Will they throw me in a cage or steal my home over this? (Freedom Couch Pictures!)

Freedom CouchIf you’ve been reading this blog you know that the people calling themselves the “City of Keene” have been threatening me over a couch in my tenants yard. The latest on the situation? They are demanding that I come back to their court on October 29th at 10am for a “trial”, that I did not consent to. When I tried to ask questions in their court, I was threatened with arrest. I was however, able to successfully make my offer to the “City of Keene”: I agree to remove the couch if they’ll agree to discharge this issue, to only prosecute me in the future if they have a victim, and if the original complaining party comes and meets me and talks to me, like an adult. Couch Enforcer Carl Patten says he attempted to persuade the woman to meet me, but she refused. A reason for her reticence might be that she’s frightened that I will find out who she is and retaliate against her by snitching her out to the government people. It’s quite a sad commentary on the state of neighborly relations these days. In case she’s reading this blog, I’d like to make it clear that I would never complain to the government people about anything she did on her property. If I cared about my neighbors’ property I would live in a deed restricted community.

With this in mind, I’ve scheduled a meeting next week with the assistant city manager who also acts as the head of the “code enforcement” department. I will be making another offer, as the complainant is allegedly unwilling to meet me, and I want to give the “City” an easy out from this situation. As no one from the “City of Keene” responded to my request for proof of obligation to obey their “ordinances” (that’s because no agreement between us exists), I will agree to remove the couch if they agree to discharge this issue, only prosecute me in the future if they have a victim, and acknowledge the truth that no contract exists between us. Hopefully they will accept my offer and we can make this whole issue go away.

Otherwise, I will visit their court on October 29th. I will make it clear I am not consenting, attending under duress, reserve all rights, ask lots of questions they would rather I not ask, and refuse to pay any “fine”. I do not want conflict, it is they who are insisting on it. If they insist on railroading me through one of their “trials” without my consent, the ball is in their court as to how to handle this situation. Will they brush the situation under the rug and let me go mostly unmolested? That is the next best option for them if they refuse to discharge this issue and cancel the “trial” in advance. Will the “judge” attempt to “fine” me? If so, I will not pay. Will that noncooperation lead the “judge” to throw me in a cage? Does the “City of Keene” really want that sort of publicity?

Is this government really by the consent of the governed or are the elections and courtrooms nothing more than a cover to obscure the violent threats of men and women who refuse to act on consensual basis? As more and more of us move here, choose freedom, and decide to noncooperate, the answer will become clear. The choice to initiate force is theirs. Will they continue to victimize peaceful people as attention to their violent actions increases? Time will tell.

Between now and my next update on this situation, enjoy these pictures of the “Freedom Couch”. Many of you have been asking to see it, so here it is. As you can see, my tenants are actually utilizing the couch for their Halloween decorations. It seems the character they have placed on it does not appear very happy about the threats to remove his perch:

Facing north:
Freedom Couch Facing North

Facing South:
Freedom Couch Facing South

Medium shot:
Freedom Couch Medium Shot

Close-up:
Freedom Couch Close Up

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


82 comments
bil
bil

You are mistaken in your view of the courts.They are a court of law,not justice.Just because the statue os there,doesn't mean they are there for any sort of justice.If it occurs,it is entirely by accident.Not just Keene,it is how it all works.The sooner you figure it out,the better.Court of 'law'. ---bil

Dave
Dave

To expect "justice" out of a "court" in Cheshire County is like expecting all of New Hampshire cows to take flight. Being borne personal witness, I can say without a shred of doubt that there is not an iota "justice" in any "court" in this county. The "courts" in Cheshire County are a sham and a fraud, they have no qualm about raping people of their lives and livelihoods, a grave state of affairs that should be exposed with far more vigilance.

bill in phoenix az
bill in phoenix az

hmm i am late in this game.

first let me ask the person that brought up "evidence of a complaining party" Please contact Bill at thebestrealestateguy@yahoo.com

2nd too many points to rebut. the one i chose is to whoever (curt i think) said a person is not sovereign. that would depend on what you meant by person. However sovereignty does reside with we the people. My sovereignty comes from God and is only subject to him. But using your analysis of what they did back hundreds of years, contemplate this. King George "conveyed" kingship/sovereignty to the people. Unfortunately I no longer have reference to the document that did so. And the US government has no sovereignty. No where in any document was sovereingty "conveyed" to the government. They act by force of arms.

elkheart
elkheart

Actually, William, you need to get a clue. youtube "judge burke" for updates. it *IS* just lawn furniture. And we've GOT LIFE that they are simoply dying for. 'Course, they, (&you...) still don't get it...keep thinkin' & writin', kiddo...~e~...

