Brandon said “No” and was Punished
Brandon Durham of Keene found the morning of October 19, 2009 a little chilly. He was walking to the courthouse wearing a hooded sweatshirt and found that putting the hood up kept his head warmer. He entered the City Hall building and proceeded up the stairs and through the security checkpoint. Brandon then entered the courtroom and took a seat while he waited for the judge to enter the room and process the days docket.
A bailiff approached Brandon and asked him to remove his hood.
Brandon forgot he even had it on and declined when asked to remove it.
The bailiff continued to demand that the hood be removed and Brandon remained steadfast, hooded and seated peacefully. The bailiff then asked Brandon to leave the courtroom to which Brandon said no.
Mr. Durham was put under arrest and ordered to stand up to aid in his capture and once again he said no. Bailiffs then attempted to force Brandon to stand and it was at this point that Brandon decided he would remain in the same passive state he was already in and not assist in his caging.
Looking at this situation, all Brandon did was say “no”. The State does not like it when its servants say “no”. It gets very anger and violent when “no” is the answer.
The State is also very territorial and it will mark its territory with various signs like security checkpoints, armed aggressors-in-waiting, signage claiming authority and many locked doors. This public property belongs to the public only when the agents of the state permit it.
Brandon Durham has been released and has a March 2010 court date for Criminal Trespassing.
Your precious democracy, your tattered republic ends at the threshold of a courtroom or the whim of a police officer. Welcome to temporary tyranny, welcome to your part-time police state.
Comments
50 Comments on Brandon said “No” and was Punished
Way to stand strong Brandon. It is such a minor thing, but the importance of this kind of activism is higher then ever. Unfortunately being obedient is so in fashion. I’m sure the most common statist response to this would be “Ahh come on man, he asked you to take it off, why not just do it? Why cause the problems.”
We need to take obedience to the state out of fashion.
Nice of them to reduce their charges.
It’s like a guy attacking you, breaking your arm, then standing on it while saying; If you just tell us what we want to know I’ll get off your arm. (I’ll reduce the charges and just leave you with your injury)
Oh, and I’ll expect some of your money too. Come pay my boss a visit, and a little advise, don’t make us find you.
What a wonderful contribution these people are choosing to make in the world.
It would be really cool if everyone showed up in a black robe. What could they say? The tyrant gets to wear a dress, why can’t the slaves?
I guest the boss may not only want money. He may demand you be an accessory to theft, by forcing you into a caging facility and making everyone else pay for it. The bureaucrats in his organization running the operation make a nice living that way.
On the black robe: They wouldn’t let the people in, said it was a costume.
Nice post, JJ. Thanks for putting this up – I’ve been wondering about the details on this one.
Wyatt- we tried that and were denied entry because it’s not our daily work uniform.
You guys are tough minded.
By the way? Was the bailiff or the judge injured?
IAN: What If I were to employ you for a nominal salary and require that you wear a black robe for at least some point on each work day, and sign an affidavit attest that the robe is your work uniform?
What excuse will Mr. Burke give then?
The charge of criminal trespass seems spurious, to me. As George notes, it is public property. Being in the court room is among the rights of the public. If Brandon was there, as I suspect, to observe someone else’s trial, then his presence is part of the right of the accused to a public trial.
The sixth amendment says, in part, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial…” and you cannot have a public trial if members of the public are barred from the court room.
The custom of taking your hat off inside, or in the presence of a “superior” is a British caste society concept, and foreign to both the pre-Roman mainstream European clan culture (which retained expression in Scottish highlands clans through the 19th Century) and to the American revolutionary credo. One of the things that many people fought for in the American Revolution was equality, so a poor man did not have to jump into the gutter and doff his cap when some rich muck walked by with his painted lady.
I suspect that if a Jewish man wore a yarmulke (skull cap) into court, he would not be accosted. This suggests that Brandon’s religious preferences were discriminated against. I suspect that if an Islamic man wore a head covering into court, he would be accosted and told to take it off. How a Sikh might be treated with his turban is less certain, but my guess is that the pigs would be unpleasant.
Public Property? Is this possible?
I agree with Jim…Has anyone yet refused citing religious objections? Don’t Quakers keep their hats on as well?
“Home of the Slave”
You are a slave.
Free people can refuse demands for their lives,
their time, their assets and their children.
