FreeKeene’s Jesse Arrested for Wearing Hat
Free Staters and Free Keene Bloggers went to Milford this morning for the arraignment of recently arrested Mike Barskey. Mike was mentioned in a posting earlier this week, but his arrest is unrelated to the Keene Freedom Festival, but is for non-appearance on another non-violent driving offense. While at the arraignment, it is reported that Jesse Maloney, best known for his Keene flag burning, and Charlie, a new Keene mover, were arrested for disorderly conduct.
Jesse was inside the courtroom when he was asked to remove a cap on his head. He refused to do so, and was arrested.
Meanwhile, Charlie, not in the courtroom yet, was asking court officials about the hat rule. The following is from FreeKeene’s Dale:
Apparently he was asking them about the hat rule, was not even walking into the courtroom, was simply asking about it, then someone said “that’s assault!” out of the blue, which he was never charged with btw, so it was obvious flakey. He was ordered to take his hat off, and didn’t immediately comply but instead merely asked what the law was about hats and whether it was an order or a request, and again I remind that he has as of yet made no motion at all to enter the courtroom where the “hat rule” applies. Suddenly Charlie is being thrown up against a wall and cuffed for disorderly conduct.
Jesse and Charlie have been released with a court date set for February 25th.
The discussion continues: NHFree.com Forum
Comments
25 Comments on FreeKeene’s Jesse Arrested for Wearing Hat
I’ve got a page up on JailedActivist.info for Mike now as of last night. I’m still working on the content but it’s shareable.
http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=16995.msg284613 has some preliminary details and is a good resource until a full report is posted here.
I was going to comment on this earlier but wanted to hear Jesse’s side of things before doing so. Having heard it, I’d say this was not the hat’s fault but rather Jesse’s.
I say this because if I had an anti-hat disposition and you came into my home or place of business, you would have two choices: 1) remove the hat or 2) leave my property.
You would have these choices because I am A) reasonable and B) not going to use force on you unless you seek to harm me, take my things or you refuse to leave my property.
Government bureaucrats are NOT reasonable and look forward to using force whenever possible especially when it allows them to steal money from you for crossing them.
For all intents and purposes, the courtroom is the government’s property. Now you can argue technicalities and moralities about taxpayer money, etc. and I would likely agree, but the damnable truth is that they claim it as theirs and they have the power and violence to back up that claim.
While I agree with Jesse’s refusal to remove his hat (his own personal property on his own body), he refused to leave their property and suffered the consequences of that choice. Consequences are the downside of free will.
Based on his actions, it is my belief that he has not yet fully understood the philosophy of liberty, particularly when it comes to drawing the line from being morally justified in his actions to just being obnoxious, self-destructive and chaotic.
I’m sure he will eventually learn as he further develops as an activist, I just wish it didn’t have to always be the hard way.
It was not about the but rather obedience to authority.
Rise when told, sit when told. Remove your hat when told. Obey the law, respect the authority. All of these are methods of control and obedience.
The hat did not get you arressted. Your attitude got you arrested. It used to be commonly accepted to remove your hat in a public building. There is no law that demands you remove your hat.
If you want to act anti social that is your perogative. You expose your self to the abusers of power when you do. You suffer the consequences.
What do you hope to achieve by such behavior? The abusers of power will not back down. They will place you in a cage based on their interpretation of your anti social behavior.
With liberty comes responsibility. What reasonable and prudent man would expose himself to abuse by people with guns by his unwillingness to remove his hat in a public building. Your credibility goes out the window. How is it detrimental to the cause of a liberty based society to remove your hat in a public building. You just entrench the adversarial relationship you have with the authority you seek to discredit.
Wow, I can’t believe people are actually supporting the government on this one. The last thing we need right now is blind obedience to every government dictate. If he wanted to leave his hat on, he should leave his hat on and not follow nonsense orders from government.
Wow, I can’t believe people are actually supporting the government on this one.
This is a myopic response.
This isn’t about blind obedience or Jesse’s magic hat. This is about him being on their property and not choosing to leave it once they made known the rules for their property.
In the video, he admits that he didn’t even want to explain his side of things to anyone or pass on the philosophy of liberty, he just wanted to annoy them and exacerbate the situation. He reaped what he had been sowing.
I think maybe Jesse’s a good kid deep down inside, I just question his methods, reasoning and moral righteousness from time to time. I think he’s got a ways to go when it comes to focusing his efforts in a positive manner.
“It is not the function of our government to keep the Citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the Citizen to keep the government from falling into error.” American Communications Ass’n v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 442.
