Free Keene

Peaceful Evolution

Dave Ridley Guilty at Trial

Filed under: News, Video — nick at 5:13 am on Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Appearing at trial Monday before Judge Burke, activist Dave Ridley was to face charges from when he was arrested for refusing to turn off his camera in the courtroom lobby. Originally thought to be a disorderly conduct charge, activists were surprised to learn at the beginning of trial that Dave was actually facing a class B Misdemeanor contempt of court. The prosecutor brought forth one witness and one piece of evidence to prove that Dave had knowingly broken a “court order”.

The legality of a judge issuing orders that have effect outside the actual courtroom is in question among activists, but Dave was found guilty on the charge. He made it obvious before and during trial that he had no interest in participating in a legal defense of himself, and would take the punishment the court handed down. His caveat though: he would not pay a fine so to not have his money funding further prosecution of victimless “criminals”.

With Ridley’s guilty charge was a $250 fine. Ridley refused and asked the judge about community service. Unlike in the past, where Burke has offered it to people like Russell Kanning or Andrew Carroll without question, Burke questioned Ridley about his financial situation. When Ridley was unwilling to disclose any information regarding it, Judge Burke eliminated the option of community service and said the only other option was jail. After a short conversation, Ridley agreed to turn himself into jail for a 6 day sentence beginning on July 6th.

One final notable question came when Ridley asked the judge about the man who recently died in the House of Corrections in Westmoreland, where Dave will be staying. All these events can be seen in the video below.

52 Comments »

Comment by Fraker

June 23, 2009 @ 7:00 am

Is that a sign that they are in desperate need of money?

Comment by Ian

June 23, 2009 @ 7:31 am

No, they are spending money to put him in jail for six days. Over $80 a day.

Comment by A TALKING COW PIG

June 23, 2009 @ 8:33 am

these government people must be getting sick of jailing and trying free staters

Comment by Larry The Dwarf

June 23, 2009 @ 12:54 pm

Dave did a great job of making the whole process look silly.

Comment by LibertyTiger

June 23, 2009 @ 1:35 pm

It never ceases to amaze me how much time and effort the state will make to assert its authority over us. Larry, it would be “silly” if the state wasn’t backing their “authority” with the threat of violence.

Comment by Larry The Dwarf

June 23, 2009 @ 3:01 pm

I didn’t say it was silly, I said it LOOKED silly.

Comment by Zeus

June 23, 2009 @ 3:26 pm

I wish Dave had cross-examined Lance and asked him questions. I drives me nuts when opportunities like this aren’t taken but I understand and agree that it’s his prerogative not to do so.

Still, I would have asked:

1. “Mr. Walton, does your job include enforcing the laws of the state of New Hampshire?”

2. “Mr. Walton, would you say you are well-versed in the law?”

3. “To the best of your knowledge as a law enforcement officer, is this notice a legal order? (referring to camera-banning notice)”

4. “What constitutes a lawful order?”

5. “Can you cite what law permits a judge to ban cameras in the lobby?”

The idea of these questions would be to challenge Lance’s competence as a witness when it comes to “The Law”. After all, how can you enforce orders if you don’t know whether they’re “legal” or not?

Since he is the only witness, removing his testimony due to incompetence means Dave would have won the case by default.

Of course, I am not a lawyer but this is my understanding of one possible defense. And it would have made them look really, really bad.

Comment by LSNL

June 23, 2009 @ 3:27 pm

Was wondering…

Is it still “photography” if one is using a digital camera?

Comment by Zeus

June 23, 2009 @ 3:41 pm

Also, upon reviewing the video, you will note that Lance did indeed state that the notice was “a standard order referring to cameras and conduct in the courtroom”.

First, when the prosecutor said “Standing or standard?”, I would have objected as “Leading”.

That probably would have been shot down but I’d have raised it anyway.

Then, when I got to cross-examine him, I’d have pursued it further:

“Mr. Walton, you stated earlier that Exhibit 1 ‘referred to cameras and conduct in the courtroom.’ Is the lobby part of the courtroom? Yes or no?”