Zeus
Zeus

I’d just tell them it’s lawn furniture. and they need to get a life.

Mmm, yes. I see you haven't seen the video of Ian saying "Umm I ah..." before getting the beatdown by 7 government cronies.

I suppose if you had shouted it out as they dragged you away you might have gotten that much out. The consequences likely would have been worse though.

william
william

Reguardless of the reasons given why the complainant doesn't want to meet with you, you have the right to face your accuser. I'd just tell them it's lawn furniture. and they need to get a life.

Mike Rotch
Mike Rotch

OK Curt, we disagree. Meanwhile you have now made my argument that we are NOT a free people, at least from the perspective of government "officials" and statists such as yourself. As for me and my house (and Ian), we choose a different perspective. Now, send your thugs over and make us submit.

Mike Rotch

Zeus
Zeus

Zeus,

Perhaps you are wondering if Mike’s posting will cause me to trot out all the stuff about how all my land in Danville and Sandown came from the town of Kingston in 1719? :-)

I was waiting for it to pop up at some point. :P

Curt Springer
Curt Springer

Zeus,

Perhaps you are wondering if Mike's posting will cause me to trot out all the stuff about how all my land in Danville and Sandown came from the town of Kingston in 1719? :-)

Mike,

We will just have to disagree. No person in the United States is a sovereign. All property titles in NH derive indirectly from the government with reserved rights to the government. Exactly the same way I could sell you some of my land yet reserve a perpetual right for me or future owners of my remaining land to cross your land to get to mine. You can omit mention of that when you sell the property to somebody else, but the right exists nonetheless.

Mike Rotch
Mike Rotch

"Mike,

If you scroll up you can read my comments to the effect that Ian is not the sovereign owner, that his land title derived from government actions, and that they retain the right to tax and regulate him."

Yes Curt, your comments indicate that you believe Ian is not sovereign and the city of Keene believes that Curt is not sovereign. The problem is that Curt believes that he is the sovereign owner of his property based on the fact that he bought it and paid for it and they are bent on not allowing him to live in peace. If I were to come there and tell you how to organize your possessions and where you could place them on your property you would tell me to go to hell because I have no authority and you would be right. Just because the city of Keene is a "government" and just because a lot of people may agree with their "authority" does not change the fact that they are a bunch of thugs hell bent on imposing their will on Ian, a peaceful outstanding specimen of a neighbor whom I wish were in my neighborhood.

Mike Rotch

Curt Springer
Curt Springer

I live in a town of 4,500 people, was 1,400 when I moved here. I suppose that many of the new people don't know or care much about who runs what. But it didn't use to be that way in small NH towns.

I would like to suggest to anybody moving to NH that you think carefully about what town or city you are moving into. LFODness does vary. If you move into a city or into one of the larger towns, there will be code enforcement departments and all that. If you move into a smaller town, your neighbors are the "bureaucrats", they do it on a volunteer or token salary basis, and the last thing they want to do is tussle with people over stupid stuff. They probably have junk in their own yards. But then there are some towns populated with wealthy busybodies who meddle with their neighbors on a "volunteer" basis.

I am thankful that Danville has high LFODness in its DNA and we seem to attract people of like mind, for the most part.

Zeus
Zeus

I'd say you're projecting a bit, Curt. I wouldn't even know if the city I live in even has a "city councilor" or what their job would even be. Mainly because I don't pay attention to that kind of stuff.

It's rare that I have any wanted interaction whatsoever with city bureaucrats and I like being oblivious to them. I have plenty of other daily burdens -- both business and social -- to worry about. Dealing with bureaucrats (let alone studying them enough to know who they are and what they do) is at the bottom of my to-do list until they make me put them at the top.

I think you'll find the majority of people go about their lives the same way.

Curt Springer
Curt Springer

Mike,

If you scroll up you can read my comments to the effect that Ian is not the sovereign owner, that his land title derived from government actions, and that they retain the right to tax and regulate him.

I don't think your analogy is apt. Suppose we were neighbors, and you knew of my reputation for looking up laws and telling people what they actually say, as opposed to what they want them to say. Suppose the couch were on your lawn, and the city guy told you to move it based on an ordinance. Suppose you groused to me about it, and I looked up the ordinance and went over it with you and convinced you the ordinance did not apply. What would you say to the guy when he came back the second time? Would you spout off theories about "consent of the governed", or would you tell him to go away because you are not in violation of the ordinance? Wouldn't you demand that he explain to you exactly how he thinks you are in violation? Wouldn't you call your city councilor and ask that they get involved? I think most people would take the bull by the horns and put the city on the defensive. Of course I might just be projecting my own approach onto the population at large.

