Prince John’s Royal Proclamation Denies Fiscal Motivation


Prince John MacLean

Prince John, on behalf of his court jesters and their enforcement units, has penned a desperate response to the global outpouring of support received by Robin Hood and the Merry Men following the royalty’s frivolous lawsuit against us. Through a royal proclamation published in Saturday’s Sentinel, the Prince builds upon his deceitful characterization of individuals that he first perpetuated in a Keene Sentinel cover story over a month ago. Prince John continues to demonize those who participate in Robin Hooding, conflating our actions to ‘intimidation’ and ‘harassment’.


Court Jester Thomas Mullins

Considering the amount of self-righteous fluff sandwiching the Prince’s sentences, royalty seems to understand the extent to which they have dug themselves into a hole with a baseless lawsuit against six activists. Whatever the city’s true motives, we can trust in our leaders that this action had “nothing to do” with revenue. “The city has no interest in whether or not these or other individuals wish to pay the parking meters, and no claim about this practice is made in the legal action…This is definitely not about parking meter money. On behalf of your mayor, Kendall Lane, your elected city councilor, and your dedicated city employees, we are all honored to work for you and this wonderful community,” MacLean assures. Fancying himself an omniscient ruler of his subjects, the Prince even alleges that he can peer into the minds of those he sues. Weaving two different interpretations of the motives of the Merry Men, the Prince begins,

By now you are all aware that the city of Keene commenced legal action against six individuals who have been conducting and coordinating a six-month campaign of pursuit and intimidation of the city’s parking enforcement officers with the stated intention of eliminating their employment, and with them a department of city government.

Through these words, one infers that the Prince has evidence that Robin Hood and the Merry Men have overtly stated an intention of “eliminating [the enforcers’] employment”. As an individual merry man, I have never stated an intention to eliminate any particular person’s employment, and I would doubt his royalty’s ability to prove that any such statement was ever made on behalf of Robin Hood and the Merry Men. But just then, John contradicts himself.

Contrary to these individuals’ stated motives, and apparently accepted without much question by some in the media, this activity is not about placing coins into parking meters.

2013_05_18_royalproclmtnThe Prince has become so drunken with authority that he cannot even get the alleged story of his subversive subjects straight! Is Robin Hooding officially about filling meters and saving the civilian population from tickets, or terminating the employment of otherwise replaceable enforcers?

Though the city’s lengthy, vague lawsuit makes no attempt to restrict the six defendants’ access to parking enforcers outside of their duty, Prince John alleges in his proclamation that the lawsuit was motivated “…against these individuals after the pursuit and harassment began to extend to the officers even while they were off duty and on their own time enjoying the city as ordinary citizens”. How the stakes have escalated! In their own lawsuit, one of the parking enforcers cites one instance in which he had a brief unwanted encounter with one of the participants in Robin Hooding while off-duty during enforcement hours. Though this incident had nothing to do with Robin Hood of Keene, the Prince would have the citizenry believe that individuals are coordinating the disturbance of city employees in the course of their private lives. If this were the case, it would certainly be grounds for criminal charges of harassment, as defined by NH RSA 644:4. But the Prince knows that no matter how much he may desire it be so, that even in his own courts, nothing done by the Merry (wo)Men could possibly classify as criminal conduct. It seems slanderous that royalty would be permitted to throw around criminal language such as ‘harassment’ without even trying to qualify what behavior fits this criminal description. I can say with confidence that at no time while I have been out filling meters for the good people of Keene, have I ever engaged in behavior that was intended to harass, demean, or dehumanize any of the city’s parking enforcers. And, in all of the time that I have spent filling meters and not harassing parking officers, not once have I observed Prince John among the people on the streets. In the true spirit of a conceited elitist, royalty made no attempt to negotiate with the Merry Men before attempting to throw them all under the legal bus. Fortunately, the burden of proof is on his princejohn_rhkeenehighness, and despite his fallacious allegations, we have yet to be presented with evidence of any specific incident of harassment against any of the units under the Prince’s employ.

Over the course of Robin Hooding, I’ve experienced each parking enforcer on their own better and worse days. Whether I have spent a shift having a jovial conversation, in silence, or on the receiving end of petty insults from a parking enforcer, I have reciprocated nothing but positive energy. Shame on Prince John for spreading negativity and misinformation about individuals whom he has never so much as invested one minute to learn from.

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


  1. Great writeup

  2. So why not stop filming the PEO’s and call the city’s bluff?

    You can still feed meters, in fact, I think that tactic of JUST feeding meters would garner a good amount of community support. No one contests that people are offended or against you feeding meters, it is all about the filming and PERCEIVED harassment, whether legitimate or not.

    Why can’t the Robin Hooding continue without the filming?

  3. Same reason Acme has to say they’ll give ten cents to charity for each 12 pack of hangers you buy, instead of just giving them the money.

  4. Perhaps because the filming is for the purpose of preserving evidence, in case the city were to, I don’t know, possibly file a frivolous lawsuit claiming harassment?

    Actually, that’s not really correct… if the city didn’t know that they films existed, there’s little doubt that they would have fabricated /criminal/ charges, with nothing but the PEO’s word against the Robin Hooders’ words.

    No, the films are their defense against this harassment (because they – the Robin Hooders – are the only ones being harassed, here). Filming is one of the smartest decisions they ever made, and discontinuing it would be one of the stupidest ones they could make.

  5. Understood, maybe “filming” was too general of a term. I am all for the filming of activities, maybe its the interacting that needs to stop. Feed the meters! Heck, I’d mail money in to support it even though apparently I can’t post comments on this site from home anymore (don’t know why) I just think the interactions need to stop. Without ANY interactions, the city has NO CASE at all.

