Prince John Exposed: Granting Undue Royal Authority

2013_08_21_princejohnThe audience of the Keene district court on Wednesday had the unique privilege of seeing Prince John exposed for secretly bestowing undue royal authority upon city employees. The Prince acknowledged on the stand to granting an unconstitutional “no-trespass order” authority on police officers in response to complaints in Keene’s Central Square. The ability to dole out punishments is specifically a utility afforded the judicial branch, and only following a finding of guilt given due process of law. Prince John decided via royal decree to invite KPD employees (under which the AKPF is a subdivision) to play legislative, executive, and judicial functions by implementing this policy. While Graham, through his volunteering attorney Jon Meyer, is the first to challenge this unlawful ban, it is unknown how many other members of the 2013_perakpfcommunity were given no-trespassing orders from the town square for such innocuous acts as bicycling and skateboarding. Knight Jason Short testifies that he obediently observed the decree in accordance with royal commandment. In Keene, artwork often suggests enforcement of the ordinance provisions are carried out by the infamous Aqua Keene Parking Force. See the video below of his majesty’s court being turned against him.

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


  1. It appears there is no law allowing no trespass orders to be used as punishment for violating a city ordinance, so the city manager usurped the legislative branch by issuing the order to do just that. There was also no opportunity to address the issue with the court, so the judicial branch was usurped. Amazing.

  2. If the city doesn’t like the law, (or the constitution), they should lobby the legislature to change it. 🙂

  3. Good to see anarchists frequently referring to the constitution for help.

  4. Pointing out that they are hypocrites who don’t even follow their own supposed rules is a useful tactic. It doesn’t mean those rules are legitimate or even beneficial – it just means that the government types are dishonest.

  5. Spooner said that the constitution is “unfit to exist”.This quote is often cited by anarchists.

    Jon Meyer is proving Spooners blanket “unfit constitution” assertion flawed from my observations.

  6. That makes no sense. The fact that this stuff is happening, proves Spooner correct. If the Constitution worked, then this whole discussion would not even be here, because no government official would be doing something like this. The fact is that the Constitution is worthless, except as a bit of propaganda to use to insult the government on occasion… and rarely, at that.

    The current government and all of its abuses is exactly the result of the Constitution. Unless you claim that there’s nothing wrong with the current system, then you can’t claim that the Constitution works.

    FYI, Spooner’s statement is cited by both anarchists and minarchists, because minarchists are disgusted by the Constitution, as well – most minarchists would seek to go back to the Articles of Confederation (and the rest would roll things back even smaller than that). Anyone who actually thinks the Constitution is a good idea is neither an anarchist nor a minarchist.

  7. The city itself should ‘work within the system’ as the activists are so often told.

  8. I wonder if the defense will continue to make the issue of the officer issuing the no trespass order because of the perceived lack of financial means of Graham. Maybe they could prove the dual usurping of the legislative and judicial branches were bad enough, but more so because they were applied against someone on the basis of his lack of ability to pay a fine, or the likelihood that he would refuse to pay a fine. Activists are well known for refusing to pay fines, so the city is looking for other ways to punish them.

  9. isnt there a constitution for like fsp’ers or whatever:.. the constitution of the nap. A foundational rule.

  10. The FSP is based upon the Statement of Intent. Many also follow the NAP. Nothing wrong with having some sort of “foundational rule,” per se. The concept of having principles is neither good nor bad. But an individual principle certainly can be (eg, “the King is all-powerful).

    The issue is that the US Constitution, in particular, was designed for the express purpose of creating tyranny, and succeeded at that purpose. Having principles isn’t a problem. Having evil principles, is.

Care to comment?