Sam Dodson “Guilty” in Uneventful Trial

Judge Howard Lane, filling in for our friend Burke, found Sam “guilty” today for driving after suspension in relation to this incident.

Sam raised a few objections regarding conflicts of interest and why Burke has not yet ruled on his previous case, but he played by the court rules for the most part (except for standing). Below is a cut-down video from the trial including Sam’s objections and a few other highlights:

And here is the longer, full trial video:

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


42 Comments

  1. Is there an appeal in the works?

  2. Next time, why don't you demand (not ask for) a jury before your trial, and use jury nullification during it. It's your right, you know (listed in the 6th Amendment [focus on "ALL criminal prosecutions"]).

  3. You could try, Thomas, but they won't allow it on anything below a "class a misdemeanor". Doesn't seem to matter about what that pesky constitution says.

    Word is there may be an appeal.

  4. Sam you got balls. I've done some self representation in family court for parenting time with my kids. They do everything in their power to intimidate. It's sickening how the legal system works. The lack of justice is obvious. It is their game, their ball, their rules. Shut up, bend over and say "thank you sir, may I have another." Despicable. I hate any government that would allow this behavior. I'm so sorry dude, but you will not win. Divine intervention is humankind's only hope. Take care and thanks for the vid. It is nice to see someone reveal the 'gun in the room'.

  5. Sam…you have publicly shown yourself to be a moron.

    Be thankful that the judge didnt find you in contempt for wasting the courts time with meaningless objections and motions.

    Get a life ass wipe.

  6. Nothing new to see here…Just another display of Sam's incompetence and passive aggresive behavior

  7. Why IHaveHadEnough, what an ugly things to say.

    We all have a life that we live just fine. The only ones needing to get a life are the people calling themselves 'government'. Why don't they just tend to their lives and leave us alone to live our lives? And you; how did Sam's actions affect you? Your life doesn't seem to occupy enough of your time, so you have to spend time here, talking smack about someone and something you know nothing about.

    YOU get a life. If you have 'had enough' then just go back to your life and leave other people alone.

    Oh, why do you have an afinity for rectal tissue? Seems like you have a lot on your plate of life that needs attention.

  8. I found his objections very resonable. The 'state' being the prosector and the judge is a very clear conflict of interest. Can anyone resonably indicate otherwise?

  9. 1. Sam, you are one tough fellow to be meeting these people on their own stomping grounds. Bravo.

    2. I hope the website folks will develop an "ignore" button

  10. @WYATT-SOCAL wrote:

    "I found his objections very resonable. The ’state’ being the prosector and the judge is a very clear conflict of interest. Can anyone resonably indicate otherwise?"

    Actually, those of us who are at least marginally sentient can REASONABLY point out that you are illiterate.

  11. Comment by IHaveHadEnough

    October 24, 2009 @ 2:03 pm

    Sam…you have publicly shown yourself to be a moron.

    Be thankful that the judge didnt find you in contempt for wasting the courts time with meaningless objections and motions.

    Get a life ass wipe.

    And what is YOUR stake in the system as it is? Are you being paid to mooch off the taxpayers? (i.e. welfare reciepient, military, cop, gov't employee, etc)

    If so, what kind of honest and peaceful life do you currently lack? Sam works for a living and I doubt that your story could stack up even that well against his real life.

    Sam lives his freedom & you appear so jealous that you can't rock the boat and endanger your own personal lifestyle funding from the state.

  12. Comment by AnAmazedReader

    October 24, 2009 @ 3:02 pm

    <blockquote cite="AnAmazedReader">

    @WYATT-SOCAL wrote:

    “I found his objections very resonable. The ’state’ being the prosector and the judge is a very clear conflict of interest. Can anyone resonably indicate otherwise?”

    Actually, those of us who are at least marginally sentient can REASONABLY point out that you are illiterate.

    <blockquote cite="the dictionary">

    illiterate:

    adjective

    1. unable to read and write

    I'm confused as to the basis for the accusation that Wyatt-Socal is illiterate based on the definition of the word 'illiterate'. Oh wait, is this a legal term? In that case, it makes sense. Just like when you point to the sky and "legally" you're pointing down.

  13. Yawn!!!!

    GFY

  14. Dear Smegma,

    When an interlocutor can't even spell a simple word like "reasonable", one can reasonably question their literacy. Just as one could read your writings and reasonably surmise that you are a slave to the violent ravages of low self-esteem, and have thus latched onto one of many fundamentalist belief systems. A pity, that.

    Ann

  15. Hi Ann!

    Sorry, I can't think of a response for you that doesn't include the word 'retard', so I'll skip it.

    Since I'm here though, I will say that you are a nasty, vindictive person. I still wonder why you are here, but I've already asked, so we won't hoe the same row twice, ok?

