Activist Kurt Hoffman Jailed for 180 Days for “Contempt”

15 Comments on Activist Kurt Hoffman Jailed for 180 Days for “Contempt”

Paul on Sat, 3rd Oct 2009 4:14 pm


---

Burke behaves contemptibly — repeatedly taking peaceful people who have not harmed anyone away from their families and throwing them in cages. What does he expect? He kidnaps anyone who he considers to have disrespected him, otherwise refuses to lick his boots, or asks too many questions.

I’ve heard of other people who use violence to obtain and enforce “respect”, but they’re all gang members.

Contempt is the least of what his sick and violent actions warrant.


Fredrik from sweden on Sat, 3rd Oct 2009 4:20 pm


---

About the second charge. On this issue many libertarians are dead wrong.

If you are operating a vehicle you must be able to show evidence that you have proven that you are a safe driver.

Ian you your self have argued that this would be the case in a free market society. Why have different standards just because organisation A sets up thus rule and not organization B?

The result is exactly the same.


Paul on Sat, 3rd Oct 2009 4:25 pm


---

Fredrik, I don’t agree. I am sure many private road owners would choose to require credentials, but I also think there would be many which would not require credentials, but only collect tolls. You’d be free to choose which roads to patronize.

More importantly, our money would not be taken by force to fund those roads. If I am not being forced to pay for a road, but I choose to use it anyway, then I have consented to complying with the rules of the owner — including, perhaps, credentials.

No such agreement exists with government, because they force people to be their “customers”. Government does not have property rights, as the private road owner would, because they obtained their property by theft.


Ian on Sat, 3rd Oct 2009 4:38 pm


---

Fredrik,

Kurt was driving safely for the conditions. There was no need to stop him in the first place.


Ed D on Sun, 4th Oct 2009 2:23 am


---

Fredrik, you commented:
“If you are operating a vehicle you must be able to show evidence that you have proven that you are a safe driver.”

Would that evidence be a driver license, Fredrik? Do you know how many accidents (perhaps not-so-accidental) are caused on the public roadways by the unsafe and irresponsible actions of those in possession of licenses (proof that they are safe drivers)? Mere possession of a license does not prove that one is a “safe driver”–at least based on my observation of the driving habits of the licensed motorists here in Las Vegas.

Such a license only shows that one has demonstrated he is aware of the rules of the road and is able to control a motor vehicle and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, has paid the appropriate fee for issuance of the license.


Fredrik from sweden on Sun, 4th Oct 2009 6:08 am


---

Paul: Do you really think that people would be inclined to use a road that had no rules to increase safety? Do you really think that road owners would be so stupid even if they could? Even if everything possibly in a free market system it does not mean that everything will exist.

About the money argument: This is just Bull Shit. Safety is safety who ever make up the rules. The road owner has an obligation to the other people that uses the road to make it as safe as possible (after doing a cost benefit analyses) to travel on the road.

And concerning driver license as a barometer for safety. This completely depends on what requirements you have for people to get a license, obviously it is far to easy to get a license in most places in the United States. just look at the statistics

Number of fatalities in traffic per year.
3 per 100 000 citizens in Sweden
13 per 100 000 citizens in United States

If all you have to do to get a license is to drive around on a parking lot and pass a theoretical exam, then no a driver licens is not a proof that you are a safe driver. In Sweden it is hard to pass the driving part of the exam. And that clearly has resulted in a lot less fatalities.

There is no way of knowing if a free market would be forced to make it harder to get a license or not. But if they do it would led to less fatalities.

Ian, I agree that the police might not have a valid reason to stop him. That does not change my position that everyone who drive a car must show that they are a safe driver.


Paul on Sun, 4th Oct 2009 6:29 am


---

I’m sure there would be a few roads with no rules, Frederik, if only to cater to the hard core free spirits, although I agree that they would likely be a small minority. There would be many more, I am sure, which would have rules but no licensing. And, some would no doubt require licensing.

And the money point is not B.S. at all, it’s the main issue. If a person owns property, they have the right to set any rules they want on it. I could say that only red headed jet pilots with one gimpy leg can drive on my land if I wanted to.

If I steal money from a number of people and use it to buy land, however, the people I have stolen the money from have a right to use that land – they, in reality, own it. This means that government can’t make whatever arbitrary rules they want for use of “their” property.

Cops have no right to enforce these arbitrary rules. They do, however, have the right to stop someone who is behaving recklessly, or in the act of harming people. Anyone has a right to stop such a person – it’s self defense, and/or defense of innocents.

Slowly rolling through a stop sign is not reckless behavior, and certainly not having a license is not reckless. Doing 30 mph more than the flow of traffic while weaving back and forth, for example, is reckless.

By the way, Frederik, I’d be interested in learning more about the details of how your PRAs work. It’s not truly voluntary, as I understand it, but they are at least locally controlled by citizens, rather than government. Is that correct? Are rules enforced on these roads? How much leeway to PRAs have – how much do they vary?


NHObserver on Sun, 4th Oct 2009 9:30 am


---

How is Kurt an ‘activist’?

What has he done besides being hassled?(lots of times it looks like)

But does that make one an activist?


Ian on Sun, 4th Oct 2009 10:37 am


---

Just within the last week or so he’s taken a lead role in the cannabis celebrations.

Yes, standing up for yourself while being hassled makes you an activist – but he does more than that.


