Ian Freeman’s Trial over a Parking Ticket
Filed under: Civil Disobedience, Jailed Activist, Police, Thuggery
The State does not like talking about the New Hampshire State Constitution as Ian Freeman disputes a parking violation in Keene District Court, Wednesday, April 28th, 2010.
Judge Lane presides over the trial as Ian attempts to understand the nature and cause of the proceedings and SamIam rides shotgun. Check it out!
Comments
85 Comments on Ian Freeman’s Trial over a Parking Ticket
Awesome! Some of those questions are not the ones I would have necessarily asked, but overall, I love seeing this! Some of the questions asked were spot on, in revealing the lack of fairness. Loved it!
All this for a $35 ticket? Almost comical, but really just sad.
Larry,
Comical that the State would fight so hard to steal $35, or comical that Ian would fight so hard not to have $35 stolen?
Ian to Judge: “I am not a lawyer…” Son, you can say that twice.
Great video of Ian’s amateurish execution of crackpot Marc Stevens, ignorant and discredited legal sales pitch, or more aptly – money making scam.
Reading a book about making pastries does not make you a pastry chef, while reading a bogus book about pastries makes you … well, stupid.
Judge Lane again demonstrates an abundance of patience and a willingness to provide you with handholding. It’s too bad that in reality it’s probably a waste of time, given your inability to demonstrate average reasoning skills. On the other hand, I can appreciate that it must be difficult to have a head full of mush and a narcissism thats got to be at the 6-sigma level of human probability.
Prepare for 0.875 days in the workhouse.
Take comfort that whether or not it’s “Bernard” or “Freeman”, you won’t be CALLED late for dinner in your cage.
P.S> Nice patronizing salespitchy comment at the end: [Ian to Judge] “For the record, I appreciate your calm demeanor.” Compare that with your demeanor to the poor schmuck Court Officer you and Sam chose to abuse.
Judge-paid by the ‘state’
prosecuting atty- paid by the ‘state’
meter maid-paid by the ‘state’
Does anyone see a conflict of interest here?
It is so quaint (and sickening) to see the slaves beg their masters for any consideration what-so-ever.
Compare that with your demeanor to the poor schmuck Court Officer you and Sam chose to abuse.
Wait … he chose to abuse!? Who got attacked for trying to film in public, and who’s camera was busted? You’ve got a bad case of blaming the victim.
Which side is the “impartial” judge on? Obviously—the State.
@bigscrotum,
Am I obligated to obey the laws of the so called state? If so, how did this obligation come to be?
Bigscrotum,
You stated, “Judge Lane again demonstrates an abundance of patience and a willingness to provide you with handholding.”
When was there hand-holding? It appears that almost all of the ethical and legal questions that Ian raised were ultimately ignored, rather than addressed. Handholding would mean painstakingly answering them, right?
The funniest thing about this is the time, money, and effort the City of Keene and State of New Hampshire are putting into going after Ian for a parking violation.
It is such a trivial thing that they take very seriously.
Also- this particular Judge doesn’t seem very sharp. He clearly is a political appointee not sitting on the bench for his legal prowess.
The judge is supposed to be impartial but is answering all the questions for the lady.
This shows me that the judge and court is bogus.
Pat,
Agreed. The trial that they had for Sam’s operating after suspension charge was completely bogus. The judge is completely on the side of the state in cases against these liberty activists.
Wow, what a sham excuse for a court proceeding. The prosecutor, witness, and judge all work for the same organization, and are all clearly working together. They refuse to answer any questions about the basis of the proceedings, and just railroad their victim.
A street mugging would be as justified, and less time consuming.
@Paul
In a street mugging, they only get what’s on the victim. This way, they are getting not just the $35 from Ian, but collecting a salary to do it!
Well done, I am surprised Ian never raised the question of the conflict of interest. Though it was difficult to rephrase everything three or four times just to avoid asking a question that would struck their cognitive dissonance too directly.
Though I am terrified by Ian’s parking habits, I am horrified by the inability of that entire room to justify their paycheck. Why does everyone pay and then complain, rather than refuse to pay until government is efficient and courteous.(Read Voluntary and thus not a gubernment)
Am I obligated to obey the laws of the so called state? No you are not.
If so, how did this obligation come to be?
This is certainly a grand and fundamental question. To hear a truncated view from bigScrotum on this question would certainly not be fair to the question or to you, therefore I won’t insult you.
