KAC Smoke Alarm Case: City Claims They’re Only “Requesting” Compliance?
If you’ve been reading this blog for the past year, you know that the people calling themselves the “City of Keene” raided my tenants’ home, the Keene Activist Center, in the summer of 2012. The city people had claimed, with no evidence current at the time of the raid, that it was being run as a “tourist home” or “lodginghouse” and is subject to the city ordinances regarding interconnected, AC-wired smoke detectors being mandatory on each floor. Here’s an article with some detail and initial court filings.
Now, the city has responded to my motion to dismiss with their objection, in which they cite an NH court case, Nelson v Wyman, which says regarding NH constitution article ten, the “right of revolution”,
“The right reserved to the people by this Article is not such a broad and unlimited right of insurrection and rebellion as to permit any group which is dissatisfied with existing government to lawfully attempt … to overthrow the government by force or violence.”
Of course, I have not advocated force or violence as I point out a second time in my response to their objection. I am engaged in peaceful revolution against the idea of “the state”. Though, I prefer to call it evolution.
Finally, the city’s attorney, Thomas P. Mullins, claims in his objection that:
Requesting Defendant to comply with a fire department regulation designed to protect life and property, including those of Defendant and his tenants, can hardly be construed by a reasonable individual as a “perversion” of the government justifying the right to revolt.
Whoa! Hang on. This has all just been a “request”? City agents came into my tenants home, woke up Darryl – who works overnights – and searched the place so they could make a request of me to interconnect my smoke alarms? All the notices and violations and court papers with which I’ve been served in this case were all just a big “request”? The threatened fines in the hundreds of dollars per day that have presumably been racking up for months are merely a suggested penalty for not acceding to a request?
Whew! What a relief! This sure was sounding pretty serious. I have filed a separate motion to dismiss the case for lack of standing, as it appears from their objection that they don’t believe I have an obligation to obey their regulation, and they are wasting the court’s time over a request.
Additionally, the city attorney filed an objection to my motion to suppress the warrant that originally authorized the search. In their objection, Mullins does not address a single point I made in my motion, specifically the facts that:
- By their society’s own rules, specifically RSA 153:14 II-A, the fire chief is prohibited from inspecting single family dwellings.
- 75 Leverett is, according to plaintiff’s “NOTICE OF VIOLATION”, a single dwelling.
Here’s my response to their objection to my motion to suppress the warrant.
I’ll be dropping these off at the court and to the city attorney this morning. Stay tuned for more updates as this case develops.Want to discuss rather than just commenting here? Visit the Shire Society Forum.