    Your assertion that a person who misspells a word is illiterate is totally asinine, and has no basis in reality. Some of the smartest people I know simply aren't worth a shit at spelling.

    Actually, I do have a question for you today. Who knows, maybe you'll even answer it. I'll preface this with a statement that should demonstrate the point of my query.

    Most 'liberty activists' are just individual people who want to be left to make their own choices for themselves regarding their wealth, bodies, etc.

    Given that, why would you throw a blanket over these people and label it 'fundamentalist?' It's funny because it's not a bad thing necessarily, but I can tell you use the word in an inflammatory manner.

    A corollary to that is; How can the statists claim not to be fundamentalists themselves? And if they are, their fundamentalism is evil, for it robs the people of their liberties.

    What say you?

  16. C.MUNRO…

    Actually I have a pretty satisfying life. Self made business owner, I built and live off what I started and made thrive. Free to do what I want on my piece of the state. Shoot, swim, hunt…

    I just like to stop by here every once in a while to satisfy my comedy cravings and laugh at the idiot ramblings of you clowns.

  17. Ann,

    thank you for your response, and taking time to type out my whole nickname! smeg IS actually short for smegma, which my friends gave to me as a nickname from a combination of: my name being meg, a spinal tap joke, and a birthday gift from a porn shop.

    unfortunately i can't agree with your 'low-self esteem' assessment of me, cause i'm kick arse 😉

    i can however admit that i am a human, just as susceptible to propaganda as any other. while i believe my morals to be my own, i could have been fooled into thinking that… and that is okay with me. what i'm not okay with, is someone telling me my morals are wrong, their morals are right, and punishing me for not believing the same as them. can you prove that you were not lied to in order to come to your beliefs? i don't think anyone can.

  18. What business would that be? I'm sure people would love to ostracize your business knowing how violent and angry you are about peaceful people living freely.

    You may be upset about your masters abuse of your life, but don't blame innocent people – they did nothing to you, why do you hate them so much?

  19. Poor LP,

    Sad to say, debate with you is akin to the proverbial shooting of fish in a barrel:

    "Most ‘liberty activists’ are just individual people who want to be left to make their own choices for themselves regarding their wealth, bodies, etc."

    Typical Freekeener talking point idiocy, in this case positing the absurd idea that the absolute and total independence of human actions is possible, and that a person's single-minded pursuit of his/her own wishes should always remain unrestrained. Or if you do think there are instances where such restraint is necessary, who decides, and how is said restraint enforced? Now it's your turn to come up with an utterly fantastical non-solution.

    "Given that, why would you throw a blanket over these people and label it ‘fundamentalist?’ It’s funny because it’s not a bad thing necessarily, but I can tell you use the word in an inflammatory manner."

    In my view, human existence is complex and multi-faceted enough that its inherent challenges can't be constructively addressed by rigidly-held belief systems. True believers all too often have so much at stake psychologically that they have to view reality as a threat that must be extinguished. Thus all the extreme language and characterizations on this site.

    "A corollary to that is; How can the statists claim not to be fundamentalists themselves? And if they are, their fundamentalism is evil, for it robs the people of their liberties."

    Ah yes, the straw man, the favorite argumentative device of the intellectually addled. The salient question is "At what does a person become a so-called Statist?" (you know, that meaningless broad-brush term that you and others here like to spout to buoy yourselves). What if I thought that 95% of Federal, State and Local laws in this country should be suspended; would my belief in retaining that final 5% I consider to be crucial to the sustenance of human life make me a statist?

    The problem is this. FreeKeeners spend a lot of time calling people names, hassling city workers and engaging in stunts that draw marginal amounts of attention to the performers yet never result in measurable progress. That's because the whole dance isn't about progress; as with adolescent boys, it's all about the acting-out. So please forgive me if I'm disdainful of people who grandstand and play around while most folks are simply trying to make their lives work.

  20. What would you say to an agorist like me who doesn't act out publicly and believes in black market activities? I don't hurt anyone and I respect property rights; should I have violence acted against me?

    And I think I can answer your question on statism. You are a statist if you believe in a monopoly government, or, a situation where one organization has sole control over an area and uses violence to prevent competition, regardless of what its business involves. There are Ron Paul style libertarian folk that talk about getting rid of 95% of the current government functions, but they are still statist for believing that there is somehow a right to impose a blanket organization called a government on everyone. I still consider those people my friends and I have no problem with their efforts to 'roll back' the government, as it does make me freer, but I just don't think working through the system works to accomplish what we want to accomplish. The government has NEVER been scaled down or rolled back in the history of its existence, except in situations where people simply ignored it and resisted it first.

