Video: Court Trials from Sept. 29th

On Wednesday, in addition to a trial on criminal trespass at the county jail, Ian faced charges related to a February citation when a police officer “caught” him with a Shire license plate on his car rather than the “required” State issued one.

Full Video of that trial:

And as previously reported, four of the activists accused of trespassing for walking around the County Jail property had a consolidated trial on Wednesday.

Lauren Canario has already reported to jail to serve time on the trespassing charge. Dale Everett and Ian Freeman have pending appeals to the State Supreme Court before they will be forced to serve time or pay the fine related to that charge.

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


22 Comments

  1. good job in getting the registration charge dropped

    when burke said"it borders on contempt" (about the Shire)

    i wanted Ian to say "i do have contempt for this court!"

    but of coarse you can't say that unless you want jail time or fines

  2. Oh yes, if you question the legitimacy of your masters' behavior, or fail to show them the respect they want, they'll lock you away.

    Gangsters and tyrants tend to act violently in response to perceived "disrespect".

  3. Jailtime or fine? In this company both means Jailtime, although the latter is more indirect and obscured jailtime.

  4. youse are going to hate me:i think judge Burke did pretty good…………..One thing bothered me…………I thought every case was suppose to be sentenced ON ITS OWN MERITS…meaning hes not suppose to consider other previous stuff/ dealing/offenses :i'm talking about when he did that to assess the 'sentences"

  5. No too bad Ian.. the half hour trial cost more than $186 and even though your private plates aren't yet recognized by the UN, your point was made.

    It seems somewhat prejudicial that the cop is allowed to wear his uniform while testifying. Maybe next time the defense could make a motion to have him cover the uniform, by offering the court a one-size fits all polyester 1970s leisure suit, conveniently folded on the defense table among the papers. For security, a motion should be made that a bailiff escort the officer to the restroom for changing.

    At some point, someone should do society a favor and object to Burke's mustache.

  6. Good work, lots of courage as usual. Very proud of you guys!

  7. You should have objected to him saying the "ways of the state of new hampshire" The STATE does not own the road it as an easement . The right to use it is vested in the unorganized public not the body politic aka organized public.

    lookup highways corpus juris
    Here's a link screenshot to the section https://docs.google.com/View?id=dcm8m458_466hkfzm

    link is a screenshot of Corpus Juis Highways Right and Modes of Use https://docs.google.com/File?id=dcm8m458_528cztxc

  8. It's rather ironic that while denying the existence of the State of New Hampshire, you submit to its system of "justice" in order to fight its "existence." I'm not being flippant here. I think the position that "the state does not exist" is irrational. The position that "the state SHOULD not exist" is rational and should be the position that people take. Appearing delusional is no way to gain support.

    It's rather a Catch-22 that in order to fight the existance of state power you have to submit to it and argue within its domain to vainly attempt to weaken it. The judge is not going to agree to your position and sacrifice his career and wealth.

    The position to take, again rather ironic, is that of the US government: DO NOT NEGOTIATE WITH TERRRORISTS. I'd love to hear someone in court say to the judge, "I do not negotiate with terrorists. You and your cohorts are trying to terrorize me and other free people into complying with your demands under threat of violence, kidnapping, being confined to cages, having money extorted from us, and being held for ransom. That is terrorism. Again, I do not negotiate with terrorists. I do not recognize the legitimacy of the authority of this entity."

  9. Good Job Ian et. al. It takes a lot of nerve to appear in court in self-defense. The cards are stacked against you and the judge can just refuse to recognize your arguments. It is rather frivolous to make up your own state of being a free man, or is it? Kind of like arguing with a shark in the ocean. Without the right tool, you have no chance of winning.

  10. One question the state should have asked if it was truly trying to be thorough…

    Has Ian ever registered a vehicle in the state of NH before?

    If that has ever happened then Ian would be shown to have knowledge of the registration laws.

    So, has he?

  11. "Dale Everett and Ian Freeman have pending appeals to the State Supreme Court before they will be forced to serve time or pay the fine related to that charge."

    Sounds like a defeatist attitude. Perhaps they know they have no case, they are just trying to make a point. And waste more tax dollars at the same time.

