Comments on: Court over a Couch, Oct 1st!

By: Mitch

Mitch — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 03:46:45 +0000

This is an awesome letter you sent back to the bureaucrats. Keep up the incredible work Ian.

By: elkheart

elkheart — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 22:53:43 +0000

More clarification: Re: “Cowards”, & etc.,…Not that all cops are cowards, certainly not. But they are all *afraid*. Clinically paranoid, in fact. Ask a cop, if you know one. Their training tells them that “Every simple traffic stop could turn into a fatal gun battle”…crap like that…Yes, it’s literally true, but, *BUT*, much of their fear comes also from guilt. *GUILT*. The system sometimes lets them, sometimes forces them, to commit small acts which they know are wrong. Maybe a nasty, rude attitude to some poor speeding motorist, if nothing more serious. Look at the “couchenforcer”, Carl Patten. Did he wear that Detroit DEA.th’s head logo to *scare* Ian, or to **re-inforce his self-confidence**, & try to hide his own sense of fear & insecurity.? Ok, maybe both…who cares? From the looks of it, the “ticket” for the couch isn’t properly filled out, which means it was never even made!(technically, in a strict legal sense). So how can the Court issue *any* finding over an invalid instrument. I also see Carl as being guilty of fraud, in issuing the bogus “ticket”, anyway. It’s also PROSCRIBED under the RSA’s for “Official Oppression”. Patten & the City have no Statutory authority over the couch, anyway. Wanna see photos of *my* couch?…Besides, just call it a “lawn ornament”, not a couch. There are *NO* “ordinances” against LAWN ORNAMENTS!…

By: Luke

Luke — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:15:56 +0000

So just to be clear. You consider it a win if Ian goes to jail for not moving his couch, because they didn’t force him to move his couch. This act of freedom fighting ends in Ian loosing his freedom?

Other Mark, people often refer to going to jail as “Losing One’s Freedom”. In this day and age, that’s an incredibly misleading phrase because in this day and age in America, whether you\’re in jail, or not in jail, or on death row, or whatever, there are so many arbitrary laws, rules, and regulations that most of whatever freedom you might have had is effectively non-existent, unless you’re willing to fight for it, and people like Russell, Kat, Lauren, Dave, and Ian are the only ones truly fighting for freedom that I know of.

The way that I look at it, the only way that Ian can win back part of his freedom is for him and his tenants to keep that couch where it is, never move it, and never pay any of the fines they’re trying to make him pay wrt it. Just like how Ridley won back part of his freedom by refusing to obey the rule that he couldn’t pan his camera in court, and made the judge cave in on the issue.

By: elkheart179

elkheart179 — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 03:32:11 +0000

Luke #76146: (Are we starting some sort of “chapter & verse” “”"bible”"” here…???…*(*GRIN*)*…Regarding my statements about “cops/cowards”, please let me clarify. First, I’m very, very sorry that my post #7 in my story about my 20+ yrs. in the Jumanjiville / Kengaroo / Keene cops-n-court GULAG, appears to have disappeared! I got some “405″ or some weird “server is sick” error msg. when I went to post it. I was speaking about specific cases. *NOT* making comments about cops as a whole, except in the most general terms. I have the pleasure of knowing several past & current KPD, & other LEO’s that I do not consider “cowards” at all. Indeed, I have great respect for the hard work they put into a difficult job. I can list Capt. “Jack” Zeller, Officer Steve Lennox, (ret.), Officer Timothy Peloquin, Officer Darryl Madden, Lt. Shane Maxfield, and some others, as having always treated me with respect & professionalism. My comments should in no way reflect upon those officers, or others not so named. I certainly don’t “hate cops”, or indeed hate anybody. I do however, hold a great deal of pain & hurt from other cops’ mis-deeds, & from the system as a whole. Thank-you for reading this, & for your feedback, Luke. Keep up the good work, of exercising our 1st Amendment rights to Free Speech, & Free assembly. Remember: “A right that you don’t exercise, is a right that you don’t have.”…~elkheart179~.

By: Cooper

Cooper — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:52:45 +0000

Way to go Ian! I really like this letter. I’ll be there for sure!

