Free Keene

Comment by Jeremy Couch

September 30, 2008 @ 8:17 pm

In “Judge’s Handwriting” it appears to say “insufficient” something… maybe “evidence”. If so that’s pretty wild given that he admitted to speeding.

Edit: Now that the video is up I see he brought up the same question. I wouldn’t want to have any more contact with the Judge than necessary, but it’d be interesting to get clarification on what it says and why.

Comment by nick

September 30, 2008 @ 8:20 pm

I would guess that’s what it says

Comment by Curt Springer

September 30, 2008 @ 8:31 pm

All that can be said is that the judge could not find beyond a reasonable doubt that Nick Ryder was in violation of RSA 265:60, which requires that No person shall drive a vehicle on a way at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing.

—-
I saw the video after writing the above. I thought it would be from the court. It really doesn’t tell us anything that wasn’t in the posting.

Comment by Curt Springer

September 30, 2008 @ 8:59 pm

PS to what I posted above:

I found the 2 videos of the actual trial and watched them. Nick made an excellent case that he was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no reason to believe that the judge made his decision other than on the facts and arguments presented by the two sides and the burden of the state to prove the case. I don’t think his political viewpoints or activism had anything to do with it.

Moreover, Nick was treated with the utmost courtesy by the judge and the prosecution, and it would be nice of him to acknowledge that.

Comment by nick

September 30, 2008 @ 9:41 pm

Curt,

I do appreciate your down-to-earth analysis. This is no reason to believe we’re flying higher than anything. I’m just hoping it will give courage to others to resist the theft that is traffic tickets.

But can you honestly say that the judge didn’t take into account that I will be a burden, not a bankroll, to them if they found me guilty? The judge may have been within legal bounds to find me not guilty based on the trial, but this is a step either way.

I’ve already said Burke may be one of our best chance to free ourselves from the powers that be in Keene. Anyone who is exposed to our message as often as he is, and still acting how he is, has a chance to be our ally in the future.

Comment by Curt Springer

September 30, 2008 @ 11:05 pm

Nick,

You really did a good job presenting your case, particularly the issue of stationary vs. moving radar, which hurt the trooper’s credibility, the suddenly changing posted limit, your attempt to drive the prevailing speed, and your sincere (sounding) statement that you don’t want to drive unsafely. There is just no reason to believe that anything else swayed the judge. And BTW your statement about not paying was rather weak. You said something like “I don’t have the money with me today.” There was no sense of defiance.

The issue of traffic tickets is not “theft”, it is overzealous enforcement. There are speed traps because that is what the public wants. The system runs at a loss. The town and state police departments do not get the fines that are paid. They go to the court, and the income has to be topped up with money from the state gas tax. Just think of the salary and building costs on a pro rata basis during your trial. Even if you had lost and had been fined $50 I’m sure the actual costs were higher than that.

The real problem, IMHO, is that the law enforcement community wants to make it easier for them to win, to remove the ability to weigh the facts beyond the simple issue of your actual speed versus the posted speed, and to come to a fair decision based on all of the facts of the matter, as happened in your case. It used to be that there was no absolute speed limit in NH. In theory you could be clocked at 100 MPH, acknowledge the speed, and still make the case that it was “reasonable and prudent.” When they finally removed the 55 MPH limit, which had been implemented illegally, even though the legislature had provided a way to do it legally, the law enforcement community persuaded the legislature to enact an absolute limit of 65 MPH. So while you got off admitting to doing 54 in a 35 MPH zone on route 12, you would have had no defense if you were ticketed on I-93 and admitted to doing 66 where the limit is posted as 65. I’m sure that the law enforcement community would be pleased to have the posted limit be the legal limit at any speed, if they could talk the legislature into it. When I looked up the law tonight, I was shocked to find that now the fines are baked into the law, based on speed above the posted limit. It always used to be that the schedule of fines was just advisory and the judge could give you a break. This is in direct opposition to the notion of “reasonable and prudent” as opposed to strict adherence to posted limits. For example, suppose the judge had found you guilty. He would have to have fined you based on being 19 MPH over the posted limit. But what if he decided that you were driving too fast, but also that the posted limit was too low. Formerly, he could have said that it would have been OK to be driving 45, and have fined you based on being 9 miles over the reasonable limit, not 19. Now it appears that he has lost this discretion.

