Larry Kane of the Keene District Court today reported that Ian Freeman’s time for contempt of court is being suspended, and he is scheduled to be released. Watch FreeKeene.com and NHFree.com forums for critical updates.
Update: Ian has been confirmed released.
Comment by Denis Goddard
November 17, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
w00t!!
Cameras — getting everything on film — plus blogs, websites, Diggs, reddits, lots of people googling up the info on the perps, and a few libertarian friends in the media… put it all together and whattya got?
GOODNESS! PURE, UNADULTERATED GOODNESS!!!!
Comment by modelmotion
November 17, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
It is about time this insanity ended.
But the judge is still accountable for his actions here and should be removed from office.
Comment by Andy
November 17, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
Great news! It should be a damn fine FTL show tonight, can’t wait to hear what happened.
Comment by LIQUID
November 17, 2008 @ 5:01 pm
That was a quick turn around, but then again it was all over the net in less than 24hrs.
Now when does the judge lose his job?
Comment by michael garcia
November 17, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
This gives me a lot of confidence in the FSP. I’m gonna do all I can to graduate college and get my ass to NH.
Comment by fester
November 17, 2008 @ 5:33 pm
Great news, I hope it is true. It gives me some lost hope about the police state.
Comment by Anonymous
November 17, 2008 @ 6:03 pm
Fester, it doesn’t give me any hope for the state, but it does confirm to me that noncooperation is an effective route to take.
Comment by Patrick Shields
November 17, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
I’m psyched that Ian has been released as well. Let’s keep up the momentum!
Comment by Ron Vargas
November 17, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
I found out about this story from an Alex Jones Bulletin on MySpace.
I live in Franklin NH and was disappointed that this stuff is happening right here in good ole Live Fee Or Die. Although I am not suprised. I wish Ian all the best in his efforts.
Comment by Curt Springer
November 17, 2008 @ 8:21 pm
I’m very happy to learn of this.
I didn’t agree with Ian’s approach to this whole thing but it was obvious from the video that he was treated unfairly and harshly from the first get-go in the courtroom. He’s too nice to be rotting in jail.
This weekend I actually went into a Hallmark store at a mall but there was no appropriate pre-printed message. I had the notion of scanning a Monopoly “get out of jail free” card and sending it to him at the jail. 
Comment by Anton Lee
November 17, 2008 @ 9:07 pm
I think a big shout out needs to go out to everyone that was involved in their own way. . . this really was an eye-opening group effort, one that everyone needs to continue to see. I’m inspired, a lot of people are inspired.
Comment by Kevin
November 17, 2008 @ 9:13 pm
URL for the NH Judicial Conduct Committee:
http://www.courts.state.nh.us/committees/judconductcomm/index.htm
Comment by elkheart
November 17, 2008 @ 9:43 pm
I’m so glad that you agree here, Curt! &Thanks for the link, Kevin. Today, I called Gov. John Lynch’s office in Concord. My message was simple. Mr. Ed Burke is not competent to continue as judge, & should be removed from the bench. This whole mess should not have gotten this far, & wouldn’t have, if mr. burke was competence. Jumanjiville/Kangaroo/keene district court is *NOT* a court of COMPETENT JURISDICTION, nor is it “presided over” by a competent jurist. We need Howard B. Lane, jr, to be removed also. Sometimes, it ***IS BEST** to just throw the baby out with the bathwater…STEP DOWN, EDDY BURKAH! STEP DOWN HOWARD!…Next!….
Comment by Oliver
November 17, 2008 @ 10:38 pm
Good for Ian. But the sentence is “suspended,” meaning it can be applied later?
Also, most folks put in jail for contempt get out by apologizing and promising not to do whatever it was again. Did Ian do that?
I wouldn’t go patting myself on the back too hard if I were you folks. I doubt you really had any measurable influence. Judges know there are going to be unpopular decisions and someone’s always going to get pissed off.
Comment by ThatRoperDude
November 17, 2008 @ 11:45 pm
Way to go Freeman.
I wouldn’t jump all over the judge yet. He’s under pressure from both sides. He made a good ruling on that speeding ticket for Nick. Freeman’s out early. I’m so proud of you guys in Keene. Keep it up.
Comment by Matt
November 18, 2008 @ 12:00 am
I would concur with Oliver. I’ll be glad to hear this discussed at length on Monday’s FTL.
Good for Ian. Hoping it’s without strings. *cough*
Comment by CaptainElectron
November 18, 2008 @ 1:56 am
I finally watched the video of Ian’s arrest at court. I will make a donation for freedom in respect for his courage.
Comment by AnAmazedReader
November 18, 2008 @ 2:02 am
As someone who heard about this entire ridiculous drama over the weekend, I’m simply amazed at the behavior of all concerned: the deeply-neurotic narcissist whose sense of self is so fragile that he (seemingly reflexively) turned a request from a city official that he move an old couch into a preposterous melodrama involving an utterly fantastical notion of individual freedom; the judge who clearly has an anger-management problem, and thus should not be on the bench; the narcissist’s followers, who seem to live in a dreary world of half-baked ideas and resentments. What a menagerie; truly the proverbial “sound of one hand clapping”.
Comment by CaptainElectron
November 18, 2008 @ 2:03 am
I finally watched the video of Ian’s arrest at court. I will make a modest financial donation to support human liberty in honor of his courage under fire.
Comment by GARD
November 18, 2008 @ 2:47 am
YES!
It took that despotic “judge” merely 40 seconds to initiate the aggression against a civil Ian.