By: X

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:25:08 +0000

Just wondering out loud here…

In the opening paragraph it was mentioned that you have a photo of the “enforcer snooping around”. If he, at any time, crossed from the public sidewalk and street area onto your property, couldn’t you seek charges and a fine against him for trespassing? What about “Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law Under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242″ OR “”Conspiracy against Rights Under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 & Title 42, U.S.C., Section 1985″ OR USC 42, S 1983 & 1986? Just wondering…

By: The Other Mark

The Other Mark — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:46:59 +0000

So just to be clear. You consider it a win if Ian goes to jail for not moving his couch, because they didn’t force him to move his couch. This act of freedom fighting ends in Ian loosing his freedom?

By: Luke

Luke — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 02:13:08 +0000

Other Mark: No the State doesn’t hold all the cards. It thinks it does, but it doesn’t. Obviously the Freedom Fighters* held some very important cards on the 26th when they did 3 civil disobediences in a row and won. The State’s weakness is that it has to play by PC rules in whatever it does, whether it’s fighting a war in Iraq or trying to collect a fine at home (especially when it is on camera), whereas the Freedom Fighters can play by whatever rules they want. That weakness is enough to defeat it, just like Dave and Nick defeated it on the 26th.

Also Other Mark, you have “pound of flesh” defined wrong. What the State wants is money and it wants compliance. If Ian goes to jail, and the state gets neither the couch moved nor the money that it wanted, then it will still lose because it didn’t get what it truly wanted, which was money and compliance.

Also Elkheart, you are right that cops are cowards. This is something that my heart always knew, but I would never let myself admit it, at least not in recent years. That is why that coward/cop will not accept your challenge like a real man would.

*(Freedom Fighters = Russell, Kat, Lauren, Dave, Ian, et. al)

By: the other mark

the other mark — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 01:25:30 +0000

elkheart:
By voluntarily do you mean they drop the charges? Why would anyone voluntarily pay the state anything? If Ian pays anything (forced labor, jail time or currency) it will be under coercion. Don’t kid yourself, the state has all the cards. You can play the “I never signed the social-contract.” game only so long; it makes for interesting political discussion, but makes a lousy defense before a judge. When taken to its logical conclusions, (like the origional letter) it makes the sender look like a kook.

If Ian was really serious about non-compliance, he would wait for the men in blue to storm his house and throw him in a cage for ignoring the piece of paper and subsequent “request” to appear before a judge. THAT would get a lot of attention. Can you imagine how stupid the city would look for sending a swat team against someone who refuses to move his couch? I’m afraid that the current course that Ian is taking is only going to make him look like a dick and/or kook.

By: elkheart

elkheart — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 01:09:59 +0000

OK, 1 more post before I log off for the night…Ian, really, your letter was a very good start. But, it is far too verbose. Please edit it down at least 50%, then resubmit it. Also, please read Curt Springers’ post #76130 above. *Carefully* read the legal regulations cited therein. Keene has *NO* stautory basis to *successfully* “win” this matter…Also, in the letter to Judge Burke, here’s an absolute tip: *USE THE HONORIFIC*!…in any letter to any judge that you expect to be taken at all seriously, the proper form of address is: *Hon.* “Joe Blow”. The “Hon.” is of course short for “honorable”, as in “your honor, sir”. Also, by *only* using, & *always* using, in the courtroom, words such as “your honor, sir”, etc., you accomplish several good things for yourself. By using “your honor”, etc., you are taking a stand, & holding it. You are telling them that you know they’re playing a game, you know they know you know it’s a game, and that at best, they can only “cut their losses”…You Win!(or, at least you lose much less, almost the same thing!…) I’m still new on this blog, & my computer skills are not so good, so I’m inviting any comments, criticisms, etc., Also, if anybody sees a way to help me on here, that too, will be appreciated. I’d rather be your favorite enemy, than your worst friend….~Rev. Dr. Elkheart. (Yes, I’m an ordained minister, w/the title “Reverend” – Rev., & have a Doctorate in Divinity Studies.(“D.Div”.) The “Rev.” & “Dr.” are 100% legit….*HON*grin*………~e~……