Back in October, while attending an arraignment for recently arrested activists from the Keene Pumpkin Festival, Brandon Durham was asked (told?) to remove his hood while in the court. After refusing multiple times the bailiff’s order, he was arrested and taken off to jail.
This past Wednesday, Brandon had his trial on a charge of trespassing. Not a charge of “wearing a hood in court” or “disobeying a court officer” or even their favorite – “disorderly conduct”. He was charged with trespassing under the logic that the court officer had asked him to leave the court, and he didn’t. Of course he was welcomed in, but suddenly was trespassing when he wanted to wear a hood?
Nonetheless, he had his trial on the charge, and here is the full video:
While Brandon did not offer much of a defense, Judge Howard Lane still saw the case as ambiguous enough to take it under advisement, and we will await a verdict. Maybe, just maybe, he will realize that wearing a piece of clothing is not a $1000 offense, or even a $1 offense.
Under normal circumstances I think we would agree that it's perfectly reasonable to change one's mind and unwelcome someone who is on your property. This isn't private property in the normal sense but they do treat it as theirs regardless of what they call it otherwise.
My point is only that the way you wrote above makes it sound like the problem was the claim of trespassing rather than their reaction to it which I think is the primary issue here.
I think the main problem is them acting as if what they buy with taxpayer money (stolen money) is their own personal property.
Every interaction I've had with Lance has been given me the impression he's a very nice guy, but this just seems petty and insignificant. I'm guessing he's "just doing his job" but seems like for things like this he should show some discretion.
Good job, Brandon!
Please forgive the armchair quarterbacking and the long post, but for those with cross-examination opportunities in the future, I offer a few questions below with the hope that the tactics and philosophy behind them is helpful in defending you against the violence of the state. The principle is to zero in on their justifications for their violence against you, and cross examine those justifications. In this case, the justifications are that they 1) received a *lawful* order, 2) which they are *authorized* to execute within the courtroom. Lance has only two outs to maintain credibility: 1) that he was giving… Read more »
So…The State charges 1000 dollars for each time they remove a person from a building…and ask 10 questions.
So should bouncers be paid 1000 dollars for each unruly person they remove from an establishment?
Maybe Mr. Durham should arbitrarily remove people from central square and charge them 1000 dollars.
"What did you do next?"
"I approached the SUBJECT, and identified myself"
Uhh… excuse me? You filthy little arrogant bureaucrat?"
This guy should have objected to being called that. That pisses me the fuck off.
I'm not your subject and your not my king you slimey little weasel.
What if he meant "subject" in the "subject of a sentence" or "subject of an article" sense?
We still shouldn't be subjected to it . . .
Thank-you, LIBERTAS, for one of the best posts on any topic, that I've seen on here in a while. I hope you're "signed up", and active on the Forum. Your analysis & clear thinking about "how to beat them at their own game, using their own rules against them", should be required reading for *ALL* persons on here. "Jurisdictionary", huh? COOL! Also, to Sam, CHRONO, & ETC., Yes, *I AM* the *KING* of *KEENE*, but, I have no "subjects". You're all as free to remain free, as I can possibly let u be. SEMPER FIDELIS MORBIDUS! *I **AM** the *ongoing… Read more »
the "nothing at all" part, of course, refers to the contents of their brains, and what you will find if you look for any love in their hearts………. "their", of course, refering to Burke, Lane, jr., Lance, hell, the whole Administrative Ofice of the Courts, & NH (il)Legal "system"…Recent lay-offs of court staff, due to the "economic crisis"???…How much State Tax Payer $$$ was *WASTED* on this pointless execise in judicial dick-muscle flexing???…&C'mon, Brandon, *NO DEFENSE* at all!?!?!?…WTF???…That Lane, jr., "took it under advisement" is probably a good thing. He *could* have issued a summary ruling of guilt. The State… Read more »
CHRONO: I agree wholeheartedly. I was equally annoyed by his continued use of the word "subject."
One other thought here: Judge Burke could have been called as a witness to testify as to whether this was a lawful order from his bench. Judges can be called as witnesses as long as they are not presiding over the case.
If they are presiding over the case, you can move for them to recuse themselves, so they can testify as to the order.
—Comment by Miles "What if he meant “subject” in the “subject of a sentence” or “subject of an article” sense" He didn't mean it in that way… go listen to the context in which it was said. These people are brainwashed. I've had two court administrators, in casual conversation, refer to me as a "civilian" … It's becoming a very serious police state. When he said "subject" and then when the prosecutor even continued the use of it.. it has nothing to do with anything except who is master and who is slave. Although, I'm not sure if they are… Read more »
So what would have happened if little Burkey decided that there will be no blacks in the courtroom, would that have been a lawful order? What if the judge said there will be no blue shirts, or there will be no collarless shirts in the court? Would those be lawful orders? I agree with Libertas, the key is proving that the order was not lawful. Maybe that's why they are keeping Burke out of there, he is a man out of control and has proven that he is a fucking moron. At least this guy in the robe has some… Read more »
The refusal to remove the hood was more than just that. The judge HAD to establish jurisdiciton over Brandon. Jusridicion must be extablised in the court or there is no case. Insead of getting arrested, Brandon could have stated" I claim common law jurisdicion and since I am the highest authority in this court I rule this case dismissed" and dismissed his own case himself.
Neil,
Would that really work? Hard to believe the judge would accept that; has such a position been successfully tried in court before?