Comment by nick

September 30, 2008 @ 11:56 pm

I said “I won’t be paying any money today.”

I agree it was not as direct as it could be, but it was also obviously my first time. I have no doubt that refusals will get more direct and more specific. However, my exact words mean little. The true statement is the dozen people behind me that won’t stand for an unjust court. The judge knew what he was dealing with, whether or not I was articulate in my statements.

You seem to know that the system is arbitrary and should be resisted. Whatever the reason for me getting let off, this event is at least a little evidence that visible resistance can create freedom.

Comment by Luke

October 1, 2008 @ 5:19 am

What won it for Nick I think was when he pointed out during his closing argument that the trooper didn’t tell the truth when he said he was stationary: he was in fact moving. Not telling the truth in the courtroom, even when it’s a white lie, really ticks judges off more than anything else — more than Nick speeding or the camera civil disobedience or whatever.

So what happened in effect is that the judge decided to punish the trooper for that by declaring his quarry, Nick, not guilty.

Comment by Curt Springer

October 1, 2008 @ 7:04 am

Nick, you weren’t dealing with an “unjust court.” This judge is very fair.

I doubt that the trooper was lying. The event was more than 90 days before the trial. Obviously he didn’t remember the details as clearly as Nick, because if was one of a zillion stops for him, and not personally important, whereas obviously it was Nick’s only traffic encounter (one assumes), and more important to Nick.

Comment by nick

October 1, 2008 @ 8:54 am

Curt, any arbiter where they work for the same organization as the complaining party (A state trooper, and a state judge), the court is unbalanced, bias, and unjust. They “ruled” correctly this time because there was nobody to repay, but you’ve said they may not do the same in the future.

Any fair arbiter would treat all parties equally, and not grant money to unharmed parties. State courts don’t do that.

Comment by Curt Springer

October 1, 2008 @ 10:42 pm

Nick,
You cited the fabled “right of revolution” from our state constitution at your trial. Did you read the entire document and try to understand it, or did you just cherry pick something that seemed to fit your persuasions?

The court and the executive branch are part of the same government, this is true, but the court is independent, as established by the NH constitution, the later US constitution, and the principles of English law that we are inherited and improved. Your own experience bore that out.

The goal is not to grant money to anybody. As I mentioned, the cost of law enforcement is greater than the revenues from fines. Speeding is not like the scandalous drug situation where property is confiscated and goes directly to police departments. The money is taken as a penalty to deter future bad behavior. Speeding is not a victimless crime. Even if you don’t injure somebody, speeding does have deleterious effects in neighborhoods where it happens frequently. For example, parents don’t let their children walk in the road, which they ought to be able to do.

Although your point was taken that the trooper was able to carry a gun into court and you were not, you were treated equally with respect to the facts of the matter before the court.

Comment by nick

October 1, 2008 @ 11:15 pm

I did read the bill of rights, which has many things I agree with, and some I don’t. The constitution is just another man-law, but at least it’s meant to limit what powers government should have, rather than normal laws which just extend government power.

We’re going to go in circles as long as we continue to disagree over the legitimacy of the system. I don’t say it’s illegitimate legally or constitutionally. I say it’s illegitimate because it creates more victims than it protects.

Unsafe driving in neighborhoods is something I would happily see deterred. I wish it could be done without violence if at all possible. But what I see is cops hiding along the sides of highways, or scouting out stop signs in back roads at night. You really think that’s about safety? As I understand, ticket revenue is a line item in the city’s budget. Cost of enforcement through courts does cost them more than the ticket, but they make money on the 99% of people that just pay.

Comment by James (from Texas)

October 2, 2008 @ 3:40 am

From the videos I have seen it seems to me that this judge is far more reasonable than what we have in Texas.