Even if there is no disciplinary action taken against him, he should continue to receive messages from people who have been shocked and disappointed with his outrageous behavior.
And now, this “judge’s” behavior has inspired MORE people to move to Keene in order to engage in civil disobedience. If he thought he was quashing a movement, he was quite mistaken. Good work Ian, and all who stood by him!
Comment by Zeus
November 18, 2008 @ 6:54 am
The only reason Nick Ryder didn’t get the hammer from Burke is because he challenged the cop’s lie about whether he was stationary or moving. Don’t kid yourself otherwise that Burke is a nice man. Nice men — let alone fair and competent judges — don’t act like he did. Both times in his interaction with Ian he resorted to jail-time as his preferred weapon of choice to retain control of “his” courtroom.
Judge Burke Takes Lives. 30 Days At A Time.
Comment by Sheriff Lobo
November 18, 2008 @ 8:50 am
What a fucking sell out.
Some activist he is. Goes crying to his mummy after 3 days in the big house.
Comment by AnarchoJesse
November 18, 2008 @ 10:31 am
Comment by Sheriff Lobo
November 18, 2008 @ 8:50 am
What a fucking sell out.
Some activist he is. Goes crying to his mummy after 3 days in the big house.
From what I understand, Ian doesn’t communicate with his family. Unless you have evidence otherwise…
Comment by Lance
November 18, 2008 @ 10:48 am
The application of force has a remarkable ability to get people to make the “correct” sounds, e.g., “I’m sorry.” Ian should have no shame for apologizing to the judge in order to get released. I admire him for his peaceful, principled approach.
Comment by Mitch
November 18, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
Sheriff Lobo, Ian was unfortunately in a situation where 3 months in Jail would have been too hard on his relationship. He said, “I’d have stuck it out (Cheshire jail isn’t too bad, FYI.), but I knew it was hell on Julia…” – http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=16058.msg271252#msg271252
Comment by Laur
November 18, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
In the past 24-hours I’ve noticed a lot of people critiquing Ian’s release whose only contribution to the liberty movement is trolling message boards. I ask they reconsider their criticism.
The fact that Ian is out of jail does more for the liberty movement than it would have done if he stayed there for the full 93 days. He has a mic, the airwaves on his side, and a message that affects people beyond the borders of Keene and beyond New Hampshire’s state lines. It’s a message that also reaches those in England, Denmark, and Norway. Being released in 3-days gave him the opportunity to use this momentum to broadcast his experience last night while it was still fresh in everyone’s mind.
Do not underestimate the form of activism he takes part in every day. His contribution is extremely significant.
Comment by ANAMAZEDREADER
November 18, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
wow. I was actually hoping something bad would happen to him in prison so he could leave and let us move forward with our green city.
Comment by Ian
November 18, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
Wow. That’s pretty sick. Wishing violence on me? I have harmed no one.
Comment by Shyfrog
November 18, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
As someone who heard about this entire ridiculous drama over the weekend, I’m simply amazed at the behavior of all concerned: the deeply-neurotic narcissist whose sense of self is so fragile that he (seemingly reflexively) turned a request from a city official that he move an old couch into a preposterous melodrama involving an utterly fantastical notion of individual freedom; the judge who clearly has an anger-management problem, and thus should not be on the bench; the narcissist’s followers, who seem to live in a dreary world of half-baked ideas and resentments. What a menagerie; truly the proverbial “sound of one hand clapping”.
grandiloquent masturbation…now go write a novel only a snobby handful of Heathcliffian Ivy Leaguer’s would ever read.
Comment by Zeus
November 18, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
Comment by ANAMAZEDREADER
wow. I was actually hoping something bad would happen to him in prison so he could leave and let us move forward with our green city.
Well, if you’re going to wish violence on someone you should be more specific. Did you want that “something bad” to be him catching the flu or bruising his knee?
Or maybe you wanted another inmate to stick him in the ribs with a rusty shiv? It sounds like having a “green city” is pretty important to you, enough that you’re wishing the life of another person be harmed so maybe you wouldn’t stop there? Maybe you’d want him dead. Is that how far you’re willing to go to have your “green city”? Murder?
Would you do it yourself and get his blood on your own hands or would you prefer someone else do it for you, an inmate or a guard perhaps? Sounds like you might prefer the latter. After all, why dirty your hands when you could just let others do your dirty work for you?
You are a sick, depraved nutball, Sir.
Comment by Anton Lee
November 18, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
AnAmazedReader’s last comment is worth noting. . . while you might wish harm upon people like Ian, it sounds like you might wish harm upon all people who simply want to live free without being harassed, threatened, and stolen from by others. I must object to that and ask you to reconsider your opinion. Naked aggression will progress nothing towards your green city, but it will be red with the blood of innocent people who choose not to participate.
Comment by Anti Police State guy
November 18, 2008 @ 7:57 pm
This is alot of nonsense on both the city and Ian Freemans side. While I agree there are major incidents of police states occuring these days this was just stubborness by both the city and the defendant. I would hardly classify a fight over a couch in a yard a police state. Even though I agree the city had no business telling him what to put in his yard unless there is an ordinance against it. The city official with the DEA shirt was a jerk as was Ian although I agree Ian was the one who was done wrong the most. It seems to me that once Ian was in the courtroom he didn’t even wait for the judge to call the docket and was already trying to state his case. The judge thought he was trying to pull a stunt for the cameras and became over the top with yelling “sit down”. For someone who(Ian) is so knowledgable about the constitution it was interesting to me how they were dubbed “confused” about weather to sit down at the start of the trial as stated in the Alex Jones article.