However, to seriously seek out a reasoned answer to this question you might start by studying Liberal Arts, i.e. History, Philosophy and Mathematics. After you grasp this as the historical basis upon which human organization exists, you may want to further pursue sub-subjects, such as law, science, economics etc…
It takes an average human about 10 years of work to be competent in any worthwhile pursuit whether formally or informally. It may take 40-50 years or more to have “Wisdom”, i.e. that quality that urges other humans to actually care what you think, although a good argument can be made that charismatics of any age, (say around 29) are able to dupe large numbers of the ignorant and feeble minded.
@bigScrotum
I’ve been studying liberal arts, including philosophy, politics, economics, and theology for well over 10 years. I also follow many people with “wisdom.” Through all of that, I have yet to see a coherent argument that declares it is ok to hurt other people who have done no wrong.
But, you may say that I have looked in the wrong places, and thus all those years were wasted and those wise people are foolish.
If that’s the case, can you point me to where you you found such an argument?
Laws and statutes come from principle, reason and ideas. If ANY idea is a GOOD idea, people will voluntarily support it. If it has to be enforced by violence, or the threat thereof, is it a good idea? I, and most rational and reasonable people, would submit not.
(wow, i came up with that after 2 shots of whiskey and 2 beers. Why can’t politicians do this?) 
@GYAKUSETSU
“..I have yet to see a coherent argument that declares it is ok to hurt other people who have done no wrong.”
The form of the question evidences the inherent human subjectivity involved. And if you have studied history, you know that human dignity is an ongoing struggle. Courageous violent and non-violent means have been and are pursued; the enlightenment continues – at times two steps forward and one back.
As I said before, one is not obligated to follow the rules of the state. So don’t follow them, or change them.
Could you have objected to the judge acting as her lawyer? Because that’s basically what hes doing through the 2nd half of the video.
@GYAKUSETSU,
One more general observation of the philosophical weakness exhibited by some “liberty” persons: It is the naivete that seems to express from an incoherent amalgam of idealism and demagoguery. If one desires to be true to ones ideals, you might become a cloistered religious type, or maybe find ones Walden Pond to “..live in the woods deliberately.” However, it seems that for some that combine idealism and a committed demagoguery, they produce the sad display in the video above.
Like I said, if you don’t want to follow the states rules, then don’t. As an example of idealism, principle, and dignity watch video of Evan’s trial.
http://freekeene.com/2010/03/25/video-judge-lane-ignores-constitution-finds-evan-guilty/
Much to admire in Evan’s refusal.
Another approach that is quite effective was Ivy’s spirited and well researched pro se defense. Many examples here:
http://ridleyreport.com/jraxis
I thought Ian and Sam did quite well for themselves up against all of the statist and not knowing legalese. One thing that I see the activists failing to do in these trails is object to the prosecutor items being introduced into evidence. For example the pictures were allowed by Judge Lane because there was no objection made. These pictures are hearsay unless the person who took them was in court to be questioned by the defense. In these kangaroo court proceedings the prosecutors and judges are getting by with all kinds of stuff simply because the defense does not raise an objection and in their world “no objection” means you approve. Also, if you don’t raise an objection in the trail you can not use that point in your appeal. I know it is difficult to do and remember everything when you are in the hot seat and under fire from these evil folks but I wanted to point this out before the next activist falls victim to their bogus authority.
What insanity.
By the way, I like how that little slime-ball at the plaintiffs table won’t address you as Freeman as you most respectfully requested that he do.
00:35-1:10
Judge: “I have denied your pre-trial motions”
What a snake lol. Why didn’t you object to that? An affidavit and a notice are OBVIOUSLY not motions, he knows that, but since you remained silent to his assumption/presumption that they were motions, the record will reflect acquiescence.
2:55-3:05
Judge: “The nature of this is that you were at a parking meter, within the hours of 8 am and 5 pm, and the time on that parking meter had expired”
Well, gee Judge, if you’ve already made that determination, why are we even wasting our time with this trial? Then at 3:13-3:24, in the most beautiful display of doublespeak, he goes onto say.. “In our society, you are innocent until proven guilty.”
4:05-4:15
Judge: “It’s not a crime, it’s a violation”
4:33-4:45
Judge: “It’s not criminal or civil, it’s a violation”
Hahaha. California plays the “infraction” game.. it looks like NH plays the “violation” game. There is nothing beyond either civil or criminal. That’s why the docket reflects it as criminal. It’s what bureaucrats like to call a “quasi” criminal offense. You should not have let him go so easily.
Ian: “Ok, so then is this violation in the nature of a civil or criminal action?”