Mike Rotch
Mike Rotch

Curt, if myself and my boys are playing football and we are playing by our rules in my yard and my neighbor who is an SEC referee says we aren't playing by SEC rules, I say I know, but I don't care, and he says we have instant replay you can use and I say I don't care because this isn't an SEC game and he says but you can't do that because our rules say so specifically and I say I don't care because this isn't an SEC game............ You don't get it. If Ian is the sovereign owner of his property then the city of Keene can go to hell. He contends he is, they contend he is their tenant. I'm with Ian, they and all like minded looters can go to hell.

Mike Rotch

Scott in Winnipeg
Scott in Winnipeg

Curt, all of that is just playing the game.

The point is that if you actually own your property then you should be able to do what you want with it.

One of the points of civil disobedeicne is to show the absurdity and violence of the government, which was demonstrated quite well in this case.

Curt Springer
Curt Springer

Mike,

Ian could have had a couch in his yard, legally. As I and others have said many times in FK blog postings and FK forums, he did not seem to be in violation of the actual ordinance that was cited. He could have made this point when he met with the assistant city manager. He could have appealed to the building code board of appeals, which has the power to overrule the city code enforcement staff. He could have defended himself in court. He chose to do none of these. The upshot is that he was found guilty, confirming the city's erroneous interpretation of its ordinance, and he agreed to remove the couch as a condition of being sprung from jail. He has a constitutional right to have his conviction thrown out and to have a jury trial de novo. It does not look as though he will exercise that option.

The result of this is that there is now less freedom in Keene because Ian did not use the means available to him defend his right to have his couch in his yard and ultimately wound up groveling to a judge.

Mike Rotch
Mike Rotch

"I think you are all wasting your considerable talents on trifles. But it’s a free country (even if you disagree)."

Curt, if it were, in fact, a "free" country, wouldn't Ian be able to have a couch in his yard if he so desired?.......................... I thought so.

Ian, you are now one of my many heroes.

Mike Rotch

Alexis
Alexis

Man, you'd better take the coach away. It's not just the problem of the Bill of Rights and Amendments. People without sense of humour are mentally ill and ARE real brutes. Are you sure your judge has ever had any sense of humour? I recognize that your giving in may lead to the establishment of the same regime we have in Russia but are additional five minutes of freedom so important in the US if the result is the same - no sense of humor?

Rockmelon
Rockmelon

The "time" certainly does not fit the "crime"! I believe the judge has taken your case personally and it's obvious from the sentence that his pride was injured and he had the power to impose a whopping 93 days for virtually no crime! I hope his sentencing guidelines are reviewed by the powers that be. He has abused his power and the dignity of the legal system.

I am definitely on your side because I agree with your arguments and there are far too many "laws" in a country that prides itself on being "free."

That said, I would have to say that if that couch was on my neighbors front lawn, I would want it out of there too. However, knowing my husband the way I do, I think he may have asked you if you needed help in disposing of it.

I strongly feel that everyone has 100% of their rights until it infringes upon the rights of others. Then there has to be a "give and take" to assure that each party has the benefit of his fair portion of those "rights."

However, I admire you for standing up against those brutes. I know what being in a cage is like, but only for a matter of hours! I cannot imagine being incarcerated for 90 days. I hope that you are let out very early to enjoy the holidays.

Relax! And good luck!

KaptainSTeve
KaptainSTeve

While I agree with and admire Ian's integrity and his principles I see it like this.

The town has the guns and the power. They claim to have a complaintant and a "code violation". This means they are going to try to enforce it (ie, beat him down) as this is a way to prove their authority (the length of the penises) unless the cost gets too high or embarassing.

About Indians and sovereignty of the land, that's all horseshit. Nobody cares about that unless you can find some loophole, prove your an indian tribe and slap up a casino. All they care about the couch, the ordinance and power. What they are really saying is that you dont' really own the land (you rent it from them), it ain't really sovereign and you can't do nuttin' about it! That's their position in a nutshell. The only thing you can do is to either prove that you are not in violation of their code or humiliate them, or a little of both.

Good luck and keep fighting the good fight.

Kaptainsteve

elkheart
elkheart

...please, please, please keep posting on here, Curt. I, for one, enjoy your writing, thoughts, ideas, & insights. "I agree to continue to *not* find you dis-agreeable!...~e~...

