Andrew Carroll Trial – Complete Video

May 2, 2009 by Nick Ryder
Filed under: News, Video

This is the complete video of Andrew Carroll’s trial, and all the constitutional arguments he attempted to make and which were rejected time and time again. All 56 long minutes of it. A more edited video of all the days events will also be available within the next day.

While it is embedded below, I would suggest following the link to the actual video to watch in higher quality on youtube.

Comments

25 Comments on Andrew Carroll Trial – Complete Video

Anon on Sat, 2nd May 2009 4:39 am

You can embed hq youtube videos by adding &ap=%2526fmt%3D18 to the url

Sam's Dad on Sat, 2nd May 2009 9:18 am

Jail time for a first offender? Something is wrong with this picture. There are other options Judge Burke could have used such as probation.

Dan Steward on Sat, 2nd May 2009 9:43 am

Its all about stifling dissent when you cage a man that has made no secret of the fact that he simply doesn’t smoke the stuff.

Dan

Zeus on Sat, 2nd May 2009 9:53 am

When Ian had mentioned Andrew was unable to proffer any of his Constitutional arguments, I was a bit incensed but now that I see the trial, I have a different perspective.

While I agree that Andrew’s victimless “crime” of possessing a plant is absurd, I also recognize that his aggressors have a procedure for bestowing their unjust punishment upon him.

It’s a coercive, unjust and immoral process but that’s a given. This is how they operate.

And what they did was this:

1. Establish that marijuana is contraband i.e. that the legislature (their masters) forbids possession of it.

2. Establish that Andrew was in possession of the contraband i.e. broke their rule.

3. Demand he pay a ransom to remain free OR become a temporary slave until he has expended the value of the ransom through his involuntary labor.

They justify what they do solely by determining whether or not you violated their rules, not whether the rule is moral or immoral. Constitutional arguments are considered irrelevant in determining this.

To sum up, the formula is thus:

(Prohibited = Yes) + (Guilty = Yes) = Punishment.

Morality never enters the equation.

I think we would all be better served in combating the system by better comprehending it. Refusing to recognize a barbarian’s club does not prevent it from clobbering you over the head. You need a shield or some armor. A strategy for dodging the club would also be useful.

To that end, here are some standard legal objections that may be useful in the future:

http://tinyurl.com/trialobjections

Andrew may not know the procedures of their system (nor should he have to) but I think he better understands its purpose now. He did the best he could under the circumstances and deserves kudos for being brave enough to attempt the challenge.

I was honestly impressed by Burke’s calm demeanor and the amount of assistance he offered Andrew in his own defense (usually they yell at you and pretty much tell you you’re effed since you don’t have a lawyer) but I suppose that’s like being impressed by a murderer who uses poison rather than dismemberment on his victims. It’s less bloody but it’s still murder.

Larry The Dwarf on Sat, 2nd May 2009 11:29 am

The amount of stolen money required to prepare for and hold this trial must have been enormous. I’m guessing several thousand dollars. Absurd…

Josh on Sat, 2nd May 2009 12:34 pm

Well done, Andrew. Obviously hindsight is always 20/20, but under the circumstances, I think you did incredibly well.

Iain on Sat, 2nd May 2009 4:10 pm

I was cringing the whole time thinking ok what would “I” say next… only to draw a blank and have my heart skip a beat.

Kudos Andrew. You inspire me with your bravery.

scrouge on Sat, 2nd May 2009 4:50 pm

The more money that is used the better in the minds of the bureaucrats, you see the money that is used goes to the cronies of the system. This is the very purpose of the system, to funnel money from the people to the cronies.

charley hardman on Sat, 2nd May 2009 11:15 pm

fifteen minutes into the vid, it’s only more of the usual FreeKeene “let’s shoot ourselves in the foot” routine. there was no one to advise andrew on the minimal basics of witness examination? he couldn’t read a nolo press book? of course his questions on cross are going to be objected to and properly swatted down by the goon chief, because cross-examination is to cover only material arising from direct. yes, this is a tyrannical proceeding, but that part is sensible, and easily routed around by simply recalling the “expert” as andrew’s witness (with some mines to be sidestepped). and he begins with an objection based on rules for a different court? c’mon. pro se is doable, but not like this.

i bear in mind while watching the vid that — whatever the underlying insanity of the state — the kidnapping was timed by andrew. his atrocious legal preparation tends merely to continue the FreeKeene image of stabbing insensibly at the tyrants’ baloney, claiming on one hand that the rules are BS, while also attempting to use them absent even mild prep. the FK collective fails again, stumbling and stuttering while leading with its chin. all you people up there and this is the best you can muster? incompetence.