If he continued with the stupid word games, you might ask:
Ian: “So if this is not a civil action, and I’m not being charged with a crime, then I’m being accused of violations, correct? I’m accused of being a violator, correct?”
Judge: “Yes”
Ian: “Well Judge, I’m only aware of the rules of criminal and civil procedure, where may I find the rules of violator procedure which govern your proceedings?”
P.s- There are none.
21:10-21:20
WHAT? Hahahahaha.
Judge: “I will object on her behalf to the question”
Ian: “I’m not a lawyer, I don’t understand, but for the record, is the sitting Judge now acting as the prosecuting attorney in this matter!??”
26:00-26:10
Persecutor: “Objection”
Judge: “Sustained”
Persecutor: “Objection”
Judge: “Sustained”
Hahaha. Talk about a tag team effort. The persecutor never even stated the nature of the objections. Imagine if you could just do that?
Persecutor: “Was this vehicle registered to Ian?”
Ian: “Objection”
Judge: “Sustained”
Persecutor: “Was it illegally parked at an expired meter?”
Ian: “Objection”
Judge: “Sustained”
These are just a couple observations. I think it would be pretty easy to demonstrate in an appeal that you did not receive a fair trial. The only problem is that the transcripts will probably cost you like 10x the amount of the ticket.
BigS,
Why do you believe the trial above was “a sad display”, but Evan’s was “an example of idealism, principle, and dignity”?
I agree that Evan’s principled response was clearer, and so was superior — I think it’s the approach I would take. But, I don’t think Ian’s was anything like “a sad display”. Ian was basically using the Socratic method to drive at the same points — the arbitrary nature of the court, and the lack of basic justification for the proceedings.
What precisely do you consider “demagoguery” when it comes to liberty activism? Don’t you think people are right to live in accordance with the principles they believe in? For example, in the confrontation in the stairwell, if the command of the bureaucrat is baseless and immoral, is it not right to continue filming?
Ian, You are a blithering idiot.
Get some experience and education about court rules or just sit down and shut up.
With a little thought and intelligent questioning you can at least make a pretense of putting on a valid defense. You may even prevail now and again.
But your out of context rambling and nonsensical questions – or non questions will get you no where.
@unbelievable-take the RED pill. This is THEIR court. He is speaking from principle, they are speaking from violence and so are you.
Unbelievable,
I’ve noticed an improvement in Ian’s courtroom dealings. He is getting better each time he deals with that stuff.
How can someone just be good at courtroom activism without practice?
I support what the Keene activists are trying to do, but I also think that the Free State Project or at least the Keene activists should consider hiring a full or part-time lawyer (I have unfortunately taken another job, you had your chance!).
The purpose and obligation of a lawyer is to empower the client. Sometimes they will be able to get you off of a charge entirely, costing the state time and money through the proceeding, disrupting their process, and denying them your hard-earned cash (best possible scenario). But other times they will able to assist you with your activism and tell you the best ways to go about what you are trying to do. At the end of the day, the client calls the shots, so it wouldn’t be really selling out to the system or taking part in the system just by hiring an attorney. Trust me, even if you want to make all the same points you have been making, an attorney could do a lot to help you frame them in a more professional, effective, and legitimate sounding way.
Something to consider.
I think I agree with Dan. 
Someone hire one of these liberty activist attorneys already, will ya?
Thanks to all the critics. Please post your videos of how you can really clean up in court so we can all learn from your technique!
My two favorite things:
1- The prosecution objecting to the Constitution as irrelevant; and
2- Lane not knowing a damn thing that he’s talking about. He really needs some judicial training.
I wanted to see how many of Marc’s questions I could get through, when I only should have selected some of them. Also, having all those notes distracted me from saying some things I think I’d otherwise have said and challenged. Oh well, I’ll get another chance.
@Dan, it was a $35 ticket. I don’t think it was worth hiring a lawyer for that myself.
Also, rest assured, I will not be paying any fine if I am found guilty.
Any one else convinced that this isn’t about $35??
At the least, it’s about compliance.
The court must see more value in it, financially and socially.
It simply cannot be about $35 as it has already cost literally thousands and thousands of dollars thus far.
Why would the judge not allow the parking ticket agent to speak for herself? It seemed to me that he believed her to be incapable of answering in the “proper” way and thus he interrupted and prevented her from speaking. He never spoke for her when the prosecutors were asking questions.
This judge has the worst demeanor that I’ve ever seen. It is as if he doesn’t care the slightest bit about appearing to be objective and impartial.
It sure makes the prosecutor’s job easy. The guy could have gone out for coffee because the judge was doing it all.
