Court DENIES City of Keene’s Injunction Request Against Robin Hooders

Robin Hood of Keene

Robin Hooders Victorious – AGAIN.

It has been a long road, but thanks to free speech attorney Jon Meyer and judge John C Kissinger of the Cheshire superior court, Keene’s Robin Hooders are again victorious! Nearly two years ago, the same court dismissed the two cases brought against the charitable meter-feeders, alleging we were “threatening, intimidating, and harassing” their parking enforcement officers and demanding a 50ft floating, constitution-free buffer zone to protect them.

The city appealed to the NH supreme court which ultimately upheld the superior court’s dismissal except for one part. They affirmed the lower court’s ruling to dismiss based on free speech grounds, but said the superior court needed to look at the request for the “buffer zone” injunction separately from the allegations of “tortious interference”, “civil conspiracy”, “negligence”, and the demand for financial compensation, all of which the city failed to prove to the court’s satisfaction.

Thankfully, the superior court agreed with attorney Meyer’s arguments and denied the city’s request for any injunction against us whatsoever! This effectively kills their case, unless they decide to continue spending ridiculous amounts of taxpayer money to appeal this latest failure to the NH supreme court.

James Cleaveland, Attorney Jon Meyer, Ian Freeman

James Cleaveland, Attorney Jon Meyer, Ian Freeman

The city, which had originally wanted a 50 foot floating buffer zone around each enforcer that would prevent all speech and recording by the Robin Hooders, had whittled that down over the 2.5 years this has been in court to a 5-10ft zone that would only be temporary and only if the parking enforcer requested said distance from the Robin Hooder. Mind you, we generally do not wish to be so close to them – it’s best to fill meters at a greater distance, so as to have enough time to fill the meter and leave the Robin Hood calling card on the windshield, BEFORE the parking enforcer catches up to us and gets ahead. That would mean she could successfully write a ticket if she gets ahead, so having distance is my goal, but the enforcer is constantly trying to close that gap, so sometimes we do get within ten feet. That would mean that such an injunction (besides being unconstitutional) would also prevent us from Robin Hooding, as anytime the enforcer managed to close the gap, we’d be subject to arrest for “contempt of court”.

In a fifteen-page order issued on 11/20, Kissinger writes of the city’s request for injunction:

The Court cannot conceive of any more narrow or alternative relief that would provide any meaningful protection to the PEOs without running afoul of the Respondents’ First Amendment rights…the government interests here are not sufficient to warrant an infringement on the Respondents’ First Amendment rights. Any injunction requiring a buffer zone of any meaningful distance would require a significant change in the method used by the Respondents to disseminate their protected speech.

So, despite the city’s interests in their parking enforcement continuing unabated, their significantly-reduced proposal for injunction is still beyond what is constitutionally permissible, and further, the court could not think of any lesser restrictions that would pass constitutional muster.

Kissinger, in his conclusion, does remind the city that if Robin Hooders’ conduct is rising to the level of violating criminal statutes, that they can bring such charges. Of course, the reason they never have brought criminal harassment or assault charges is because Robin Hooders are peaceful. There is zero evidence of “harassment, threatening, or intimidating” – the claims the city has long libeled us with throughout this lawsuit.

Sheriff of Nottingham

The poor, innocent parking enforcers.

In a classic case of projection, the people in this who are actually harassing, threatening, and intimidating others are the parking enforcers. They harass, threaten, and intimidate the good motorists of Keene six days a week by giving them threatening tickets for just trying to do some business downtown. Those tickets threaten, intimidate, and harass their victims into paying their fines so as to avoid the threat of having their car stolen. Talk about intimidation! This is why Robin Hood of Keene exists – we are here to save people from having to deal with the city’s threats. That’s always been the primary motivation, at least for me. I certainly don’t speak for everyone.

If the parking enforcers don’t like being called out for their threatening, intimidating, and harassing behavior, they should get jobs in the productive economy. Until the city council ends the parking department and turns over the spaces to downtown businesses to decide how to administer, per market forces, Robin Hooding will continue to rescue peaceful motorists from the threats of the city government.

The city has 30 days to appeal this latest failure. Stay tuned here to Free Keene for the latest.

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


  1. I have a simple rule with the Free Keene shitheads: if anyone sticks a camera in my face or near me at all, I’ll put them and their camera down on the ground.

    See? Simple.

