Ian Freeman’s Trial over a Parking Ticket

fuck off sam

<blockquote cite="unbelievable">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.

<blockquote cite="unbelievable">
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.

<blockquote cite="unbelievable">
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.

<blockquote cite="unbelievable">
or leased from private parties and set aside for that purpose.

Leased with stolen money.

<blockquote cite="unbelievable">
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?

<blockquote cite="unbelievable">
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.

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!

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.

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, 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.

Ian what a pathetic loser you are. Another stupid ass stunt that proves what a joke you are.

Chrono

No, in fact keep these stupid ass stunts going, the more they come up, the bigger losers you become.

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?

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?

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…

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?

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.

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.