Making objections and answering questions for a witness is highly unusual for a judge. Arguing with the defense about objections rather than letting the prosecutor argue the State’s case is also ridiculously inappropriate.
To me it looks like the guy has a personal problem with Ian. I bet it looks that way to everyone else as well.
Ian’s presentation was very professional for someone with no training. Nice work, Ian.
@Questionable Procedures
I agree. This would be an easy appeal, it would be hard for the superior court bureaucrats to justify some of the stuff this Judge did. The record will clearly reflect a bias. Also, the question of jurisdiction was raised and it clearly wasn’t proven. Once this particular issue is raised, it cannot simply be assumed. Jurisdiction must be proven. And it must be proven by the persecutor/plaintiff, not the damn Judge.
And for everyone nitpicking at Ian… Why don’t you get on stage yourself and perform? All these armchair activists are annoying as fuck. If you think Ian did a bad job, asked stupid questions or whatever, perhaps you should go up there yourself and show everyone else how it’s REALLY supposed to be done? Because apparently you know.
If you can’t take the heat yourself, then get out of the kitchen with those who can. This shit isn’t easy to do. You’re under a lot of pressure.
Pressure busts pipes, but it also makes diamonds. I think Ian made a diamond here. He compelled the Judge to show his true colors and reveal to the world his painfully obvious bias. The same bias which exists in any “Judge” you will ever go in front of.
And I like KDUS’s point about obedience. That’s what this is really all about. I think it’s clear, even to the mentally unstable, that nobody should be locked in a cage for not paying a 35$ parking ticket. I think the Judge would have just given his guilty verdict if he didn’t first have to think about the fact that Ian won’t pay it. He now has public relations to think about. Which is what it’s all about anyway. Lol perhaps he took it under advisement because he first needs to consult with a marketing expert.
Nothing like watching overprivilged spoiled rich kids complaining about how unfair the laws are and how evil authority is.
Great job Ian and though not a free stater I too fight every petty non criminal “violation” that I get from our local police agencies. The meter maids in Keene are extremely aggressive in handing out parking tickets and each time I’ve challenged them they do not know the details of the parking ordinance, especially if you get a ticket for parking in an “un metered” space. What the hell does that mean? Even the meter maids don’t know but they will give you a ticket, trust me.
Everyone should fight every ticket because all the state wants you to do is be obedient and pay the fine or if you do ask for a trial they come at you like lapdogs and try to get you to settle by accepting a lesser penalty. How pathetic our court system is.
Mike, do you have any substantive point, or are you just interested in ad hominem, so you don’t have to do the work or take the risk of actually thinking?
The parking spaces were obtained by eminent domain in most cases, and funded using taxation in every case, which are theft and extortion, respectively. They’re stolen property, by any objective measure.
They could easily be ceded back to the store owners, each of whom could set rules they believe would best fit their needs, and their customers’ needs.
As it is, a person or organization who steals property does not have the right to collect fees for the use of that property.
@Unbelievable: “Get some experience and education about court rules or just sit down and shut up.”
Our society has become so complex and convoluted that when a regular person attempts to defend himself and participate in the system by seeking Justice in a very basic manner, you lash out and insult him, siding with the absolute mess that is our “justice” system?
Wake up. Open your eyes. There has to be a better way.
Paul, you are very wrong. Most parking spaces along public streets are in the right of way and that right of way was acquired by several methods, the least common of which is eminent domain. Most right of ways were established by prescription and enlarged by purchase of additional width from abutting property owners. A lot of modern streets were offered by dedication from the developers or other private entities that owned the land. Many streets and roads were built on land reserved, or swapped for reserved land from the underlying fee owners set aside over a hundred years ago. Eminent domain is reserved for cases where parties cant agree on a price or where someone is just being obstinate. Fair, market rate compensation is always given. especially in NH. Parking spaces in municipal lots are on land owned by the city or leased from private parties and set aside for that purpose. A lot of that land has been recovered from demolished buildings and abandoned buildings walked away from by previous owners. Of course none of these facts mean anything to people who think speeding, DWI and not registering your car are their natural rights.
@Unbelievable,
Regardless of how it was attained by the government, the government has no legitimate authority, so all the property was obtained illegitimately.
So, all of your beliefs and statements and positions are based on that one simple statement….
The government has no legitimate authority…”
Guess you should have been born in a different country then – No wait! You are lucky you were born here in the good old USA! Most of your actions would have been met with death or extended imprisonment in a majority of other places.
God Bless the USA!
