Sam Dodson Calls Free Minds Radio from Jail

May 10, 2009 by toby
Filed under: Audio, Free Minds Radio, Obscured Truth Network

Sam Sam Dodson, who was arrested last month for videotaping in the Keene District Court’s lobby and is being held indefinitely for refusing to give his full legal name, called into Free Minds Radio for the first two segments of the May 10th show. Sam updates listeners on where his case (or lack of) stands and what people can do to help his cause.

Download the audio

Log onto FreeMindsRadio.com for the full episode.

http://libertyactivism.info bile

I'm collecting all the information regarding the situation at http://jailedactivist.info

http://freesamdodson.com is more of a portal.
Anonymous

haha he wont give his full name.

Hmm and we all sit and bitch about him being held indefinately….I wonder why….haha stupid hippies.
http://ringingliberty.com Paul

Apparently the punishment for simple non-cooperation with the government is now life in prison without a trial, and apparently Mr Anonymous is ok with it. He's such a good little serf.

So much for the right to remain silent, and so much for the punishment fitting the crime …
Jeff

Here's some information that people might find useful.

The amount of time it takes to starve to death is quite variable. It depends on the person's physical shape (read: fat) and how much physical exertion and stress they experience.

A generalized, average figure is taken to be three weeks.

If the minimum calories needed to survive is 2000 (also variable), and if Sam is drinking 1/2 pint of milk 3x a day (150 calories per serving), then a rough calculation indicates that he will survive 28 days, on average.

I had always thought that the starvation time is much more, around 6 weeks. That figure tracks well with Sam having lost 20 lbs. Assuming that he's about 150 lbs from the photo, we might assume that he would lose 40-50 lbs before death from starvation. Roughly, average-sized men tend to die at the 100 lb weight point due to starvation.

So if Sam continues on his current course of action we can expect him to die from starvation fairly soon, with about a 50% probability in the next week and rising to near certainty about 4 weeks from now.

There's lots of interesting info about the effects of starvation and semi-starvation on the net. Here's one study:

http://www.possibility.com/wiki/index.php?title=E…
babalugatz

Oh stop, already , with the ''starving to death''

This isn't some shithole, 3rd world country.

He'll have medical attention & an i.v., long before he gets anywhere near death.

Enough w/ the dramatics. Also, why the fuck was it SO important for this guy to be filming a court lobby??

What's next…..the restrooms??

Fighting for the right to film courtroom proceedings is one thing….this is moronics-in-motion.
http://ringingliberty.com Paul

At this point it's more about due process than anything, Baba. Sam is supposed to have the right to remain silent, and the right to a speedy trial. Life in prison is not a just punishment for refusing to participate in the system. Judge Burke is using the threat of indefinite imprisonment to force capitulation, which is both immoral and illegal.

Also, the court lobby is a public area, and there was no one there who objected to being filmed. There are many ways to protect sensitive witnesses, and you can bet they would not bring them through the public lobby anyway, but through the back. The camera rules have nothing to do with privacy, and everything to do with preventing sunshine into court practices (the rule was only added after Mr. Burke was embarassed on youtube).

I do think Jeff's prediction is overly dire, or at least I certainly hope it is. Sam seems relatively ok so far. Let's hope this ends as soon as possible though, and Sam is freed, or at least tried. They know his real name anyway, and even if they did not, people are tried as John Doe all the time. Unfortunately Mr. Burke is on a power trip.
Zeus

The "fuck of why" is irrelevant. He wasn't harming anyone and he was filming in a PUBLIC area because the judge refused to obey state law and allow anyone to film the court proceedings.

Either they should stop calling it a "public" area or obey their own law and let him film.

Instead, they've thrown him into a feces-ridden cage until he tells them what they already know. It's important to them that he be broken and forced to tell them out of his own mouth. That way, he learns how to submit and obey them. And they're willing to let him rot until he breaks. They like it when their victims cower like mice before their violence and coercion. It makes them feel powerful. It's their drug of choice because it feeds their egos. And they will stop at nothing to show you how powerful they are.

All this for doing what the law says he can do anyway.
http://speakoutdanville.org/bbs Curt Springer

Zeus,

I agree that it is ridiculous to hold him without trial because he won't give his name when they know perfectly well who he is.

But it's just not so black and white as you put it that the "judge refused to obey state law and allow anyone to film court proceedings."

My understanding is that the NH judicial system is exempt from NH's right to know law (RSA 91-A). A controversial 1978 state constitutional amendment gives the court's rules the force of law.
Zeus

From my brief skimming, I didn't find anything in RSA91-A making this claim but there's plenty of legalese with which to bury it.