The error here is 2 fold. The man simply should not have been wearing a hat in a public building. You may disagree with the premise that a certain level of decorum must be maintained but to act otherwise invites scrutiny from others. How would he have reacted if some one other than a police officer asked him to remove his hat?
The other error is the abuse of the government actors. To escalate the encounter into an arrest for disorderly conduct is a waste of resources. Real criminals should be dealt with.
Lastly, what is the harm in removing a hat in a public building? What statement is trying to be made by anti social behavior?
Here’s some clear, rational, FACTUAL LOGIC, along with VERY relevant, as-yet unanswered Q’s?:…Having read thru all the posts on the Forum linked to above, it is unclear, given the addled-brain thinking of most of you “FreeStaters”, & like ilk, such points as: “Was Jesse in the *COURTROOM* itself, or only in the “Lobby” area at the *MOMENT* this interaction occured?” There are conflicting statements posted here…”If Jesse was Jewish, wearing a Yarmulke, would he have been also required to remove said Yarmulke?” // “If Jesse was a Muslim woman, would the rule applie to “chadouris”, & “burkahs”, & headscarves? // Also, many smaller, fringe “Christian” groups require their women-folk to cover their heads. // More legal Q?’s… If this (probably arbitrary & irrational) “rule” also applies to Jewish Yarmulkes’s,&etc., as exampled above, Jesse has less grounds to stand on. Except that the rule would then be blatantly Un-Constitutional. Which of course gives him *MORE FIRM* legal ground. Curt, we need your famous & greatly appreciated research on this one. What’s the NH Court rules on hats, etc?…Thanks for the NH RSA citation on “Disorderly Conduct”, which only applies to *PUBLIC PLACES*! Hey, in 1998, KPD charged me w/”Disorderly Conduct”, in Kangaroo/Keene Dist. Court, for the “crime” of being *HOME IN MY APARTMENT, & NOT SUICIDAL*! At the ***FARCE, & CHARADE*** sham-trial, over **3**Months! later, Hampton Howard, Atty. w/NH Public Defenders, Keene Office, pointed this out. You shoulda’ seen the dumbfounded & confused look on then-Police Persecutors’ Richard R. Richards(“dickies’-R-dicks”) face when this happened. “RRR”(“aargh-aargh-aargh) assumed that the *INCOMPETENT & CORRUPT* Howard B.Lane, jr., would grant him a “gimme”…So, you guys keep up the good work. TO YOU FEW BONEHEADS who think that all this has *ANYTHING* to do with “collecting $$$ from us”…GROW UP, GET AN ADULT BRAIN. “They”, the “System”, absolutely don’t need, or want, the money. This is ONLY ABOUT arbitrary use & enforcement of temporary power under threat of guns, violence, and cages. Curt is very correct about the Yankee “hat-removal indoors” custom, I was taught it from early childhood. Sometimes, kiddies, the best way to beat them, is to play them at their own games. Jesse should have immediately taken off his hat, then gone into the Courtroom. Unless he’s only trying to *PROVE* just how *CHILDISH* you all are. Un-necessarily provoking them only escalates the confrontation. If that’s what you really want, fine. Just know this: By fucking around playing these childish/juvenile *GAMES*, you only antagonize the “system”, and make things that much harder for all the rest of us. Thanks, assholes…~elkheart~.P.S.: Here’s a freebie, Jesse. “I was freely execising my lawful rights, and rightfully execising my lawful freedoms”. I agree, a Yankee custom *SHOULD NOT* be the basis of a Court Rule…You’re clear in my book, friend! ANARCHO-JESSE ROCKS!(the boat, again. // What, me worry? I can swim like a fish, dude!…rsvp…
It is not their property, it has been established through coercion and theft. They may reign over the property but it is as much theirs as any stolen property belongs to a thief or purchaser of stolen property.
Their claim to the property is simply illegitimate.
I say, great job Jesse. Keep showing how ridiculous the state is.
It is not their property, it has been established through coercion and theft. They may reign over the property but it is as much theirs as any stolen property belongs to a thief or purchaser of stolen property.
Their claim to the property is simply illegitimate.
I want to agree with this but I’m not sure I can. Whether or not they own the property is certainly important. But what constitutes ownership? They inhabit the land and building so it is certainly in their possession. They operate and maintain it as well.
They either had the place built or they purchased it. That it was paid for with stolen money negate all other facets of ownership or is that a separate, unrelated issue?
It must also be considered that no one has challenged them for ownership in any manner that I am aware of. That they have the force to defend the property is certainly without question.