Good job Nick!

Comment by elkheart

October 3, 2008 @ 8:38 pm

NICK! Congrats on court, & good job. A correction: The courts **DO** generate a “positive cash flow”, in the sense that they keep collecting peoples’ money. But, if the courts were a regular business, they would have been long ago bankrupt. Financially, not just morally bankrupt, which they’ve been since near day 1. Think of the costs: Judges, clerks, security, paper/office supplies, costs of building maintenence, etc., etc., etc.,…Sure, your particular case cost them much more $$$ than the “average” case, but even the “cheapest case” only concludes at a net loss of $$$ to the NH Court System. So, yes, the Court system is heavily subsidized from taxpayer, or other “revenue sources”. Are you trying to “bankrupt the Courts”???…Your time would be better spent sucking blood from a stone. Stay tuned here….I’ll relate my latest adventures seeing both Howie “the Duck” Lane, jr., & the Hon. Edward J. Burke, while I was doing errands around town. Why don’t you all spend a few minutes away from your vanity mirrors, and actually do your best to put yourselves in the shoes of a Judge Burke. He’s got a family(I’m really just guessing there…), & friends, & a life outside of the Courtroom. He has every bit as much right as you or I, to enjoy, “life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness”. Maybe the State Trooper **intentionally** “MIS-SPOKE” in Court, just to give the Judge a “freebie”…an “easy way out”…ever consider *THAT* possibility???…You guys really aren’t near as slick & smart as you’d like to think you are. Of course, the Courts aren’t, either, but I’m still waiting for the group of like minded activists to arise to arrange the **LEGAL** “arrest” of *any* KPD cop for the crime of official oppression. **THAT’S** when we’d need 12…Counting me, 11 to go…I’m a very patient man…Who’s willing to risk *life & limb* in a “set-up-slam”???…(The “drunk driver” pulls over in response to the blue lights…that’s the signal to begin to move…as the cop exits his car to approach the “stopped drunk”, his attention is diverted(by a 3rd party), just as the 4th party rear-ends the cruiser at high speed. That’s the synopsis for the short story I’m writing for “True Criminal Minds” magazine…it’s 2 totaled cars, no serious injuries(hopefully), & 3 or 4 *almost* identical stories, vs. 1 Bad Cop w/2 strikes hanging…) Hopefully, you’re not too, *TOO* paranoid, Sir! At least you know how *I* feel…E Nuh 4 now…~e~

Comment by Lauren

October 9, 2008 @ 3:55 pm

Yay Nick!
You are a brave and articulate guy. And what a sense of theatre, thanks for letting us see the look on your face when the verdict was read.

Comment by elkheart

October 17, 2008 @ 9:04 am

Hey, Nick! I just got to see (part)of the video from your trial, on Free Minds TV last night. You were, literally, 1 (one) word away from being arrested in Court that day. Did you hear Judge “J-Boy” Burkah say that you “…would be removed from the Courtroom…” if you said another word? That guy who is moving around right behind you, - going from left to right on the screen, - his name is “Lance”. (That’s what he told me, anyway.) He was decent to me in Court, so I have no problem with him. Kangaroo Court is actually a *STAGE SET*, for *POLITICAL THEATRE*. There are places for the actors to stand, sit, move, etc. *I* could see & feel the tension level in that Courtroom rising quickly. As many times as I’ve had to stand in front of *SEVERAL* (!?) “judges” in Kangaroo Court, I know the feeling. So, you’re willing to get rid of the couch? I think that’s pretty lame. Did the issue of Patten’s not fully & completely filling out the “ticket” come up? Why not? Why not point out to the judge that he couldn’t possibly issue *ANY* legal decision based on an incomplete & improperly filled out “violation ticket”??? Really, I’m much, much, much less impressed, having seen the video finally. Pretty lame performance, I’d say. Still, I’m glad & grateful that you did what you did, & continue to do. Thanks for your time in reading this, my arrogant opinion. (Hey, I didn’t scare off “BIGFATTYPADDYDADDY”, did I…???………..*grin*.