Slaves cannot. You can be forced to do something
or to surrender something that you don’t wish to.
You are a slave.
You are forced to surrender half your life’s work
to the government in taxes, fees and seizures.
You are a slave.
You are watched, spied on, limited, silenced, and
taxed. The governors can do what they want, take
what they want, and you cannot refuse.
Government’s thugs can search through your
records without warrant, and break into your home
at will. Are you able to refuse them?
No? – You are a slave.
You live under a government that takes your
wealth and your children. It lies to you to keep
you docile and scares you to keep you obedient.
You have little power over your life.
Congratulations – You are a slave.
Free people can say “no”.
From a Facebook note I wrote 10 September 2009. Ladies of Liberty have promised to work up a video of this song. You may recall the tune from grade school.
If yer happy and you know it, shake your chains!
If yer happy and you know it, shake your chains!
If yer happy and you know it
Tell your friends not to blow it
Be a good little slave and shake yer chains!
If yer happy and you know it show ID.
If yer happy and you know it show ID.
If yer happy and you know it
Shut yer mouth and just stow it
Be a good little slave and show ID
If yer happy and you know it sell yer guns.
If yer happy and you know it sell yer guns.
If yer happy and you know it
Empty holster’s how you show it
If yer happy and you know it sell yer guns.
If yer happy and you know it pay more tax.
If yer happy and you know it pay more tax.
If yer happy and you know it
Empty wallet’s how you show it
If yer happy and you know it pay more tax.
[Shouted in unison]: THIS WON’T DO!
If yer angry and you know it, break your chains!
If yer angry and you know it, break your chains!
If yer angry and you know it
Never be afraid to show it
Claim freedom for yourself and break yer chains!
If yer eager and you know it burn ID.
If yer eager and you know it burn ID.
If yer eager and you know it
Tell the state just to stow it,
Stand up proud, free yourself, and burn ID
If yer careful and you know it buy more guns.
If yer careful and you know it buy more guns.
If yer careful and you know it
Defending freedom’s how you show it
If yer careful and you know it buy more guns.
If yer free now and you know it pay no tax.
If yer free now and you know it pay no tax.
If yer free now and you know it
Loving life is how you show it
If yer free now and you know it pay no tax.
Public property is impossible. It’s them who claim it however saying it’s yours (and everyone’s) and then contradict that with their actions. In reality though so called “public property” is just unowned.
Also the state isn’t an “it”. They’re just people who take their little game a little too seriously, like mentally ill serious.
Funny this site requires an email address. What is the endgame of actions like this? What will this accomplish other than proving ignorance and leaving a bad taste in everybodys mouth?
Not to mention how the seemingly most hardcore advocates cave once the state applies real pressure.
Give up your name or delayed trial? Instantly the name is given. So much for that
Just some simple questions looking for answers.
I can’t answer why an e-mail address is required, but the punishment for not giving your name is effectively life in prison — they’ll keep you there until you do.
I also think many realize it’s not a good idea to take stands you’re not willing to follow through on. So, to stand up to this particular tyranny, you’d have to be willing to stay in jail indefinitely.
Sam did stand up to them and won — he never gave his name, conducted a hunger strike, and was released after about two months.
To take a stand like this, a hunger strike is probably the best approach, so as to at least put a timeframe on it, so they can’t just leave you to rot.
But what about the endgame? what are the goals? to just keep complaining about our oppression under the system, and the misuse of tax dollars? and causing increased spending of tax dollars?
I mean i’m all for limited government, but why make mountains out of molehills? IE: Its moranic to question why one is not allowed in city hall during certain hours.
What actions are being taken to change the system by using the system? It worked for the socialists.
LSNL your poem is ridiculous. Anyone who is a slave is a slave by choice. They chose to wear their chains. You can always say no. You might be killed, imprisoned or tortured but you won’t be a slave. If your imprisonment or torture becomes unbearable you can always commit suicide and die, a free man.
“IE: Its moranic to question why one is not allowed in city hall during certain hours. ”
General rule of thumb: when someone tells you what you’re doing is “moranic[sic]“, you keep doing it.
I think that’s kind of a silly definition, ICE. By that logic every victim who gets mugged or raped at gunpoint, volunteered to be a victim, because they didn’t want to die.
I think the definition of “choose” or “voluntary” is a bit stronger than being forced into an unjust and evil situation lest something worse be perpetrated on you. If I say “your money or your life”, you are still an involuntary victim of theft — you only avoided being the involuntary victim of murder as well.
