Free Keene

Comment by Curt Springer

October 18, 2008 @ 1:24 pm

Well now you have turned the tables on them. You’ve transformed this into a case of 1st Amendment freedom of expression.

You seem not to want to deal with the possibility (the strong likelihood IMO) that you will be found not guilty by the court. You seem to want to be a victim.

The prosecutor has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that you are in violation of the ordinance, which makes no mention of furniture. You don’t have to cooperate beyond showing up. You can ask questions of the witness(es), but you don’t have to. You don’t have to testify in your own defense. If you don’t testify in your own defense, you won’t have to answer any questions (just like on TV ). The burden will be on the prosecutor (whoever is presenting the case on behalf of the city) to prove to the satisfaction of the court that the placement of this couch in your yard is in violation of the language of the ordinance. The ordinance contains many provisions, most of which are obviously not applicable to this situation. There is something in the text about a “public nuisance”, and something about “litter, defined as all rubbish or garbage, trash, debris, dead animals and other discarded materials of every kind and description”. I think they will have a hard time proving that your couch fits into either of these categories. You do not have to prove that you are not guilty.

You might be found “not guilty” in spite of yourself.

Comment by Ian

October 18, 2008 @ 1:31 pm

I think you misunderstand, Curt. I want this to go away, that’s why I’m making these offers to them. They insist on victimizing me. I do not want conflict.

Anyway, thanks for the description of how *their* trial operates. I’m quite familiar with their system. I’m not interested in their system, and I don’t consent to it.

As I said, a “not guilty” is their second best choice. That still allows me to visit their court and ask questions they won’t like very much. They’d be wise to just discharge this matter administratively and cancel their “trial”.

Comment by Curt Springer

October 18, 2008 @ 1:50 pm

I agree that it would be best for them to drop the matter. When you meet with the city guy, since you like to ask questions, I hope you will ask exactly how they think you are in violation of their own ordinance.

As for questions in court, questions related to the facts law of the matter will be welcomed. Questions as to the legitimacy of the court will be indulged up to a point then you will be gaveled down if you persist. You know that, of course.

Comment by Rance Muhamitz

October 18, 2008 @ 2:17 pm

I don’t think you understand, curt. I don’t think Ian is interested in the details of the ordinance, even if there is an exploitable loophole. It is the “City of Keene” that is aggressing, that is Ian’s problem with this whole situation.

Comment by Curt Springer

October 18, 2008 @ 6:52 pm

Ian will do what he wants to do.

I just think that he is being incredibly passive, and I don’t think he is acting in his own best interests or those of fellow property owners in Keene.

If this were happening to me in my town, I would have brought the battle to the people doing the damage from the first instance. I would have looked up the ordinance and the law the first time Carl Patten (or equivalent) contacted me. I would have challenged his authority under his very own ordinance that he cited. I would have put my town on the defensive and made it clear to them that they have no case in their own terms and that I know it. If they did not back down, I would have demanded an appeal of the administrative decision from the building code board of appeal, which is composed of local citizens. In most towns that is the same board as the zoning board of adjustment (ZBA). I haven’t been able to figure out from web searches what they have in Keene. In my case it is the ZBA and I would have to recuse myself because I am a member of ours. I would aggressively seek to have the action overturned at the local level before there was any thought of going to court. I have a reputation in my town for knowing the laws and never losing on interpretation. So there would be none of this pathetic “please don’t lock me in jail or take my property” that Ian is spouting. I know my rights and I would not let people trample on them. If I did not win with my local board, which has to take the ordinance as valid and interpret it, I would then have hired a lawyer to make the case (which I would tell him to save me money) that the state law that authorizes local building laws does not authorize municipalities to regulate stuff in your yard that is not part of the structure. If we wound up in court I would fight aggressively. I don’t think we would wind up in court though.

I think I would have been more effective in defending liberty in my little corner of NH than Ian has thus far in his.