  12. I believe a "appeal" to the supreme court costs some money and i don't believe you get it back.
    I was thinking of
    Edward and Elaine Brown; they didn't pay thier taxes and i believe they got like 30 years (which seems outrageous to me)
    but my point is : the only way to really be "free" or whatever is to be a outlaw like bonnie and clyde" and break the laws and not pay taxes and just be on the run from the law and perhaps just not engage at all and be a hiding outlaw.
    I'm saying this because people say "why do you play on their field with their rules Ian?".
    Anyway,that's my schpeel.

  13. I need a shire plate! I shall make one for my vehicle, but I shall call it a Ian Freeman Plate!

  14. I don't appreciate the judge threatening violence in the middle of testimony by claiming borderline contempt.

    In relation to the Shire, im wondering how various other cultural entities have worked in "recognizable legitimacy" in the courts to which they have negated certain laws.

    Keep asking the tough questions.

  15. Sounds like a defeatist attitude. Perhaps they know they have no case, they are just trying to make a point. And waste more tax dollars at the same time.

    I'm sure they'd be quite happy to be left alone, and not waste any tax dollars at all. It's the state agents who chose to agress, and you're blaming the victim.

  16. I'm only a quarter of the way through the video so I don't know if it wasn't mentioned but one interesting tactic that came to mind was questioning Frank's ability to be heard and understood (which Lauren certainly had issues with) particularly with such a massive crowd outside all scattered around.

    Questions that brings up:

    1. Earlier you testified that you said "You people gotta go, you can't be here if yer protestin', the cops are comin'"? Is this correct? How did you say it? Did you say it as loud as you have here today? Louder, quieter? Could you repeat it here today in a way that is approximate to how you said it that day?

    2. How far would you say the distance from where you were when you made your order and this spot here (point to the farthest person or persons in the crowd)? Was the crowd noisy? Were they chanting anything? [If yes, all the better] Is it your testimony today that you can legibly shout, be heard , and understood [xx] feet away [with x number of people chanting (if applicable)]? Because you don't strike me as loud guy, Frank, and I'm having trouble hearing/comprehending you and I'm only 8 ft away.

    3. Ian (in particular): You testified earlier that you do not see me in this image at the time you made your order. Are you saying I was not present to your knowledge at that time? Was I ordered to leave the premises at that time? No, me Frank, not "the protesters". Did you order *me* to vacate the premises at the time? [Y] How did you do that if I wasn't there and you weren't aware of my presence? [N] Did you order me to do so later? Did you order me to do so at anytime during this incident? [Y] How soon after was I arrested?

    Closing argument (at least for Ian): Officer Frank has testified that he did not see me present at the time the order was given, there is no evidence that I was aware of any such order, and therefore — having never received the order to vacate — I can not as both a matter of law and as a matter of fact [legalese] be in violation of RSA blah blah blah. I rest my case.

    Just suggestions for the future should other incidents come up. Take em or leave em as thou wilt.

  17. Sweet! Ian actually did use that whole "Did you personally communicate the order to me." thing. Awesome.

    EDIT: And Dale nailed it afterward pointing out the same thing and his location relative to Frank AND getting Frank to read the statute. Excellent work.

  18. Another bit of non-lawyerly advice:

    1. They don't care what you're disposition was. Ever. Menacing, acting like a freak, smiling, throwing money to the homeless, none of it is relevant to the judge. His goal is this: A) Are you charged with something? (you're there so the answer is yes) B) Is there evidence or testimony you did whatever it is they claim (this is per witness) C) Do you have evidence to the contrary or an argument that nullifies the other testimony?

    2. When you cross examine witnesses, everything you ask them is to establish the facts in the case and try to nail them/discredit their testimony. Less is more.

    When you are done, the bad guy gets his turn to try and refute you and tear down your argument with more testimony from the witness. Then you get another chance to "redirect" and try to top him with more testimony, get the witness to slip up or be labeled not credible, biased, whatever.

    In this case, you guys all had the right idea to question them about your location, how, when and if you received the order to leave, is it even possible for you to have heard the order, etc. Trying to establish that you couldn't have possibly known about the order from Frank is the best bet but you do it by asking questions, not by making statements (arguments).

    3. When all the prosecutor's witnesses have given their testimony, you get to testify or call your own witnesses. Rinse and repeat. Then they ask the court to make its case (they usually just let the witnesses and facts they've raised speak for them so they just sit there and rest their case).