  2. Excellent news.

    And a good answer for anyone claiming that Robin Hooders are “harassing” meter maids – if they were, the judge likely would have ruled that preventing that harassment was a legitimate governmental interest, which would, then, justify some restriction on the method they used. Since the judge ruled that no legitimate governmental interests were involved at that level, this ruling inherently includes a ruling that no harassment was demonstrated. And at the civil (preponderance of the evidence) standard, as well, not just at the criminal (beyond a reasonable doubt) standard. If they couldn’t meet the civil standard, they definitely cannot meet the criminal standard.

  3. i bet you scared everyone.

  4. “I am incredibly violent and far, far too stupid to get a real job”


  5. Very happy for all you Keene robinhooders. May you continue to do goodness in all your endeavors

  6. No you wont, pussy.

  7. Any one know how much the city has spent on this injunction?

  8. king of keene is bradford hutching son..hes been known to make unwanted sexual advances to collage guys… also heres a video of him hr didnt knock anyone to the ground

  9. Interesting… So you do advocate breaking the law…

  10. It’s too bad freekeeners use the 1st amendment to perverse and harass people who have actual jobs. The immaturity of those people show why freekeene isn’t what they claim to be.

  11. No harassment has taken place. As ruled by the court.

    How’d your prediction that the judge would grant the City’s ridiculous request work out for you? You’re batting zero on your predictions, so far, aren’t you?

  12. “In a classic case of projection, the people in this who are actually harassing, threatening, and intimidating others are the parking enforcers. They … ”

    Hey, Ian and Robin Hooders — I’m *totally* on your side, and I’ve been following this from the VERY beginning 😉

    That said, methinks it’s a stretch to ‘expand’ your rhetoric to say the parking enforcers are the ones who are “harassing, threatening, and intimidating”. Just my cent-cent worth.


  13. Flint – Yes they do harass the meter maids. Nowhere does it say they don’t. freekeeners choose to harass these people, mostly women, by perversing the 1st amendment. Yes, it is harassment.

  14. I already explained exactly where it says that. The judge states that there is no significant governmental interest that is interfered-with by their behavior. Preventing harassment would be a significant governmental interest. If there had been any harassment, the judge would have had to rule in favor of the injunction. Since the judge ruled against the injunction, he inherently ruled against the harassment claim.

  15. Flint – You haven’t explained anything. You said, “The judge states that there is no significant governmental interest that is interfered-with by their behavior”. That says nothing about harassment. It says the judge doesn’t think they are impeding the meter readers from doing their job. Harassment doesn’t always impede someone doing their job. You are puting words in the judges decision. I suggest you read a law book. The freekeeners are harassing the meter readers. The citizens of Keene have observed those behaviors.

  16. Protecting folks from harassment is, by definition, a governmental interest. That’s why there’s a statute making harassment a criminal offense.

    The ruling does not just say that they are not interfering with the meter maids doing their jobs. Those claims were thrown out, already, by the Supreme Court.

    This case was specifically about whether they were being harassed, and whether a restraining order would be appropriate. The judge ruled that even ordering them to sometimes, under specific circumstances, stay 10 feet away from the meter maids would be excessive. Any harassment, at all, would have been justification for such a minor restriction, because these rulings are based upon balance, so justification for a small restriction only requires a small offense. Any harassment would have qualified, even if it was to a tiny degree.

    Harassment would have been a cause to grant the City’s request. The judge ruled that there was no cause for granting the request. Therefore, the judge ruled that there was no harassment. This is rather basic logic.

  17. Isn’t this one of the judges who sentenced rioters to “stay away from the pumpkin festival”? You people have said it yourselves, the government is wrong. Just because it serves your purposes, you applaud the government.

  18. There was applause?

  19. This litigation has gone on for far too long and has cost the taxpayers far too much money for the state actors to earn any applause whatsoever. If anyone here is awarding accolades, it’s for the verdict. Outside of that, the court system and the plaintiffs should be ashamed of themselves for pursuing a complaint that should have been dismissed two years ago.

  20. Why is it Jacks that every time you post your opinions it becomes painfully obvious that you neglected to research any of the specifics you’re criticizing? The first paragraph alone states that two years ago Kissinger dismissed the City of Keene’s civil complaint against Robin Hood of Keene for “threatening, intimidating, and harassing” the Cok’s parking enforcers. Why continue clinging to this “harassment” premise despite Kissinger’s own dismissal of that complaint? Are you really this stupid, Jacks, or are you operating under the presumption that if you repeat a lie often enough at least someone will believe it?