So, unless anyone has a better logical argument, I have to arrive at the conclusion that they own the property for all intents and purposes despite it having been purchased, paid for and maintained by stolen money.
Which means Jesse had three choices to pick from:
1. Remove the hat
2, Leave.
3. Keep the hat on but do not leave.
He chose option #3.
The government had three choices as well:
1. Let him keep the hat on and stay.
2. Let him keep the hat on and leave.
3. Use force.
And of course, they too chose option #3.
So it’s still a matter of reaping what you sow AFAICT.
Comment by I don’t want to say
February 3, 2009 @ 11:45 am
It is not their property, it has been established through coercion and theft. They may reign over the property but it is as much theirs as any stolen property belongs to a thief or purchaser of stolen property.
Their claim to the property is simply illegitimate.
I say, great job Jesse. Keep showing how ridiculous the state is.
Geofalcon007 writes:
You seem to forget that the government of New HAmpshire and its political sub divisions have been established by the consent of the governed. If you do not like the rules, change them, accept them, move or act in a manner that results in not being in the spot light to suffer the cnsequences.
To make such an unfounded claim that has no basis in reality causes you a severe credibility problem. Who do you think will take you seriously when you say that the “government” does not “own” the building.
It is a “public” place as opposed to a “private place” and has a public function.
Making the claim puts the burden on you to offer evidence that supports your ascertion.
Zeus,
If he chooses number 2. To leave “their property”, where does he end up?
On the public sidewalk, which is also “their property”. What if there were no hats allowed there? The point is, the government is meant to serve and act responsibly toward citizens. Whether or not they have a legitimate claim on that building gives them no right to impose pointless restrictions.
The most harm Jesse did was making someone “offended” by his hat and lack of respect. Charging people for offending someone means you can begin outlawing anything on that premise.
Activist theater is incredibly powerful when used right. Taking it to the court itself, could be mighty as hell.
Last night’s FTL gave me an idea I’d like to share, just to see what it may be able to accomplish to promote liberty and break the court’s fragile hold on what tiny bit of legitimacy it may have left. This is an opportunity to go on the offensive, not to hunker down afraid of what some lame-brain judge could do simply because of a piece of cloth on their head.
Jesse said that it was his religious views that prevented him from following the judge’s foul orders. So how about this for an idea?
—
Free Staters get a religious leader, priest, or reasonable facsimile, adorned with very obvious vestments (maybe some wheat thins also to put on people’s tongues in the hallway in a mock communion?) blessing the hat wearing flock as they file into the courtroom.
The media attention from this could be fantastic. Sending out press releases to locals & even the big boys could perhaps get some national (maybe even international?) publicity for the Free State Project and bring even more activists and freedom loving folks to New Hampshire in addition to putting pressure on their captors to let Jesse & Charlie go free.
Dan
GeoFalcon wrote:
You seem to forget that the government of New HAmpshire and its political sub divisions have been established by the consent of the governed. If you do not like the rules, change them, accept them, move or act in a manner that results in not being in the spot light to suffer the cnsequences.
I strongly disagree that the government of NH was established by the consent of the governed. It’s a ludicrous proposition. It was established by a small minority that duped another small minority into legitimizing their authority through the process of voting, a process that is immoral and unjust. Democracy is not a good thing. It’s two wolves and a lamb deciding on what’s for dinner. In practice, this usually turns out to be lamb stew or lamb chops.
Nick wrote:
To leave “their property”, where does he end up? On the public sidewalk, which is also “their property”. What if there were no hats allowed there?
It would be the END OF THE WORLD!!! Ok, maybe not. Maybe instead, he could challenge their ownership in a more appropriate manner and venue? Okay, that’s not likely either since they run the show with their guns and violence but if indeed they DO own the sidewalk and hats weren’t allowed, they would be morally in the right even if their rules are stupid.
If they do not own the sidewalk then their rules are irrelevant and Jesse would be morally justified to stay there with his hat on.
Dan wrote:
Jesse said that it was his religious views that prevented him from following the judge’s foul orders.
He didn’t say “religious views”, he said “moral reasons”. Not at all the same.
That said, I am legally recognized by the federal government (and most state ones too) as an ordained multi-faith minister (and you can be one too!) and I think the “hat blessing scenario” is a great idea for drawing attention to the liberty philosophy.
The building is “public” property and they claim to be “serving” the public. However, we all know they believe themselves to be our masters.