Curt Springer
Curt Springer

So the only agreement we can perhaps come to is that we agree to disagree.

Agreed. :-)

I will just reiterate that while I maintain that the government can regulate property, I think they have no right to nail Ian on his couch, because it is not in violation of the actual city ordinance, and because the ordinance itself is suspect to the degree that it strays beyond the state law that authorizes local regulation of structures.

Zeus
Zeus

I think you guys have benefited by government projects, like land titles, but you somehow rationalize it so as not to give credit to the government.

It's possible, Curt, that government may have had beneficial side-effects. Even terrible things and events can have positive aspects. I've never disputed that as we've never talked about it. We only talked about Ian's Freedom Couch and his right to do whatever he wishes with his property so long as it doesn't harm anyone else or infringe upon their rights.

You claimed that even though he bought the property with the belief that he was actually buying it and not leasing it from the government (which is what you seemed to be indicating) and even though he never signed any contract consenting to be governed by the city's decrees, you argued that he had to obey them because of what some unrelated dead people did long ago. I pointed out to you that they only reason anyone would obey them is to avoid the violence that is the entire basis of their power.

So the only agreement we can perhaps come to is that we agree to disagree.

Curt Springer
Curt Springer

Well there's nothing I can think of that hasn't already been said. We will never agree. I think you guys have benefited by government projects, like land titles, but you somehow rationalize it so as not to give credit to the government. I could say the same about the internet, too.

I think you are all wasting your considerable talents on trifles. But it's a free country (even if you disagree).

Zeus
Zeus

Your third option has already been covered here in great detail before ("I see dead people!") so I'll address your other points instead.

I'll respect "lawful authority" when you can prove that the laws they create and enforce are just and moral OR that I have any obligation to comply with laws that are unjust and immoral. You pick.

As for the 2.5 hours you wasted at a planning board, Curt, all you've done at best is temporarily delay (or sped up, depending on what your goal was) the inevitable greed, tyranny and corruption that has and will continue to erode all your freedoms and destroy everything you care about. That's not a win (unless you're suicidal).

Curt Springer
Curt Springer

Zeus wrote:

From what you’ve said so far, I can only assume that your position is either:

A) that consent is implied even though it’s not part of the written contract. If so, you must realize that this is neither just, moral or even good business. At best, it’s deceptive. And if it were true, I could just sell you a widget and then, after the sale is concluded, just say “Oh and btw, you can only use that product on Tuesdays when there’s a full moon otherwise you owe me an extra $10. Coming into my store and buying that product implies that you have to follow my rules”. That would be insane. When the sale is concluded, it’s concluded!

or…

B) that consent is irrelevant because government has a monopoly on force and will use the threat of coercion and violence to make you do whatever they say regardless of morality or logic.

So which one is it, Curt?

Actually it's

(c) The conveyance of property reserved the right of regulation and taxation, and everybody knew that back in the 18th century when it happened.

Zeus wrote:

Well, Andy, I don’t advocate coercion and violence but as I understand it, getting away with Government Thuggery depends a great deal on fashion. Mr. Blackwell passed away recently so I’ll be happy to offer my own fashion tips:

You’ll probably have the best success with Curt if you wear a black robe and call yourself “The Honorable Andy” or refer to yourself in the third person as “The Court”. Leave the lightsaber at home and opt for a tiny wooden hammer instead. If someone dares to question you, simply say in a gruff voice “One more word out of you and you’ll be spending the next 30 days in the klink!”.

Alternatively, you can opt for more urban look by getting a crewcut, a pair of mirrored sunglasses, a black stick, handcuffs and a blue uniform (although black stormtrooper armor is a growing fashion trend) with a shiny piece of metal pinned to it that says “Law Enforcement” or “Police”. The piece de resistance that will complete your ensemble is, of course, a gun. Usually a black 9mm but you can choose a bolder look with a .45.

The clothes make the thug, Andy, and soon you’ll be tearing it up on the runway with a look that screams “Obey me!”. Good luck!

I make no secret that I respect lawful authority. Although I don't always agree with the courts, particularly the "Claremont" school funding decisions, I accept them as fair arbiters and a check on executive actions.

