Free Keene

Comment by george stephanopoulos

May 14, 2009 @ 2:44 pm

This is getting scary. They need to just let him out! Sam is to good of an activist to die from a hunger strike in prison.

Comment by Michael Garcia

May 14, 2009 @ 2:55 pm

I went ahead and left a message. Something I thought was hilarious. The clerk answered the phone and I requested to talk to Judge Tucker. She paused for a moment and then asked what was this in reference of. I explained that I was requesting that the Judge rule on the writ of habeas corpus for Sam Dodsen. She asked me to hold on and I was transfered to a lady I believe named Kim. I explained to her why I was calling and she got very riled up at first because of the ABSURDITY that I would dare request to speak to the judge directly. It is as if I requesting to speak to the almighty himself. Shocking I know.

Anyway he was on the bench at the moment. But she was willing to take a message for me. So I told her great. I don’t know exactly what’s happening. But I hope he is getting out soon.

Comment by nick

May 14, 2009 @ 3:00 pm

You can’t be in criminal contempt if you weren’t it court… right?

Maybe they’ll switch all of our charges to criminal contempt.

Comment by Paul

May 14, 2009 @ 3:04 pm

I have contempt for their court, more so by the day. Will they charge me too?

Comment by Josh

May 14, 2009 @ 3:33 pm

Criminal Contempt has been used a few times to lock people up for YEARS.

There was a recent article on lewrockwell.com about this very scenario, but I can’t find it now. The gist of it is someone was tried for tax evasion or some such, and told the court he didn’t have any money to pay back what he was accused of taking. The judge didn’t believe him, and charged him with contempt. If I find the article I’ll leave the link.

I’d much rather have disorderly than contempt.

Comment by Zeus

May 14, 2009 @ 4:33 pm

Criminal contempt is a punitive measure, used when it is clear that the kidnap victim isn’t going to talk. It’s meant to punish them for violating a court order, to vindicate the “dignity” of the court and to deter others from doing so.

There is no maximum penalty set by the statute, which makes any sentence up to life a possibility.

This is how the court will try to cover its ass from a huge lawsuit if Sam is ever released.

Comment by Josh

May 14, 2009 @ 4:37 pm

I’m not sure about NH, but in Maine if you attempt to sue the state, the state gets to decide if it will allow the lawsuit.
This was challenged when a police officer drove through a yard in Portland during a chase and killed a child playing in that yard. The state ruled that the family could not sue in that case. Police police was changed to restrict chases shortly after that incident.

Comment by smeg

May 14, 2009 @ 5:48 pm

here was the quote i found:

“criminal contempt occurs as a result of the defendant’s interference with the court’s process or dignity”
-State v. Martina, 135 N.H. 111, 118 (1991)

so…. dignity…

no, thats just too damn easy.

Comment by Paul

May 14, 2009 @ 5:50 pm

So, Smeg, you’re saying legally, we can go after Mr. Burke for criminal contempt?

Sorry, I can’t resist the easy ones.

Comment by Mike

May 14, 2009 @ 5:51 pm

Wow. It’s in the statists’ *law* that people cannot offend the dignity of a “court” – of a group of people. It’s illegal, with potentially no maximum sentence of jailtime, to commit the very subjective “crime” of interfering with the court’s dignity. Wow. Someday, the minarchists will realize that even the smallest govt imaginable will still be innately *this* subjective.

Comment by Slave

May 14, 2009 @ 6:58 pm

There is no such thing as ‘good government’.

Comment by Curt Springer

May 14, 2009 @ 7:08 pm

I read an article not long ago about civil vs. criminal contempt in NH. Civil contempt is to get people to do something, like testify. Criminal contempt is to punish people for past actions that violated the dignity or function. Ian was convicted of criminal contempt in the couch case.

Criminal contempt is a “non-statutory” offense, meaning it is common law and you won’t find it in the RSAs (laws) of NH.