Slaves obey their master. Jesse decided he didn’t want to be a slave, and made the choice to act like a free man. They could have let it slide – it’s just a fucking hat – but that would have been a threat to their entire system, so they cracked down. Including upon Charlie, who hadn’t even attempted to enter the court, but only asked questions of the Bailiffs.
Charlie and Jesse are heroic!
Anti-social behavior is assaulting someone for wearing a hat, it is the ever present threat of force, it is the rampant kidnapping over absurd reasons.
Those that can’t see the absolute ridiculousness of an individual being arrested for wearing a simple knit cap are blind to reality and fully engaged in the fiction that is the “State”.
Ian wrote:
The building is “public” property and they claim to be “serving” the public.
As you know well, Ian, government often speaks a different language than we do. It sure sounds a lot like English but often, various terms do not mean what we think they mean.
So I looked up the definition of “public” in my English to Bullshit Legalese dictionary and here’s what it says:
PUBLIC – By the term “the public”, is meant the whole body politic, or all the citizens of the state; sometimes it signifies the inhabitants of a particular place; as, the New York public.
A distinction has been made between the terms “public” and “general”, they are sometimes used as synonymous. The former term is applied strictly to that which concerns all the citizens and every member of the state; while the latter includes a lesser, though still a large portion of the community.
When the public interests and its rights conflict with those of an individual, the latter must yield. if, for example, a road is required for public convenience, and in its course it passes on the ground occupied by a house, the latter must be torn down, however valuable it may be to the owner.(bolded for super bullshit!) In such a case both law and justice require that the owner shall be fully indemnified. (how nice of them!)
Obviously, by this definition, the government is deluded and insane. First, it believes “the public” has rights. We all know that only individuals have rights. Second, it claims that this “public”‘s rights are more important that an individual’s rights. Third, the government believes it has the moral authority to knock your shit down because it’s convenient for “the public” so long as you are “indemnified”.
This certainly proves they are out of their goddamn minds.
However, we all know they believe themselves to be our masters.
Based on previous experience and the research above, you ain’t just whistlin’ Dixie, Bub.
Slaves obey their master. Jesse decided he didn’t want to be a slave, and made the choice to act like a free man. They could have let it slide – it’s just a fucking hat – but that would have been a threat to their entire system, so they cracked down.
I’m still not sure I can agree with this. Cracking down is what government does. Of course they aren’t going to let it slide. That’s not how they function. Haven’t we all learned this yet? And if not, how many activists need to be sacrificed to their depredations before it’s a given truth?
Jesse may be a lot of things but he’s NOT stupid. He KNOWS what government is and how it operates. If he didn’t want conflict, he could have either taken off the hat or, better yet, simply left and still kept his hat on.
Refusing to leave AND refusing to take off the hat brought about the obvious consequences. It’s like saying to a vampire “Here’s my naked exposed neck. I triple-dog dare you to bite me!”.
What exactly does Jesse’s arrest going to do to help the case of Liberty? What is the goal here?
It seems like some of you want to keep proving the same thing we already know: that government is inherently corrupt and violent.
How many times does it need to be proven? Until someone like Charlie has his arm broken? Or maybe it’ll be proven when they finally kill someone?
quoted from zues: he refused to leave their property and suffered the consequences of that choice.
Zues, I disagree with this statement you made above. he refused to leave their property? So the judge paid for the land and the building and has his name on the title. Last I checked, it’s everyone’s property.
Great job Jesse, Thanks for infringing upon my rights of life, liberty and property. You hat has cause me and everyone around so much irreparable damage against my individual liberties. Your hat is hurting everything that is Patriotic. We can’t have atrocities such as that hat free to roam the streets and terrorize the citizens of this great country. It’s a good thing the police stepped in and used their violent force against you and stopped your hat from further infringing upon mine and everyone elses rights. I can sleep easier tonight knowing that the wearer of hats are behind bars.
(keep up the good work Jesse, don’t let them get you down.)
So the judge paid for the land and the building and has his name on the title. Last I checked, it’s everyone’s property.
Did you actually check? Something tells me you didn’t.
Likely, the title is claimed by the city. The city is a corporation. The corporation (a collective of individuals) can designate any of its employees to act on its behalf. So if some senior officer of the corporation decides hats aren’t allowed, it is the duty of all employees to enforce those rules. In this instance, it is no different than Wal-Mart’s in-store policies.
I do not like government anymore than you do but I do not believe the liberty movement should just be a mirror image of them. Small-minded, undisciplined and immoral.