  6. The city has no case, anyway. If there were no interaction, they’d claim that the PEO’s were being “given the silent treatment,” and that it constituted harassment. When you’re making up nonsense claims, you are not limited by having to make sense.

  7. I feel like no matter what response I have you are going to have some response that condones the actions that the Robin Hooders have made their calling card. . .

  8. Not at all. If the Robin Hooders were out kicking puppies, I would not condone their action, at all.

    Or, for that matter, if you came up with some /actual/ reason why their current actions were somehow negative, I would agree. That’s the essence of rationality. But so far, you’ve only posted a series of statements that amount to “just ’cause” as your reasoning, and no rational person accepts “just ’cause” as a reason.

    If you post some well-reasoned thesis, maybe you’ll manage to convince someone. As it stands, you’ve just posted unsupported opinion, so acting surprised when that doesn’t convince me is rather pointless – there’s no reason to expect that such statements /would/ convince me.

  9. My theory is perception is reality, and also that you can catch more flies and gain more positive support from actions that are perceived by the public to BE positive. I have never seen one video or heard one comment from anyone not associated with the City of Keene saying “Stop feeding meters! Its a terrible thing to do!” However, I cannot say the same for the following and filming of the PEO’s.

    I can go out in my local community tomorrow and go Robin Hooding as well. I can leave cards under every windshield wiper I find, and I can film the entire thing talking to the camera the whole time, sharing my personal agenda the whole time, and never once interacting with a PEO unless they choose to interact with me. Heck, I don’t even have to go very close to them to accomplish any of this, and I feel that the public perception of my actions would be more positive.

    Yes, you are playing to a crowd, but when looking at the big picture, and what Robin Hooding and the Free State movement is trying to do, gaining public support could be very helpful in achieving their ultimate goal of gaining a foothold in the “traditional” government and following their outlined political agenda.

    Their actions are negative because they are, in fact, working against that ultimate cause. Ian has said in videos that he wants to see the “parking authority shut down” well, feeding meters, reducing the number of tickets that are generated and ultimately reducing the revenue they can gain could actually achieve that.

    Engaging with the PEO’s is not required reach that goal.

  10. Your “theories” are not borne out by reality.

    No “revolutionary” idea has ever succeeded due to popular support. Support for the American Revolution was in the single digits, and yet that tiny percentage was sufficient to face down (and win against) the largest empire on the planet. Women’s suffrage was not popular. Ending segregation was not popular.

    Maybe Rosa Parks should not have behaved in a confrontational manner?

    Also, this…

    “…gaining public support could be very helpful in achieving their ultimate goal of gaining a foothold in the “traditional” government and following their outlined political agenda…”

    …shows a complete lack of understanding of what the FSP is about. The FSP does not have a “political agenda,” outlined or otherwise. If you know otherwise, please do go ahead and share it – being a long-time participant, I’d lime to know about this agenda that the organization supposedly has, because they’ve sure never told me. Nor does the FSP have an “ultimate goal” of footholds in government, traditional or otherwise.

    The FSP is defined solely by the Statement of Intent, and the meaning and methods behind that are as diverse as the membership.

  11. This has been a great exchange and I’d would love to continue it however I headed home and the moderators here have seen fit to block my IP address at home. I just wish I knew why. I had a nice long reply typed up too.

    Thanks for the discussion, MaineShark. I appreciate it.

  12. Probably folks have been spamming from your IP address. In many cases, the address is shared, so blocking an address can impact a number of folks. But so many folks have nothing better to do with their pathetic lives than spam here, or post grossly-violent tirades, that the place would be inundated if the moderators did not block them.


  1. Prince John’s Royal Proclamation Denies Fiscal Motivation | OccuWorld - [...] Source if (typeof(addthis_share) == "undefined"){ addthis_share = {"passthrough":{"twitter":{"via":"OccuWorld"}},"url_transforms":{"shorten":{"twitter":"bitly"}},"shorteners":{"bitly":{"login":"occuworld","apiKey":"R_cf01c2ebb80c4f93838710ff3e499fb1"}}};} var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":false,"data_track_addressbar":false,"data_track_textcopy":false,"ui_atversion":"300","ui_508_compliant":true}; var addthis_product = 'wpp-3.1'; /* [...]
  2. Prince John’s Royal Proclamation Denies Fiscal Motivation - Unofficial Network - [...] View original article. [...]
  3. Team Of ‘Robin Hoods’ Feeds Parking Meters, Gets Sued – Consumerist - [...] Robin Hood disagrees with that assessment, and they point out that the only off-the-clock incident happened when one member…
  4. “Prince” John Plotting to Raise Parking Fines and Rates - Free Keene - [...] I thought they said the Robin Hooding crackdown wasn’t about revenue. Things that make you go [...]
  5. “Prince” John Plotting to Raise Parking Fines and Rates - Unofficial Network - [...] I thought they said the Robin Hooding crackdown wasn’t about revenue. Things that make you go [...]
  6. “Prince” John Plotting to Raise Parking Fines and Rates | OccuWorld - [...] I thought they said the Robin Hooding crackdown wasn’t about revenue. Things that make you go [...]
  7. AKPF #1 Denounced by Keene Sentinel - Free Keene - [...] from April, prior to the lawsuit for which we are all now famous. Meanwhile, Prince John is given unabridged…
  8. Robin Hood Update - Unofficial Network - [...] Prince John’s Royal Proclamation Denies Fiscal Motivation by Free Concord [...]
  9. Robin Hood Update | OccuWorld - [...] 19, 2013 Prince John’s Royal Proclamation Denies Fiscal Motivation by Free Concord Prince John, on behalf of his court…

Care to comment?