The Robin Hood Response Pete Eyre 1 document below is the text I wrote and shared today with those in the office of Thomas Mullins (3rd Fl., 3 Washington St., Keene, NH 03431) and the lobby window of Cheshire County Superior Court related to the actions taken by some of their colleagues who associate under the “City of Keene” banner.
As the font size may be a bit small for some, here too is the text:
It was communicated to me on a document titled “Order of Notice on Complaint” received in early May, 2013 that I “must file a written appearance form and written answer . . . with this Court” and that failure to comply “with these requirements” will cause me to be “considered in default.”
Who exactly is mandating that I “comply”? Who is the party that has the audacity to claim that I’m beholden to “these requirements”? Who is the victim? The “Court”? The “City of Keene”? Thomas Mullins who signed the document? I’ve yet to determine how to engage in conversation with a building known as the “Court” or with an arbitrary political boundary deemed the “City of Keene”, and though I attempted a conversation with Mullins, he refused to speak with me on record.
Nowhere in the “Order of Notice on Complaint” or in the 12-page “Verified Petition for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction Relief” is any evidence put-forth that demonstrates that I’ve acted in the wrong. How then can such an obligation – that I must “comply” – be claimed as just? That sounds like the inverse of justice.
In the “Verified Petition…” document I’m said to be a “Respondent”, and that “Respondents have regularly, repeated, and intentionally taunted, interfered with, harassed, and intimated the PEOs [Parking Enforcement Officers] in the performance of their employment duties…” Yet the strongly-worded accusation was not buttressed with any evidence – specific or anecdotal. Instead, it was made using purposefully vague, collectivized generalities.
To be clear, the statements made and the mandates prescribed – at least concerning myself, as I am solely responsible for my actions – are frivolous. How can they not be? I’ve never once been Robin Hooding.
That fact only demonstrates the capricious nature of this entire situation, which has without question has been pursued to protect the Statist Quo – to protect the revenue stream for the Keene-based criminal enterprise that, at its core, rests on double-standards.
For more of my perspective about the ridiculousness of this legalese please view from the video embedded at http://CopBlock.org/RobinHood from 3:47-min to 8:00-min – or go directly to https://youtu.be/ASqpt_Opzzc?t=3m47s
I’ve not wronged anyone thus my inclusion in this charade is without merit. You’re not my master. I am not your slave.
I later added this text as a P.S.:
Considering the gulf from claims made to the reality of the situation and the fact that myself and five others are named as “Respondents”, it is unlikely that 30min will be sufficient, considering the arbitrariness of legaland for the pending June 11th event.
The Robin Hood Appearance Withdrawal Pete Eyre document below was given to me when I went to Superior Court to drop off the above. When at the lobby window, I was told by Jessica that this form had to be completed as well. In addition, that a copy had to be taken to the office of Thomas Mullins. I asked why, if that were “required”, would the folks there not of informed me of the same. I noted that not doing so showed that they weren’t even “fair” adjudicators but that they knowingly withheld the intricacies of their inefficient system to safeguard their colleagues.
The text I jotted down on the form stated:
I don’t need to go to school for three years or rely on someone who has to know what’s commonsensical and truthful.
& watch this video:
When made available, the responses of the five others named in the injunction will be shared at CopBlock.org/RobinHood