Tonight I spent 2.5 hours with others at a planning board hearing in Danville regarding proposed zoning ordinance amendments. We did more in one evening for freedom in Danville than you will ever accomplish with all your little stunts in Keene.

elkheart
elkheart

YO, Curt! You there? Good. As for post#'s 76314, et al, above..."Upper Ashuelot" was "settled" one Fall, but by mid-Winter, they gave up, & went back to Mass. for a few more years' rest. Told ya' flatlanders are wimpy girly-men...&if as you say, "the gov't is the *gaurantor* of my rights", then what do I do when the *GOVT* **ITSELF** violates those rights??? Can I "legally redress my greivances" *VIOLENTLY*???? Sure, it happens all the time. If *I* commit murder, *I* "FRY", or *ROT IN PRISON*...***BUT***, if the ***COPS*** commit murder, ***THEY WALK***!!! SO Curt, where **DO** I go, & what do I **DO**, when the GOVT VIOLATES MY RIGHTS???? Most recently, in Spring 2007, "judge" eddy burkah, in kangaroo district court, engaged in a criminal conspiracy, committing, among others, the following acts: He subborned perjury, in that he coerced me into lying under oath. I did not then, nor do I now, believe that my Mother had ***ANY*** RIGHT TO SELL MY HOUSE, despite the lie that I told, under direct verbal command duress from "judge eddy burkah". Burkah also accepted ***EX PARTE*** communications, w/out disclosing such. He caused to be created, an "Order", that contained information ***NOT PRESENTED*** at the "hearing on the Merits", as it's called. EX PARTE information, ***BUT NOT DISCLOSED AS SUCH***. Fred Parsells committed the NH RSA *CRIME* of OFFICIAL OPPRESSION, by *not* inspecting my apt., when he was present to perform that job task. He then LIED, & "claimed" that "I(me!)refused him entry to my apt"! LOOK, I arranged for he & the Landlord(my elderly widowed mother!) to inspect the apartment together. WHY DIDN"T YOU, FRED???...FRED'S FUCK-UP COST MY MOTHER 2 MONTHS' RENT! Also, KPD officer Brian Costa, along w/what's his name(he's a little nappy-headed puke who can't seem to introduce himself properly. SHIT, where does KPD **GET** these rudeboys???)***STALKED*** me to my house, & delivered ***ANOTHER***FRAUDULENT*** "no tresspass" notice, TO ME, IN MY HOME, for the **DOWNSTAIRS** OF MY HOME! And told me **NOT** to keep the appointment with Stephanie Jacques of Masiello Real Estate, whom I was on my way to keep an appointment with, in an attempt to keep my home, & help my Mother.... How'd the police know that, & what legal/statutory basis did they have??? I say, **NONE**!! What all you *OTHER* fucking idiots on here really **AREN'T "GETTING"** is the **FACT** that Jumanjiville/Keene is a *RICO*-worthy CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY. And the **TRUE FACTS STORY** that I've told above is only **PART** of the shit they've pulled, just since my Dad died in 2005! ***FOR ALL OF OUR SAKES, MINE ESPECIALLY, WE ALL NEED TO BE 100% TOTALLY CRYSTAL CLEAR. LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE. DO NOT APPROACH ME. DO NOT ANTAGONIZE ME. DON"T WASTE YOUR TIME TRYING TO ARREST ME. I WILL FIGHT ALL YOU MOTHERFUCKERS, YES, LITERALLY MOTHERFUCKERS, **IN COURT**, LEGALLY. IF YOU FUCK WITH ME ANYWHERE, I"LL LOSE FOR SURE, & YOU MIGHT SUCCEED IN KILLING ME. BUT, THIS I WILL DEFEND. I WILL DEFEND MY LIFE WITH MY FREEDOM, & I WILL DEFEND MY FREEDOM WITH MY LIFE, IF NECCESSARY. PLEASE LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE. YOU'LL BE SEEING MY **LEGAL PAPERS** SOON ENOUGH, & LET THAT BE ENOUGH FOR YOU. YES, I"M A NON-VIOLENT, PRACTICING BUDDHIST. BUT I AIN"T NO FUCKING PACIFIST! THIS - ME & MY LIFE, &MY FREEDOM, THIS I WILL DEFEND. HOPEFULLY, ONLY IN COURT. DON'T OVER-ESTIMATE YOURSELVES, OR UNDERESTIMATE ME. YOU & YOUR COURT HAVE NO LEGAL STANDING, BECAUSE YOU HAVE DE-BASED IT. YOU HAVE VIOLATED THE PUBLIC TRUST, & MY FEDERAL CONSTITUIONAL RIGHTS. AS OF THIS MOMENT IN YOUR MIND, THINK OF ME AS A FEDERAL AGENT! ANY ATTEMPT BY KPD, CCSHERIFFS, OR NH STATE POLICE, TO ARREST, ANTAGONIZE, APPROACH, OR OTHERWISE HARM OR ENDANGER MY PERSONAL SAFETY, ***SHALL BE DEFENDED AGAINST*** YES, I COULD, & MAYBE SHOULD, ERASE THIS WITHOUT POSTING IT. But shit, I wanna see how it looks printed out! I need a good laugh! I'm also curious to hear any feedback from you other guys, on how i sound here. Do I really sound that angry? Can you tell that I really didn't have the 'capslock' on???...I'm working on some story ideas here, that I hope to sell to Archer Mayer. &He only writes fiction, so I guess that's what this all is. Fiction. Legal fiction. But the names & storyfacts are real....SEMPER FI, Shane! I'll have to go get earphones, to hear the audio...