When he said no, I’d have said “If Exhibit 1 pertains only to the courtroom and Mr. Ridley was not filming in the courtroom, how is this order your foundation for arresting Mr. Ridley?” or something like that.

So there’s two methods right there that could have been pursued, had Dave wanted to go that path, to nullify the entire situation from a legal standpoint. Competence on what is or is not legal and whether or not the order pertains to Dave’s actions or not.

Comment by Paul

June 23, 2009 @ 3:50 pm

Both approaches are valid, Dave chose to make the deeper point on the immoral abuse of power, rather than the unlawful abuse of power.

Comment by Zeus

June 23, 2009 @ 4:01 pm

True enough, Paul. He did inform Burke several times he wasn’t there to do that and Dave can certainly choose whatever form of activism he wishes. Still, it irks me that they can get away with locking him up when their arguments were so obviously deficient.

Even raising the arguments I mentioned doesn’t mean the outcome would have been any different but we’d have it on film, proving they could give a flying rat’s butt about their own laws which they routinely violate without consequence.

Comment by nick

June 23, 2009 @ 4:05 pm

Zeus,

I agree and have said as much to other activists. But nothing we can do about it. The good news is, we have at least 6 trials coming up where I think people will begin to question their “legal” authority to do what they’re doing to us.

It’s time they are stopped from exploiting our obvious weakness; that being a lack of knowledge of judicial process.

Comment by Zeus

June 23, 2009 @ 4:17 pm

Right, Nick. I have no problem at all with Dave choosing his own path, it’s entirely his choice. I’m just stating that another path is available for those who want to try it.

Comment by Mark Jackson

June 23, 2009 @ 8:32 pm

COMMENT BY LARRY THE DWARF

June 23, 2009 @ 3:01 pm

I didn’t say it was silly, I said it LOOKED silly.

While I agree with you on that matter, I’ve got to ask myself if this is the best course to enact the most change.

I would have loved to see the charges against him (information/indictment) or if it was just a “show cause”. I think that Dave may have been able to avoid any penalty, but maybe not. Understand, this is coming from someone who has done his fair share of shaking the court room.

I really appreciate Dave’s spirit and point of view, but is it possible that there is a better way to address the system?

Dave now has a tort against that judge/magistrate and court deputy. It is one which he can’t be shielded from because he made the decision in his administrative capacity. He has standing, but he could have avoided arrest and still had standing.

If we hit them in their wallets, they may choose to stop.

Dave can file BAR grievances against the judge/prosecutor. He could file judicial tenure complaints. He can also file criminal charges. There are other ways to skin this cat.

Comment by Ian

June 23, 2009 @ 9:09 pm

Mark,

Thanks for the ideas – please come here to NH and show us how you’d do it!

Comment by Mark Jackson

June 23, 2009 @ 9:56 pm

I may, in fact, be coming. My wife is from New Hampshire (Windham). We are trying to find employment and wrapping up some court issues here in Michigan.

After we clear our matters up, it may certainly be a possibility. I think Keene is a bit north for us (I am not really sure of the layout of New Hampshire), but if I am there, you can certainly expect to see me. I am anxious to participate in the New Hampshire code § 311:1.

I remember during my first visit, she explained to me how “urban” Manchester was. She told me that there were dangerous areas. I had to laugh. When we drove through Detroit (where I grew up), it changed her opinion of how the rest of the country is.

Overall, I am thankful for my experiences. Oppression, like persecution, is certainly a way to strengthen your resolve and determine what you value. It also helps me appreciate the value in what you guys are doing. I wish someone would have done it here before it got so bad. The task of liberty has certainly been much harder.

For those of you interested, there are two great sites that I would recommend:
http://www.ruleoflawradio.com and http://www.americacanbefree.com/ These sites are great for anyone who wants to “level the playing field” when dealing with public officials.