“Most of your actions would have been met with death or extended imprisonment in a majority of other places.”
Well, the U.S. has the highest incarceration rates in the world, so I don’t know about that.
“You are lucky you were born here in the good old USA!”
I agree. But does that mean it could not be better or freer? I also think this is why a free state project has a chance in the U.S. People here generally think being free is a good thing. I mean the U.S. supposedly has the title of “leader of the free world”. So I don’t think it will be nearly as difficult in this part of the world to get people to accept freedom as it may be in other parts of the world.
I’m so glad us “locals” finally have a pile of people coming to our rescue by setting the example on just how to stand up to the thugs!
That is more New Hampshire than anything!
Marc Stevens is a liar. His claim that his questions are unanswerable and expose the system and result in the dismissal of 75% of the cases where they’re used or whatever he says is a lie. Judges know they’re paid by taxes, yet they believe in the ideal of an independent judiciary anyhow. You might not believe in judicial independence and I’m agnostic about the idea, but they believe it, and they aren’t about to surrender when someones comes into court demanding to know who they represent and accusing them of favoring the government or whatever Stevens’ crackpot strategy is. I’ve been in courts, a lot, and I’ve seen this stuff go down in flames every time. None of this “nature and cause” BS works and it never will, and it’s goddamn irritating to listen to too, and just about guarantees you’ll get the absolute maximum sentence after you tick off everyone in the courthouse. If you don’t wanna get reamed by the man, then either don’t get caught in the first place, or STFU and defend yourself on grounds they recognize and understand–like evidence and case law. I bet that Stevens guy is too stupid to even read a legal case on his own. In fact I’ve seen a Ridley Report Youtube where a NJ judge also confiscated Stevens’ driver’s license in a no insurance case after Stevens kept saying, “I don’t understand who you represent.. I don’t understand the nature and cause… I don’t understand what this is..,” because the judge thought, or at least he said he thought, that Stevens was so clueless he might be a hazard to other drivers. These BS, idiotic theories that Ian was trying will get you in more trouble than you’re already in, so think twice. (PS-I’m politically libertarian, I don’t work for gov’t, and I actually wish there was some magic words you could use to get gov’t off your back. But there ain’t. That’s the truth.)
fuck off sam
“defend yourself on grounds they recognize and understand–like evidence and case law.”
Did you watch the vid? Ian asked for evidence that the so called statute applied to him, they refused to provide it.
Paul, you are very wrong. Most parking spaces along public streets are in the right of way and that right of way was acquired by several methods, the least common of which is eminent domain. Most right of ways were established by prescription and enlarged by purchase of additional width from abutting property owners. A lot of modern streets were offered by dedication from the developers or other private entities that owned the land. Many streets and roads were built on land reserved, or swapped for reserved land from the underlying fee owners set aside over a hundred years ago.
I probably should have said “eminent domain in many cases”, because I can’t say it was necessarily a majority.
However, even in cases where they were not acquired using eminent domain, they were purchased and are maintained using extorted money, as I pointed out.
Eminent domain is reserved for cases where parties cant agree on a price or where someone is just being obstinate.
A person has a right to be obstinate, when it comes to their own land. The fact that a person does not want to sell to me does not give me the right to steal it from them.
Parking spaces in municipal lots are on land owned by the city
As we’ve discussed, the land was purchased using stolen money, and so is not legitimately owned. If I go extort money from my neighbors at gunpoint, and use it to buy a yacht, the yacht is really owned by my neighbors, not by me.
or leased from private parties and set aside for that purpose.
Leased with stolen money.
A lot of that land has been recovered from demolished buildings and abandoned buildings walked away from by previous owners.
Many buildings are abandoned because of tax liability.
Even in cases where they’re abandoned for other reasons, why should the land necessarily go to the government? Shouldn’t the land be divided and homesteaded at that point?
Of course none of these facts mean anything to people who think speeding, DWI and not registering your car are their natural rights.
If a person is driving recklessly, they should be stopped. They should also be held responsible if they harm anyone or anyone’s property.
The fact is, however, the roads were not obtained by government by voluntary exchange using legitimately acquired funds (this means producing a good or service for voluntary exchange on the market).
The land was obtained using extorted money, using methods that were often also coercive to the landholder.
If a person went and bought some land using justly acquired funds, and built a road on it, they would have a right to set whatever rules for its use they choose — and if I’m going to use the road, I’m obligated to obey those rules.
Since the government is a coercive organization (really a mob, or gang), who acquired the land by force, they don’t have legitimate ownership, and don’t have the right to set arbitrary rules for its use.