Yeah,
Here are a few long-term goals, which I think many would share.
- The police exercise discretion, and their own consciences, and choose not to enforce any and every arbitrary diktat any bureaucrat or politician happens to write down. Ideally, they would only enforce crimes which have victims, as self-defense is the only legitimate basis for law. Bastiat’s “The Law” is one of many good books on this topic: http://mises.org/story/2060
- People realize that extorting money from their peaceful neighbors by threatening to put them in cages or steal their houses, is fundamentally immoral. The practice stops, either because of mass civil disobedience, police refusal to enforce eviction notices, or through the electoral process. Government functions are funded on a voluntary basis — subscription, donation, advertising, users fees, etc. On a local level, I think this change might come through election, but I think one or both of the first two approaches would almost certainly be needed to become free of federal gangsters.
- Alternatives to government spring up in industries which they had held monopoly power over, or heavily regulated/licenced. Don’t think the city fire department is doing a good job at a good price? Subscribe to a different one. Want to open your own liqueur store, start a taxi service, or deliver first class mail? Go for it. Feel free to open a restaurant that allows smoking. Like the idea of free schools for the poor, but don’t think the government’s doing a good job? Send that money to a private, charitable school. Competition is vital to accountability, and if government is becoming abusive or ineffective in a certain area, free people need to be able to choose to withdraw support.
- This is a longer term goal (not that the others aren’t), but public property should eventually be ceded back to the people it was taken from. This should be done in the way so as to cause the least disruption possible. Some properties, like parks, would probably be best auctioned off or ceded to a community conservation group. Each major highway could be auctioned off as a unit (as has been done successfully in a number of cities), to a highway maintenance and operation business, which could fund itself by subscription, toll, or advertising. Rural roads would probably be best ceded for free to local residents, who could then decide how best to manage them. All proceeds from these sales would be split among former taxpayers.
The goals are decent. So why this approach that is constantly being taken. You should be trying to convince people of your plan and ideas, convince them intelligently. Masquerading around pulling stunt after stunt with a bunch of people that agree with you is nothing more than masturbation and a waste of a lot of peoples money.
Please place the onus of responsibility where it belongs. The government people are the ones wasting your money. They could choose to be reasonable, but they don’t.
You say this civil disobedience/noncooperation approach is “constantly” being taken, but that’s only because it’s more noticeable. There are constantly political things going on in Concord. See http://nhliberty.org for details on that stuff. Here in Keene our blogger and Keene native Nick Ryder is running for city council. That stuff doesn’t make for front page news though, so I understand why your perspective is skewed.
I’d also like to point out there is a lot of media being created as well, so really there is quite a lot aside from what you are pointing out.
Admittedly, Keene is attracting more disobedience due to the past iterations of such. In regards to convincing people, we are all very approachable, friendly people and are regularly communicating these ideas to people. I have a radio show wherein I communicate these ideas to an international audience (it airs in Keene on WKBK).
Hope that helps.
…another letter-to-the-editor in the Slanted-in-hell(Keene “Sentinel”…our motto: “re-visioning history, fabricating the future…”) this week…some angry(scared) guy venting(spouting off)…anybody else notice that the detractors and nay-sayers *ALWAYS* include some lines like these: “you’re hurting your cause”, – “waste of time”, “turning people off” doing more harm to your cause”-etc., in other words, these people are always criticizing the freekeene/freestaters/420protesters, etc., and pointing out that you guys aren’t doing so well at promoting your cause…*WELL*, if that’s true, what exactly are all these critics *COMPLAINING ABOUT*???…If you guys really aren’t doing much, why all the *OPPOSITION*???…and the *ANGRY* opposition, well, if you’ve posted something truly angry, or hateful, or hurtful, on here – we know you have – *WHY*???…If nothing else, you guys are generating discussion & controversy!…Maybe, just maybe, guys like Burke & Rivera really can’t help it. *I* think that they have diagnosable mental disorders. Homo ultra-Sapien Morbidus…c’est la vie!