This is all academic since Danville is about as LFOD as you can get in Southern NH. I mowed my lawn once last year. I didn’t get around to it so far this year. My brown Christmas wreath sits in my driveway next to the walkout door from my cellar. My Christmas tree sat next to my front steps until I finally dragged it into the woods (on my property) in May. I think my property is far more offensive to common standards of upkeep than Ian could ever hope to achieve .

Comment by Ian

October 18, 2008 @ 7:04 pm

No one has trampled on me and I haven’t begged for anything.

Comment by Curt Springer

October 18, 2008 @ 7:25 pm

You are on the defensive, having offered to remove the couch under certain circumstances. For all intents and purposes, you have accepted their incorrect interpretation of the law by not challenging them on it.

Comment by Ian

October 18, 2008 @ 8:32 pm

Challenging them is consenting to their process. I’m offering them ways to get themselves out of a mess they have created.

I don’t care what their interpretation is, because I didn’t consent to their laws in the first place.

Comment by Mr. Amazing

October 18, 2008 @ 11:36 pm

It is!!! It’s my old couch!!!

Comment by Curt Springer

October 19, 2008 @ 6:22 pm

There is no way that the Keene authorities could agree “to only prosecute me in the future if they have a victim.” That would amount to a “get out of jail free card” for Ian. I assume that he would include possession of marijuana as a victimless crime. At least I would. There is no way that the administrative hierarchy of Keene could give him immunity from future criminal prosecution of unrelated matters.

Comment by elkheart

October 19, 2008 @ 10:06 pm

Ian, just curious. Have you ever been incarcerated? Arrested? I’m behind you 100% here, even though I don’t really think you’re 100% correct. Hey, it’s your couch, & case, too. Maybe you’re “afraid” to get cuffed, shackled, & driven to the “Westmoreland Hilton” for a few days? Hey, no offense. I’m not suggesting you’re a coward or anything. Just curious. Is there anything *YOU* can do, to reduce your “fear”(or whatever…)of the cops? Really, I think you should listen to the others, who have suggested your “letter”, good as it is, is way “over-the-top”, or whatever…Yes, I realize that you didn’t consent to this…but, it’s involved you now. Would KPD & Patten *LIE*, & *CLAIM* your “neighbor” ratted you out? YES! ABSOLUTELY! Demand *PROOF* that “your neighbor” called…I bet they can’t produce any evidence…See, this is the kind of petty bullcrap that Patten & his kind of weasels would pull…see him chewing gum in Court??? Notice that? And how nervous he looks? AND WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU THINKING? MEETING patten IN *PRIVATE*???…w/out a recorder???…he “played” you, dude…Sorry, but that’s how I see it…I still think you’re great, for doing what you do…fight the bastards…we need the practice, for the coming Military Coup…*grin*…~e~.

Comment by elkheart

October 19, 2008 @ 10:12 pm

Also, to repeat: I think you blew your own case, when you even *offered* to remove the couch. It seems pretty clear to me, that Keene has *NO* legal or statutory basis to *compel* you to remove the couch. If they can’t *force* you to lose the couch, why not just KEEP IT!? It looks fine, for now! Put a little sign on it that says: “Habitat for Chipmunks”, experimental breeding center, or some crazy stuff like that. “If you can’t dazzle them w/brilliance, then baffle them w/bullshit. If you can’t dazzle them w/bullshit, then baffle them w/brilliance”…~e~…

Comment by Scott in Winnipeg

October 20, 2008 @ 10:08 am

Ian says he would remove the couch if his complaining neighbor asked him to face to face, because he wants to be a good neighbor, not because he wants to appease the city.

Comment by Rance Muahamitz

October 20, 2008 @ 11:24 am

Ian,

You should take it a step further and request that your property be removed from the geographical area they call the “City of Keene”.

Comment by Ian

October 20, 2008 @ 11:30 am

Making a request would be recognizing them as legitimate.

If it truly is MY property, then it’s up to me to choose whether to participate in their fantasy.

Comment by Curt Springer

October 20, 2008 @ 12:09 pm

From the Wikipedia article on Keene

The community was granted as Upper Ashuelot in 1735 by Colonial Governor Jonathan Belcher to soldiers who had fought in the war against Canada. Settled after 1736, it was intended to be a fort town protecting the Province of Massachusetts Bay during the French and Indian Wars. When New Hampshire separated from Massachusetts in 1741, the border between the two shifted south, and Upper Ashuelot became part of New Hampshire.