As I say, they do have the right to stop those who pose an immediate threat to others, and obtain fair restitution for victims, however.
@brodie “Evidence that the so called statute applied to him…”
By “so called statute” are you suggesting the parking statute doesn’t exist, or do you just object to the word statute for some reason?
That’s just a nonsense question. The NH state statutory system or Keene muni law system applies to Ian and everyone else because it says it does. You may disagree that it ought to, but that doesn’t change the fact that it claims to. The judge could humor you and read it to you, or he could blow you off (I didn’t watch the whole thing because it was too boring.)
Demanding “evidence” in response to an assertion of jurisdiction is retarded. The evidence is the assertion. But if you think that strategy will work, go for it tough guy. I hope you get a gay linebacker for a cell mate.
Sam’s Dad must be very proud of his son, based on his comments! How many Dad’s have sons who step up to the plate like this? Awesome!
@johnny , rules of evidence apply to both parties in the case. Facts are established through proceedure, not assertion.
Me: Johnny, you owe me $1000
You: Why?
Me: Because I just wrote down on a piece of paper
You: But why does that apply to me? Are you claiming we had some sort of agreement or something, or that I harmed something of yours?
Me: Nope, it applies to you because I said so, now pay up if you don’t want a gay linebacker for a cell mate.
@KDus – A law is an assertion. It just is. Whether you’re for it or not. Evidence has shit to do with it. There’s no facts to be established. The law is read and interpreted by a court as law. A trial court deals with issues of fact and law. But you can’t even spell procedure, so why should I argue with you?
@Paul – Did I say I agree with the system? ARE YOU ILLITERATE? I’m just *&#$^R*&$R^ telling you and anyone else who is thinking about pulling this garbage in court that it’ll make your problems worse, not better. Pretending that a court needs to show you evidence to assert jurisdiction over you will work about as well as pretending that you’re not in jail when you are after trying Marc Moron’s “nature and cause” bullshit strategy in court.
If you guys are just a bunch of retards, ef the free state project then. Who needs it?
If you believe the method is ineffective, JJ, that’s fine. You may be right. There are really two measures of effectiveness in a courtroom: effective communication of ideas, and avoidance of jail. It seems to me that the first is more important to Ian. But, it may be that this method is ineffective on both counts, as you seem to believe.
I did take exception to this line:
“I hope you get a gay linebacker for a cell mate.”
But we all say things we don’t really mean sometimes …
@Johnny Juárez
Do you have any evidence of you doing anything in the Courts at all? If not, then you shouldn’t be testifying as to what is valid/effective and what is not. If you were a witness, you would be disqualified as not credible under rule 602 of the rules of evidence…Lack of personal knowlege.
Please post some kind of link to one of your Courtroom audio/videos. If you cannot do so, then I don’t think it’s fair for you to badger those who are actually doing things and making the effort.
By the way, a statute can say whatever, but there are no facts/is no evidence which proved that it was applicable to Ian. You seem to misunderstand things, the Judge/persecutors opinions are not admissible as evidence. Only the testimony of the witness.
Their claim is that, yes, it is applicable to Ian. Ian only asked for the facts which supported that claim.
There are none. Unless of course anything other than the testimony of the witness is admissible evidence.
@ Johnny, I won’t comment on your grammar if you won’t comment on my spelling.
Jurisdiction has everything to do with facts and law.
Facts can’t be established by assertion, alone. If they were, the poisoned tree doctrine would apply.
It seems we agree on the effectiveness of the strategy, so why the hostility? The cout’s legitimacy is rooted in compliance. Only exposure, like we are discussing, will change that.
BTW, this web site only shows about %2 of the FSP.
@ Bigscrotum
I am not going to call you an ignorant boob.
RE Marc Stevens’ questions for court, I used them with intent to beat a traffic ticket. Result: the angry little attorney in the black costume dismissed my case. That is a fact. However, I can only speculate why my case was dismissed.
Ian what a pathetic loser you are. Another stupid ass stunt that proves what a joke you are.
@piss poor decision
Do you feel better about yourself now that you got that off your chest?
Chrono
No, in fact keep these stupid ass stunts going, the more they come up, the bigger losers you become.
Boy, there’s no one whose opinion I value more than a vitriolic, ad-hominem-slinging, anonymous blog poster.
That’s it – I give up now cause someone called me names!
Ian,
Did you read my post, I said keep up your stupid ass stunts, shows what a joke you are, no need to reply. I am done, until the next time you make an ass out of your-self. I assume this will be soon.