Still, it is subject to constitutional rights. In particular, one can not be sentenced to more than 6 months in jail unless one is given a jury trial. That is a limitation on the power of a single judge to lock somebody up for a long time, acting alone as judge, prosecutor and jury.

I wondered about the disorderly conduct versus criminal contempt. After all, the issue was violating a posted order (whether or not one agrees that it was valid) from the court. Sam was not acting in a “disorderly” fashion.

The good news out of this, I **think**, is that if they drop disorderly conduct against Sam, they would also have to drop it against Nick and the others who simply stood watching and didn’t leave when ordered to do so.

Comment by jzacker

May 14, 2009 @ 7:47 pm

Sam’s contempt is likely an ‘interference’ charge, not ‘dignity’ one.

Comment by jzacker

May 14, 2009 @ 8:05 pm

I meant interference with the process, not interference with the court’s dignity.

Comment by Fraker

May 15, 2009 @ 7:31 am

“That is a limitation on the power of a single judge to lock somebody up for a long time, acting alone as judge, prosecutor and jury.”

The judge is just one member of ‘their’ team. ‘Their’ team includes the Judge, the prosecutor, the bailiffs, and the police – and to a limited degree defense attorneys, since they get their licesnce from ‘them’ to begin with. So when a person sais that the system is trying to be fair by not making one person the judge, prosecutor, and jury, they are woefully mistaken. The State’s side fills comepletely those roles. The judge even tries to stop jury nullification; so, the jury (if there even is one) is under the thumb of the state.

Here’s the question for everyone: Do you equate threats of violence with fairness and justice?

The cop pulls you over or orders your compliance because it is based on a threat of violence. You have to go to court because of a threat of violence; you have to pay fees and penalties because of threats of violence; you have to stay inprisoned because of threats of violence. And for some reason out of all these threats of violence is one little micro-cosm of ‘fairness and justice’ called the court. This is irrational. The truth is that even the courtroom is just a dog-and-pony show trying to cover up the TRUTH that the only legitamacy the State has is the size of their guns.

Comment by Curt Springer

May 15, 2009 @ 8:22 am

I didn’t say “the system is trying to be fair.” I was simply trying to be factual about the circumstances of this situation.

Comment by Fraker

May 16, 2009 @ 10:08 pm

No, you weren’t being factual, because there is no limit on the judge’s power. Pieces of paper covered with ink do not limit the power of ‘them’.

Comment by fuc

May 17, 2009 @ 1:24 am

there is so much ignorance on this website

please dont join the cult

Comment by Paul

May 17, 2009 @ 1:39 am

Yes, Fuc, clearly only the strange, cultish, or ignorant could possibly believe it is wrong to initiate violence against people who have not harmed others.

Why, every well informed person knows that actions which would normally be considered immoral when an individual does them, like theft, or slavery, magically become moral when a majority approves of them, and they are renamed taxation, and conscription.

Why on earth would anyone think moral laws apply to bureaucrats!? Everyone knows those rules only apply to normal humans.

Comment by Zeus

May 17, 2009 @ 1:56 am

Paul, don’t you understand?

If someone doesn’t lay down the rules of society on paper and force people to obey it (or else), people will go insane with bloodrage.

Then there’d be riots, theft, mass killings, drug dealing and perverse sexual acts being committed on every street corner!

We have to band together, choose a select handful of those very same people and pay them to act as our leaders. If a voting majority of us consent to letting them steal, kidnap, assault and kill with little or no consequence, they’ll be able to keep everyone in line and we can prevent that societal collapse from happening!

Comment by fuc

May 17, 2009 @ 2:37 am

u guys are going nowhere

Comment by Zeus

May 17, 2009 @ 2:57 am

Do you just pick inane sentences out of hat before posting or actually expend brain power coming up with these things?

Here, I’ll throw in a one as well:

Silly Rabbit. Tricks are for kids.

Comment by Lpviper

May 17, 2009 @ 8:58 am

Trix