During King George’s War, the village was attacked and burned by Indians. Colonists fled to safety, but would return to rebuild in the early 1750s. It was regranted to its inhabitants in 1753 by Governor Benning Wentworth, who renamed it Keene after Sir Benjamin Keene, English minister to Spain and a West Indies trader. Located at the center of Cheshire County, it became county seat in 1769. Land was set off for Sullivan and Roxbury, although Keene would annex 154 acres from Swanzey (formerly Lower Ashuelot).

Ian, your property title and the authority of the City of Keene both derive from acts of the Province of NH in the 18th century. The notion of property ownership completely independent of government is a fantasy. The government wrenched it from the Native Americans and gave it to you (indirectly).

Comment by Curt Springer

October 20, 2008 @ 8:30 pm

Check out the History of Upper Ashuelot (Keene), particularly Part I and Part II where they go into a lot of detail about the original settlements, first under the authority of Massachusetts, then under the authority of NH.

FWIW NH was separated from Massachusetts well before the province line was moved in 1741. It’s just that Benning Wentworth was the first “royal governor” as opposed to previous “lieutenant governors” who were junior to the governor of Massachusetts. One generation before a son moved to Danville, one branch of my family went to bed in Amesbury, Mass, and woke up in South Hampton, NH.

Comment by elkheart

October 20, 2008 @ 9:22 pm

Hey, Scott in Winnipeg! How’s things up there? Dude, *MY POINT* **IS**: Knowing Keene as well as I do, I don’t believe that his neighbor *did* rat him out! I think that the “neighbor complaint” was a fabrication. You know, a “LIE”???…I know that neighborhood. &I know how petty & venal the folks in this town’s power structure really are…**And on another historical note: The official name was/is: “Massachusets Bay Colony *Company*”, right? Wasn’t the Kings’ Charter given to a private-profit-driven *Corporation*??? Hey, if I’m wrong, correct me!~E~

Comment by Zeus

October 20, 2008 @ 10:27 pm

I think Curt, Elkheart and most of the other posters are missing the point. Ian believes he was sold some property, in this case land with a building on it. I don’t know if he thoroughly read the legalese paperwork for the sale but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt on that.

Assuming there wasn’t any hidden legalese that bound him to some kind of contract with the city or any other party beyond the previous owner and himself, the property should have been transferred to his sovereign ownership. If the previous owner didn’t really own it i.e. the state owned it or the city owned it, blah blah blah, that would be fraud.

If sovereign ownership was indeed transferred, however, then it doesn’t matter whether it’s Carl The Couch Enforcer, The Pope, George Bush or Mickey Mouse hanging around outside his house telling him to get rid of the couch, it’s none of their damn business what he does with his sovereign property.

Now obviously, a neighbor who wants a good reputation in his community will listen to his neighbors if they have a complaint and discuss possible solutions for any disputes. Since the alleged lady neighbor refuses to come forth, any claims that she had a beef against Ian re: the couch are just hearsay.

So here Ian is sitting in the house he owns in sovereignty and along come the Government Busybody Enforcers who say “Hey.. you can’t put that couch there. We wrote up a list of things we don’t like on some paper and if you do one of those things, we’re gonna send you a bill. And if you don’t pay that bill, we’re gonna put on a show we’ll force you at gunpoint to attend and a guy in a black dress who works for us will decide whether or not you did one of the things on our list. If he decides you did, you gotta pay us some money. If you still refuse, the black-dressed man will have you thrown in a cage to deprive you of the other thing that’s valuable besides money: your life. Oh it’ll only be 15 days or 30 days or something like that but that’s days of your life we’ll completely waste unless you give in to our demands and pay our bill. You can always make money back but time? You’ll NEVER get that back. We’ll make you 30 days closer to DEAD if you don’t play ball, son.”

Obviously, anyone in their right mind would tell those people to fuck off and not want to play their little game of “I’ve got the bigger penis and you’ll do as I say.”