Regardless, New Hampshire Supreme Court Justice Joseph P. Nadeau ruled in favor of cameras in the courtroom in December, 2003.

Writing for the state's high court, Nadeau said that judges should limit camera coverage *only* if there is "substantial likelihood of harm to any person or other harmful consequences" and "only when no other practical alternative is available."

Supreme Court rulings trump Superior Court judges running amok AFAIK.

http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=5991
http://mike.barskey.net Mike Barskey

To Sam's Dad (these comments on FreeKeene.com are the only way I know to contact you): you might be interested to see some video I took of Sam yesterday, when I visited him in jail. You can't hear him, but you can see how cheerful and healthy he looks.

http://qik.com/video/1646381
http://speakoutdanville.org/bbs Curt Springer

There is a big loophole about "substantial likelihood of harm to any person." The lobby, as opposed to the courtroom itself, seems to be a gray area.

FWIW Burke is a district court judge, not a superior court judge.
Zeus

He's going to need to prove “substantial likelihood of harm" first so it's not much of a loophole.

-Z
http://speakoutdanville.org/bbs Curt Springer

I don't think it works that way. I think the judge is given the presumption of authority.
Zeus

I meant if his presumptive authority were to be legally challenged.

First thing a plaintiff's attorney is going to ask is "Did you in fact believe there was a substantial likelihood of harm?".

If he answers "No", he's done.

If he answers "Yes", we move on to the follow-up question:
"How did you arrive at that conclusion?".

At that point, he's going to have to explain what evidence he used to make his determination at which point he's either going to have to present something or come up with really good lie. Otherwise, his credibility — along with his career — is toast.
http://speakoutdanville.org/bbs Curt Springer

I don't think it works that way.

From statements made by the supreme court PR person, and yes I know you need to take it with a grain of salt, there is support by supreme court justices for regulating or banning videos in courtroom lobbies.

I'm not saying that there is absolutely no case for the defense. I'm just saying that it is not open and shut in favor of the defense as you and others seem to think.
Zeus

Well, Curt, as they are fond of telling us… "You gotta respect The Law!". So it's either "The Law!" or it ain't.

And if it isn't, then anything else out of their mouths to excuse this reprehensible, anti-Constitutional behavior is nothing more than that. An excuse.

And I'm sure you're right in that they would indeed probably find some way to rule in favor of it. But that only demonstrates just how broken the system is and how The Law! doesn't apply to them.
http://speakoutdanville.org/bbs Curt Springer

It's not "anti-Constitutional". The judiciary has always had a lot of leeway in setting its rules.
Zeus

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I'm pretty sure Sam's speech was abridged by a pair of sharp handcuffs. Also, not being allowed to film the proceedings (despite a state supreme court ruling stating he has the right unless it will somehow put people in mortal danger) abridged his freedom of the press and Rivera's order to vacate or be kidnapped abridged the freedom of the activists who were peaceably assembled in the lobby.

I'm sure there are plenty of excuses (legal or otherwise) for them to weasel out of these violations but not a one makes it right, just or moral.
http://speakoutdanville.org/bbs Curt Springer

The constitutional rights are not absolute. Freedom of speech does not necessarily include the right to record.

I'm not arguing against allowing people to record in courtroom lobbies. I'm simply pointing out that Sam's legal position (whether or not you accept the system) is not as rock solid as you and others seem to think.
Lpviper

When it becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it…
TheSlave

Curt,

The inherent rights of an individual nor the excercise thereof are not granted by any government.

Privileges are granted.

Do you have any rights? Do you know the only manner in which you or any other individual can secure your rights? Sam apparently does.
http://speakoutdanville.org/bbs Curt Springer

LPVIPER, THESLAVE:

I didn't join this discussion to debate the legitimacy of government.

Rather, Same and others have claimed that his action was lawful in the context of the government's own laws. So my comments are only applicable if you accept those laws as a logic structure for the sake of discussion. We can have that discussion without agreeing on whether there should or should not be a government.

It's possible that Sam is innocent in that legal context, but I am not convinced of it.
Lpviper

Hi Curt,

I had like 9 paragraphs of crap written in response to your post, but a proofreading revealed it to be just that, crap.

Legitimacy of government, to me, is never a question. Government is illegitimate in its very nature, because it is founded in a paradox. If you give up your liberty, I'll protect your liberty. What?

Ayn Rand said, and I'll paraphrase, 'Contradictions cannot exist. Whenever you find yourself facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is flawed.'

The flaw in the Lockean concept of limited government is obvious. An entity that takes away one's rights by force cannot also be protecting those same rights.