Although I have been far behind in my updates (coming soon), I can always be reached @ http://www.restoreliberty.us

Comment by thinkliberty

June 24, 2009 @ 12:32 am

ZEUS,

You should get arrested and go to court for a bogus reason like Dave. That way you could ask them all your questions. I would love to see that on video. :)

Comment by Zeus

June 24, 2009 @ 12:56 am

I try to avoid conflict as much as possible but, judging from recent historical evidence, I have no doubt it would be easy enough to accomplish in Keene what with the apparent plethora of “arrest-happy” bureaucrats running around.

Perhaps you may get your wish yet. As a capitalist, however, I would probably have to charge $4.99 for the video.

I’d make it worth your while though by including out-takes and commentary. :P

Comment by Curt Springer

June 24, 2009 @ 1:10 am

I wish Dave had challenged the authority of the prosecutors to bring a charge of contempt of court on their own authority. This does not bode well for Sam.

Comment by Scott

June 24, 2009 @ 1:19 am

I agree that Dave should be able to choose his form of activism….BUT if the charge they leveled against Dave and Sam is a Common Law infraction aka a precedent, then Dave just provided a precedent for conviction of the charge. Sadly, Dave may have undermined Sam’s case.

Comment by Chris

June 24, 2009 @ 1:53 am

Just want to voice my support for Mr. Ridley?

Comment by LSNL

June 24, 2009 @ 7:19 am

Is Sam incorrect about a court order requiring the judge’s signature?

Comment by steve

June 24, 2009 @ 12:57 pm

aparrently, dont get your hopes expecting some type of triumphant victory…looks like its back to westmoreland

Comment by Curt Springer

June 25, 2009 @ 7:44 pm

I never understood the basis of Sam’s strong statement(s) that the notice was not valid unless signed by the judge.

I couldn’t play the video. I clicked the “start” arrow and it said “invalid parameters.”

I know you are all independent and make your own independent decisions. Still, I wish you guys could come to a consensus that if you go to trial you will not be passive and that you will mount a strong defense. I don’t always agree with you, but I hate to see you let people walk all over you.

Comment by nick

June 25, 2009 @ 7:54 pm

Curt,

A. I don’t know about the video. It plays for me. Does it work for you on youtube’s site: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js4C3NZN3XE

B. I agree that we should begin at least putting up a fight against charges. I will still not consent to fines or community service in my upcoming trial, but I will not be taking “their process” lying down either.

Comment by Zeus

June 25, 2009 @ 8:06 pm

To be held in contempt of the court, the opposing party must provide 4 elements: (1) existence of a valid order; (2) your knowledge of the order; (3) ability to comply; and (4) willful disobedience.

An order is not valid unless signed by a judge.

1. Wikipedia
“A court order must be signed by a judge; some jurisdiction may require it to be notarized.”

2. Yahoo

3. Yahoo India (re: U.S. Law)

“Any unsigned document whether a decree or order or judgment issued by any court of law is not a valid document.”

Comment by Curt Springer

June 25, 2009 @ 8:10 pm

OK, I was able to play the video.

2 things happened that I hope Sam will challenge at his trial:

– No objection to the state bringing a charge of contempt of court

– Acquiescing in “judicial notice” that the order not to photograph was valid.

Comment by Curt Springer

June 25, 2009 @ 8:18 pm

Zeus,
Your wikipedia quote refers to court orders in a particular case, not an administrative rule.

Moreover, there might have been an actual signed order. There were two identical notices, it was mentioned. The notices were not the actual order, but (obviously) notices of the existence of the order.

Comment by nick

June 25, 2009 @ 8:20 pm

Curt,

Thats what I thought too. Regarding the notice being a notice of an existing order. However, if you saw the video, Dave is given a “copy of the standing order”. What he was given, was a copy of the same piece of paper that was on the wall.

No “so ordered” on it. No signature. No judge’s name.