While most of you are championing the idea that Ian should use their very own system to turn the tables on them, Ian is simply not interested in participating in this colossal waste of time. That’s the difference in a nutshell. You say “Fight fire with fire!” and Ian says “Stop it you pyromaniacs!”

That all said, however, you are correct if you believe they’re more likely to just club him over the head repeatedly and throw him in jail if he doesn’t get with the program. Of course, that’s Ian’s entire point. That they’ll resort to violence because he refuses to give in to their intimidation tactics. That there’s any question about the likelihood of them using violence against him is ludicrous to me but some people need to feel the elbow to the chin and the boot to the head before they’re convinced that what they already know in their heads and hearts is true.

Beaten to a pulp and tossed into a cage for saying “No, I refuse to play your game.”, Ian will have proved his point. Cynics and realists will say “Yep. That’s what I what I figured would happen.” Statists will say “That’s whatcha git fer not obeyin’ the LAW!”. Regardless, the world will continue to turn.

As long as Ian is happy with that kind of Pyrrhic victory, I suppose that’s all that matters.

Comment by fred

October 20, 2008 @ 10:31 pm

Is there evidence of a complaining party? Yes or No
If yes, please produce it.
If no, then why am I here?
The prosecutor has the burden of proof. The city is a legal fiction it’s not tangible.

Comment by Ian

October 20, 2008 @ 11:14 pm

Zeus, why so negative? It could be different this time. It was for Nick Ryder and Dave Ridley. If they think they can “send a message” by forcing me into a cage, they are right, but they don’t realize the message they will be sending.

Comment by Curt Springer

October 20, 2008 @ 11:30 pm

Ian’s land title was created by the government. Our government came in here from England and took possession from the people who were living here. Maybe it was totally by force, maybe there was some sort of treaty or deed involved. The point is that it was the government that created the title to Ian’s land. The government is the only guarantor of Ian’s “ownership” of his land. The government created a “title” (see I can use quotation marks too ) that is subject to the government’s rights of regulation and of taxation. As already discussed in another thread, Ian’s ownership is fee simple. Ian is the “owner” of a piece of land that was taken from the native people by our government (its predecessor) either with actual violence or threatened violence. So he is not in much of a position to complain about “violence” from the government. Occupying “his” land, he is the indirect beneficiary of past government violence.

Comment by Zeus

October 21, 2008 @ 3:51 am

Curt, what people did before Ian bought the property is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter who stole what from who, what they wrote down on some paper, what legalese they used to justify it and so on.

All that matters is whether or not the previous owner actually owned the property and then contracted to sell that property to Ian. If the sales contract doesn’t state or imply these other details you’re talking about or some kind of disclaimer that he’s not really buying the property, then that’s fraud.

If the previous owner believed in good faith that he or she owned that property when they sold it to Ian, then the fraud my go on down the line all they way back to when the government stole the property from the natives and then turned around and sold it under the claim that it owned that land (wherein there would need to have been an exchange of value for value — not a musketball to the eyesocket — for that to be true), in which case, the government should be brought up on various charges of theft, murder, fraud and so on and Ian should continue unmolested to own the property that he bought in good faith.

Is that going to happen? Of course not. But that only serves to prove that government wins by the use of force and coercion, not because it has any logical or moral justification.

Comment by Zeus

October 21, 2008 @ 4:34 am

Ian, while I understand that you’re just trying to show everyone the gun in the room here, you talk about all the horrors government commits six days a week. They steal, lie, cheat and kill people and they get away with it more often than not (and that’s not cynical or negative, that’s just reality).

To deny everything you’ve learned about them and pretend you don’t know what the logical outcome might be is disingenuous at best. You KNOW what they might resort to.

I’m not saying you should be afraid of that. I just think it’s important you understand and acknowledge what you’re getting into before you do it rather than walk into this expecting something different. I’d hate to see them harm you but there’s nothing I can do about that other than point out to you that it is the most likely outcome so that you are prepared to pay the price when tangling with these people.