The fact of the matter is this is about a couch. All you guys who are wasting your time on this should be more focused on more important anti police state type activities. Such as getting the Democratic majority to overturn the Patriot Act.
Comment by Curt Springer
November 19, 2008 @ 12:46 am
I believe that Ian did not reveal until the 11/17/08 FTL broadcast (the evening of the day he was released from jail) that he actually sent the letter he discussed in this blog article:
An Open Letter to “Judge” Edward Burke.
I think this might explain why Ian was treated differently and more harshly than defendants who came before him. The judge made it clear that he was bothered by the letter. The letter made ridiculous suggestions for somebody who has taken an oath to be an impartial judge. In particular, it crowed about the fact that people had been declining to stand when the judge entered the courtroom. Gee do you suppose that might have been the reason for the sign at Ian’s trial threatening “sanctions” against people who failed to rise.
I don’t mean to excuse the judge’s response, but this stupid letter didn’t help things at all.
Comment by Anton Lee
November 19, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
Thankfully, we live in a nation where Judges are not allowed to hand down much more severe punishments simply because they received a letter that they didn’t like. Everyone has bad days, thankfully not everyone has the power to put someone behind bars for it.
The Judge should be apologizing for violating the rights of an innocent man. The Keene Planner should be apologizing to the community for her indecent attack on the personal freedom of another citizen.
Comment by Anti Police State guy
November 19, 2008 @ 7:17 pm
Geez!!!
The facts;
#1. Ian had a couch in his tenants yard. It seems as if the couch was against an city ordinance or something like that. (or there is more to the story about the relationship between Ian and city).
#2.The trail was starting and Ian was trying to state his case when the docket was still being called. This combined with Ian and his “liberty activists” who had been appearing in this judges court and refusing to stand when the judge walked in certainly didn’t help Ian’s cause.
There are certain norms you just don’t do in a courtroom. (i.e. put your hands in your pocket).
While I am against any real police state activities this is alot of nonsense by both the city and Ian.
I would really like to know the entire history of the city and Ian. What types of stunts have these “liberty activist” been performing. And what was the cities reponse? Because I’m just not buying the idea that all us anti police state folks around the country should rally around someone who got a ticket for having a couch in his yard and believes he was somehow suffering an injustice because of a stupid couch???
Enlighten me please………?????
Comment by Curt Springer
November 19, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
Anti Police State Guy wrote:
While I am against any real police state activities this is alot of nonsense by both the city and Ian.
I concur.
If you are interested in the details they have all been posted in the blogs and comments on this site.
Trying not to repeat in detail what I have written 20X times already:
– It is extremely doubtful that the cited ordinance actually applies to the couch in question
– Ian refused to raise the question of the applicability of the ordinance with the city employees, even though he had a meeting with the assistant city manager who is in charge of the code enforcement staff.
– Ian could have gone over the heads of the city employees to a board of appeals consisting of fellow residents who have the power to interpret the ordinance and quash unjust enforcement actions.
– Ian decided to attack and alienate the court simply because it accepted the case from the city, which of course it was obligated to do.
Comment by Zeus
November 19, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
Your facts are either missing pertinent data or full of untruths.
1. Ian’s tenants had a couch in the portion of the yard they rent from Ian. It had been there for 2 years and no one complained. Ian was minding his own business when Carl the Couch Enforcer paid him a visit and got heavy-handed with demands to remove it. He came back again twice, each time giving Ian a barely filled-out citation for $100. Since Ian had harmed no one and the couch is an inanimate object incapable of harming anyone with intent, Ian did not believe paying the Couch Enforcer’s bosses in the City of Keene $200 was appropriate or necessary.
2. The second everyone else was seated and Ian began to take a seat they called his name twice, this is in the video. Hearing his name, Ian stood up in response and said “I’m uh” before Burke began shouting “HAVE A SEAT! HAVE A SEAT!” like a maniac.
Stunned, Ian responded weakly with “Are you making an offer?” which comes from some idiotic legal advice he got from a book.
Again Burke screamed “HAVE A SEAT NOW! HAVE-A-SEAT!!!”. Ian, seeing the Bailiff circling him like a vulture answered “I am doing so under duress.” and sat down. No sooner did his butt hit the seat did Burke shout “Take him into custody!” and the Bailiff responsed “Yes, Sir!” and six court officers circled in around their prey. This is all in the video.
Any activist who normally would not have stood for Burke (based on his threat posted on the door) chose not to enter the courtroom and stood outside.
As far as “stunts”, the most typical form of activism is choosing not to follow immoral or unjust orders from authoritarian persons such as walking down a public street, carrying a cell phone, handing out information brochures, filming public events, standing in a public area, etc. In each case, things were peaceful and in control until agents of the government chose to step in and create a problem which they then “solved” with violence or the threat thereof.
The idea that Ian would get 3 days in jail let alone the “almost 93″ IS stupid, isn’t it? It’s insane, really. And the fact that it DID happen, that one person could cause all of this by using government (an organization whose only tool is violent force or the threat thereof) as a tool to enforce their iron will is outrageous.
And that is why those who seek liberty should rally around this man over a stupid couch. Because that’s how far this country has fallen and it’s time for liberty-loving people to set things right.
Will you be one of those persons? And if not over something stupid like a couch, where will YOU draw the line? Will it be when they come for you and your loved ones over something as equally arbitrary? Because by then, it’ll be far too late.
Comment by Anti Police State guy
November 19, 2008 @ 8:13 pm
ZEUS,
I will admit Ian was done wrong. But it seems as if he has just followed the procedure to object to the ticket he may have gotten the matter settled with much more civily.