Zeus
Zeus

Well, Andy, I don't advocate coercion and violence but as I understand it, getting away with Government Thuggery depends a great deal on fashion. Mr. Blackwell passed away recently so I'll be happy to offer my own fashion tips:

You'll probably have the best success with Curt if you wear a black robe and call yourself "The Honorable Andy" or refer to yourself in the third person as "The Court". Leave the lightsaber at home and opt for a tiny wooden hammer instead. If someone dares to question you, simply say in a gruff voice "One more word out of you and you'll be spending the next 30 days in the klink!".

Alternatively, you can opt for more urban look by getting a crewcut, a pair of mirrored sunglasses, a black stick, handcuffs and a blue uniform (although black stormtrooper armor is a growing fashion trend) with a shiny piece of metal pinned to it that says "Law Enforcement" or "Police". The piece de resistance that will complete your ensemble is, of course, a gun. Usually a black 9mm but you can choose a bolder look with a .45.

The clothes make the thug, Andy, and soon you'll be tearing it up on the runway with a look that screams "Obey me!". Good luck!

Andy
Andy

Zues, I agree with your observations on Curt. I find it funny how he always tries to back up his argument by pasting in some legal "code". Maybe I should just write up some code that says Curt must send me $100 every month or he must be put in a cage.

elkheart
elkheart

Good question, Osborne! Several reasons: despite their legendary industriousness, Yankees can be lazy. OOPS! I forgot! Most folks in Keene aren't *from here*!!!...It's those gawldurn yuppie flatlanders again...because we've had a veee-ry loooo-ng Faaa-lll...Global Climate Change, doncha' know!....OOOPS!!!, I forgot, the Viscount of Monckton(yes, that's for real, Google him & see...)says "Global Warming/Climate Shift is a *HOAX*, & he should know about that, because "it takes one, to know one!!!...The Town, (OOOPS! *CITY*)of Keene is so frickin' lame, it'll be until January before they get around to picking up those leaves...#1 Reason: Ian is having all his ***non-complaining*** neighbors save their leaves to bury his couch under so he can take a picture to show *"judge"* burkuh-halter that the xcouch is *GONE***!!!...(plus, some of anarcojesse's friends & I are building leafbombs to destroy the gov't of Nude Hampsters...we figure 50 - 100 bushels oughta' bury the HQ of the Concord, NH Geriatric Daycare(*"General Court"*)...Hope that answers your Q?!...~e~...

Osborne
Osborne

Why doesn't anyone in this neighborhood so concerned about lawn couches bother raking the leaves in their yard?

Zeus
Zeus

PS. Ian's "ownership" doesn't depend on government, Curt. It depends on his ability to defend it from invaders, both foreign and domestic.

As you stated above, his "ownership" would "likely" vanish should the Goths or the Huns decide to invade New Hampshire... *unless* Ian can either make peace with them via diplomacy or defend his property from them long-term with overwhelming firepower.

He doesn't need government to exist for either of those solutions.

Zeus
Zeus

Curt, in nearly every instance you immediately attempt to back up your position by talking about what dead people calling themselves government did centuries ago as if their actions have anything to do with the sales contract Ian signed when he bought his property in good faith two years ago.

At no time did Ian give explicit consent to obey the rules made by those dead people or their successors and no such consent was included in the sales contract.

From what you've said so far, I can only assume that your position is either:

A) that consent is implied even though it's not part of the written contract. If so, you must realize that this is neither just, moral or even good business. At best, it's deceptive. And if it were true, I could just sell you a widget and then, after the sale is concluded, just say "Oh and btw, you can only use that product on Tuesdays when there's a full moon otherwise you owe me an extra $10. Coming into my store and buying that product implies that you have to follow my rules". That would be insane. When the sale is concluded, it's concluded!

or...