  21. It was dismissed because of 1st amendment rights. The majority of normal human beings, excluding you asshats, think that it is HARASSMENT!

  22. The First Amendment does not cover harassment. If there was harassment going on, then it would not have been dismissed.

  23. It’s HARASSMENT to the humans on this earth of level headed thinking. Ok, kooky!

  24. I think that if flinty here became a meter maid, and got the daily harassment that they have gotten in the past, he would be able to take it, because he is another entitled narcissist, and would take it as a complement getting all this attention that his parents never gave him. Isn’t that right, you poor entitled asshole. Tear…

  25. So, you’re accusing Judge Kissinger of not possessing “level headed thinking,” not being human, or not being on Earth (or some combination thereof). Interesting attitude for you to take towards a judge.

  26. We’ve already been over this, before. You’re the poster child for entitlement. Anyone anti-liberty is, by definition, on the side of entitlement. Liberty is the opposite of entitlement, stating that no one is entitled to anything, and all benefits must be earned.

  27. You haven’t earned anything with your thinking and the people you surround yourself with. Your an entitled asshole plain and simple. I see right through the libertarian bullshit!

  28. No, see, that’s the thing about libertarians: there’s nothing to “see through,” because it’s all exactly what it says that it is.

  29. So you approve of the behavior of the freak keeniacs. All the jail time and negative publicity that they always seem to suck up like a bloated man eating a banana split?

  30. You are correct, Bsizzle. Judge Kissinger’s Notice of Decision stated that the respondents’ (the Robin Hooders of Keene) free speech rights under the Federal and NH Constitutions would have been violated if the court permitted the petitioners (the City of Keene) to move forward in obtaining injunctional relief for intentional interference with employment contractual relations and negligence. I’ve provided the link for your review..

    What Flint and I find very hypocritical is your insistence here that Kissinger’s decision should have reflected your own erroneous opinion even if it were to violate constitutional law. I thought you always maintainted that everyone must follow the law no matter what it says? Wasn’t Kissinger’s judgment doing just that?

  31. You do not, apparently, have a very firm grip on reality. Have I expressed approval for, or opposition to, any behavior? Various individuals in Keene have engaged in behaviors I support. Others have engaged in behaviors I oppose. Others have engaged in behaviors about which I have no strong opinion.

    None of which has anything to do with the current discussion. But you have that lack of grip on reality, which causes you to thrash around a lot and slip into these paranoid delusions of yours…

  32. You ultimately approve of the libertard lifestyle. Thank you for clearing that up. Now I know what I’m already dealing with. Lmao

  33. So come on flinty, get in line to receive your badge of delusionment! Hee-hee! You deserve it.

  34. I have watched the videos of the “Robin Hooders” and can only conclude that they were not shown to the judge. The “Robin Hooders” are bullies with an evil agenda.

  35. Unfortunately, your conclusion is wrong. The judge watched the videos.

  36. I find it highly amusing that Bernard and his minions rail at our society and system of justice … until it serves their purposes.

    What a bunch of frauds and hypocrites.

  37. Frauds, losers, filth of society, drug peddling, law breaking, scum. I can go on!

  38. You’ve forgotten that this parade of injustice was precipitated by the City of Keene, Mike. Had they dropped their civil petition against the Robin Hooders when their first two cases were dismissed, they could have saved the taxpayers a lot of money. Instead, the CoK decided to move forward anyway and appeal. And why is that? Because the CoK is funded through taxation, Mike. The money they spend isn’t theirs, so they don’t have the same motivations the rest of us have to avoid disproportionate financial risks. You’re very mistaken about who are the real frauds here.

  39. More ad hominem remarks, eh Bsizzle? Using your chess analogy, isn’t that more like throwing the pieces at your opponent and sticking your tongue out?

  40. My “remarks ” are very accurate draccc!

  41. If the Judge saw the same videos that I saw, and concluded that it was not harassment, there is no hope for the judicial system.

  42. The judicial system is a mess. That’s very true. But not because of that. Expressing an opinion does not become harassment, just because you, personally, dislike that opinion.

  43. Be fair, Drac: he’s accurately described the City government.

  44. He has at that, Flint.

Care to comment?