I do draw the line when it comes to anti police state activities. I seriously doubt fights over couches in yards is gonna help us get rid of things like the Patriot Act. My services are much more valuable to causes that involve repelling such federal laws.
Comment by Zeus
November 19, 2008 @ 8:32 pm
I will admit Ian was done wrong. But it seems as if he has just followed the procedure to object to the ticket he may have gotten the matter settled with much more civily.
There is no doubt that the advice Ian got from a book was bad advice. He’s learned now that there is no magic phrase that will somehow make government stop aggressing against you.
But you say that it would have gone better had he followed their procedure and I’d like you to strongly consider that while things might have gone more smoothly, where did Ian have the obligation to have anything to do with these people?
They came to him looking for a fight. Regardless of anything else they or he did in this, he was minding his own business when they decided to stop by his house and pull him into their world against his will.
You can argue that he defended himself incorrectly. I would agree with that sentiment. But the fact remains: He shouldn’t have had to defend himself from these people at all.
This is where it starts in a police state. First they ask you to comply with something small and you agree but they don’t go away. They come back again with something a little bigger and a little bigger until they cross whatever line you’ve drawn for yourself, the line where you say “Here and no farther”.
Look at history and you’ll see the truth in this. In the end, when the corpses are smoldering in the ovens and the dirt is falling on the mass graves, you’ll ask yourself “How did it get to this point? Where did it all go wrong?”
You don’t want the answer to be “It started with a stupid couch.” And that’s why you fight here and now. So it never, ever goes any further.
I do draw the line when it comes to anti police state activities. I seriously doubt fights over couches in yards is gonna help us get rid of things like the Patriot Act. My services are much more valuable to causes that involve repelling such federal laws.
That’s entirely your decision to make. We all have to start somewhere. For some, it starts with an illegal couch or carrying a cell phone “illegally” or walking down an “illegal” street. For some, it’s playing the game of politics and running for office. Everyone has to figure out individually what works best for them.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. ” -Edmund Burke (1729-1797).
Good luck to you whatever you decide.
Comment by Anti Police State guy
November 19, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
I’m not saying he defended himself incorrectly or not. That’s up to him. He has the right to defend himself however he chooses. I was merely saying it would have gone smoother if had done it thru proper procedure.
I don’t know anything about the ongoings in this particular town where this incident took place. But I don’t see any martial law being declared in that town. I also don’t see how a couch on lawn is leaning towards that type of thing. Especially since my understanding of it all is that it was against a city ordinance. (correct me if I am wrong about the ordinance)
I just don’t see how a fine about a couch in yard is gonna turn into something bigger(martial law for example). If that is what is happening in this town I could support that. But it doesn’t seem like that is the case here.
How many couches in yards incidents have turned into martial law? Show me the history in that and I’ll support Ian’s cause.
Comment by Zeus
November 19, 2008 @ 9:40 pm
I’m not saying he defended himself incorrectly or not. That’s up to him. He has the right to defend himself however he chooses. I was merely saying it would have gone smoother if had done it thru proper procedure.
It seems you’re missing my points here, maybe I’m not as a good a communicator or this is just new and different to you or it’s just too much of a fine point but I’ll try to be a little clearer here.
You’ve used the phrase “proper procedure” a couple of times now. Who determines what that is? The people who are aggressing against a peaceful man who was minding his own business?
To put it in another perspectivce, what if it were mobsters or barbarians at the gate coming onto his property and telling him what he can or cannot do with it instead of the government? Should Ian follow whatever procedure they’ve cooked up because THEY think it’s “proper”?
It was considered proper in Rome at one time to throw the Christians to the lions. It was considered proper in America at one time to burn “witches” at the stake and to own slaves. My point being that the offending antagonist’s idea of what is proper has no validity as far as their hapless victim is concerned.
Playing by your antagonist’s rules is rarely beneficial for you (for them, it’s fantastic). For instance, in the days when they burned witches, they’d dunk you in water first as a test. If you floated (which all people do) you were a witch. If you didn’t float, you drowned. That’s a fair system isn’t it?
I don’t know anything about the ongoings in this particular town where this incident took place. But I don’t see any martial law being declared in that town. I also don’t see how a couch on lawn is leaning towards that type of thing.
If martial law is what it takes to spur you to action, if things get so bad that they end up doing that, it will be far too late for you to stop it by then.
Especially since my understanding of it all is that it was against a city ordinance. (correct me if I am wrong about the ordinance)
As Curt will tell you, the ordinance in question is so vague that the wording likely wouldn’t have covered a lawn couch. But even if it had, Ian never agreed to obey any ordinances. He never signed a contract with anyone to do so and no one told him about any such rules when he bought the property. No one even said anything about the couch for two whole years after he’d bought it.
I just don’t see how a fine about a couch in yard is gonna turn into something bigger(martial law for example). If that is what is happening in this town I could support that. But it doesn’t seem like that is the case here.
Well, it sounds like you want to start defending freedom when the stakes are much higher and the chances of succeeding are less likely. In that case, then yes, starting small like some of the activists in Keene is probably not for you.
How many couches in yards incidents have turned into martial law? Show me the history in that and I’ll support Ian’s cause.
Based on your questions and the general make-up of your posts, it sounds like you’re not too familiar with basic libertarian (or pro-freedom) tenets. Perhaps once you’ve learned those you’ll have a different perspective on things. I recommend “Libertarianism in One Lesson” by Dave Berglund. Ian likes “Healing Our World” by Mary Ruwart and “The Market For Liberty” by the Tannehills (available in audio format on this very site). You can also view “The Philosophy of Liberty” online by doing a Google search on it. That one is a quick introduction and highly recommended (though the music can be irritating).