The 'lawfulness' of Sam's actions is, therefore, irrelevant in my view. Sam has not harmed anyone, and has given no one any reasonable cause to lock him into a cage. Therefore he should be immediately freed. If he is not, then those who choose to continue his imprisonment are tyrants and should be shunned by society. Those who wrote such stupid rules that obviously are not protecting anyone should also be shunned, and the stupid rules removed from society before they can do any further harm to peaceful people.

I suggest setting up a rotating schedule of picketing campaigns at the homes of all bureaucrats who participate in the enforcement of harmful rules, and of the judges and prosecutors. I further suggest boycotting all private businesses owned and operated by these tyrants and by their families, and repeated public denunciations of all involved.

There should be some redress for people who are causing harm to peaceful people. I don't care if they are just 'doing their jobs'. They are hurting people and it has to stop. Dickering over what the 'laws' say is a waste of time, because all it does is give sanction to the tyrannical actions of tyrants.

Thanks

Andy
BigMike

LPVIPER

Andy, you by chance from Hazel Park?
cyberdoo78

It would appear that regardless, the order posted on the wall of the court was not a valid order, ie it wasn't signed. An order is not an order till its signed. Perhaps the judge did not sign it, because he knows its an unlawful order even if it had his signature.

In a signed order of Burke's he has said that Sam will stay in jail until he says who he is. It would seem to me this is a violation of the law in many respects, the largest being the 'right' to a speedy trial. Further, it would appear to violate Miranda, the 'right' one has to remain silent.

Its obviously not a matter of identification since it has been shown that the state of NH requires only fingerprints and photographs to ascertain identification requirements, which Sam has done. Further, regardless if there is evidence or not to his identity, both judge and prosecutor have first hand knowledge of who he is.

In my opinion, it matters not that there are processes in place that Burke can use to move this matter forward, such as charging him as John Doe, or using one of the names he has gotten back based on finger prints and photographs. It would appear that it is Burke's desire to force him to bend to his will, system be damned.
http://speakoutdanville.org/bbs Curt Springer

Quoting a comment I made in another thread because it directly responds to Cyberdoo78 #79077

I’ve given my support to Sam and Ivy in a substantive way. I don’t like to see any of you being harmed in any way.

That said, I think both Sam and the cops are standing too much on formalities.

Signs and notices do not have to be signed by an authority. The question at hand is does the judge have authority to ban video in the hallway, and, did he so order.

A signed order is reasonable proof that the judge made the order, but if you can’t obtain that it doesn’t necessarily mean that the judge didn’t make the order. It could have been stated verbally in court and recorded by the court reporter.

In a similar vein, there is no requirement that a defendant identify himself in order to be able to call the defendant by his known name. If they could book him as “John Doe,” which I understand they did, they could equally well book him as “Sam Dodson”. All they need to do, if they feel the need to provide some basis for the name they are going to use, is to have one or more credible persons state that they met the defendant and that he stated at the time that his name was Sam Dodson. I believe that Sam rode around with your favorite cop Shane Maxfield not long ago, so Officer Maxfield could be the one to state Sam’s identity even if Sam is not willing to state it.
Zeus

The constitutional rights are not absolute.

Then they are worthless.

But, of course, most of us have already come to that realization.

Constitutions are little more than promises by governments not to violate those who submit to its authority in certain ways (but there will still be plenty of violating going on).

And these promises are either outright broken or have their meanings rewritten every day. With zero accountability, there is no consequence for doing this other than the occasional bureaucrat being replaced by another.

I'll bet there are plenty of corporations who'd love to be able to "reinterpret" their own agreements with other parties at will without consequence.

What a boon that would be.
Lpviper

BigMike,

No, sir, I live north of Detroit somewhere on the northern fringe of the metro area. Why don't we just say St. Clair County and leave it at that? lol

I get behind in the technical arguments about manlaws and such, I am a simple man and I can see that Sam simply must be freed because he has committed no crime against his fellow man. If it is to be asserted that he committed a crime against 'the state', then let 'the state' come forward and show his injury, and demand his reasonable restitution for the damage done him.
http://speakoutdanville.org/bbs Curt Springer

LPVIPER wrote:

Ayn Rand said, and I’ll paraphrase, ‘Contradictions cannot exist. Whenever you find yourself facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is flawed.

I find that life is full of contradictions. As I said, I'm not going to get involved in discussions about the legitimacy of government. It's pointless. You guys all have your very firm POVs and after all this is a web site to promote your POVs.