Comment by Zeus

June 25, 2009 @ 8:37 pm

Regardless, it seems ludicrous to me that an unsigned copy of an alleged original order can have any force of law. Otherwise, why would cops bother with getting signed warrants or anything else signed by a judge? Just write one up yourself.

My understanding is that the signature of the judge is what supposedly gives any such order or document it’s legal authority.

I’m sure Sam did more research on it than I, however.

Comment by Curt Springer

June 25, 2009 @ 9:57 pm

I posted this in the past several months in the forums:

New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 201(a) provides that
[a] court may take judicial notice of a fact. A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

Now we know that the state will try to use “judicial notice” to support the legitimacy of the posted notice. One would hope that Sam or his attorney would not acquiesce to the state’s motion of “judicial notice” and try to make the state prove that the notice represented a valid order of the court. I’m not convinced that he will prevail, but at least let’s trace the chain of authority back from the posted notice, if it actually exists.

Comment by Lance

June 26, 2009 @ 12:31 am

I don’t mean to be negative, as I support Ridley, but if the punishment was death I wonder if he would still be willing to “embrace the penalty” without a fight.

Comment by Lpviper

June 26, 2009 @ 12:52 am

I’ve never understood this fascination with ‘if’

Comment by LSNL

June 26, 2009 @ 2:06 pm

“…it seems ludicrous to me that an unsigned copy of an alleged original order can have any force of law. Otherwise, why would cops bother with getting signed warrants or anything else signed by a judge? Just write one up yourself.”

I assume not only that, but we also need to know who is taking responsibility for any potential unconstitutional court orders. If a judge wishes to deny someone of their rights, s/he should sign it so we know who to press charges on.

Not only might the notice, or copy of the notice, not be signed, but Sam said something like “is this the document that makes you think you have authority to…”. Even if it is a copy that for some reason didn’t show the notarized judge’s signature, I would think Sam could argue that he asked, and was told, that the copy he was directed was supposed to be the actual court order. Also, I’ve thought in incredible since first watching the video that whoever it was that confronted Sam was so stupid, and unprofessional, that he didn’t just say “You’re (maybe) right, sir. Excuse me while I go get a signed notice.”. I don’t agree with the arbitrary rulings, but they should at least be professional enough to not take it personally, and just go follow their own rules. If they had, Sam wouldn’t have quite as much to work with (or AS MUCH motivation to work).

Comment by Hutchingson, Bradford.

June 26, 2009 @ 2:30 pm

Right on, LPVIPER….I choose to live WHAT IS, not “what if”…”What if pigs could fly?”…”Watch out for falling pig shit!”…BURKE IS BENEATH MY CONTEMPT. Therefore, I can’t possibly be “in contempt” of him! Now, video…

Comment by Hutchingson, Bradford.

June 26, 2009 @ 2:37 pm

Yo, BURKE! Ask “spotted wolf” how I stood up to his fat ass last night…You don’t really think that I *won’t* *ALSO* be flipping you the bird and screaming FUCK YOU! at you, do you???…Just make sure you bring your black lab, OK?…Thanks, Black-robed bastard…

Comment by Hutchingson, Bradford.

June 26, 2009 @ 2:40 pm

Yo, Ridley! Just watched the video…Are you a totally retarded asshole, like me, or does somebody actually *PAY* you to be so fucking inane & stupid? Yes, that really is a serious question. Are you a retarded asshole like I am, or a paid stooge? Or something else? What? A “moral objection”???…WTF!?!?!?….you belong in jail, dude….

Comment by LSNL

June 26, 2009 @ 4:13 pm

Bradford;

Why? His point is that he has an actual objection, and he isn’t going to play ball. There is a reason why Burke asked if he had a “legal” objection.

Sorry, everyone, if this is what’s called feeding the trolls.

Comment by charley hardman

June 27, 2009 @ 2:00 am

burke the career dumbass brought his quivery voice to the stage on this one. funny.