  21. that explains AnAmazedReader's comments here!

    who shoots fish in a barrel? you already got the fish into a barrel, why shoot it? all that does is ruin your fish dinner.

    then again, those who love to torture for tortures sake might find appeal in it.

    shooting fish in barrels… a long enjoyed past time of sadists and cartoon hillbillies.

  22. I am amazed that ann is still here full of hate, if you are convinced that we are stupid why waste your time posting here?

    Maybe it's because you worship the state and the law?

    Tell all your friends (if you have any) and your parents about this site ann, so they can read your comments.

  23. @Smeg wrote:

    "what i’m not okay with, is someone telling me my morals are wrong, their morals are right, and punishing me for not believing the same as them."

    By this "logic", sanctions for engaging in religiously-based human sacrifice are illegitimate, because they would punish the "sacrificers" for acting on their sacred beliefs. How about religious/culturally-based honor killings? And of course one could easily compile a very long list indeed, at various levels of gravity across a large spectrum.

    Look, it's clear that you're not very curious or "well-exercised" intellectually, and that thinking through things is not your strong suit; you tend to simply regurgitate much of the pablum you've been ingesting like a sort of comfort food, perhaps out of loyalty or some sort of nesting/social impulse. Not a big deal. I just think it's sad to see people embrace the intellectual darkness that lies at the core of any dogma. Slavery, indeed.

  24. "By this “logic”, sanctions for engaging in religiously-based human sacrifice are illegitimate, because they would punish the “sacrificers” for acting on their sacred beliefs."

    Yes. It may surprise you to know that there exist people in this world that don't want to run other people's lives and whatever rituals they want to participate in they are welcome to, as long as nobody is being forced to participate in them.

    My religion is my religion. Unfortunately, your religion (statism) is basically you and your cult telling me what to do, which you have no right to do. I'm not saying you can't participate in your religion, just don't involve me.

  25. '…positing the absurd idea that the absolute and total independence of human actions is possible, and that a person’s single-minded pursuit of his/her own wishes should always remain unrestrained. Or if you do think there are instances where such restraint is necessary, who decides, and how is said restraint enforced? Now it’s your turn to come up with an utterly fantastical non-solution.'

    Such restraint is only necessary in cases where someone is violating the rights of another without provocation. Otherwise, the watch words are 'Leave people the hell alone, Ann'

    '…“At what does a person become a so-called Statist?” (you know, that meaningless broad-brush term that you and others here like to spout to buoy yourselves).'

    The Answer, my dear Ann is, if you are in favor of interfering with the choices of your neighbors, when they have harmed no one, and using the force of 'law' (the law perverted, but maybe later for that) to do so, you are a statist. That clear enough?

    '…The problem is this. FreeKeeners spend a lot of time calling people names, hassling city workers and engaging in stunts that draw marginal amounts of attention to the performers yet never result in measurable progress. That’s because the whole dance isn’t about progress; as with adolescent boys, it’s all about the acting-out. So please forgive me if I’m disdainful of people who grandstand and play around while most folks are simply trying to make their lives work.'

    What was that you said about a 'straw man'?

  26. And stop picking on meg, you're prolly just pissed cuz she's cuter than you are

    lol

  27. Talk about stupid laws-would you need a hunting or fishing license to shoot fish in a barrel? And yes,why shoot them if they are already in the barrel,you will just ruin the barrel.And it is nice to see that XrazorwireX is a fellow agoristit really frees one up to realise you can be free by living in the statist world as little as possible.Although I have to admit [confess?] to random acts of sabotage when they arise.I suppose that may be why the more public displays get to me-if they know who you,then they know who you are! —bil

  28. Let's not have any relevant comments on here, OK? I want you all to just engage in name-calling, insults, and slurs, regardless of their relevancy to anything outside yourselves…///…Far as I know, this is the first time we've seen Howard B. Lane, jr., in action in Kangaroo court. He's much more competent than Burke, & can actually feign judicial temperment for 1/2 hour, even 1 hour at a time…How many objections did he over-rule, Sam? Did he rule in your favor on *ANY* of them? I didn't think so. It may be clearer in the short video – I'm assuming that was the Police Persector Chris McLaughlin, right? Jeezum Crow! He's another set of bull-teats! Lane was carrying McLaughlin the whole time. Sam, all things considered, I thought you did excellent work. Better luck next time! (Actually, if I'm gonna waste my time on here, I may as well produce some work product, huh?…

  29. When I move to Keene I'm starting a black market guild in a basement somewhere. It's not too revolutionary but you gotta start somewhere; maybe I'll get to the point where you can buy a car or something like that off me, no paper trail / taxes.

  30. Is the video provided from the court or sam? If it was sam's video camera how did he get it in there?

  31. Can someone tell me why Sam's license was revoked by the State of Texas? DUI? Non-payment of a fine? Too many points? This seems like a very relevant part of the whole ordeal.