    4. Now you get to make your argument, do motions, call witnesses. The whole thing with jurisdiction? Waste of time especially before Burke. Smartest thing Ian went for was "The state has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt (as a matter of fact and or law if applicable)". To me, its pretty damn obvious they didn't prove their case but even so, Burke can do whatever he wants even if you cross every t and dot every i. That's what appeals are for. Again, less is more if you want to win. Again, less is more as Burke himself even mentions late in the trial where he would have granted Ian's motion to dismiss.

    The core of the proceeding for the court, whether we agree with their authority/jurisdiction or not (they don't care and won't let you question it) is a) Is someone claiming you violated one of their rules, b) is there testimony or evidence indicating or proving that you did violate that rule and c) do you have counter evidence or testimony indicating otherwise. Beyond that, they don't care. All you have to do, if you can, is demonstrate through testimony or argument that the prosecution is full of shit and has not demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty of violating their rule. You do that, and you ought to walk in most cases.

    If a witness makes contradictory statements, he may be perjuring himself or simply be incompetent or have his testimony be ruled whatever is latin for full of shit. Strike your accusers testimony and they got nothin'. No witness, no case.

    Ian did a great job questioning Sean. Nailed it.

    The prosecutor however nails Sean to the wall and everyone else by association with his extremely damaging testimony (sorry Sean!). The best bet here would have been to not testify or plead the fifth.

    With Dale's redirect, I know all the court crap is confusing but most of the rules are pretty straightforward even if they're kind of dumb. When cross examining the witness, you can only get their testimony, their perspective on events. Anything outside of that, what you were thinking, what you're trying to explain or whatever, is going to be shot down and could even damage you because it gives the prosecutor a heads up on what you're trying to argue (at the wrong time to do so) so he can counter it if you try again during arguments and motions. That's just going to frustrate the hell out of you.

    Dale's testimony is nice and solid, he did not waver even though he was clearly nervous (which is not only understandable but a given). The only thing I might have suggested is that Ian say "Objection, Leading" when the prosecutor was doing that whole flipflop talk trying to confuse dale re: the bullhorn and then later on when he kept asking "Is it your testimony that you didn't hear it?". He can only ask that once or twice max. The objection there I imagine is either "Badgering the witness" if he's really piling it on or more likely in this case "Asked and answered." Once it is asked and answered, that's it. He can't just keep harping on it according to their own rules.

    Ian's testimony is also solid. Short but sweet and with no redirect you're golden. I was even impressed with Lauren's cross examination, she asked a great questioned which you responded beautifully to.

    Ian's closing statement was a bit of shock. It was very well articulated. I don't know how I feel about the thank you to Burke, that could be interpreted by him as legit or faux deference for the purpose of being found not guilty, you never know. Personally, I thought it was sincere as it was stated.

    Lauren's best moment was perhaps her closing statement, same for Sean.

    I think the weakest moment of the Prosecutor was at the end when he's talking about conduct at the old jail excusing conduct at the new jail and the signage. Clearly the signs said that failure to leave when requested would be a misdemeanor. Entirely irrelevant if that request is never heard.

    I'm also shocked at Burke's response as he did — and rightly so — agree that Frank did not communicate effectively. It was obvious from the second he got in the hot seat that he mumbles, speaks fast, has an accent and talks very low.

    Aaaaaand I just got to the part where he becomes a total dick and sentences everybody to a violation and egregiously, prejudicially charges Ian a $1000 fine. So much for the so-called justice system, feel free to ignore all my non-lawyerly advice, even if you used it, he'd probably still have been a douchebag and the outcome would have been the same.

  19. wow zeus is good at writing alot.

    brb while i read it……….(i have decided reading his stuff isnt a waste of time even if it is alot) thats a complement btw

  20. Ian,

    I applaud your tenacity at standing up to the court system. There is a course you may be interested in call Jurisdictionary to assist with proceedure. The court system is all about proceedure, collecting judgements, and not justice.

    If you want to go the freeman route, Winston Shrout has a great course. Ben Lowrey also has a lot of info on his adventures in liberty on his website.

    Wish I had the guts to stand up like you and so many others. My time will come.

  21. the state of new hampshire only exists in the minds of the ignorant to see it's just land.

    JUST land. Mountains, streams, farms, etc. Nothing more than land that some people have chosen to take some control over, change the name of the land to New Hampshire, and then choose to put people in cages over the rules they come up with for it.

    all based on imagination and force.

  22. "…all based on imagination and force."""…. <—-No, butthead, *SOME* of it is based on arbitrary interpretations of words on paper…just sayin'…….

Care to comment?