The legality of a judge issuing orders that have effect outside the actual courtroom is in question among activists,

if that’s the BS (standard) meaning of “legality”, how can this be in question? the incompetently written rule 1.4 asserts, “[...] If an objection is made, the media will be so advised and the court will conduct an evidentiary hearing during which all interested parties will be heard to determine whether, and to what extent, coverage by the electronic media or still photography will be limited. This rule and procedures also apply to all court procedures conducted outside the courtroom or the court facility. [...]”

typical of tyrannical “law”, rule 1.4 begins by banning all recording, then hands out allowance exceptions. far as the “law” goes, dave’s probably screwed if he merely didn’t make an explicit request “as far in advance as practicable”. the rule’s a masterpiece of imprecise drivel, but more than enough for tyrants to point to when confronting “legal” argument of which they’re the arbiter.

belaboring judge-sig and first amendment arguments here must be a last resort, not genuine argument. a written order’s not required by rule 1.4, and the first amendment — standard claptrap “incorporation” foolishness and similar LRC/LvMI rot notwithstanding — is solely a limitation on the US congress (and thereby the whole of the fedgoonery).

if this “law” is to be disregarded (as should all “law”), why worry about the “wiretap” BS? record in secret as necessary. much of this lobby-recording dispute is worthless showboating, trying to shake dicks and dance with inferior twaddle. borders on neurotic.

[Dave] can also file criminal charges.

not with this court. i think that’s the third time at this site i’ve seen someone bleeting absurd big TV talk about “filing criminal charges”. non-statists cannot file criminal charges in state courts.

Comment by Lpviper

June 27, 2009 @ 11:27 am

Why don’t you let them try anyway, Charlie? Nothing good ever got got without effort. I say if they if they want to file criminal complaints, more power to ‘em.

I know, we’re not as smart as you, but we have to stumble forward in some fashion here…

Comment by charley hardman

June 29, 2009 @ 12:04 am

Why don’t you let them try anyway, Charlie? Nothing good ever got got without effort.

baloney rhetoric of statists, regardless of your intent.

I say if they if they want to file criminal complaints, more power to ‘em.

describe the process, please. BTW, i quoted and replied to “file criminal charges”.

here’s the funniest bit of your typically inane rambles: you are advocating, via statist blah blah language, what you denigrate elsewhere: “reciprocated violence”.

the statist core of some regular commenters on this site is baffling. so far i can only attribute it to residual brainwashing. what you refer to positively as “file criminal complaints” is merely an attempt to get the state to use force on behalf of right. this suddenly whitewashes “reciprocated violence”, apparently… if you’re a dullard.

until you fools get straight on language and ethics, all your worrying about PR is a joke. you assert elsewhere, “Juries are way more important than reciprocal violence”. name a jury under an official crime syndicate (i.e., the state) that isn’t empaneled via the threat of violence — forget how their verdict is to be, um, enforced.

being humans, voluntarists have no right to enslave jurors, directly or otherwise. again, you are using, wrongfully, the brainwashing of the state internally to selectively isolate rightful violence from your disparagement. does not compute. you do not have a right to a jury as composed by an official crime syndicate. you do, however, have the right to bust a cap in the ass of someone attempting to enslave you via threat of death. take it from there, if you can.

Comment by Zeus

June 29, 2009 @ 12:32 am

It’s possible, Charley, that people might be more inclined to listen to your arguments if you could refrain from the constant stream of acidic insults that you spew forth in nearly every post.

If you’re as principled and as logical as you allege, the strength of your argument should be enough.

If, for one second, I believed you really were the shining beacon on the hill for liberty and the peak of perfection in principles, I’d have to take pause and reconsider the entire pro-liberty philosophy because if the result of becoming such a “paragon of principle” as yourself means also becoming a cruel and inhuman douchebag spouting epithets like so much verbal diarrhea and imagining it’s clever wordplay, something must be horribly broken.

While you have certainly proven to be the latter in your many posts, I have been fortunate enough to see no evidence that you are the former… and seeing is believing.