Comment by Anti Police State guy
November 19, 2008 @ 11:14 pm
I am not sayin Martial law is what it will take to get me to spring into action. What I am saying is this incident is not likely to lead to something bigger. I doubt the city code enforcer is gonna show up on Ian’s doorstep again with a swat team looking to pinch him because of a couch in his yard.
Ok so the ordinance was vague and it didn’t cover a couch on a lawn. What’s the actual wording of the ordinance???
But You stated even if it was specific Ian never agreed to obey those ordiances and that he never signed any contract. We’ll….this is getting a bit outrageous isnt it?? Since when do we have to sign contracts and agree to adhere to laws??? The country I grew up in and learned about when I got my degree in criminal justice it was determined that the legislatures or town officals(alderman or whatever)make the laws and we vote those people into office. If we don’t like the laws they are making we vote them out. Since when do we have to sign contracts to adhere to the laws? Should we sign contracts to agree that we don’t steal from people? Sign contracts that we don’t rape people? If we had to sign a contract on every law then America would be a very different place. Although I’ll admit that would be interesting. Where in the constitution does it say you have to sign a contract to agree to adhere the laws?
I’m familiar with the libertarian views. Although many libertarians differ from others. For example I have a friend who is a libertarian but he calls Ron Paul a whool in sheeps clothing.
But I’ll admit I’m mostly familiar with the Ron Paul model. Not sure how this applies to Ian.
In the Ron Paul model it’s all about being a strict constitutionalist. While I am a big advocate of the constitution there are certain things that are outdated in it(the electoral college for example).
I’ll buy the argument that Ian was done wrong from the onset(it’s his yard and why does the city care if he has a couch in his yard (if it isn’t disturbing the peace). But once the matter was brought to city code he immediately decided not to follow the cordial way and went with a hard nosed approach ultimately making it harder on himself to prove a point. IMHO the only point he proved was that the city shouldn’t be telling people what to put in their yards. It’s questionable at best but not exactly leaning towards police state material.
Comment by not evil
November 19, 2008 @ 11:42 pm
I wish someone could replace couch with pretty much ANYTHING else. . . you’re all too hung up on the fact that it was a rotten old couch. . .
choose: gun, car, dog, grass too high, pool is too close to the house. . .please, just choose
YOU might respect the courts, some do not, and operating under a fictional social contract, he has the right and the DUTY to do what he did. Ian didn’t even get a chance to question the court, until they moved him out of the public and into a special tribunal.
The moral of the story really is, if you don’t want to deal with freestaters, you aught to just leave them alone.
Comment by nick
November 20, 2008 @ 12:08 am
Anti-Police-State,
Here is the wording of the ordinance I think they charged him in violation of:
“(8) No person shall permit litter, defined as all rubbish or garbage, trash, debris, dead animals and other discarded materials of every kind and description, to accumulate upon any premises or the interior of any structure. Every occupant and/or property owner shall dispose of all litter, rubbish or garbage in a clean and sanitary manner by placing such litter, rubbish or garbage in a container approved by the solid waste director.”
Ian was not a run-of-the-mill violator. He was targeted because his mission is to hold city workers responsible for their actions. And it turns out that a city worker was the person who complained about the couch in the first place.
Comment by Curt Springer
November 20, 2008 @ 1:14 am
The ordinance, 18-241, has 21 paragraphs. It is entitled “Minimum standards for all property.” Paragraph (8), which Nick cited, is the most likely provision to be applicable. It would depend on whether the couch is a “discarded material.” The other possibly applicable paragraph is:
(1) No person shall cause or maintain a public nuisance on any property within the city.
Going beyond the letter of the ordinance, much of it is suspect because the authorizing state law only talks about “structures.”
Comment by Zeus
November 20, 2008 @ 7:54 am
What I am saying is this incident is not likely to lead to something bigger.
You might want to research “butterfly effect” for a new perspective on how little incidents eventually build up to large catastrophes.
Since when do we have to sign contracts to adhere to the laws? Should we sign contracts to agree that we don’t steal from people? Sign contracts that we don’t rape people?
See, you’ve been indoctrinated into a fallacy via your government education. Ever hear the phrase “Ignorance of the law is no excuse!”? This came from an era when the laws were simple and common among all men: do no harm. No one could possibly know every federal, state and local law on the books these days, not even lawyers who spend thousands of dollars and years of their lives learning this stuff know all the laws.
The very question you ask tells me you’re not familiar with the tenets of libertarianism at all. The first thing you learn is that you can only be as free as the freedom you allow your neighbor or the next guy. That you should be able to live your life however you wish so long as you don’t infringe on the rights of others.
This doesn’t mean there’s no law, it means the law is so simple you don’t need to sign a contract or get a lawyer to know it. Do No Harm. No killing, no raping, no fraud and no theft or any derivatives thereof. Do not violate property rights. If I own myself, you can’t tell me what to do with or violate my body in anyway. Same goes with my other stuff like my house, my car and my dog. It can’t get any simpler than that.
If we had to sign a contract on every law then America would be a very different place. Although I’ll admit that would be interesting.
If there were more voluntary agreements between consenting persons, it would certainly remove government from most of those situations, which means less violence and less wasted time and money.
Where in the constitution does it say you have to sign a contract to agree to adhere the laws?
While I may find value in the Constitution (particularly the Bill of Rights), no one living signed that document or agreed to it either. Everyone who did is now long dead so their agreement is technically no longer binding (at least not by anything other than force or the threat thereof).
