SamIam’s Trial Date Set, Well Sort of. . .

First off, let me get everyone the date:

Friday, July 31, 2009 at 1:30 pm

Keene District Court

So this date was scheduled a while back as a Trial date. Since then several motions were filed, and both sides have requested a hearing. The court has failed to acknowledge if this will be a hearing date on the motions or trial. Edward Burke in his latest “order” seems to be pushing for trial. Of course, he’s also been called as a witness. . .

The motion to recuse was denied, as apparently Edward Burke has no conflict of interest in this case. A motion for  change of venue was filed because the court security involved may actually be working that day.

In Dave’s trial Lance was called in from the hallway where he was out working. Does anyone see a potential problem with a witness against you having the ability to subject you to a patdown and questioning before taking the stand against you?  The Change of venue was denied and Burke wrote in his latest document:

This motion does not raise sufficient grounds to change venue. In some respects, the motion represents another effort to have the undersigned rescue himself, a request that is denied elsewhere in the order. (Motion for Recusal)

Rescue himself? I found that particularly amusing and sad.  It shows the anger and desire for vengeance that drive men who are attracted to the raw power over others that only government provides. Burke also questioned the notice that I won’t be standing for “his honor”. I see a man who has wielded his power for so long, the concept that we are all equal must seem foreign.

So here’s the latest filings for those of you who are interested:

DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Now comes the defendant . . .pursuant to Rule 2.10(C) respectfully submits this supplement to his list of witnesses set forth in the notice dated June 6, 2009 to include the following additional witnesses whom may be called by the defendant at trial”

      1. Detective Todd B. Lawrence (Keene Police Department).

      2. Lieutenant Todd Faulkner (Keene Police Department).

      3. Court Security Officer Lance Walton (Keene District Court).

      4. Sgt. Eliezer Rivera (Keene Police Department).

      5. Sgt. Joseph Willis (Keene Police Department).

      6. Officer Christopher L. Simonds (Keene Police Department).

      7. Anika Clark (Keene Sentinel).

      8. Ian Freeman (Keene, NH).

      9. Kat Kanning (Grafton, NH).

      10. The Honorable Edward J. Burke (Keene District Court).

      11. Keeper of Records, City of Keene.

      12. Keeper of Records, Administrative Office of the Court.

The defendant further reserves the right to present his own testimony at trial.

And a motion to reconsider in light of my intention to call him as a witness:

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF RECUSAL

Now comes the defendant . . . and respectfully requests reconsideration by the Court of the denial of the defendant’s motion for an order of recusal. As the basis of this motion and as a courtesy to the Court, the defendant seeks to further explain and provide any necessary clarification of his motion. As indicated by item numbered 2 set forth in the motion for an order of recusal, his honor may have been the judicial officer whose order the defendant is charged to be in contempt, that such order is ambiguous and unsigned, as such, the defendant is compelled to reserve the right to call his honor as a witness at the trial of these charges for the purpose of establishing at trial and for the record the unenforceability of the order and/or its inapplicability to the defendant’s conduct underlying these charges.

Would anyone be surprised if Burke decided his own sign for the wall will suddenly become irrelevant to the charge for disobeying it?  I’ll see you all on the 31st.

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


40 Comments

  1. Sam, you rock.

  2. A judge, judging a case that he is a witness in just shows you how ridiculous their "justice" system is.

    Their courts are not impartial to the cases they hear. Their lady liberty is not blind (like they try to sell you in their propaganda.) Burke refusing to step down from this case shows you that he is a power hungry control freak in my opinion.

    When the next court or "judge" protects Burke it will remove the blindfold and show everyone can that "justice" to them is just another word for joke.

  3. "ThinkLiberty",

    A couple of questions:

    Do you pay taxes of any sort?

    If you receive a traffic citation, do you pay the fine?

    Ann

  4. Ann,

    An armed woman traps you and puts a gun to your head when you can't possibly defend yourself. She demands your money or your life. Do you pay up?

    Wiles

  5. "Ann"

    A question:

    When did you stop beating children?

  6. That "rescue himself" comment from Burke is basically a guilty verdict. The trial is just a formality. Fucking tyrant…

  7. Wiles,

    I'll look past your Pavlovian lapse into the land of Really Bad Analogies and stay focused on my question to "ThinkLiberty", as well as the motivating idea behind it.

    If, for the sake of argument, we assume that your implication is correct and that "ThinkLiberty" does indeed pay taxes and fines that support what he/she disingenuously refers to in quotes as "their" justice system, why should we not conclude that it is "his/her" justice system as well, since he/she supports it financially? I could understand having all sorts of problems with the American justice system as currently constituted, but for ThinkLiberty to assert that he has no involvement with or connection to that system is absurd on its face.