  32. Mothy,

    The video is by me. Sam also had a camera in there.

    How did we get them in? Carry them.

    If you're asking why they were allowed, cameras have always been allowed IN court if we filed motions in advance. The lobby is still off limits if juveniles are around.

  33. Also, if Sam knew his license was going to be revoked in a week for 4 months it makes a little more sense why he was so content to sit in jail as those weeks ticked by while not having a valid license.

  34. License, license, license. Where was his permission from the masters to travel?

    Meh

  35. Amazed,

    You're intellectually bankrupt and dishonest. You still have not my questions here: http://freekeene.com/2009/08/14/courtroom-disobed… yet despite your utter inability to defend your belief system, you feel the need to continue to toss cheap insults and make snap psychological judgments of others.

    It is interesting that you use the word "fundamentalist" as an insult, which Webster defines as: "a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles". It's quite appropriate, since you apparently have no principles at all.

    Thank goodness for those fundamentalist abolitionists, who were able to look at a society based on slavery and conclude that it did not abide by basic principles for right and wrong. Thank goodness for the fundamentalists that declared independence from Britain, making claims that the established political order violated basic God-given rights and moral principles. Thank goodness for the civil rights fundamentalists, who looked at a segregated society and concluded that it too violated moral principles. Thank goodness for the white rose society, which was able to recognize that their current societal order and political leaders were evil, and did not conform to basic moral principles.

    And in each of these instances, and many others, there were the bootlickers and cowards like yourself, who had no principles of their own for which to stand, and so went along with whatever the status quo happened to be. They waved in the winds of popular opinion, going along to get along, and invariably ended up helping to perpetrate the evil of their time, or at the least doing nothing to stop it.

    It is always difficult to recognize injustice or evil in one's own society. In each of the instances above, the situation seemed inevitable, and changing it seemed unthinkable and extreme. People supposed that society itself, for example, could not survive without slavery. Rigidity is not good, but I do hope to always stand on principle, and be willing to apply those principles to areas to which many are not accustomed to using them. In 1840, that meant applying the well known principles of basic god given human rights to blacks as well. Today, it means applying well known principles of basic right and wrong behavior to the actions of government.

  36. Just fucking COMPLY why don't you. Goddammit Sam, look how uncomfortable those bureaucrats are, don't you feel bad?

  37. FEEL BAD? For a bunch of bureaucraps??? Hey, pay-back is a bitch! I'm sure it was just a coincidence, but this morning, I saw Howard B. Lane, jr., in a local convenience store. I said, "Hi, Howard!"…I can't read his mind (it's closed!…), but I think he is both ashamed and embarassed to see me. At least, that's what I hope!…(you know, Sam, you did have old Howard reeling back into the ropes a few times. Wouldn't take much "coaching", to go in the legal ring and *KICK ASS*!…Seriously!

  38. XRAZORWIREX-I already have one of those running here-also in Vt.The MV rules are real easy to get around.No taxes if you work it right. —bil

  39. Sounds like alot of fun, bil.

  40. Actually it is-although I do it more for fun than profit.Stretching the rules to the breaking point.It is like the rule about paying taxes-it is the duty of everyone to ensure that you don't pay any more taxes than nessessary.It just depends who does the defining! —bil

  41. I think Jay's questions deserve more attention and require an answer from Sam if he wants support. I don't know enough about the circumstances around the revoking of the license so I don't know exactly what Sam was hoping to accomplish when I'm pretty sure he was aware of the revoking and why. If I were the judge, I would have tossed the case out as a waste of my time and sent Sam on his way because I don't see what a revoked Texas DL has to do with driving in new hampshire and maybe that was the point of the trial. You activists KNOW how these people are and know what you're getting into when you confront them…PLEASE continue to post your adventures in doing so BUT PLEASE stop with the righteously indignant attitudes as if you didn't see it coming and you're the poor little victim. When yo confront a bear and get mauled, don't go crying about it as if you didn't see it coming and feel lucky when you get away with not being mauled.

  42. Thomas Pynchon made the quite cogent observation that if you get people asking the wrong questions, the answers are truly meaningless. The question that deserves the MOST attention and requires an answer BEFORE taking up the minutiae of the case is why, in a land whose motto is "Live free or die" we tolerate 'bears' who claim non-existent 'authority' ("All men are created equal…") and maul people who have harmed no one, but had the temerity to disobey their 'servant' masters. Give me the answer to THAT question, friend Observer, and then we can see if there is any relevance to drivers' licenses and the idea that people who are "endowed by their creator with inalienable rights" must grovel to some bureaucrat for the 'privilege' of moving himself and his property from place to place. Or do you believe we are all in prison and need to get permission from the 'warden' to travel around?

Care to comment?