I can agree with some of what you guys write and at the same time with some of what people you call "statists" write. That's just the way I am, maybe a mind of muddle-headed mush, I dunno.
Zeus

You're in-between, Curt. Eventually the iron fist of the state will have its way with you just like it does to all of us given enough time and maybe after that your perspective will change. Maybe it won't.

Either way, I'm at least glad you're open-minded enough to even consider our positions.
BigMike

LPVIPER,

Sorry, I thought you may have been the same Libertarian Andy that is the Mayor Pro Tem of Hazel Park.

I'm in Mt. Clemens, leaving for New Hampshire on the 31st. isellthem@gmail if you want to get together for a beer.
cyberdoo78

Signs and notices are indeed required to have signature in order to be valid, per their own rules.

According the State supreme court he has no authority to set video recording policy except in his own courtroom and only if such video recording is to some order of 'necessary'.

It is not sufficient for him to verbalize an order, again by their rules, an unsigned order is not an order, again by their rules.
http://speakoutdanville.org/bbs Curt Springer

Signs and notices are indeed required to have signature in order to be valid, per their own rules.

It is not sufficient for him to verbalize an order, again by their rules, an unsigned order is not an order, again by their rules.

Cyberdoo78, please quote me the rules that actually say that. I did look at the time I originally posted the thing I quoted above, and found nothing of the sort. But maybe I missed something.
http://ringingliberty.com Paul

Curt,

Not to get involved in the legality discussion, but could you give an example of a logical contradiction? It seems to me that by definition, contradictions cannot exist. Perhaps your definition of contradiction is different than mine.

Paul
http://speakoutdanville.org/bbs Curt Springer

Contradiction: I don't like land use laws in theory but at the same time I'm happy my neighbor can't open up a commercial garage. And I serve on the zoning board of adjustment, which enforces the spirit of the ordinance while giving people breaks from specific provisions.

Not going farther with this, it's off topic and I'm not going to get sucked in (famous last words)
Lpviper

'As I said, I’m not going to get involved in discussions about the legitimacy of government. It’s pointless.'

That's your opinion, Curt. To me, it's the whole point of what we are doing as a movement.
Lpviper

Oh, and BigMike, congratulations on getting out of hell. I am an alcoholic and can't drink, so that's out.

See you in the Granite State in a couple years
Lpviper

'Contradiction: I don’t like land use laws in theory but at the same time I’m happy my neighbor can’t open up a commercial garage.'

Flawed premise: It's ok to be against a violent concept in theory, and also to enforce it upon real people in the real world for your benefit.
http://ringingliberty.com Paul

<blockquote cite="curt">Contradiction: I don’t like land use laws in theory but at the same time I’m happy my neighbor can’t open up a commercial garage. And I serve on the zoning board of adjustment, which enforces the spirit of the ordinance while giving people breaks from specific provisions.

Oh, yeah, people can believe contradictory things and behave in contradictory ways — they do it all the time. These contradictions can be resolved with thought and effort. It doesn't reflect any contradiction in reality — a person can believe 1+1=2 and 1+1=3 if they want, if they never think about it — but it doesn't represent any real contradiction, since in reality, one of these statements is false.

In your case, I would examine the reasons you don't like land use laws. If it's because you think people have a right to use their own land how they choose, if they don't harm others, then I think this moral belief takes precedence.

I encourage you to find alternative means to encourage good neighborliness. For example, if a commercial garage would create a great deal of noise, or exhaust, I think it would be fair for affected neighbors to expect compensation for these pollutants.

Also, I think simply talking with the new business owner, and making suggestions, can often go a long way. He probably wants your business too, after all.

Finally, once you have a fully formed belief about how a more moral system could work, you are in a unique situation to be able to implement these changes. Perhaps you can work to change the zoning board so that it focuses on helping local business avoid polluting neighbors' property, organizing a compensation schedule for neighbors when there are pollutants, and helping local business and neighbors get together, to resolve differences.
http://speakoutdanville.org/bbs Curt Springer

Paul,

I appreciate your thoughts. But it is much less effort to live with my contradictions.

I have worked with people. The same developer has put up residential subdivisions over a 15 year span adjacent to the three parcels of real estate that I own in the world. One cluster development, one elderly housing development, one standard single-family home situation. Each time I have worked with him and the planning board on certain aspects that were important to me.