Paul on Sun, 3rd May 2009 2:19 am

Outstanding job Andrew! Very well done.

Charley, the point was not to win at trial, but to communicate a number of important ideas to a captive audience. I wonder how you have time to post here, with all the outstanding civil disobedience actions you must be participating in, and subsequent trials, in which all witnesses of your brilliant intellect immediately repent and join the cause of liberty, and judges are forced to release you lest they be required to stand too long in the heat of your blazing mind.

Indeed, I eagerly await the videos of these excellent civil disobediences and trials of yours.

charley hardman on Sun, 3rd May 2009 3:50 am

Charley, the point was not to win at trial, but to communicate a number of important ideas to a captive audience.

“captive audience”? ugh. that lunacy aside, communication of any ideas suffered in the extreme because he didn’t know when and how to incorporate them at trial. straight out of the gate he invited all participants to treat him as a groping screwup — on a specific action he planned and initiated (i say “specific” because, of course, the state initiates the action generally). you’re yammering the false dilemma fallacy so common on this site, with an abundant side of straw man (i.e., given that i don’t think there’s a chance in hell he would have prevailed on the “verdict”, i would not have and did not argue that he could have “won” or should have tailored his strategy to that end).

I wonder how you have time to post here, with all the outstanding civil disobedience actions you must be participating in, and subsequent trials, in which all witnesses of your brilliant intellect immediately repent and join the cause of liberty, and judges are forced to release you lest they be required to stand too long in the heat of your blazing mind.

is that dreck intended as a refutation of something i argued? if so, reformat it less the sarcasm cowardice.

Indeed, I eagerly await the videos of these excellent civil disobediences and trials of yours.

same again. begin by stowing the BS term “civil disobedience”.

Zeus on Sun, 3rd May 2009 5:33 am

Paul makes a solid point, Charley. What have you done to advocate and promote liberty?

I’m pretty sure trashing on Ian, Free Keene and now Andrew doesn’t exactly count.

Are you sure you’re not a troll? You should see if they’re hiring. I bet you’d be a cinch to get the job.

Paul on Sun, 3rd May 2009 7:19 am

Charley: Muah mah huah nuah muah … I don’t make efforts of my own, instead I critcize others who do. I armchair Monday quarterback the performance of others in situations I have never been in …. huah muah …

Thing is Charley, even if I didn’t think Andrew did a very good job, which I do, I am 100% certain that in just that hour he already made many, many times the positive difference that you will with an entire lifetime of online criticisms.

Get back to me when you’re going to actually do something, or at least when you have a specific recommended action instead of blanket criticisms … until then, one doer like Andrew is worth about a million online wannabes like yourself. You sound something like an unathletic online football fan trashing his quarterback’s decision-making the past Sunday, and you have about the same impact on the game, and garner the same interest from me: none.

Do something yourself, encourage those who do something, help facilitate the actions of others, or at least come up with positive specific suggestions. Otherwise, I’d say get the hell out of the way. Your blanket negativism sounds like useless noise to me …

EdanMilner on Sun, 3rd May 2009 5:08 pm

What I keep thinking is, Why just Andrew? Why not have a hundred people with a handful of marijuana? Why not a thousand? Why not one day where everyone, nationwide, who believes that marijuana laws are nonsense stand out on the corner with a handful?

While I am sympathetic to a lot of the FK causes, I have said it before and I’ll say it again: What is it you want? Maybe some internal organization is a place to start.

(And I’m not trolling. These are, I believe, legitimate questions that I have posted here before and also have asked of several FreeKeeners to their faces.)

P.S. For goodness’ sake, tell Sam to eat.

Ian on Sun, 3rd May 2009 6:44 pm

Hi Edan, perhaps you should organize that! I think it’s a great idea.

Paul on Sun, 3rd May 2009 10:07 pm

Edan,

I can tell you’re not trolling , and I think yours is a great idea. I wish more people would do the kind of peaceful civil disobedience Andrew is, on a number of topics, not just pot. If you’re wondering why more are currently not, even liberty activists, I think it’s because it can be a big sacrifice, especially for those with jobs and families.

Also, people have different motivations. Some like to work inside the system, politically, and others like to protest and educate without breaking the law. Still others do participate in civil disobedience, but do so on other topics — like video recording — because it’s more interesting to them.

I can’t speak for others, but my goal is to increase the amount of personal and economic liberty people have in their lives. I believe people should be able to make their own choices with their lives and finances, as long as they do not harm others. Basically, I believe I don’t own other people, so I have no business infringing on their lives or property, as long as they don’t infringe on mine.