Thom,
Is your disagreement with civil disobedience in general, or with some of the particular instances of civil disobedience in Keene? I think peaceful civil disobedience has been shown to be an extremely effective means for change throughout both our national history and the history of the world. The examples are too many to count. I am sure, however, that there are ways in which activism in Keene could be improved. I for one would certainly love to hear suggestions and ideas about what kinds of civil disobedience could be most effective towards these ends. Of course, I’d consider leaders willing to demonstrate their ideas through action the most welcome of all.
civil disobedience is not the right play in this current climate, it alienates to many that are on the verge of agreeing with your goals. if you’re trying to coax a sheep or (whatever) up to you, why jump around making big sudden movements.
The country is polarized. And smallgov thought is gaining ground, show them that your ideas are more than a bunch of geeks acting out.
THOMSTELE,
That is the argument from a typical statist control freak, trying to tell everyone what to do.
Stop supporting violence against peaceful people. Freedom does not alienate people, it liberates them.
thom, so when are you coming to Keene to do your type of activism. . .the stuff that YOU think works?
Thom, I disagree. Political activity alone has been tried, we only get more and more tyranny all the time. People need to be woken up to the fact that their system is immoral. That needs to be done with deeds, not just words. Civil disobedience has always been used in tense political situations. You think the segregated south was not polarized?
How, pray tell, do we “show them” what our ideas are? Liberty minded ideas have been and continue to be ignored, as main stream media feeds people a steady diet of red team vs. blue team B.S., with not a dime’s worth of difference between them. If you want to organize a public debate/discussion of voluntaryist or principled libertarian ideas, believe me, I’d be happy to show up. In fact, I’d like to organize something like this, but I wouldn’t hold my breath about turnout.
The fact is, people always ignore injustice until someone takes a stand.
keep it up dudes. the circle jerk continues i guess. 
Again, Thom, what do you suggest?
Political activity alone has been tried, and fails. Why should people tired of having their rights abused not stand up for those rights?
I think it’s apparent that Thom-troll needs to go on a diet; DFTT anymore.
What political action have you guys taken in recent years. I mean political action with the same of ammount of energy you put into doing…nothin effective?
what candidates did you have in local and state elections in 08?
Electoral politics is a scam and ineffective. It’s a diversion. Direct action works.
I’ve put plenty of energy into politics, and gotten very little ROI.
That said, Julia Miranda ran for city council in ’07 and Nick Ryder is running this year. Andrew Carroll will be running for state rep in ’10.
Most activists in this area aren’t too interested in politics, but you can find people who are doing the routine stuff like contacting the so-called reps and attending and speaking at hearings in Concord and at Keene city council meetings.
That should answer your question, Thom.
Check out nhliberty.org, thom. If you truly believe in freedom, but believe political activity is the best way to get there, I suggest you get involved with them.
I think many that are part of this movement have been longtime political activists, many of those as part of the libertarian party. If you put a significant amount of time into effecting real change in politics — especially on the national level — I think you’d understand how futile it often is, and how stacked the deck is. The nature of government is to increase in size, and the nature of politics is to promise goodies to everyone.
I think this next 4-8 years is a crucial opening that we haven’t had in the political field in some time. What a window! We have a socialist for president who is going to expand government to the breaking point and now is the time to push. A lot of people only know national politics, it’s our job to inform them of the effect grassroots change can take. If all the time that is currently spent going in and out of jail and increasing your reputation as a anarchist gang was spent going door to door and thoughtfully educating residents of our great city i think you’d have great results. A greater presence on campus is needed also, but politically and in the shenanigans you guys regularly take part in. after all, its a state school.
Thom, would you be interested in participating in a door-to-door campaign to discuss/educate people? I am sure many would join and support this kind of effort.
Of course, I’m assuming that you really believe in liberty, I’m still not sure where you stand on that — if you’re going to promote neoconism I doubt many would jump on board. Are you in favor of victimless crime? How about an interventionist foreign policy? Standing armies? Forced taxation?
In any case, I think your idea is a good one. Maybe I’ll give it a shot when I get there, or maybe others will take it up sooner.
Love victimless crime. We should invade mexico (they have oil). I say make the standing armies do jumping jacks. Also a %50 forced limb tax.
Sound good?
:p
Lol
Is the limb tax to be paid in limbs, or do I get to pay the equivalent value in FRNs? Also, how to I evaluate my limbs? Will there be an inspector coming by to see if I’ve been working out, and need to file an adjustment?
all kidding asside define vicimless crime for me. the interventionalist thing i’m torn on, i go either way.