So, piss poor…how will we know its you. SHould we just infer when we think a stupid, short sighted and ignorant comment is made, you are behind it?
The good news is that it is not up to you to say who is a loser, what type of activism works, and just how the term “pathetic” is defined.
When you get a chance to become an adult & grow a bit more hair on your naughty bits, you’ll discover that what you mistakenly believe to be facts, spewing from your keyboards, are instead just your opinions. The world does not form according to your whims.
Please don’t get me wrong, your opinions are welcome here as long as they contain no threats of violence. To spare yourself any further embarrassment you may wish to note that more experienced & knowledgeable, anonymous trolls than yourselves have attempted to throw their monkey-wrenches into the works & have for their efforts, been sent home crying to their mommies.
I’d like to give you guys more credit than that. In fact, I truly believe that you have it within you to actually honestly debate the issues at hand.
I am going to give you credit for being much smarter than any foolish garden variety troll slithering away under slimy rocks, within this site. Of course you know this means that you’re going to show us just how smart you can be and stick to subject, or how…well, you know.
Are you wise, or otherwise? Your call. Show me how smart you really are, or aren’t. Playtime is over son, we are talking about your very liberties and once they are gone, you’d pay hell to get them back. We just can’t get comfortable with our slavery here to any degree. Most of us fail to understand how anyone could.
I hope the judge feels as stupid watching this as he looked doing it. A very brassy refusal to answer any substantive questions. Make sure you follow this up with all the requisite complaints so the naysayers can’t accuse you of not doing your due diligence. I didn’t look, did the judge ever pull his hand out from up the parking bureaucrat’s ass?
Boy,I wonder if I am one of those trolls-I have thrown a wrench or two!Some missed,some didn’t,but I haven’t had to go see Mum yet.Good post,Chaz.We have been getting some more reasoning questions lately.A sign of something?Hard to say. —bil
True story. In 1971, a young lawyer named “Howard B. Lane, jr.”, was running for City Council. His dad was a major force behind Keene’s Congregational church, but howards acorn rolled a little too far from the tree…Anyway, his church’s youthgroup interviewed all the candidates…But, they couldn’t endorse Howard! So, not even his own church’s youthgroup could endorse Lane for council! Howard B.Lane, jr., is a marginally competent, very corrupt, poor excuse for a judge. Open neck shirt, rolled up sleeves??? C’mon, Howard, you piece of shit! He also bought my house at 61 Park Ave. in 1971, but that’s another story…
“Open neck shirt, rolled up sleeves??? C’mon, Howard, you piece of shit!”
KoK, you literally had me laughing my ass off on that one. My friend saw me looking at my BlackBerry and was like “whatttt?”
His judicial temperament is much better than Ed Burke’s, but, he clearly is NOT impartial when he testifies for the state and pushes the prosecutors case.
Judge Lane sure inherited a doozy of a headache from his pal, Judge Burke.
Of course, this could be the big break Howard Lane was waiting for.
Should he do the decent thing and get on a first name basis with his conscience, it would take such a short step for him or any judge in New Hampshire, to practice good honest impartiality.
All he has to do is to stop automatically pushing the state’s case. If the activists can persuade hizzoner to look at all his cases he hears fairly and without the foul taint of bias…well then, they are mightier than anyone can give them credit for.
I’m proud to know each and every one of them.
As for you, Howard Lane. How would you like to have a chance to be a bigger and better man than Edward Burke ever could dream of being? Let it sink in for just a bit before you answer. Then see yourself as your own man, Judge. A man who can mix among his peers in the community and see them beam brightly, and warmly greet you with a genuine smile, not a look of fear.
You need only choose respect over fear as a means of motivating those you encounter inside & outside the courtroom. No longer standing in the shadow of a man you know to be nowhere as redeemable as you. All you have to do is the job you were hired for. Be impartial, that’s all.
It’s easy if you try. Wouldn’t you like for them to say your name in the same sentence with that of Judge Andrew Napolitano?
Could you be able to appreciate a legacy as incredible as that? Could you imagine it now?
WINKY LANE (“Primrose Lane”)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfI-y6dWYwo
Winky Lane –
Burke wussed out, so there sits
Winky Lane –
Honor’s blown to bits
When
Winky Lane
Tries you.
It’s so plain:
When the guy in charge is
Winky Lane,
You’ve been strapped aboard a
Railroad train.
Choo choo!
Facial tics
Reveal he plays courtroom tricks.
The law is devoted to
Destroying you.
Winky Lane –
The autocracy of
Winky Lane,
And hypocrisy of
Winky Lane
Show through.