    Why come up with these bizarre rhetorical conceits that are unmoored to reality, when there are so many substantive critiques one could make? It's like a five year-old boy trying to get a rise out of his parents by shocking them. Pointless, and credibility-destroying.

    Ann

  8. ThinkLiberty,

    I'd still be interested to read your answers to my two, very simple, non-metaphorical, fact-based, yes or no questions.

    Ann

  9. Hi Ann,

    I'd be happy to answer

    Yes

    Yes

    Why? I'm afraid they will hurt me and steal my family from me.

    Now what of it?

  10. Ann,

    If someone uses FRNs they're paying taxes. What does that have to do with the morality of the acts taken by those who call themselves government?

  11. Ann,

    It's not my system. I did not come up with their morally bankrupt and violent way of doing things.

    If you want to support their violent ways that is up to you.

    My system does not kidnap and cage people for money to buy depleted uranium bullets and computerized flying bomber drones. Does yours?

  12. I know everyone came to this conclusion long ago, but Burke is an unfit judge if he will not recuse himself from this trial.

    Someone needs to be brought in that has little to no knowledge of everything that preceded trial.

  13. ThinkLiberty,

    Still waiting for your answers to my incredibly simple pair of questions. Your lack of response is enough to make one think you might actually be providing funds, through the payment of taxes and fines, that are being used to run a system with which you claim no involvement. Please; the nonsense meter is blinking red.

    Ann

  14. Ann,

    This post is about Sam and "Judge" Burke not about me or taxes.

    I am sorry if it drives you insane that I don't play along in your attempts you hijack this story.

    It's not my system no matter how hard you wish for it to be. It's "judge" Burke's system and you are morally bankrupt when you voluntarily support it.

    Please stop supporting violence Ann. Stop supporting their system. Please support peace and non-violent ways of doing things without threats and thugs and for-profit prisons.

    You don't have to support their system if you don't want to. This is the free state you don't have to support violence here.

  15. To Ann,

    Claiming not to provide any moral support and paying the extortion bill to not be hurt are not contradictory positions. People here on this forum do not provide the moral support for this hideous system but recognizes that we are all forced to pay at the point of a gun for the mechanisms of our own imprisonment. There is virtually no way to live in this world and be able to exist 100% free from this violent monopoly. As you can see. Any sort of disobedience cannot be tolerated by the powers that be for fear of destroying their legitimacy .

    Is there something your not understanding in this explanation? If so please elaborate.

  16. Ann, does a torture victim support torture just because he plays a part in the event? No.

    That is the same absurdity as your, "you pay taxes and thus must support the system" line of thought. I've been reading comments from many folks for a while and I am pretty certain you simply like to argue. You enjoy the banter and crafting some clever response while ignoring the ludicrous nature of your position. I am reminded of a potent stanza of lyrics from the song My Friend of Misery by Metallica.

    You just stood there screaming

    Fearing no one was listening to you

    They say the empty can rattles the most

    The sound of your voice must soothe you

    Hearing only what you want to hear

    And knowing only what you've heard

    You you're smothered in tragedy

    You're out to save the world

    Best of luck saving the world Ann, really, I mean that.

  17. The poor shopkeeper forced to pay Al Capone's protection racket fees is not responsible for Capone's behavior or organization. He is the victim of theft. It is the same with government.

    Now, the question is Ann, why do you keep defending this obvious immorality and extortion?

  18. With a battered wish you hoped that the monkey wore a tie.

    But it's no surprise to find he don't.

  19. Still waiting for my answers. While I'm waiting I think I'll go outside and yell at some kids for being too loud in the street. If that doesn't work, I'll just call the cops.

    Still waiting for my answers please.

  20. You've already been answered…directly once, rhetorically several times.

    I'll add my answers.

    Yes, I pay some taxes.

    No, I don't pay parking fines.

    Why do you ask?

  21. the motion represents another effort to have the undersigned rescue himself, a request that is denied elsewhere in the order.

    This is so obviously a typo. The judge meant to write recuse not rescue.

    The judge is pointing out that questions about his own impartiality are not a reason for a <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:fr:official&hs=dhs&defl=en&q=define:Change+of+venue&ei=OPthStO5IpiRtgfx86WyAg&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&quot; rel="nofollow">change of venue. A change in venue is made primarily because there has been so much pre-trial publicity that it would be difficult or impossible to pick an impartial jury pool. That does not apply in this case.

    You could still have the trial at the Keene district court, but with a different judge presiding.

  22. Ah, I see that in post #80884 someone has decided to hijack my screen name; tolerance for dissent is indeed minimal here.

    Some quick responses to my recent interlocutors:

    ThinkLiberty:

    You wrote:

    "Please stop supporting violence Ann. Stop supporting their system. Please support peace and non-violent ways of doing things without threats and thugs and for-profit prisons. You don’t have to support their system if you don’t want to. This is the free state you don’t have to support violence here."