The Constitution says that the powers of government are derived from the consent of the people. If one does not consent, then government’s laws are irrelevant and the common law of do no harm takes effect. Your mileage may vary as people love to argue about implied consent and so on.
So beyond my argument that true just and righteous law, the common law of do no harm, you also have the fact that the Constitution was designed to “bind down government” and not The People. It’s principal author said so.
IMHO the only point he proved was that the city shouldn’t be telling people what to put in their yards. It’s questionable at best but not exactly leaning towards police state material.
Again, you have to start somewhere. If showing the world the government has so many absurd laws that a man can be caged like a zoo animal for a ratty, stinking couch he doesn’t even own, that’s a start. Not a big one full of trumpets and fireworks, of course, but it’s a start.
Comment by Zeus
November 20, 2008 @ 8:40 am
Also, if your only exposure to the freedom movement is Ron Paul, it stands to reason that you are a “Constitutional Minarchist” or “one who wishes to shrink government back to it’s Constitutional limits”.
A little further down the pro-freedom slide you’ll find “Voluntaryists” (like Ian) who believe all societal interactions between people should be voluntary with mutual consent (hence a proliferation of contracts).
To them, the flawed Constitution — which didn’t stop government from becoming the behemoth it is now and which has no teeth with which to punish bureaucrats who disobey it — is not something they gave consent to or signed and thus to them, it does not apply.
In other words, dead men wrote it 200+ years ago and modern people who did not consent to it have no obligation to it, especially since it was meant to bind down government and not the people and thus only applies to government bureaucrats.
You don’t have to go that far. All you need to understand is that most laws are busybody laws created by the tyranny of the majority and are thus unjust, that the system as it exists now is inaccessible to anyone who either doesn’t have the money to play in it or anyone who chooses not to, and that there are so many laws that no one can ever know them all. In that case, common law (do no harm) — which has existed in societies for thousands of years — is the only system necessary to keep the peace and that anyone being honest with themselves can master it fairly quickly.
Comment by Anton Lee
November 20, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
I like Ron Paul, but he got a lot of neo-cons to think they believe in liberty when they’re still operating under the same 1984 definitions.
Comment by Anti Police State guy
November 20, 2008 @ 8:00 pm
According to you guys one part of the ordianance states;
“Every occupant and/or property owner shall dispose of all litter, rubbish or garbage in a clean and sanitary manner by placing such litter, rubbish or garbage in a container approved by the solid waste director.”
I take it Ian didn’t dispose of it in a approved container since it was sitting on his tenants lawn.
You guys also said;
“Ian was not a run-of-the-mill violator. He was targeted because his mission is to hold city workers responsible for their actions. And it turns out that a city worker was the person who complained about the couch in the first place.”
I’m all for people who want to hold government officals responsible. This is what I meant in some of my original posts about “the history between the city and Ian”. So you guys are sayin he was targeted by this city offical. Hmmm…..that sounds like it was the case….but…..he he did violate an ordinance which is meant to keep the city clean from garabe and debri. Although it seems clear that wasn’t why he was targeted he was probably in violation of the ordinance in my legal opinion based on what I’ve read here. (having no formal legal knowledge of the case or the towns or states laws)
Zeus,
I could agree with your 76870 post much more than your 76868 on3.
I know all too well how little incidents can turn into big ones. I have no need to read up on the butterfly effect. While I’ll admit to not knowing about the town of Keene……again……I doubt we’ll George Orwell’s 1984 society imposed on this city because of Ian’s tenants couch.
Zeus stated;
“If there were more voluntary agreements between consenting persons, it would certainly remove government from most of those situations, which means less violence and less wasted time and money.”
While I agree with the idea of removing government from certain of these situations I believe there are times when government intervention is needed. While this isn’t the situation in Ian’s case consider this example.(Let’s say Ian’s tenants neighbor was trying to sell their house. But debris such as couches in yards in the neighborhood were bringing the value of the house down. So Ian’s tenants neighbor can now not sell their house because they can’t afford to sell it as a lesser value. Ian’s tenant’s neighbor ask’s Ian’s tenant to remove the couch and the tenant says no. Now that neighbor has the option to call the city about it and the city can enforce the ordiance.) That is one reason why this type of ordinance is written into law. Because it can effect the neighbors right to “life,libery, and the pursuit of happiness”.
I know that isn’t the case with Ian but it brings up a valid point about how the ordinance belongs there.
Zeus you also stated;
“The Constitution says that the powers of government are derived from the consent of the people. If one does not consent, then government’s laws are irrelevant and the common law of do no harm takes effect. Your mileage may vary as people love to argue about implied consent and so on.”
The Constitution says “WE the people”. If ONE does not consent it is ONE and not WE. The constitution words “WE the people” refers to WE and not ONE who disagrees with it. Your 1st Amdendment right’s allows you to “peaceably assemble” but that doesn’t mean that ONE that does not consent makes the constitutions amendments irrelevant.
You also stated;
“While I may find value in the Constitution (particularly the Bill of Rights), no one living signed that document or agreed to it either. Everyone who did is now long dead so their agreement is technically no longer binding (at least not by anything other than force or the threat thereof).”
That’s a double negative. Your saying you find value in the bill of rights….but….that holds no meaning because you weren’t alive then and all those people are dead so…..they don’t mean anything either. It’s an insult to the founding fathers and to those who sacraficed so that we could have some of the civil liberties we have today.
