Action Attempted Against Freedom Festival Organizer

January 29, 2009 by Nick Ryder
Filed under: Freedom Fest, Thuggery

Mike Barskey, the organizer of Keene’s Spring Freedom Festival, reports that he was recently approached by law enforcement in his hometown of Derry, NH. The officer dropped a piece of paper in his car, saying it “was a “complaint” from Keene PD regarding not having a permit for assembly.” The City of Keene recently dropped charges against FreeKeene’s Toby and Ian for the same offense of “Assembly without a permit.” They are now moving against who they deem to be the actual organizer of this constitutionally protected event.

ACCORDING TO THIS COMPLAINT, Barskey is accused of being in violation with the following Keene Ordinance

ARTICLE XI. OUTDOOR EVENTS*

__________
*Cross references: Environment, ch. 38.
State law references: Open-air meetings, RSA 286:2 et seq.; shows, carnivals, RSA 321-A:1 et seq.

__________

DIVISION 1. GENERALLY

Sec. 46-621. Description.
Outdoor periodic events shall include athletic exhibitions, public dances, circuses, carnivals, live performances, exhibitions, promotional activities and any similar periodic activity open and available to the public which is conducted outdoors. For the purposes of this article, “promotional activities” shall not include promotional sales activities which are held at the normal place of business of the sponsor unless they are activities of a type that involve exhibitions, public dances, circuses, carnivals, live performances and other activities of a similar type which do not relate directly to the sale of the product of the business.
(Code 1970, § 1814.0)
Secs. 46-622–46-640. Reserved.

DIVISION 2. LICENSE

Sec. 46-641. Required.
Any person who wishes to have an outdoor event as described in section 46-621 shall obtain a license from the city clerk.

Sec. 46-642. Fee.
The fee for a license granted under this division shall be as set forth in the schedule of fees in appendix B to this Code for the duration as specified on the license for activities of a commercial nature. However, no fee shall be required for activities conducted by charitable organizations, by governmental agencies, by neighborhood groups, or by religious organizations, unless such activity is generally considered to be a commercial enterprise.
(Code 1970, § 1814.0)
Secs. 46-643–46-670. Reserved.

While deciding whether Mike deserves this harassment or not, I encourage readers of this blog to consider not whether Mike has broken the letter of the rule, but who the rules are meant to serve. While ordinances often have good intentions behind them, only innocent people have been caught up in them this time. Freedom Festival was held on public, taxpayer owned land. Requiring additional work and money to get a license to use the land serves nobody but the City. When the government ceases to serve the people, and only itself, it deserves resistance.

Mike’s appearance date is set for the same day as activist Andrew Carroll’s. Stay on Freekeene.com for updates as that date arrives.

Comments

11 Comments on Action Attempted Against Freedom Festival Organizer

Dan Steward on Thu, 29th Jan 2009 11:49 pm

These guys just won’t quit. They’re like the pit bull that chases after buicks. Problem for them is that they sunk their teeth into the back bumper.

Now the big bad doggie is thinking “what now?” as he gets dragged through the avenue. From the outside (like 1000+ miled from Keene) looking in, I’ve noticed a pattern of local gov’t picking at Free-Staters. They want to hammer somebody on every little thing.

I suspect that these locals are getting their marching orders from somewhere else (I hope I’m wrong about the source of their headaches though) and that they are trying to wear them down. I really don’t think that Keene’s police & politicos are that well set up.

I think it’s instead fraction foods…nope
Flaking files…naw
Freaking fjords…hardly
Oh, I got it…fucking feds! Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Dan

Curt Springer on Fri, 30th Jan 2009 1:21 am

This is ridiculous. I hope Mike will show up with a lawyer. That will put them all on the defensive.

Mike on Fri, 30th Jan 2009 10:20 am

To be a little more blunt than the original post, since I harmed or threatened no one and damaged or stole no property, hence there is no one to pay restitution to (indeed, there is no restitution to pay!), the only purpose of the govt’s pursuing the “violation” of some words on paper is to extract money from me.

Ian on Fri, 30th Jan 2009 2:51 pm

That’s not the only purpose, Mike. In fact, their “higher” purpose is to extract obedience from you. Without obedience, their illusion of legitimacy crumbles.

Mike on Fri, 30th Jan 2009 3:10 pm

Good point. I guess I could generalize a bit and say the govt’s only purpose is to maintain control (by threatening violence, by demanding obedience, by stealing our money, etc.).

Patrick on Fri, 30th Jan 2009 7:41 pm

While I agree that you should not have to obtain a permit to peacefully assemble in a public area, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. Cox v. New Hampshire comes to mind (the Jehova’s Witnesses were marching, not staying in one place. But if you read the decision, I think you will find it relevant.) If you plan on contesting the charges, more power to you… But you’re going to lose.

geofalon007 on Fri, 30th Jan 2009 8:22 pm

Does this document called a “complaint” meet the legal standard of a summons to court? When was it issued? Does the law provide for them to give this to you in person the day of the offense? Is it a criminal complaint that is a misdemeanor? It does not appear to follow any type of due process and appears to benefit the city and it appears to compel an action of a court appearence without being a legal summons. Isn’t a summons the document that compels compliance? Isn’t the complaint the document that moves the court to find for a summons to be issued?

Josh on Sat, 31st Jan 2009 5:18 pm

Mike and Andrew at the same court on the same day. I hope everyone charges up their camera batteries!

elkheart179 on Sun, 1st Feb 2009 6:17 pm

Idiot. What is the point of asking readers to “consider not whether he has violated the letter of the rule, but rather who the rule serves”…???…What the fuck is *YOUR* mental problem, dude? It’s clear that the so-called “Freedom Fest” ***DOES NOT MEET*** *ANY* definition of prohibited acts. At least not that has been shown. Maybe you should reduce your dose of *freedom weed*…your cognitive capability seems to be slipping into irrational paranoia. You’re as bad as Eli-the-Liar Rivera thinking that exercising one’s FEDERAL, CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS of speech and assembly somehow constitutes “criminal liability for the conduct of another”….get yur head outa’ yur ass, dude…RSVP…~elkheart~P.S.: You’re correct, Curt, he needs a lawyer, & a good psycho-therapist…

Jake Witmer on Mon, 2nd Feb 2009 6:29 am

Take control of the courthouses, always video everything.

Google vids and sites that can help with the law

sites
google: “The Maginificent Deception”
Marc Stevens
“Adventures in Legal Land” this is a book and a website
Kenny Wayne

Also: bring a list of wellover 100 voir dire questions to any trial. Make them relevant to the constitution, history, your situation, etc…

Focus on jury rights. Post your videos to youtube.

Keep on fighting! Staystrong,

-Jake

dalebert on Thu, 23rd Apr 2009 7:27 am

It blows my mind that the police pursuing this do not see the irony in the idea that we are expected to request permission to talk about freedom, i.e. a Freedom Festival.

Post your comment below. Login in the far right column to get rid of CAPTCHA. If you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!