    ThinkLiberty, it's obvious that you pay taxes; that tax money you pay goes, in part, to making sure this system you decry is funded and can continue. You are materially supporting that system; this is obvious on its face, and for you to deny it is to appear mentally addled. Others on this site assert that they have no choice but to pay the taxes that prop up the current system, and while we could have a robust debate about that and issues related to it, at least they are tethered enough to reality to acknowledge it.

    Michael:

    Your rhetoric is so over-the-top it makes you seem absurd. First, you pay the taxes and take advantage of much of the infrastructure that tax money funds, but the fact that you don't "morally" support the situation is somehow supposed to be meaningful? If the system is so abhorrent to you and merits the use of words and phrases like "extortion", "violent", "point of a gun", "monopoly", "imprisonment" etc. so as to properly describe its horrors, why would you materially support it in the slightest, even for a moment? You have all sorts of options available to you; for instance, people all through history have responded to perceived oppression by emigrating to places they found to be more consonant with their values and beliefs. But my guess is that when it comes to down to it, you rather like it here, and that at the point where the rubber meets the road, you consider your objections to be quibbles and minor irritations. What you actually do is more significant than what you say.

    JJ:

    Why is it that so many folks on this site resort to such violent imagery when making their points? Do you feel impotent? Sorry, but analogizing a taxpayer with a torture victim is one of the typically childish, junior high school debate club constructions that are a common feature on this site. If you hold to your fundamentalist mindset with such desperation and rigidity that you can't perceive or acknowledge degrees of seriousness/intensity and are freaked out by nuance, compromise and tolerance, then you aren't accessible via reason. It's an emotional problem, not one of logic.

    Paul:

    I guess I'll refer you to my comments to JJ. Comparing officials who are elected (and/or are selected by elected officials) by people voting freely in a democracy to a gang of organized criminals makes you seem utterly silly.

    That's all for now.

    Ann

  23. Ann

    Your 1st question is quite worthless if people had the choice to pay taxes or not then your question might have some value, but in this system where people are forced to pay its pointless to ask.

    To answer your 2nd question I will NEVER willing pay any fines to any government.

  24. An election doesn't justify criminal activity.

    If I choose to not pay for the government schools, men with guns will come terrorize my family and I by forcing us from our home and stealing it. If we refuse to leave, the men will imprison us. If we refuse to go to prison, we may be killed.

    You can pretend the threat violence isn't there, Ann. I understand why you have cognitive dissonance. That doesn't change the fact that we are all threatened with violence for not going along with the demands of those calling themselves "the state".

  25. Granted, I haven't spent much time in Law School, but I fail to see how this Burke can fulfill the job of a judge while he's on the witness stand. Would the judge then just deny any request that he be a witness? Wouldn't that deny SamIAm from having his constitutionally protected rights?

    After reading this and reflecting on the width and depth of Burke's actions… my think hurts now.

  26. Ann,

    Did you actually read what I wrote or did you simply skim across the text while fomenting some foolish idea of a post. I stated that the torture analogy was absurd in the next line after it.

    That really doesn't matter though because the actual point of my message was validated by your response. You argue for the sake of arguing. You are not trying to persuade anyone with your posts but rather you are trying to inflame others.

    Thus, you are a troll. I don't have time for trolls and as such, I have nothing more to say to you.

  27. Ann,

    If Capone held an election in his neighborhood and the majority had approved of his actions it would not have made his theft or murder of the minority any more moral.

    Honest question. Do you really believe morality is determined by majority opinion? If the majority approved slavery, for example, would you consider it ok? If not, why not?

    P.S. To whoever hijacked ann's username: Not cool.

  28. I have to agree with JJ to an extent — I have asked many questions of you in the past which you have not addressed substantively. You seem to be more interested in parroting public opinion than seriously thinking about issues.

    Yes, I understand that what I'm saying is not conventional knowledge, and I am aware that "how I sound" is not what people are used to. The point is to get people to think. For example, do they really believe morality is determined by majority, or is an action inherently moral or immoral. If the latter, is there a substantive difference between a gangster style "protection racket" and government? No, not really.

    I fully understand that if a person is not interested in open minded, reasoned thinking on the merits of an idea, but only accepts or rejects ideas based on whether they sound like the pc party line they've been brainwashed into, they won't be reached by any logic. Are you such a person?

  29. Why do I have a mental picture of Burke running back and forth from the witness stand to the bench?

    Sam: I'd like to question the witness

    Burke (from witness stand): Your honor, I don't want to answer the question.

    Burke (running back to bench): I understand, witness, you do not have to answer any questions.

    Burke (running back to witness stand): Thank you, your honor.

    Sam: I didn't ask a question yet.

    Burke (from witness stand): Your honor, I object!