Comment by charley hardman

June 29, 2009 @ 1:09 am

It’s possible, Charley, that people might be more inclined to listen to your arguments if you could refrain from the constant stream of acidic insults that you spew forth in nearly every post.

wow. earthshaking. check your premise, sherlock.

If you’re as principled and as logical as you allege, the strength of your argument should be enough.

and the insult is irrelevant — a point your dumb ass apparently can’t figure out, even with warning.

speaking of bafflement, i do find it nearly unbelievable that posers so often decry insult in the same post where they give it the ol’ college try. according to you i have proven myself “a cruel and inhuman douchebag spouting epithets like so much verbal diarrhea”. okay. is insult bad or isn’t it?

when it’s used to evade an opponent’s argument, as you do habitually, it can be argued logically that it’s deficient. heal yourself, butt stupid. you don’t get a pass because you’re bitching about me insulting. you don’t get a pass because your kind is normally too pussified and dishonest to insult directly and openly, opting instead for insult via sentence as if that somehow makes it better. wordplay? wake up.

listen closely, dumbfucks: insult is irrelevant to an argument. the very reason morons like you presume wrongly that insult is necessarily fallacious is precisely why it’s ignorable in logic analysis. your doof prancing doesn’t change this truth.

you don’t like me. you don’t like that i insult you and others. got it. it’s irrelevant to my argument. you may assert in honesty that it’s unnecessary and slows down the already slow, but you may not assert in honesty that it hinders an argument. i will not stop insulting fools because the fools don’t like it and invent all manner of strained disingenuous disguises for protest. their inordinate protests point to their disease. reliably.

seeing is believing

all that after i’ve repeatedly told you and the other FK fools to assume i’m, at best, a run-of-the-mill statist.

if the result of becoming such a “paragon of principle” as yourself means also becoming

logic. check it. don’t be conveniently/rhetorically absurd.

Comment by Zeus

June 29, 2009 @ 1:27 am

you don’t like me. you don’t like that i insult you and others. got it. it’s irrelevant to my argument.

Glad you got the first part. What you still fail to understand, however, is that because you are such an immense douchebag no one gives a shit what your argument is and no one wants anything to do with you. You’ve relegated yourself to nothing more than troll status.

Here’s a metaphor for your insult-laden posts and acidic personality: It’s like offering us bottles of a vintage wine that you swear up and down is the cat’s meow… after soaking the bottles in raw sewage.

Thanks for the thought, but I think I’ll pass on that offer. Drink it in good health, though. It’s all yours.

Hope you like to drink alone.

Comment by charley hardman

June 29, 2009 @ 1:43 am

You’ve relegated yourself to nothing more than troll status.

and there it is, the final step in your abject evasion: the T word — ultimate internet coward maneuver from someone decrying fallacious ad hominem. and, of course, a pile of collectivist ninny talk. next stop, pluralis majestatis.

ron paul!

Comment by Chuck Toughguy

June 29, 2009 @ 2:10 am

You tell ‘em Hardman!

These foolish collectivist posers are just a bunch of statist dullards who haven’t the tiniest clue what liberty is all about.

It’s about being able to post on sites like this without having to act in a civil manner, telling everyone they’re doing it wrong and ripping into them as rudely as possible if they disagree!

You shouldn’t be so damn sociable with them though, dude. Instead of pussyfooting around with ‘em, just post a string of invectives at these mental deficients and leave it at that. It’s more efficient and probably just as effective as the long diatribes.

Screw courtesy, tact and polite discussion! Keep it raw and real.

Comment by charley hardman

June 29, 2009 @ 3:05 am

sarcasm. wow. sarcastic straw man. triple wow.

when of you dumb bastards has a refutation of my argument, send up a flare. you should be happy that my insults give you an excuse to ignore the uncomfortable (e.g., defensive violence you route through the state is still violence, violence isn’t inherently wrong, voluntarists are debarred crime syndicate jury trials, non-statists may not “file criminal charges”, written order not required in this case, dave and sam picked shaky ground, FK participants — not dave in this case — are too often a joke when confronting court thugs, “courtesy” isn’t worth a fuck when you’re an imprecise joke, many FK participants pretend to advocate liberty while still thoroughly state-brainwashed).