Either the Philosophy of Liberty is a system for living one’s life in a voluntary and moral fashion or it is not. It is a science of mind with rules and boundaries beyond “Them is bad! Me hate bad!”.
It is supposed to be a thinking person’s philosophy. That is why I question everything. Blaming government at every instance just because it’s government is no different than blaming an entire race of people in every instance because “it’s them darn purple people again and you know how they are!”.
Just because one says they support liberty doesn’t mean every action they take in support of it is just and moral.
I think Jesse’s efforts would have been better spent on some other tactic.
Charlie is a different story. All reports indicate he was just asking a question and they jumped him. That makes them unjust and immoral. That makes the bad people.
Like government, wolves, bears and sharks are dangerous creatures that could maim or kill you in a heartbeat. That doesn’t mean every action they take is wicked and evil. It also means you should be damn careful when taunting them because they’ll probably bite your face off.
Maybe I’m the only one who knows what the hell I’m talking about. It is so clear in my mind that there are processes for determining whether one is doing something moral or immoral, just or unjust in just about any situation. I can’t understand how others can’t see it. Or maybe they choose not to. Maybe they just don’t think about it much at all beyond “Me good. Them bad.”
ZEUS: You said above that you’re an ordained minister. “Clergy”, at least of some sort, right? Universal Life Church, by any chance? I’m an ordained Minister, title of “Reverend”,(Rev.), and also a practicing Buddhist, for what that’s worth. As for bitchcunt C. Geoergina, she was recently quoted in the Sentinel as saying that the best thing about Keene’s “Skate Cage”, – um, I mean “park”, was that it keeps the children off of commercial properties. Which seem to open & then close up like mushrooms after a rain…So, for her to assert that Keene ordinances trump the FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, well that’s just more verbal feces from a 2-faced, double anused been too long in the tooth & saddle old crone…&one who has no real Cristian compassion for the PEOPLE of KEENE…please say more about your ordination, & church, or whatever, Zeus. Jesse: St. James thrift shop has great suit jackets for only a few $$$…you’ll look sharper, & be taken more seriously wearing one…& get a yarmulke, OK???…~e~…
ULC is correct, Elkheart. I’ve been ordained since 2004, also under the title of “Reverend” whenever performing rites and services (which isn’t all that often these days).
Besides being small-”l” libertarian, I dabble in neo-Buddhist philosophy and am a Transhumanist.
My personal theological beliefs are along the lines of Deism (or maybe Pandeism) which I believe is the same for Ian and Mark of FTL.
I would describe my religious philosophy as “positive/non-committal”. That’s a fancy way of saying “Listen up, you alleged Messiahs. I don’t know what the truth is about life after death or who’s the real deal but whatever the truth is, I’m down with that whatever it may be. Just don’t send me to hell or some other unpleasant post-existence existence.”
It keeps things simple, easy and covers all the bases. In case they’re all full of crap, that’s where the Transhumanism comes in. 
ZEUS: Thank-you for the reply. It is a bitter-sweet irony. I just logged on here to write what I’m gonna write, anyway, but then I saw your post above, so I’m adding this bit, first. Otherwise, I’d have written much less!…And I’m saying here, to you all, as in *ALL OF YOU WHO EVER WERE, HAVE, or WILL, READ “freekeene.com”, ((especially (scumdogputaslike/eliphisher)…one last parting shot across the bow, boy…)),what I’m saying here. One word. Simple. Final. That word?…->::::<-elkheart. 16/9+7
“Never give up.” – HH Dalai Lama.
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!
Want to discuss rather than just comment? Visit the Free Keene Forum.
Supporters of FK
Recent Forum Topics- Keene City Council Contact Info February 8, 2012
- Pledged Free-stater heading to "The Shire" later this year February 8, 2012
- FBI is watching February 7, 2012
- New February 7, 2012
- Free Minds Radio 02/05/2012 February 5, 2012
- HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 5, 2012
- Marijuana decrim bills up for vote February 5, 2012
- Episode 35 - Anarch-Elitism February 5, 2012
- HB 1533 -- fines for hurting legislators' feelings February 4, 2012
- HB 1494 -- "Your papers, please" February 4, 2012
- Recent Forum Posts
- Re: Keene City Council Contact Info February 9, 2012
- Re: What I wrote to the Chief of Police in town of Weare February 9, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 9, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 9, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 8, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam and New angle on trolling? Hmm. February 8, 2012
- Re: Bearcat petition at city council meeting February 8, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 8, 2012
- Re: Keene City Council Contact Info February 8, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam and New angle on trolling? Hmm. February 8, 2012