DAs lie;
He smiles and winks his eye.
Judicial board of review
Is overdue.
Winky Lane –
Law’s a dirty joke with
Winky Lane –
Proof the system’s broke is
Winky Lane.
Go sue!
Go sue!
Go sue!
Go sue!
In the first place, a parking ticket is the wrong hill to die on. The state/county/town does have the power to decide where people can park. The problem is that he’s getting hauled into a court that is not a judicial power court of general jurisdiction. It’s an administrative, quasi-judicial tribunal where it is a given that the rules of civ/crim proc do not apply. The issue in traffic cases not involving a parking ticket is a matter of subject matter jurisdiction. It’s clear that while earnest, Ian is approaching this situation from the wrong angle and it was painful to watch because been there, done that, got the T shirt way back in the 90′s – we got a no-license case put on “hold without a finding” with a superior court judge (a nasty guy that deals with felons in shackles) not some barking dog court poseur like this guy.
There is no point in asking about the Constitutionality of the proceedings he was in, it’s not a Constitutional court and he’s wasting his time doing that. Ian and others need to understand the nature of the administrative law scam and why almost all law outside of commonlaw crimes as applied to citizens acting in the capacity of a natural person fall under administrative law and why the “court” is not a court, it’s an administrative tribunal and you don’t belong there. Have somebody email me at the address supplied for this comment so they can call me and I’ll explain it to them. Remember, it’s not a conspiracy, it’s ignorance. The alleged judge doesn’t know what he’s doing any more than anybody else does. He went to law school so he’s been dain bramaged.
There’s nothing magical about the sheep-shearing conveyor belt they’re running, there’s no conspiracy from the traffic cop up to the governor, and virtually none of them understand what they’re doing and how they’re doing it. No amount of “patriot mythology” or “send me a postcard from jail” huckster theory about UCC-1′s or whatever the “patriot” crap du jure is is going to solve this problem. When you understand the administrative law scam and how it works, it’s easy to see how one lawbook, 2″ thick in 1900 that really just had one page in it that applied to the average citizen has ballooned into 40 ft of crap and subverted a 3 branch republic into a one branch tyranny in the process.
You are a MORON. It’s a fucking parking ticket, and you broke the parking laws. End of story. Get a life.
You are a MORON.
Care to specify who is a moron… and why they are?
Ian. He doesn’t understand the law. Sorry if you don’t agree with the law, but it’s the law of this land. I watched that whole “trial”, and he is a fucking MORON. Cry like a little 2 year old because you don’t get your way.
And he is a MORON because he still, to quote him, “doesn\’t understand the nature and cause of these proceedings”. Yes, Ian is a FUCKING MORON.
Do you have anything besides ad hominems to offer?
I was found not guilty, by the way. Not bad for a MORON.
Ian. He doesn’t understand the law.
Well, clearly he understood how to make an argument to win the case.
Sorry if you don’t agree with the law, but it’s the law of this land.
Bob, a question for you: Because something is a law, should it be enforced?
I watched that whole “trial”, and he is a fucking MORON. Cry like a little 2 year old because you don’t get your way.
We clearly disagree on these things. Perhaps if you were not so hostile towards us you could understand why we take the positions that we do?
Not bad for a MORON.
I think the real morons in this situation are the ones who work in the government who spent easily $2-3k in trying to convict you of this. Props to Mr. Lane for actually listening to your arguments and ruling fairly.
I’ve said the following before and I’d like to reiterate it: one of the things that potential judges are evaluated on is their “judicial temperament.” Mr. Lane is worlds above Ed in this area. He remains calm when faced with people presenting themselves in unorthodox manners and doesn’t lose it.
Ed should take notes.
Wow Bob, why so much hostility? Do you think people should blindly obey words on a piece of paper?
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- 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
- Legislation discussion? February 4, 2012
- What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 3, 2012
- Pet Doctor February 3, 2012
- Free Minds TV February 3, 2012 - EP 239 [S7E04] February 3, 2012
- Recent Forum Posts
- Re: Sorry, I misunderstood "Introduce yourself format" . . . Re-do, here we go! February 6, 2012
- Re: For the politically inclined February 6, 2012
- Re: Bearcat petition at city council meeting February 6, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 6, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 6, 2012
- Re: HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 6, 2012
- Re: Sorry, I misunderstood "Introduce yourself format" . . . Re-do, here we go! February 6, 2012
- Free Minds Radio 02/05/2012 February 5, 2012
- Re: HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 5, 2012
- HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 5, 2012