So it’s like saying…if your a law maker and once a certain generation dies off then….those laws are irrelevant. Hmmm……you must think alot of laws(some which ensure peace)need to be taken off the books then.
One statement I agree with you on that you said was;
“You don’t have to go that far. All you need to understand is that most laws are busybody laws created by the tyranny of the majority and are thus unjust, that the system as it exists now is inaccessible to anyone who either doesn’t have the money to play in it or anyone who chooses not to, and that there are so many laws that no one can ever know them all. In that case, common law (do no harm) — which has existed in societies for thousands of years — is the only system necessary to keep the peace and that anyone being honest with themselves can master it fairly quickly.”
Clearly, this is the case. Reverting back to common law I don’t think is the answer though. Holding our current leaders accountable is. Which it appears is the case with Ian and why he was targeted in the first place. Common law is too general for todays world just like in some cases the constitution is.
I’m all for an overhaul of the system thru peaceful means. If we can do it while still agreeing to place the constitution in it’s true place as our founding document. Don’t ever forget the sacrafice our founding fathers made for liberty. But yes we do need to change the system as it is today so that money and big business do not run our government.
Also thank you for the education on libertarian views. I can’t say I’m for the “Volunatarist” view but I do agree with some of the more Ron Paulish views of the political spectrum. I’ll read up on those references you told me about several posts back on libertarians.
So what’s the big deal about Keene? What is going on in this town that people feel the need to not rise when the judge walks into the courtroom?
Comment by Curt Springer
November 20, 2008 @ 9:04 pm
APSG,
I don’t think the paragraph you cited is applicable to Ian’s situation. I think that it applies to trash that you put out at curbside for collection by the city, not to large objects that you would not expect to be hauled away by the city’s (or city contractor’s) trash truck.
If you scroll up to the wee hours between Wed 11/19 and Thurs 11/20 you will see that Nick posted paragraph 8 (of 21 in the ordinance), and I posted paragraph 1 after that. I don’t think paragraph 1 applies. You could make a weak case for paragraph 8 that could be blown away by the tenants testifying that they still sit on the couch and its recent use to host a Halloween dummy.
I don’t know yet what was actually said at the trial, if anything about which specific paragraph(s) of the 21 were violated by this couch being in the yard. But I would come close to betting money that not one person directly involved in this case actually made the effort to figure out if the couch was in violation of the letter of the ordinance and how. Not the complainant, not the code enforcement officer, not his boss, not Ian, not the judge.
Comment by Zeus
November 20, 2008 @ 9:12 pm
While I agree with the idea of removing government from certain of these situations I believe there are times when government intervention is needed.
The question is, how far are you willing to aggress (or have the government aggress) against those who do not share that view.
Let’s say Ian’s tenants neighbor was trying to sell their house. But debris such as couches in yards in the neighborhood were bringing the value of the house down. So Ian’s tenants neighbor can now not sell their house because they can’t afford to sell it as a lesser value. Ian’s tenant’s neighbor ask’s Ian’s tenant to remove the couch and the tenant says no. Now that neighbor has the option to call the city about it and the city can enforce the ordiance.
Or, instead of calling in the men with guns to enforce the neighbor’s will anonymously, the neighbor (an actual damaged party) could bring suit against the owner of the couch for damages and the two can arbitrate the matter on their own dime with the loser paying court costs rather than the taxpayers.
The Constitution says “WE the people”. If ONE does not consent it is ONE and not WE. The constitution words “WE the people” refers to WE and not ONE who disagrees with it.
The problem is that the people who wrote “WE the people” are all dead. The only people who might have an obligation to what they signed is the organization they created, the government. The Constitution does not tell people what to do. It explains how the government organization is organized and includes a small list of rights that the organization’s members must not transgress against. This does not mean those are the only rights people have nor does it stop these people from transgressing those rights on a daily basis.
The Constitution is really not much different than the employee handbook you get when you get a job. It explains a bunch of the rules and rights the corporation and it’s employs must follow. It is irrelevant to the unemployed, self-employed or persons working elsewhere.
Your 1st Amdendment right’s allows you to “peaceably assemble” but that doesn’t mean that ONE that does not consent makes the constitutions amendments irrelevant.
This isn’t a logical argument. The 1st Amendment simply states that persons (1 or more) may assemble peaceably without being transgressed by the government organization and its employees. It’s simply a guarantee (promise really) not to bring the smack down on groups of persons who assemble and are not violent such as protesters and block parties. Anyone in such a group may indeed decide not to “consent” and leave the assembled group. I don’t see how this holds any water.
That’s a double negative. Your saying you find value in the bill of rights….but….that holds no meaning because you weren’t alive then and all those people are dead so…..they don’t mean anything either. It’s an insult to the founding fathers and to those who sacraficed so that we could have some of the civil liberties we have today.
I personally find value in the Bill of Rights. I’m happy that at least those protections (promises) were put in place in an attempt to keep the newly created government of 1789 from transgressing against people.
Not all liberty-minded people are the same. Others believe that the Constitution is flawed as it has no teeth with which to punish those it employs who decide to ignore it (like most Congressmen) or even throw out whole chunks of it (like the current President).
That the government regularly does not obey it’s own document and has its hands in all sorts of areas that were not enumerated for it to be involved with is another problem.
I have high regard for the Founding Fathers and what they tried to do, I just don’t think they were perfect and that those who would seek to abuse others have perverted the system they created. They knew this would happen eventually and told us that when it does, people should start over.
“And what country can preserve its liberties, if it’s rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” – Thomas Jefferson
So it’s like saying…if your a law maker and once a certain generation dies off then….those laws are irrelevant. Hmmm……you must think alot of laws(some which ensure peace)need to be taken off the books then.