Comment by Dan Steward

June 29, 2009 @ 9:12 am

Why are you here Charlie Hardman?

You attempt to run a scam (mostly successful only on yourself) to try to convince the members that you have something to contribute. Deflect away from this important point as much as you like but what is, still indeed is.

You contribute nothing of substance. You have nothing to offer, your insults are of no value, they help no one at all, ever. Nothing is added to the conversation from your acidic spews that they can ever use to better their lives, improve their situation, or make changes to reduce government control in their existence.

You have no solutions or you’d have posted them long ago. Again why are you here if not to disrupt and prove to everyone here that you lack even the basic skills of polite, sociable behavior? Don’t you think that you’d like to change that about yourself? What has it really gained you?

There is nothing special about you in your current self-limiting state. Others just like yourself have on numerous forums and newsgroups, dedicated their time to very similar masochistic musings, all the while fooling themselves into believing that they have some “magical talent” yet produce nothing effective or valuable to show for their constant boasts.

They all seem to get a very temporary (and addictive) charge out of the feedback they generate from their nastiness. It feeds what they have conned themselves into thinking is their reward for being a bully.

What they are really feeding on in fact, is again that masochistic jolt of pleasure they get from the encounter. I don’t know about you, but that is about the most pathetic self-imposed thing that a person would have to endure. I feel sorry for people who continue their lives that way.

Do you really want that to be all that you are? Is that what you would want to see as the total sum of your legacy of your life on earth? If you are truly as intelligent as you want people to think that you are then your answer should be obvious.

You enjoy messing with people and that never raises your “status” above that of any other person. It never will, of course. You can begin to have the potential to be a great person once you ditch that enslaving mindset.

I can’t just ever in any circumstance see lifting myself up at the same time that I am pushing another man down. Why would you think that it would work in your case?

Make the changes, Charlie. If you are truly sincere in a possible future personality transformation with yourself truly in control of who you are, then please understand that people are more forgiving here than you might think.

Your alternative is to be forever regarded as a pathetic slave to your own mind, a sad wreck of a man to be constantly pitied.

Comment by Lpviper

June 29, 2009 @ 9:29 am

What’s sad is, there are good thoughts there, I think, and I try to pick them out, but when I ask specific questions that can’t be answered by an insult, he vanishes.

Maybe I am ’straw man, dreck, idiot’, whatever, it doesn’t matter because I will never admit it to him or myself.

And I don’t really need to derive any info from him with all the resources that are available to us these days.

But part of me wants him on our team because he’s smart. It’s too bad he’s such an enormous prick.

Comment by elkfartthetroll

June 29, 2009 @ 6:33 pm

YO! Don’t worry about “feeding trolls”…Charley Hardlyaman has rocks for brains…he’s a freakin’ rookie, to me…I coulda’ flamed his ass to Babylon & back, if I had more time on here…he mistakes “intelligence” for “intellect”…he’s got a little education, sure, but when(if) you get past his B.S., you find that he’s still stuck in the same old circular psuedo-logic arguments…TO LSNL: …”play ball”???…SHEESH!…enough with the sports metaphors, OK?…didn’t know us TROLLS can fast, didja”???…So, Zeus & viper & etc…you ROCK!…PAUL: Thanks for the link to the graphic! I got a good self-depracating chuckle out of it!…Let’s see how long these guys last….a few weeks from now, they will be history…just keep ignoring the jerks…they *DO* eventually go away….

Comment by Lpviper

June 29, 2009 @ 9:01 pm

I think ‘peace is a means unto itself’ is not just a figure of speech. I enjoy watching NH liberty activists proving me right.

Keep up the good fight, we’ll be there soon as we are able!

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the answer to the math equation shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the equation.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam equation

Subscribe without commenting