Government boards and officials can not autonomously or unilaterally change their scope or procedures. It is all set out by law, usually at the state level.
Anon92122

Look at societies that were/are without government: Afghanistan and Somalia. They're all chaotic slaughterhouses. As soon as a political power vacuum appears, mafias and war-lords (aka "people with the most guns and manpower and the least ethics") immediately start robbing and killing anything they want. If government disappeared in the US, huge gangs of thugs would roam the streets with guns, robbing, raping, and killing anyone in sight. Sure, some decent gun-owning citizens would fight back, but they'd have little chance against an armed army of violent unethical criminals. Please name a place within the last twenty or thiry years that had no government and was a nice place to live. You're drawing a blank, aren't you? I wonder why. The entire civilized world lives under some form of government, while only savages and primitive tribespeople live without one. Why is that?

I really wish some state would secede from the US and become fully anarcho-capitalist as envisioned by Free-Staters so that you people would learn once and for all that just because something looks good on paper or in theory doesn't mean it will actually work in reality. Your little anarcho-state will tear itself to shreds very quickly. You think bribery and corruption is bad now? Wait till you have private courts and police! Can you say "bribery gallore"?What's to stop me from buying all the roads around you? Then you'll be a prisoner in your own home. If you trespass on my land, then you're VIOLATING MY PROPERTY RIGHTS and I will defend my property with guns. That's right, I'm going to shoot you because you're a trespasser on MY PROPERTY. I'll even have signs everwhere saying "trespassers will be shot on sight". What? You say you have no other way to leave your home? Too bad, deal with it. That's YOUR society folks. Even Ayn Rand predicted that private courts and police would fail. I'm with her on this one: Minarchism is the way to go. Government needs to exist for courts, police, roads, military, that sort of thing. Anyone who doesn't like it can move to your Free State and get shot on sight by a warlord. Cogent replies can be sent to digitalgenesis2000 at yahoo dot com
Lpviper

I can see where you are coming from Anon whoever guy, but the anarchies that we have seen in the recent past have been based in cultures that were severely damaged by governmental structures that preceded them, and that even where anarchy 'reigns', like in Somalia, there is a constant pressure to adopt this government or that, or to be ruled by the UN.

I refer you to the anarchy that largely prevailed in the early history of the Pennsylvania colony, wherein the people elected an assembly, but the assembly never bothered to meet, wherein the feudal tax structure was ignored almost universally by the people, and wherein economic and population growth far exceeded any other colony in the Americas at that time, while relations with the Native Americans were peaceful, and relations of the colonists to one another was marked by tolerance and peacefulness. I think you would find that a self governed society of today would look and feel very similar to this.

I also think that this fearmongering is sucky and you have no way to predict what would really happen. I also think that any robber gang who decided to start participating in mass robberies would start experiencing mass casualties among its ranks very quickly. I also think that people are not as curmudgeonly as you think, and that corrupt arbitors would not keep their reputations or their businesses for very long.
Lpviper

Miss Rand had a lot of good ideas, but she had some poor ones too, like fighting wars of aggression to 'free' people. Nobody's perfect
http://ringingliberty.com Paul

Allright, I'll be sending my cogent reply along, when I have more time .

I would like to note two things here:

Coersive government is only one form of agression. If a society does not have government, but has rampient agression otherwise, it is not closer to abiding by the NAP.

If a government for some reason ends in a society in which there is no consensus that the initiation of force is wrong — one in which the majority, or a large minority is more than happy to use force over their neighbors, chaos and unrest are likely to result. It would simply be the replacement of one, systematic agressor, with many, disorganized agressors.

This is not suprising. The sucess of any form of government, or non-government, is heavily dependent on the populace itself. No form of government can cure the effects of a violent populace. Remember, Hitler was democractically elected.

The change I'm looking for is not primarily the end of coersive government, but the development of a large majority of the populace who believe the initiation of violence is wrong.

People used to be, as a rule, racist in this country. In a relatively short time, we have reached the point where racism is considered evil, and is unnacceptable to the supermajority of the populace. This is the attitude we need to achieve regarding the initiation of violence.

When coersive government ends because the supermajority believe agression is wrong, the result will be sustainable, because the numbers and power of the people desirous of peaceful, non-coersive society would vastly outweigh the numbers and power of those wishing to rule over others.

Just as simply passing a law cannot fix societal problems, if the new law does not reflect a sea change in society, the end of government cannot fix societal problems, if the populace still believes in theft, conscription, and violence.

Secondly, I would like to say that if you are truly a minarchist, since the government is so many times larger than either of us want, I do not consider you my enemy. Suppose I were a slave on a plantation, who believes in its abolition. If a man comes along who thinks I should be freed, except that I will be required to work for a half hour on the second Tuesday of every month, would I consider that man my enemy? Certainly not while I am still a full time slave. Would that man consider me his enemy, because I want to go a little bit further? I would hope not.

An honest discussion is always worthy, of course, but need not be antagonistic.