Thomas on Sun, 4th Oct 2009 12:33 pm


---

Why don’t the activists demand a jury, instead of letting a lone excuse of a man (Burke) try and sentence Kurt (and other activists) time in jail? It’s within our rights, you know (6th Amendment).


the kingof keene on Sun, 4th Oct 2009 10:19 pm


---

This is too serious for my usual BS. I’ve listened carefully to the tape. I hear 2 fucking idiots. Lots of what sounds like pen-on-paper writing near the middle/end. Also, sounds like handcuffs clinking long before he was supposedly cuffed. Burke gets no slack from me. Fuck you, you piece of shit, Burke. Kurt, you’re just a fucking idiot. What a waste of time this all is. Really. I’m almost disgusted. Mostly, because of the time -MY TIME – that I waste on here. Yes, Rivera, you piece of shit, you almost met God today. I’m closer to him, than you, but that’s only because you keep walking away from the light & truth of love. Why is it that I can only see you as a violent, nasty little man, Rivera? But after seeing the video from Friday, only today – Sunday -I now know why Lance was so SQUIRRLY when I stopped @ City Hall to pee on the 2nd floor last Fri. afternoon. But, this audio does agree that Burke should be de-benched…Contempt my ass. To paraphrase Nicholson in “A Few Good Men”: “Burke, you can’t handle respect!”…and you sure as shit deserve none from me…ARTICLE X, NH Constitution, motherfuckers…///…How much does anybody want to bet me, that Kurt will be out long before the 6 months is up???…I hope he is. Too many truly violent, dangerous people out here, to waste precious jail space on irrelavancies(sp!) like young Mr Hoffman. I’d rather see Eli in jail! Now there’s a wet dream, huh, Ian!?…(I wonder if Burke’s seen the copy of my proposed proclamation, that I left w/the Court office last week?…whatever…Thank-you, readers! Thank a teacher! ~tKoK~


Peacemaker on Mon, 5th Oct 2009 9:53 am


---

4 NHObserver:

Sam was arrested for breaking NO law. Kurt stayed to do all he could to support Sam and was consequently targeted as well. I’m sorry you cannot see how supporting and standing up for one’s freedom is being an activist. Oh well, I imagine it’s just a simple case of too much government education and daily state news that’s clouding your reality! Hang in there, we’ll help you find the truth!
——

$15,000 dollars Judge Burke wants to spend to show the people who’s boss. Chump change for him I guess because they’ll make 10 times that when they confiscate their next house for not paying the property tax bribe.

Idea: BIG SIGNs, letting the people know Judge Burke just spent $15 Thousand of people’s money! The people are going to love learning of this one.


charley hardman on Tue, 6th Oct 2009 9:23 pm


---

, Edward Burke has decided to spend about $15,000 taxpayer dollars (over $80 per day to jail someone in NH)

ian repeats his moron economics. try truth.


About the second charge. On this issue many libertarians are dead wrong.

only if they hold your state-slurping position.


If you are operating a vehicle you must be able to show evidence that you have proven that you are a safe driver.

beyond the control-freak stupidity of that false assertion, later in the thread you basically concede that such “evidence” in the goonited states is a joke. oh, but come to attention! you’re a control freak wannabe social engineer posing as a liberty advocate. here’s your pal.


Why have different standards just because organisation A sets up thus rule and not organization B?

The result is exactly the same.

again i wonder how people as stupid as you are drawn to liberty. must be chicks involved somewhere.

your disingenuous question ignores that “organisation A” gets its “customers” via the muzzle of a gun. the true assertion is that you have no fucking idea how the result would be, nor do i. tyranny, however, is rationally opposed. get rational. get your nose out of the state’s ass.


Why don’t the activists demand a jury, instead of letting a lone excuse of a man (Burke) try and sentence Kurt (and other activists) time in jail? It’s within our rights, you know (6th Amendment).

you do not have a right to enslave non-aggressors into a jury.


Seriously... on Fri, 22nd Jan 2010 9:36 am


---

“ian repeats his moron economics. try truth.”

Oh please sir, do enlighten to what the truth is. There is no point telling someone else that their facts are wrong but have no backup facts of their own.


charley hardman on Fri, 22nd Jan 2010 6:00 pm


---

Oh please sir, do enlighten to what the truth is. There is no point telling someone else that their facts are wrong but have no backup facts of their own.

dilemma: typical of fools wanking at this site (the majority), you’ve in a short span entrenched yourself across multiple layers of confusion that, to unfold properly, require more sense and patient logic than you hold. regardless, i will not attempt to educate you fully on this matter without being paid at least $200 (4 hr max).

your use of the word “facts” is preposterous, your understanding of the principle of valid/invalid logic absent. replacement “facts” aren’t required when someone argues in the form,

P1 lead is heavy.
P2 from my bedroom window i see three horses carrying a pallet of lead.
C therefore, the atomic weight of lead is one third of a horse.

you have said to a critic of such illogic, “There is no point telling someone else that their facts are wrong but have no backup facts of their own”, yet noting invalidity of the logic suffices. worse for your position, my core argument would hold even if (though it’s not possible here) ian’s final numbers were close to accurate. yes, i understand you’ve no grasp of what i’m talking about, though that likely won’t contain your idiot truculence.

applicable here, a famous philosopher team once wrote,

But what a fool believes he sees
No wise man has the power to reason away
What seems to be
Is always better than nothing
There’s nothing at all
But what a fool believes he sees…

the first step for you, if you’re serious about understanding ian’s dreadful accounting/economics fuckup in this thread, is to understand that you’re stupid and overconfident. that may sound like a joke or irrelevant argument tactic. it isn’t. second step is to go elsewhere here and read more on the same subject.

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!