I believe deeply in charity, for example, and believe it is morally right to volunteer and donate. However, I think it’s wrong to force someone to do so. Similarly, I personally oppose the use of most currently illegal drugs, including marijuana, but believe it is wrong to force someone to abstain.

Regards,
Paul

charley hardman on Mon, 4th May 2009 3:55 am

i noted that andrew’s legal preparation for an incident he timed specifically (again, not generally), and which was publicized semi-heavily by the FK crowd, sucked. i gave an example of how his apparent intent could have been better served by understanding the most elementary and sensible of court practices.

the rebuttal (after whittling away the red herring drivel deception attempts): no, you suck, charley.

perhaps either of you can explain, seriously (i.e., not sarcastically), how what i have done or not done anywhere is relevant to what i asserted.

to elucidate the inanity of your multiple false premises (i.e., that before the subject of this blog post is criticized negatively i must present a record that meets some arbitrary yet undisclosed standard — this is the fun part — a standard i have supposedly not met regardless), simply assume, as appears to have already been done, that i am the equivalent of your average statist. assume that and roll with it — logically, however.

in this context the only logical reason for comparing what someone else has done or could do regarding a similar situation is to outline the feasible. for example, would it have been unfeasible for andrew to have better met his goals? no. i explained how he could have increased greatly the chances of meeting his goals. someone older and more knowledgeable locally should have diverted some of that PR effort to advising this young guy before he donned his bib to dine on the cowcatcher of a freight train o’ intractable dunces, with his fizzle posted on YouTube for the aware to see nothing notable and the statists to scoff at and write off. i assert that it’s possible that the net result of this project was negative for liberty. you don’t know. i don’t know.

it appears from watching the fallacy parade here that some ludicrous rules are set in stone for your FK fanatic program:

1) if one avows publicly and noisily enough that he adheres to the principles of liberty, it’s impossible for him to have screwed the pooch somewhere — especially during an “action”. (this rule may be known informally as the heart-in-right place sanctimony doctrine.)

2) pursuant to rule 1, negative criticism of an FK “activist” is an absurdity, and therefore disallowed.

3) rule 2 must not be acknowledged in practice.

4) rules 2 and 3 may coexist by ignoring/declaiming all negative criticism, and changing the subject to the critic’s history, using
a) outlandish, unanswerable sarcasm,
b) implied or explicit assertions — all unfounded — that the critic is “unprincipled”, inexperienced, lazy, only on the internet, “negative”, a “troll”, not worthy of posting here, etc.

5) above all, cherish the false dilemma; assign two choices and imply or assert that there is no other. for example, the critic may either use the internet or engage in activities acceptable to his opponent. the concept that both are possible must not enter the argument. the negative critic is here doubly damned because merely by being a negative critic of FK he is a traitor to liberty, for…

6) because FK “activists” embody the principles of liberty, one may not without being a traitor to liberty criticize the actions of an FK “activist”.

that’s just the beginner FK cultist handbook. following those simple rules allows the easy quick plummeting of any forum attempt to rationally assess either the action of an FKer, or the FK mind set that noodged this kid into an embarrassing event he obviously wasn’t ready for, the payoff for which is apparently whatever dreck you want to fantasize.

for his age and experience, andrew’s performance in court was, at least, well above average. for the task in front of him, however, it was abysmal. given the hoopla before he stepped into that timed mess, he should have been helped far more than he obviously was. for all the supposed power of the FK collective, this may on the balance be more “look at those annoying FreeStaters idjits” fodder.

the future of any supposed liberty group overtaken with the “do not criticize” collectivist approach shown here consistently is almost as easily foretold as that of one with the FSP’s contradictory principles. observers, note.

Ian on Mon, 4th May 2009 6:26 am

Just because you’re called a troll, doesn’t mean that critique is disallowed here. Get real. These comments accept anonymous submissions.

charley hardman on Mon, 4th May 2009 6:47 am

Just because you’re called a troll, doesn’t mean that critique is disallowed here.

ian, i’m hoping you’re not pretending there to respond to a comment of mine.

Zeus on Mon, 4th May 2009 9:59 am

Critiquing an activist is one thing, being a total douchebag about it is another.

Sometimes activists have to learn the hard way what the state is and how it works. Andrew was not going to win this trial regardless of what he did or said. He was testing the boundaries, which he has every right to do.

If you don’t like how he handled it and think you can do better, then you show us how it’s done instead of making asinine comments.

Otherwise, go FK yourself.

Paul on Mon, 4th May 2009 10:06 am

Charley: As I said before, I don’t care. If you think the performance of a specific activist could be improved for a specific upcoming hearing, by following a specific, constructive suggestion you have, I think it’d be great to hear.