If you win and they do not harm you, you’ll have another minor victory in telling the government to stuff it. If you lose and they do harm you, you’ll have shown everyone the gun in the room so again, another minor victory albeit at great cost to you (hence Pyrrhic).

Comment by Curt Springer

October 21, 2008 @ 7:23 am

Zeus,
You can’t sell what you don’t own. That includes rights that others have to use “your” property. All land titles created by the English government and successor American colonies, states, and federal government were conveyed to private parties subject to government rights, even if it is not specifically mentioned in the deed. It’s all tied up in the legal meaning of the word “grant”, which by statute confirms the old terms “give, bargain, sell, alien, enfeoff, convey and confirm.”

Sorry, but neither Ian, the owner of one or more properties in Keene, nor I, the owner of 46 acres of woodland plus a house lot in Sandown and Danville, can ignore the “original sin” of the government creating our land titles to the detriment of the original inhabitants of southern NH.

Regarding Nick Ryder’s “win”, if that’s what you want to call it, he secured that by cooperating with the system, and the system found him not guilty and not subject to legal penalties.

Comment by Zeus

October 21, 2008 @ 8:13 am

You can’t sell what you don’t own.

Curt, you should explain that to the government that originally stole the land from the natives, wrote up some some fancy documents excusing the theft via the power of the English King and his United State Government successors who then sold that land to the first Keene resident who thought he had actually purchased the property legitimately from its rightful owners and later sold it in good faith that it was rightfully his to sell.

I’m not arguing with your claim that this truth is irrelevant in the face of their violent enforcement of these land grants, titles and other legal mumbo jumbo. I’m only pointing out the immorality and flawed logic of it.

Comment by Scott in Winnipeg

October 21, 2008 @ 9:08 am

Not all of the land was “stolen” from the Native Americans, some of it was contracted through treaties. Now, the fact that the government has repeatedly broken treaties notwithstanding, how far back do you want to go to make a land claim? I’m pretty sure that the castle that my family has 600 years ago in Scotland was invaded and taken over, do I have a right to claim that property today?

It’s better to deal with what we have now, rather than what happened hundreds of yeasr ago.

Comment by Zeus

October 21, 2008 @ 9:29 am

I’m pretty sure that the castle that my family has 600 years ago in Scotland was invaded and taken over, do I have a right to claim that property today?

If the invaders were a government and they still claim to own it, you could make a claim of rightful ownership and/or seek restitution (monetary recompense). You’d need to prove your family owned it and that it was stolen from your family, of course.

If the invaders were a government but no longer claim to own it, the person who owns it now bought it in good faith and shouldn’t be subject to your dispute with the invaders so you’re SOL on getting the land back. You might still seek restitution from the invading government though.

If the invaders were individuals, well they’re dead now so you’re SOL on either front.

Comment by Ian

October 21, 2008 @ 10:37 am

Zeus, I appreciate your concern, and I understand what the government people are capable of.

No one ever got freedom by begging, however. I must be the change I wish to see. I can’t get on the radio and talk about noncooperation while cooperating. If I want others to do these things, I must set the example.

If they choose to throw me in a cage, do not be so sure that I will be losing or that the cost will be so great.

Anyway, things are different up here. You’ll see!

Comment by Scott in Winnipeg

October 21, 2008 @ 12:02 pm

Ian, if you go to jail for a few weeks I’ll fly down and co-host the show with mark LOL.

Comment by Smiley

October 21, 2008 @ 3:24 pm

Speaking of the couch enforcer, guess who I saw at price choppah last night?

Comment by Curt Springer

October 21, 2008 @ 10:53 pm

My point is not that we should give “our” land back to the Native Americans. My point is that all land ownership is from a government and guaranteed by that government. If something happens to a government, land titles might well be overridden and replaced by land titles given to new people by the new government. Examples include ethnic Germans in adjacent countries after World War II, also Poles in Brest-Litovsk, Palestinians, etc. Probably Greeks in Constantinople when the Turks invaded. Etc. Etc.