Considering the federal tax code today covers 17,000 pages, the federal criminal code today spans some 1,400 pages and the Federal Registry, which records all of the regulations the federal government imposes on businesses (all of which carry the force of law), now exceeds 75,000 pages, yes, I’d say there are plenty of laws on the books right now that are irrelevant and which should have had “sunset clauses” included in them.
Clause 2 of the Constitution requires that Congress must assemble AT LEAST once each year. In modern practice, Congress is in session virtually year-round. The Founding Fathers never meant for Congress to be sitting there all year long churning out new laws and regulations.
Check out dumblaws.com for some examples.
Reverting back to common law I don’t think is the answer though. Holding our current leaders accountable is. Which it appears is the case with Ian and why he was targeted in the first place. Common law is too general for todays world just like in some cases the constitution is.
And while I would agree that holding them accountable is preferable, in many cases it’s like asking a police officer to arrest himself.
Today’s world is no more complicated than it was in 1789. The Golden Rule still applies. The majority of laws on the books and being created daily is simply the work of busybodies looking to enforce someone’s will (their own or whomever bribes them the most via a lobbyist) on other people through the perceived authority of government and the police power.
I’m all for an overhaul of the system thru peaceful means. If we can do it while still agreeing to place the constitution in it’s true place as our founding document. Don’t ever forget the sacrafice our founding fathers made for liberty. But yes we do need to change the system as it is today so that money and big business do not run our government.
Certainly we can try to change the system through peaceful means. Some choose to do so politically, others choose civil disobedience. I personally recognize the sacrifices that the Founders made but it would be foolish of me to project my respect for them on the corrupt, powermongering liars that have infiltrated and perverted the organization they created.
Others in the liberty movement, particularly voluntaryists, have no such respect nor disrespect for the Founding Fathers. They simply do not recognize the authority of a group of people (government) with whom they didn’t consent or contract with to claim dominion over their lives.
This country was founded as a Republic, not a Democracy. Democracy is tyranny of the majority or “mob-rule” wherein 51% of the voters can tell not only the other 49% what to do or not do with their lives but also the 100% of non-voters as well. With democracy, someone always loses. In a society based on liberty and individual responsibility, everyone wins save those who wish to harm others.
Also thank you for the education on libertarian views. I can’t say I’m for the “Volunatarist” view but I do agree with some of the more Ron Paulish views of the political spectrum. I’ll read up on those references you told me about several posts back on libertarians.
Not a problem. I hope you find some useful information and a new perspective on the different facets of the liberty-movement.
So what’s the big deal about Keene? What is going on in this town that people feel the need to not rise when the judge walks into the courtroom?
Keene is in New Hampshire, the state chosen by the Free State Project a few years ago. The FSP’s goal is to move 20,000 pro-freedom activists to New Hampshire wherein they will work to create a society where government’s MAXIMUM role is to protect life, liberty and property.
Keene happens to be a focal point of activism and, as you can imagine, not every activist sends a positive message. Not every tactic they try is logical or successful and since the locals tend to group Freestaters together as if they all have identical beliefs, one bad apple can leave a bad taste. This is what I believe happened in Keene. Certain bureaucrats and locals got peeved at certain activists and decided to take it out on Ian and other prominent persons in the movement there.
Comment by Curt Springer
November 20, 2008 @ 9:40 pm
Zeus wrote:
Or, instead of calling in the men with guns to enforce the neighbor’s will anonymously, the neighbor (an actual damaged party) could bring suit against the owner of the couch for damages and the two can arbitrate the matter on their own dime with the loser paying court costs rather than the taxpayers.
Actually I don’t think that there is a common-law right to sue for damages based on loss of value.
It would be one thing if I damaged your property or generated a stink such that you could not go out in your yard. But as long as I am not directly harming you, I am not responsible for affecting what the public would pay for your property based on their perception of what it might be like to live next door to me. The public is fickle and there is no way to gauge what would attract them or drive them away. If I have to compensate you for keeping an ugly couch on my lawn, would I have to compensate you for having an older car or a bathtub Jesus or other visible downmarket items that could persuade yuppies that this is not the neighborhood for them?
I recall reading an article from decades ago advocating the adoption of local land use controls (zoning) in Exeter. It made the point that property values were diminished because of incompatible abutting uses, and that zoning would increase property values. I think the idea was that diminution of property values because people would pay less money for a house next to a gas station than a house next to another house was the current situation, and that only governmental controls would give a remedy.
Comment by Zeus
November 20, 2008 @ 10:02 pm
All I’m saying, Curt, is that the accuser would have to bring suit and then prove damages which is far more fair than anonymously calling in the goon squad to enforce one’s will over another, otherwise it just might get as ridiculous as you mention with swat teams raiding you for a bathtub Jesus or, oh I dunno… a moldy lawn couch?
Comment by Anton Lee
November 21, 2008 @ 6:57 am
I like your comments, and I hear where you’re coming from Curt. . .I’ve been over the same questions in my own head. What happens when someone plays music too loud, what happens when someone decides that next door will be a great place to have a pig farm, what happens when someone decides to start hunting in their yard and I can see it or hear it. All very good questions that have been answered numerous times. For this situation, I’d say step one would be to make contact with your neighbor in a friendly way if you have problems with what a neighbor does on his or her own property. Since, after all, you really don’t have any right to say what anyone does on their own property. To say otherwise would be as insane as stating that you MUST have a pig farm because the majority has decided so.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Recent Forum Posts