B) that consent is irrelevant because government has a monopoly on force and will use the threat of coercion and violence to make you do whatever they say regardless of morality or logic.

So which one is it, Curt?

Mitch
Mitch

Great job handling the situation so far. Keep up your great work and I hope to see you in New Hampshire some day.

elkheart
elkheart

CURT! I was born in Keene, NH, USA, *AMERICA*. I'm *NATIVE AMERICAN*. My dad was a "Nixon Republican". I **LOOK LIKE** a "white guy"..."They" like American *Indian* because it's a reminder about just how stupid "white" people can be...think about it...The Caucuses Mts., are a geographical area, *NOT A "RACE"! "Race", & "races" are a *DELUSION*...Yes, Dartmouth was founded specifically to educate "Indians". The first graduate was Charles Eastman, also known as "Ohiyesa". I'll write more later...YOU NEED SOME SLEEP, FRIEND! *grin*...~E~

Curt Springer
Curt Springer

BTW, Ian, weren't you going to meet with the city guy today? Did you? What came of it?

Curt Springer
Curt Springer

HERE is a more neutral dispassionate definition of government. But whatever you want to say about it, you have been the beneficiary of its existence, not least in the creation of your title to real estate.

BTW have you ever thought about the demographics of your movement? You all seem to be young, white, and college-educated. As I was once (still 2 out of 3 :-) ). Yes that's a gross generalization without any facts. But I would propose that an overwhelming majority of the population is less privileged, less confident in their own prospects and sees more utility in government than you, and you are going to have a hard time removing the scales from their eyes.

Maybe you should find your own area to build your voluntary society instead of trying to transform the existing one. Sort of like the Quakers in Pennsylvania or the Mormons in Utah. Then we could all look in and see how it's going.

Ian
Ian

You can talk all you want. Facts are facts:

"Government" is men and women threatening others with force.

Aggressing against our neighbors is not legitimate, whether the aggressors call themselves the "crips", "bloods", or the "city".

Everything they do is void as a result of their aggression.

Curt Springer
Curt Springer

Ian wrote:

Curt, just because a group of people believe a fantasy doesn’t make it true.

You believe the fantasy that the men and women calling themselves “government” have some legitimate claim to my property.

I believe in the facts: they are just men and women doing business at the threat of violence. They have no legitimacy and no claim beyond threat of force.

Ian, there is no fantasy here. The settlement of Keene (Upper Ashuelot) was a government project to create a fort to help defend more settled areas. The government funded an army and supplies. As part of it, it did deals with people who were willing to participate partly in hopes of getting some land. They got the land but with strings attached, like having to clear it, some rent, reservation of white pines. And very early on they were taxed. As you might know, "ownership" of real estate is a bundle of rights. Enumerating all the rights is like counting how many angels can dance on a pin. If you are the "owner", you have all the rights not specifically held by others. And the right of regulation and taxation was reserved by the government. Your title passed to you from the original grantee according to government laws on conveyances and wills, and recorded in government records. Your ownership of your land is in the context of government. Our specific government. If we were to be invaded and conquered by the Huns or the Goths or some modern equivalent, your "ownership" would likely vanish with the current government.

Your "sovereignty" is the fantasy.

Curt Springer
Curt Springer

Re Native American vs. Indian, I just try to call people what they seem to want to be called. I don't conduct polls. And terms go in and out of fashion over time.

Elkheart I don't know how old you are (and I'm not asking), but perhaps you remember all the "Indian Symbol" controversy at Dartmouth College.

Zeus
Zeus

I'm not into political correctness, I simply used the first description that came to mind. With "Indian" originating from Christopher Columbus and his pals ("Look! We're in India!") and this land being what modern day English speaking people call "America", I'm sure your ancestors had some other non-English word or phrase to describe their people. I just don't know it.

elkheart
elkheart

Thanks, Fraker! Now I won't "steel" your "hire" resolve, if you "higher" me to "steal" it!...*BIG GRIN*...As to the ongoing inanities of Mr.'s Springer & "ZEUS", *I am a *NATIVE AMERICAN*// **MOST of the people whom you think of as "native american", call themselves *AMERICAN INDIAN". Yes, there's a small, very vocal minority of "politically correct" ones who keep claiming "native american", despite the illogic of their claim. America didn't *EXIST* when their Great-Grandfathers were born! &YES, most American Indians either don't care, or think it's good, that we have sports teams, etc., named "Braves", "Chiefs", "Redskins", etc. It's only you thin-skinned, pale-faced, bleedin' heart *LIBERALS* who have a hissy-fit over native/american/indianwhatever....TRUTH: The US government has *YET* to make a "treaty" with *ANY* Indian Nation, which that same US Gov't *hasn't* broken.

