City Fails to Obtain Preliminary Injuction Against Robin Hooders + Full Court Video
The first hearing of the civil action filed by the “city of Keene” against myself and five others, alleged to be associated with Robin Hood of Keene, commenced earlier this afternoon. (Full video here) Despite the city’s numerous written pleadings for urgent action to be taken by the court, the issue of whether a preliminary injunction would be granted was not entertained. Instead, the judge requested optional positions from both sides on the constitutionality surrounding the proceedings, granting twenty days to file additional paperwork before a full evidentiary hearing would be scheduled. The city’s attorney Tom Mullins did not make much effort to obtain the emergency injunction he had sought after Ian Freeman’s motion to dismiss became the primary subject of today’s hearing. Ian is the only individual of the six named to have filed additional motions with the court, the five others only having responded as was obligated of them through answers to the city’s initial filings. Sought by the nebulous “city of Keene” through Mr. Mullins is a fifty-foot barrier between those who participate in Robin Hooding (or in Pete Eyre’s case, are somehow vaguely associated with Robin Hooding) and the city’s three parking enforcers.
Handed to the defendants by Mullins upon entry to the court was a new memorandum repeating the city’s position and dated June 11. Attached to the back of this new memorandum, which Judge John Kissinger asked not be considered before defendants have ample time to respond, was a faux-order from the court presumably penned by Mullins, which leaves a blank space for a signature if the court were to issue it.
During today’s hearing Judge Kissinger rightly asserted that at the full hearing, evidence would need to be brought forward supporting claims against each of the six individuals, prompting Mr. Mullins to allege that the defendants were not just “any group of individuals”, but a, “collective group”. Mr. Mullins reiterated his assertions that the intention of participants in Robin Hooding is the elimination of the city’s parking department by means of “harassing and intimidating” parking enforcement officers, which presumably constitutes a criminal act under NH RSA 642:1, Obstructing Government Operations. (more…)