Thus there is no such thing as “sovereign ownership” (quoting Zeus) of land by individual persons independent of government. Your land title comes originally from the government and is guaranteed on an ongoing basis from other claimants by the government. Only the government has “sovereign ownership”, meaning all rights, of property. This is called “allodial title”. When land is transferred to individuals, the government retains rights of taxation and regulation. The original inhabitants of Keene, who were brought there as a government project to build forts against the French and Native Americans, were certainly aware of that.

Ian’s “ownership” is a creature of the State of NH, and subject to regulation by its political subdivision, the City of Keene.

Comment by Ian

October 21, 2008 @ 11:01 pm

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.

Comment by Zeus

October 21, 2008 @ 11:30 pm

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.

Comment by Curt Springer

October 21, 2008 @ 11:55 pm

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?

Comment by Curt Springer

October 22, 2008 @ 12:11 am

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”)

Comment by Fraker

October 22, 2008 @ 8:08 am

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

Comment by Fraker

October 22, 2008 @ 9:52 am

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.

Comment by Ian

October 22, 2008 @ 9:57 am

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.

Comment by Fraker

October 22, 2008 @ 10:00 am

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.

Comment by elkheart

October 22, 2008 @ 4:31 pm

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.

Comment by Zeus

October 22, 2008 @ 5:01 pm

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.

Comment by Curt Springer

October 22, 2008 @ 5:58 pm

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.

Comment by Curt Springer

October 22, 2008 @ 6:13 pm

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.

Comment by Ian

October 22, 2008 @ 7:19 pm

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.

Comment by Curt Springer

October 22, 2008 @ 8:25 pm

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.

Comment by Curt Springer

October 22, 2008 @ 8:44 pm

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

Comment by elkheart

October 22, 2008 @ 10:50 pm

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~

Comment by Mitch

October 23, 2008 @ 1:26 am

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

Comment by Zeus

October 23, 2008 @ 1:31 am

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?

Comment by Zeus

October 23, 2008 @ 1:45 am

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.

Comment by Osborne

October 23, 2008 @ 2:28 am

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

Comment by elkheart

October 23, 2008 @ 8:45 am

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~…

Comment by Andy

October 23, 2008 @ 8:58 am

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.

Comment by Zeus

October 23, 2008 @ 9:25 am

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!

Comment by elkheart

October 23, 2008 @ 6:25 pm

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…

Comment by Curt Springer

October 23, 2008 @ 10:53 pm

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.

Comment by Zeus

October 24, 2008 @ 12:11 am

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).

Comment by Curt Springer

October 24, 2008 @ 9:59 pm

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).

Comment by Zeus

October 24, 2008 @ 10:44 pm

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.

Comment by Curt Springer

October 25, 2008 @ 8:31 am

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.

Comment by elkheart

October 25, 2008 @ 6:39 pm

…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~…

Comment by KaptainSTeve

November 1, 2008 @ 6:28 pm

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

Comment by Rockmelon

November 17, 2008 @ 12:21 pm

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!

Comment by Alexis

November 18, 2008 @ 5:05 pm

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?

Comment by Mike Rotch

November 18, 2008 @ 5:38 pm

“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

Comment by Curt Springer

November 19, 2008 @ 12:07 am

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.

Comment by Scott in Winnipeg

November 19, 2008 @ 9:22 am

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.

Comment by Mike Rotch

November 19, 2008 @ 2:57 pm

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

Comment by Curt Springer

November 19, 2008 @ 10:01 pm

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.

Comment by Zeus

November 19, 2008 @ 10:14 pm

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.

Comment by Curt Springer

November 19, 2008 @ 10:37 pm

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.

Comment by Mike Rotch

November 20, 2008 @ 8:53 pm

“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

Comment by Curt Springer

November 20, 2008 @ 9:17 pm

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.

Comment by Zeus

November 20, 2008 @ 9:49 pm

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.

Comment by Mike Rotch

November 21, 2008 @ 7:53 am

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

Comment by william

December 30, 2008 @ 7:13 pm

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.

Comment by Zeus

December 30, 2008 @ 8:24 pm

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.

Comment by elkheart

December 30, 2008 @ 8:31 pm

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~…