Freedom Couch Update: “City” Rejects My Offer
If you’ve been following this blog within the past few months, you’re well aware of the situation wherein the people calling themselves the “City of Keene” have been threatening me over a couch in my tenants yard. In case you need to catch up, here are the two most recent posts on the issue prior to this one: post 1, post 2. The current situation is that they are demanding I come to their “trial” about this issue on November 14th at 1:30 PM in Keene “district court”.
“Why don’t you just move the couch?”, you might ask. The answer is it’s my tenants’ lawn, they utilize the couch for Halloween decorations, in the other seasons of the year it’s relatively unobtrusive, plus no one has ever complained, until recently. The people calling themselves the “city” claim that there is a complainant who lives down the street, however this person allegedly refuses to meet me and talk to me like an adult. Instead, the alleged neighbor calls the Blue Light Gang to try to intimidate me into disposing of the couch. Since I don’t consider threats of violence to be neighborly, I don’t respond well to them. I’ll move the couch when I get to meet the anonymous neighbor. As it doesn’t seem that will be happening anytime soon, (perhaps because she doesn’t really exist and the govt. people are lying) I recently made another offer to the head of the “code enforcement” department and “assistant city manager”, Medard K. Kopczynski. In this most recent offer I told them I would agree to move the couch if they would 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.
While Mr. Kopczynski seemed like a nice enough guy, it doesn’t appear that he really understood what it was I was attempting to do. Here is a PDF of the letter that he wrote me in response to my offer. Here’s the text:
I have reviewed your request relative to your case. The City of Keene can discharge the matter before the court, when compliance with city ordinance is achieved. To avoid court prosecution you must remove the violation.
As you can see, he refers to my offer as a “request”. It was quite clearly an offer, as it said so at the top of the page and mentioned several times in the text. It seems that these bureaucrats still believe I have some sort of obligation to follow their “ordinances”. However, they have never responded to my multiple requests for proof of said obligation.
It should be quite clear to you by now, dear reader, that the people calling themselves the “City of Keene” are the aggressors in this situation and that they continue to attempt to bring conflict, even when given multiple opportunities to make this go away in a reasonable manner. As I’m a peaceful sovereign individual who only seeks harmony with others, I will continue to attempt to discuss this matter with the bureaucrats. I am an honorable man who wants to avoid conflict. To this end, I have written a “NOTICE OF DISCUSSION” (PDF), had it notarized, and hand delivered it to the “clerk of court”, Larry S. Kane (He’s the guy who is always next to “justice” Edward Burke in their “court”.) on 10/30/08. Here is the text:
Larry S. Kane
“City of Keene”
3 Washington St.
Keene, NH 03431Mr. Kane,
I’m sorry that I have never met you, as I’m sure you’re a good person. It is unfortunate that you have to deal with this matter. Let it be known that I as a sovereign seek only harmony with others. I reserve all rights and do not intend conflict with you or the “City of Keene”. It is to that end of harmony and peace that I write in receipt of a “NOTICE OF HEARING” addressed to Ian H. Bernard, and sent by your organization, in regards to a “Trial” with “Docket No. 08-CR-04255” on November 14, 2008.I accept your organization’s “NOTICE OF HEARING” for value and offer this NOTICE OF DISCUSSION. At this moment in time, no representative of your organization has responded to my recent request (Sent to John MacLean and Tom Mullins on 09/23/08) for proof of obligation to obey your “ordinances”. Therefore, it is publicly known that no contract between us exists. In regards to the couch situation, I have made reasonable counteroffers that have been rejected by your agency. These counteroffers would have harmoniously resolved the matter at hand, yet your agency still insists on conflict. It appears your agency has scheduled a “trial” without my consent or understanding the nature and cause of the charges against me. Judging by the language used in your recent communications, it appears that you still believe I have some obligation to obey your “ordinances”. The “City of Keene” is clearly in dishonor as your agents have refused to provide proof of obligation in the form of a contract with my signature and the signature of one of your authorized agents. Your agency is also in dishonor as you continue to pursue conflict with me, which I do not want, hence this discussion.
If I am mistaken and you actually do have proof of obligation as I describe above, you are welcome to deliver it to me any time. Until then, your agency will continue to be in dishonor.
My friends, associates and I may decide to visit your “court” on November 14 at 1:30 PM. My successful passing through your security screening will indicate that you have accepted my visit and agree to these terms:
1. Your agency will be liable for a bill based on the fee schedule that appears below.
2. All visitors to your “court” will be allowed to enter with the recording devices of their choice and will be free to operate them in a non-disruptive manner.
3. Your agency understands I am visiting under duress, do not intend conflict, and only intend public discussion.
4. I will have questions that “Justice” Edward Burke will answer on the record.
5. The City of Keene acknowledges the truth that there is no signed contract between us obligating me to your ordinances or statutes.
6. You may conduct your “trial”, as that is your business, but I am not obligated to be party to it and no consequences will brought upon my person or property as a result of any possible outcomes.Please remember that I am a peaceful man and I want harmony with others. As I’m a very busy man, my time is very valuable. As of this notice, my fee schedule is now in effect. I will reprint it here for your convenience:
If you or the “City of Keene” continue to send me more notices, or any other demanding papers (except water bills), you agree to include an assessment fee of $500 USD per page. If you have not provided proof of obligation and demand that I show up at your “court”, I may visit under duress, as it is my understanding that your organization will send men with guns to hurt me if I do not show up. Your organization agrees to pay a $5,000 USD appearance fee for each hour or partial hour or of my time. If the “City of Keene” sends men with guns to detain/arrest me for anything other than a crime committed against another human being or their property, the arresting agents will be guilty of kidnapping and the “City of Keene” agrees to pay me a $50,000 per day or partial day illegal arrest/detainment fee. Additionally, if agents from your organization leave anything upon my property, your organization will pay me $500 USD per item of garbage disposed. Checks should be made out to Ian Bernard.
You may avoid the above fees and visitation terms by simply discharging this issue. The ball is in your court, and the world is watching. Please do the right thing. All correspondence is subject to being posted on the blog at FreeKeene.com.
Signed & Notarized
CCed via email: John MacLean, Medard K. Kopczynski, Elizer Rivera
Will they discharge their case, or will activists converge on Keene “district court” on Nov 14th armed with recording devices? If they don’t discharge this issue, I’ll be paying them a special visit on Nov 14th to ask some questions that they would probably prefer not be asked, like, “Is there evidence of a damaged, complaining party?”
Stay tuned to FreeKeene.com for the latest and join the discussion on the Free Keene Forum!
