and/or pay income taxes.

In other words: the lawyers who run the system to their benfist.

Kevin

[Spencer]

Watch your backsides, though, as the monster of administrative law (you remember that part of the Constitution -- the Administrative Branch, right between the Executive and Legislative?) via federal regulations say the following:

§ 232.1   Conduct on postal property.

(a) Applicability. This section applies to all real property under the charge and control of the Postal Service, to all tenant agencies, and to all persons entering in or on such property. This section shall be posted and kept posted at a conspicuous place on all such property . . . 

***

(d) Conformity with signs and directions. All persons in and on property shall comply with official signs of a prohibitory or directory nature, and with the directions of security force personnel or other authorized individuals.

***

(l) Weapons and explosives. No person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes.

***

(p) Penalties and other law. (1) Alleged violations of these rules and regulations are heard, and the penalties prescribed herein are imposed, either in a Federal district court or by a Federal magistrate in accordance with applicable court rules. Questions regarding such rules should be directed to the regional counsel for the region involved.

(2) Whoever shall be found guilty of violating the rules and regulations in this section while on property under the charge and control of the Postal Service is subject to fine of not more than $50 or imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or both. Nothing contained in these rules and regulations shall be construed to abrogate any other Federal laws or regulations of any State and local laws and regulations applicable to any area in which the property is situated.

Source: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=b77becb42b0cdb38cdb5a0c8d813d849&rgn=div8&view=text&node=39:1.0.1.4.20.0.1.1&idno=39

Note, however, that the penalty for violating these regulations is 30 days in jail (not the 1 year in the quoted statute), which means that a violator of the regulations would not get a jury trial (remember the treatment of Russell and Dada) because it is a "petty offense," to which the Constitutionally-guaranteed right to a jury trial in a criminal case does not apply (I think that the language in the Eighth Amendment is pretty clear* -- the Supreme Court does not agree with me, however).

Of interest, however, is the provision that notes that the regulation does not "abrogate any other Federal laws or regulations of any State and local laws and regulations applicable to any area in which the property is situated."  And the language providing that, "Questions regarding such rules should be directed to the regional counsel for the region involved."  So, perhaps it is time to ask questions of the regional counsel, after providing him / her with copies of NH's CHL statute, the NH Constitution's Article 2-a, and the statute (18 USC section 930(d))?  And then, of course, publish the letter sent in response in the Keene Free Press and here.

* The Eighth Amendment provides, in relevant part: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed"  (emphasis added).