Your broad negativism about past actions serves no purpose. Whatever your opinion is, it does not change reality, any more than Joe Coltfan’s broad negativism on a Monday morning message board changes Peyton Manning’s performance. It would be a waste of time to bother convincing you to change it.

Now, if you’ve got a great play drawn up that you want to try next Sunday, especially one you’re willing to help implement yourself, that could be helpful. I’m guessing you don’t have one, however, because I do think you’re just a troll. I do hope you prove me wrong, and come up with something constructive, or at least encourage those activists with whom you do agree.

If you only like to work inside the system, for example, go do that, and stop wasting your time here. You’ll be far more successful building up the actions of which you approve, than tearing down those of which you don’t approve.

As they say, lead, follow, or get out of the way. If you’ve got great ideas you think will work, then lead. You’re not leading now — right now you’re the little kid at the back kicking dust at the heels of the people in front of him, and whining.

charley hardman on Tue, 5th May 2009 10:39 pm

Andrew was not going to win this trial regardless of what he did or said. He was testing the boundaries, which he has every right to do.

If you don’t like how he handled it and think you can do better, then you show us how it’s done instead of making asinine comments.

that you apparently find such drivel responsive tells all. my first comment here gave one of the best tips andrew’s likely to hear if he represents himself in court again. you’re too busy being offended to notice. your problem. that i know this information should give you a clue that it’s wiser to not argue from ignorance (yet again).

If you think the performance of a specific activist could be improved for a specific upcoming hearing, by following a specific, constructive suggestion you have, I think it’d be great to hear.

obviously, that is a lie.

Your broad negativism about past actions serves no purpose.

and yet you assert elsewhere that past actions are instructive. what’s really going on here is that you do not like me, so ignore my instructive comments (better advice when andrew’s apparently surrounded by clueless backslappers) and extol the horrid performance of andrew. that’s “constructive”? my ass.

as with zeus, you need to learn to read without your idiocy getting in the way.

I’m guessing you don’t have one, however, because I do think you’re just a troll.

never argue from ignorance. i say again.

You’re not leading now — right now you’re the little kid at the back kicking dust at the heels of the people in front of him, and whining.

do you never tire of your imbecilic false dilemma and other fallacies? are you really so stupid, or is it an act?

Zeus on Wed, 6th May 2009 1:32 am

Your mother said what?

Paul on Wed, 6th May 2009 2:32 am

Charley,

I don’t even know you apart from your posts here, so how could I be biased against you? I am glad you linked to the other page, where I responded relatively favorably to one of jzacker’s suggestions. You know what? I don’t know him either, apart from his posts here. So, what do you think the difference is? Do you think I like the look of his name more than yours or something?

It’s just this: jzacker was not enthused by Andrew’s performance either, but he had specific, potentially useful suggestions about a future trial. I disagreed with two of them, and agreed with the other. Your purpose, by contrast, appears to be discouragement, rather than useful, specific suggestion.

Remember, I know nothing about either of you apart from your posts, yet I am convinced jzacker wants these efforts to succeed, and you do not. Why do you think that would be?

Your comments on this thread have been caustic, broadly negative, and personally antagonistic from the start. You repeatedly broadly disparage the entire FK effort. The obvious intended effect of your posts is to tear down, not improve.

So I say again, if you think outside of the system activism in general, or freekeene specifically, is fundamentally flawed, and will never work, please find or start a movement which you believe would be effective, and stop wasting your time here. No one’s going to stop doing what they believe in because you insult them.

Or, if you think freekeene could be effective, if a couple of suggestions are adopted, make these suggestions in a way which is not destructive and antagonistic, but rather at constructive, as jzacker did. No one is going to adopt a suggestion from a person who antagonizes them, and broadly disparages their efforts. If it is your goal to see specific suggestions implemented, you are not communicating effectively.

Finally, if you are a troll, I suppose you will keep going as you are, with insults and broad negativism. I would not waste my time responding at all except that I hope you do actually believe in liberty. I am hoping, for example, that you start a great new inside the system activist movement for liberty, or perhaps an outside the system movement more to your liking. There are probably at least a few members of the NH liberty alliance, for example, who do not support andrew’s civil disobedience. Yet, they’re doing something positive — fighting for liberty in a way they believe in, rather than wasting their time trying to tear down every effort they don’t believe in.

I don’t believe seasteading is realistic, for example, but I don’t hang out on their boards dissing everything they do. I let them go at it, and pursue my own interests — who knows, one day they may succeed after all. Or, if I thought their efforts could succeed, with a couple adjustments, I would make these specific suggestions in a positive way, in order to maximize the chances that they would be adopted.

No matter what your goal is, I do not think it is being accomplished at all effectively by your tack here.