Standing armies i’m for, and i believe in a certain ammount of forced taxation to pay for certain things. But i believe that 98-99% of non-military funding should be eliminated.
I’d define a victimless crime as any act which is illegal, but does not harm another person or their property. So, theft, or assault, for example, are obviously not victimless crimes.
Drinking unpasteurized milk, opening a liqueur store, possessing pot, or driving without a license, are victimless crimes, because no one is directly harmed by these acts.
You know that the founders were in favor of militias for national defense, and there was not supposed to be a standing army? I ran the numbers one time — if you took even a fraction of the $300 billion dollars Americans spent on charity last year, you could arm this country to the point where attack would be utter suicide. We would make the USSR’s experience in Afghanistan look like a cake walk.
Obviously I disagree on the matter of the military, but I’m glad to hear your opinion on the other 99% 
.
I really suggest you check out nhliberty, if you haven’t. They’re a purely political organization, mostly focused at the state level. I really do like your door to door idea — I think I’ll definitely give that a try when I get there.
What the founders were in favor of or not is debateable, because they all disagreed on a lot of things and in no way were one entity of thought.
What does the constitution say?
thomstele: You know you can post your idea on the Free Keene Forum and/or at nhliberty.org see whom is interested in your idea if so go do your idea.
That’s how I see it working around NH, posting in the comments section might not be the best way to get your idea put before the activists.
It intends that an army will be temporary.
Congress is authorized “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years”
Not, of course, that the constituion is the ultimate authority for right and wrong, but it is worth noting. There are also numerous quotes by founders opposing standing armies as a threat to liberty.
For not more than two years, meaning that it would have to be re approprated by congress every two years. Doesn’t mean they never planned for a standing army, just that funding would constantly be revisited.
So would you consider the free-keene movement, more of a constitutionalist party? or an anarchist movement.
Neither and/or Both; it’s decentralized and thinking like it’s some organized thing with a big list on the wall of what everyone believes is going to make you very confused when dealing with them. There’s lots of people with lots of different beliefs and the binding agent is that they all believe that people deserve a great deal of freedom not afforded to them presently and that they can become freer by congregating into the same area. How it’s done or where to stop is up to the individual activists – and there’s lots of different ideas being pushed around.
They made no such provision for the navy. The idea was that armies would be temporary. And notice the plural — “armies” — with the implication that each will be formed and disbanded in turn.
Also, note that the second amendment refers to militias as the defense of the country: ” “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Madison: “A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen”
Jefferson: “By a declaration of rights, I mean one which shall stipulate freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce against monopolies, trial by juries in all cases, no suspensions of the habeas corpus, no standing armies. These are fetters against doing evil which no honest government should decline.”
“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. … Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment)
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States” (Noah Webster in a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification)
“…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…” (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)
“… large and permanent military establishments which are forbidden by the principles of free government, and against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a constitutional bulwark.”
– James Madison, Fourth Annual Message, November 4, 1812
To answer your question, thom, I don’t consider myself an anarchist or a constitutionalist. I believe the constitution violates basic human rights when it enforces forced taxation, for example, — but I do desire order in society, and rules based on natural law and property rights — not disorder or chaos, which is the common meaning of anarchy.
Post your comment below. Login in the far right column to get rid of CAPTCHA. If you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
Want to discuss rather than just comment? Visit the Free Keene Forum.
Supporters of FK
Recent Forum Topics- Keene City Council Contact Info February 8, 2012
- Pledged Free-stater heading to "The Shire" later this year February 8, 2012
- FBI is watching February 7, 2012
- New February 7, 2012
- Free Minds Radio 02/05/2012 February 5, 2012
- HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 5, 2012
- Marijuana decrim bills up for vote February 5, 2012
- Episode 35 - Anarch-Elitism February 5, 2012
- HB 1533 -- fines for hurting legislators' feelings February 4, 2012
- HB 1494 -- "Your papers, please" February 4, 2012
- Recent Forum Posts
- Re: Keene City Council Contact Info February 9, 2012
- Re: What I wrote to the Chief of Police in town of Weare February 9, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 9, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 9, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 8, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam and New angle on trolling? Hmm. February 8, 2012
- Re: Bearcat petition at city council meeting February 8, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 8, 2012
- Re: Keene City Council Contact Info February 8, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam and New angle on trolling? Hmm. February 8, 2012