Fraker
Fraker

I'm an idiot:

higher = hire

steel = steal

Note:

It is OK to hire the police, it should also be OK to NOT hire the police, or hire a non-governmental police.

Ian
Ian

Curt, just because a group of people believe a fantasy doesn't make it true.

You believe the fantasy that the men and women calling themselves "government" have some legitimate claim to my property.

I believe in the facts: they are just men and women doing business at the threat of violence. They have no legitimacy and no claim beyond threat of force.

Fraker
Fraker

By extention, no groups have rights. Only humans have rights; so, a company/corporation has no rights either. When a company/corporation does buisness it does it as a unit acting on behalf of those people who voluntarily called themselves the Company.

But no has ever been asked to voluntarily sign up as a member of the government. Even if we did, this still does not give the government any rights that we ourselves do not already have. All participation between people and government can be said to be done coactus volui, I consented under compulsion. -- Side note, how about signing all government documents with this message :)

We do need to protect our private property, otherwise everytime we left home someone else would come in and steel it, and we have a right to defend our life and property; so, we can pay someone to protect our land because we are paying them to only do something we ourselves have a right to do. We cannot rightfully pay someone to go and steel something from a neighbor because we ourselves do not have the right. So, it is OK to higher the police. The police are still limited by a humnan's rights.

It is true that all of our land may have been nefariously and coercively taken from native people several centuries ago. That is an unfortunate situation. But, the best we can do is guaruntee (sp) from this point on that such actions do not hapen ever again.

Fraker
Fraker

The 'government' as an entity has no rights to reserve. It only has what rights the people who are included in the 'government' have.

I don't have the right to walk on your property and force you at gunpoint to pay me $3000. And, I don't gain that right just be being elected by a group of people.

To say that the 'government' has rights directly conflicts with the idea that humans have rights. If the 'government' has rights, then humans only have privelegdes.

-fraker

Curt Springer
Curt Springer

I wrote "Ian, if you don’t recognize that the government is not the guarantor of your rights ..."

Meant to write "Ian, if you don’t recognize that the government is the guarantor of your rights ..." (took out "not")

Curt Springer
Curt Springer

Zeus,

It's not just modern government. I don't think you could cite any civilization where purported "owners" of individual parcels of land were not subject to taxes and regulation by some government. Can you?

Ian says he would live in a "deed-restricted" community if he wanted to have some say in his neghbors' use of their property. The whole country is "deed-restricted" in the sense that your deed is subject to certain reserved rights to the government.

There are limits on government rights because of the constitutional prohibition of taking land without compensation. This means that the government can not go beyond the rights that they reserved when they conveyed most of the rights in the land to the first person to hold private title.

Ian, if you don't recognize that the government is not the guarantor of your rights in "your" land, does that mean you would not ask the government to intervene if I hired some guys to throw your tenants off your property and to occupy it on my behalf?

Zeus
Zeus

Thus there is no such thing as “sovereign ownership” (quoting Zeus) of land by individual persons independent of government.

In modern times where governments plague all four corners of the Earth and there is little undiscovered country left to escape from them, this is probably correct from the point of view of those governments.

The question you should ask, however, is "Why is that?". The obvious answer is that modern governments have unrivaled firepower which gives them the "authority" to rule the lesser-armed by force and create all sorts of legal mumbo jumbo rules and excuses for what they do like you mentioned above.

For Ian and many others, what these governments say or do is irrelevant. To paraphrase Ian, "If I did not consent, there is no agreement between us for me to obey your silly rules."

If all these things you're talking about are indeed true (and I have no doubt the government believes them to be so since they're the ones making up these rules), it all should have been in the sales contract Ian signed when he purchased the property.

I'm sure he would have had at least had some questions had there been something stating (in plain English) "You're not really buying the house -- even though we use words and phrases like homeOWNER, SELL, BUY and OWN your own home -- you're really just leasing it from the government and you hereby agree to obey whatever laws, rules, ordinances, etc. or this contract is null and void." I'm fairly certain that in any other case where the culprit was an individual rather than a government, such deceptive language when "selling" something would constitute fraud.

No, according to your statements, Ian is just supposed to assume that whatever the government says is true and do whatever they say. That's immoral, illogical and completely antithetical to the philosophy of freedom.

Ian
Ian

Sorry Curt, that was not part of the deal. Just because the city is the agency with a coercive monopoly on titles doesn't mean they own and control my land.

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!