    Burke (running back to bench): Objection sustained! Watch your tone, young man, or I'll jail you for disrupting my courtroom!

  30. It's funny cuz it's true.

  31. So no change in date or anything on this?

  32. No Change, trial tomorrow. The court has been positioning itself for a showdown. They have also posted the you must stand order on the wall.

  33. Hah! Hahaha! He really can't get over nobody standing for him, can he? Does the whole image of court legitimacy really rest on blindly, unflinchingly, obediently standing tall before the man?

  34. Heh, are they ready for 30 arrests?

  35. That's an OLD order. Been there all year. No one has been standing.

  36. Goodness, you fellows are such drama queens. As Burke has become more accustomed to these displays, he has gotten better at using the options at his disposal to secure an environment in which these cases can be considered in an orderly fashion. In response to whatever disturbance may arise, he can easily call a recess, clear the courtroom, move the proceedings into a conference room, etc. My guess is that he might have at first been a bit confused by people who do things like claiming they'll go to jail for whatever length of time that's necessary before they'll dispose of the couch on their lawn (only to come groveling back before the judge within 48 hours), or go on a "hunger strike" that includes drinking milk (wow, even Gandhi wasn't THAT hard-core).

    So, from the standpoint of substance, be ready to be flicked away like bugs. On the other hand, I'm sure you'll be able to invent new outrages in your imaginations so you can continue this twisted version of Rotisserie Baseball.

  37. It takes extraordinary strength of will and devotion to focus one's time on ridiculing and needling the pesky pro-liberty activists on this site who seek to remove force and coercion from our daily lives.

    Few have the wherewithal to hear the message of liberty, open their minds to it and still opt for slavery. Ann, you have gone above and beyond the call of duty in mocking this subversive and dangerous element. Rather than joining them and showing them how to be more effective in their mission to change things for the better, you have remained a shining example of the perfect Citizen with your fervent support of the authoritarian status quo.

    Congratulations on your unique achievement.

    I'm certain that when martial law is finally declared and the Bill of Rights abolished, your new masters will look back and see how you've supported them against the liberty movement and offer you special privileges (like living) in post-collapse America.

    <cite>That dramatic enough?</cite>

  38. Well said, Zeus. That annamazedreader-bitch sure hooked all you guys into replying to her trollposts. You even answered her questions, several times over. She still didn't get it. She's a troll. She'll never get it. Thinkliberty got it correct. This post was supposed to be about Sam's "trial" by BURKE-SHIT…(Curt, the whole "change of venue" thing, as good as it is on TV, won't fly here. They'll just get *another judge* to come in…I've been in front of as many as *5* different NH District Court "judges" – ALL IN THE SAME CASE, OVER ONLY a 2 – 3/4 month period! It's known as "musical judges"…) So you guys listen up! Last night, I met Adam Sexton, WMUR-TV 9 reporter, here in Keene to do some weather shots. I'd forgotten about Sams' "trial", so all I told him about was some vague hints of the "coming troubles"…try: asexton@hearst.com, or 603-666-9520…I think that WMUR *SHOULD* be broadcasting these trials. This isn't just bullshit. This is potentially precedent setting. I'd like to see you all take things a little more seriously…Kat, I could, and would, give them something that would make 30 arrests look like nothing, but I won't. There's nothing but downside for me. I've got too much at stake. And too much to lose. Besides, I'm DOD *ONLY*! There's no longer any such thing as the "War Dept.", remember???…The house I want back, that was stolen by Burke, et al, is at 133 Spruce St in Keene. I don't want either the CountyHouse in W'moreland, or the Big House in Concord. That's why I went Article 10. Duh. ///For you, "annamazedreader": "If you receive a traffic citation, do you pay the fine?"Ok, …By what manner does one "receive" such a citation??? How many ways are there? Can one refuse to receive such a citation? How? //Now, *YOU* answer *THESE* questions, ann. I Double-dog dare you!…(this should be funny…

  39. Odin says "Kat, I could, and would, give them something that would make 30 arrests look like nothing, but I won’t. There’s nothing but downside for me. I’ve got too much at stake. And too much to lose."

    I can't roll my eyes strongly enough here. So the consequences of whatever violence you have in mind are too steep. Not surprising. So then you do nothing.

    You talk like the rest of us have nothing to lose. Sheesh.

  40. I'm a fan of FSP, OTN, Sam, and Steven Anderson. I've been following them about four months now from down here in the South. I'm a freedom fighter/rights advocate myself with a few national organizations. Just the other night I looked up Voluntaryist on Wikipedia. So now I better understand that. I think my political view is more along the lines of Constitutionist-Libertarian-Individualist-Revolutionary.

    I'm anxious to find out: How did Sam's hearing or trial go at the end of last month?

Care to comment?