Comment by elkheart

October 17, 2008 @ 9:08 am

OOPS! MY MISTAKE! Post #76258, above, should have been posted under “Couch Enforcer”, *NOT* under this post. Sorry about that!…~elkheart~

Comment by nick

October 17, 2008 @ 9:14 am

Elk, If you repost what you want to say on the couch enforcer page I can remove this one for you.

Comment by elkheart179

October 17, 2008 @ 8:27 pm

Ni: Re: Post#76260: Um, I don’t know how to “repost”, except to “re-type”…that takes waaaaaaaaaaay too long. I’d say, “Sure, remove it”, but that wouldn’t seem right to me. I’d rather let my simple, honest mistake stand. *AND* how would it look, if you guys took down posts? Isn’t that kinda like censorship??? &Really, the video clip i watched on CheshireTV was of Ian, & the “couch enforcer”. Am I the only one who noticed Patten standing by the judges’ bench chewing his cud, um, gum??? Pretty rude, dude! You look very uncomfortable in that “monkey suit”. What’s wrong? Won’t Judge Eddy Burkah let you wear your Detroit DEAth’s head shirt to court??? Guess this is as good a time as any, to share my 1 (one!) “Patten story”. Patten was very underqualified as a cop, so the “brass” didn’t let him near me so much. I had filed a motion on some crap in Kangaroo Court. I was waiting for either a decision, or a new hearing date, to arrive in the mail. The next day, *NEXT DAY*, the court sent me a photo-copy of the motion. OK, whatever. So I’m waiting patiently for the court’s decision, or new hearing date. 3 weeks later, or so, I’m riding my bicycle out West St., going to Hannafords’. I see Randy Tefft on his bikecop bicycle, at the Ashuelot River park. I smile & wave. He smiles & waves back. No problemo, right? Well, this was when I was still stupid & naive enough to think that cops in general were usually the “good guys”. (Now I know, sadly, that they are usually jerks, at best…oh well…)So Tefft comes flying up next to me, and “pulls me over”…We’re both on bicycles, right? I think he’s just wanting to chat about something. *NO*!!! He’s got an *ARREST WARRANT*! *FOR WHAT*!?!?!?! Well, mothufukkaassho’ judge howardbtheducklanejr(FUCKYOU,HOWARD!)sent out an arrest warrant. Why? Remember that “photocopy” I got the *NEXTDAY* in the mail??? Seems down in the corner, there was a little box. Howard had scribbled some little, literally illegible chicken scratching, denying my motion! Not before, or since, has Kangaroo Court reacted so quickly! And being *photocopied* just made it harder to read at all! So, rather than a letter, giving me a new hearing date, Laney decided to commit *OFFICIAL OPPRESSION*, & have me fraudulently arrested. Tefft loved that. Fuckyou, Tefft. Next time, I *WILL* snatch that cowboy hat off your head, asshole.So where does Pattended come in??? Tefft was on his cop bicycle, remember? How’s he gonna **transport** me to the station for “booking”??? A cruiser, driven by Patten! Trouble was, Patten was pissed at Tefft, because Patten had ordered a sandwich at D’angelos’, & now, *I* was gonna ruin his dinner, because he had to take me down to the station. Patten actually told Tefft & I to hurry up! You’re a frickin’ idiot, Patten. Why don’t you get a real job, or just suffer on disability, like a real man? So, about all I know personally about Patten, is, he’s a shitty cop. &A worse “couch-enforcer”! So, thanks Nick. Let’s just leave this one where it’s at, for now. ~E~L~K~H~E~A~R~T~(or, “elkfart”, if you wanna try to insult me, like paddydiddy-did! Really, he *did* *try*. Give him that much credit, at least!~e~.

Comment by nick

October 17, 2008 @ 8:39 pm

No, elkheart, we don’t remove any posts, and your’s are proof of that.

And perhaps you don’t use computers much, but you can “copy and paste” text from one place to another. That would be how you repost something elsewhere.