Thanks to Meghan Pierce for the excellent front-page feature article in the Union Leader on Robin Hood and the Merry Men and Women’s first appearance in court yesterday.
Plus, we got a feature story from Kyle Jarvis at the Keene Sentinel, though he (or perhaps the editors) wrongly states that I spoke on behalf of the other Robin Hooders at the hearing. This is not true. I did most of the speaking because the court was hearing my motion to dismiss. I wrote it, so I spoke about it. The others had nothing to do with that motion. I don’t represent them and they don’t represent me.
Finally, a video report from WMUR. Stay tuned as more media will be posted as it comes in.
Here’s the text of the Union Leader piece:
KEENE — The “Robin Hooders” appeared in court Tuesday afternoon to answer to accusations that they have been harassing city parking meter officers.
Cheshire County Superior Court Judge John Kissinger, however, continued the case, giving both sides 20 days to submit more arguments.
The city filed a lawsuit May 2 against six citizens who have dubbed themselves Robin Hood of Keene and are associated with the Free Keene group. They patrol downtown armed with video cameras and pockets full of change to fill expired parking meters — before a city parking enforcement officer can issue a ticket.
The city is asking the court to prohibit residents Kate Ager, Ian Bernard aka Ian Freeman, James Cleaveland, Graham Colson, Garrett Ean and Peter Eyre from coming within 50 feet of the city’s three parking enforcement officers “during the performance of their employment duties for the city.”
On Tuesday, five in the group said they have not been harassing city employees; Eyre said he has never participated.
Kissinger said the extension would give both sides more time to speak to the “serious legal issues” of “standing” as well as the “constitutionality” issue raised by members of the Robin Hood group.
“The issue from my perspective is I need to understand what they are saying,” Kissinger said of the claim the city’s civil suit is unconstitutional. “You haven’t made a direct constitutional claim.”
Kissinger said a full day would have to be scheduled for the trial, since the city alone wants to present five witnesses, including the three parking enforcement officers.
Freeman said he objected to the six “Robin Hooders” being lumped into one group.
“We are all individuals and we all have our individual motivations,” Freeman said.
City Attorney Thomas P. Mullins told Kissinger the city may amend its suit to address the “collective” issue.
Freeman added that the city never approached any of the six with concerns before filing the suit and has refused to meet and negotiate.
“I think they brought this case in bad faith,” Freeman said to Kissinger.
Cleaveland and Freeman said they plan to submit motions to support their claims that the city is violating rights laid out in article 8 of the state constitution — government employees are at all times accountable to the people.
State Rep. Mark Warden of Goffstown said he attended Tuesday’s hearing because as a fiscal conservative, he is concerned with government waste.
“It was a colossal waste of time and taxpayer money,” he said.
Warden said the city should do a better job training its parking enforcement officers.
“These people from what I’ve seen on the videos are peaceful,” Warden said of the Robin Hooders. “They are relativity courteous and just trying to help educate them in seeing a different side of the issue. And I think anybody that works for the state, the taxpayers, should be willing to have those kind of discussions without feeling threatened.”
The lawsuit does not deny the group’s right to video tape and takes no issue with the filling of expired parking meters. The concern is the parking officers are being harassed and will quit. The city said it would suffer financially from having to hire and train new employees, and might have difficulty finding people to take the jobs because of the conditions created by the six.
According to Parking Enforcement Officer Alan E. Givetz in the suit, the “constant harassment” has made him “feel very stressed and anxious.”
“In addition, I have begun to suffer physical effects due to the stress, including coming home from work with a red face, feeling heart palpitations, and having dreams related to this activity.”
Here’s the Sentinel piece:
A case that began Tuesday in Cheshire County Superior Court may be the first of its kind.
Keene city officials have filed a suit against a group of local activists they say are harassing city parking enforcement officers.
Both sides appeared in Cheshire County Superior Court Tuesday afternoon as City Attorney Thomas P. Mullins asked Judge John C. Kissinger Jr. to move forward with the case, while the “Robin Hooders” argued for dismissal. Kissinger gave both sides 20 days to submit additional arguments.
The Robin Hooders — many of whom are affiliated with a local anti-government, libertarian-leaning group — began putting money in parking meters in December to help people avoid parking tickets.
City officials say they’re not concerned with that activity, but say members of the group have harassed the parking officers in the process. Last month, Mullins filed a petition on behalf of the city, asking the court to create a 50-foot safety zone around the officers.
The city named Graham Colson, James Cleaveland, Garrett Ean, Kate Ager, Ian Freeman and Peter Eyre in the petition, all of whom were present in court Tuesday.
Kissinger said he has concerns with the city’s request, particularly because of the First Amendment questions it raises, including whether the court has the authority to limit the Robin Hooders’ ability to practice free speech on public property.
“It does seem to me that there are some preliminary threshold issues that need to be addressed” before the case moves forward, he said.
Once additional arguments have been submitted, an evidence hearing will be scheduled. That hearing is expected to take place later this summer.
Freeman did most of the talking on behalf of the Robin Hooders in court Tuesday. He argued for dismissal because, he said, the city has no legal basis to request action against the group. There is “no damage that has been alleged, therefore, it’s a complete waste of our time, and yours.
“I don’t think the court can move forward without a determination that a legal right was violated,” he said.
Mullins argued Robin Hooders have harassed parking enforcement officers to the point that some have considered leaving their jobs, and, since their quitting and eliminating the parking enforcement department is the group’s stated goal, their actions could be injurious to the city. Therefore, the city has standing to request action by the court.
Freeman denied all allegations of harassment by Robin Hooders, and said parking enforcement officers take the job knowing that confrontations could arise, adding that Robin Hooders should be free to hold those employees accountable.
After the hearing, Mullins told The Sentinel the job description “is not written in the context of being pursued six days a week by a group of people coordinating their activities with radios. I don’t think any reasonable human being would be willing to put up with that kind of treatment.”
In the city’s petition, parking enforcement officers said Robin Hooders have verbally harassed them, followed them, waited for them during breaks, bumped into them and, in one incident, confronted an off-duty officer downtown.
Freeman argued that a ruling against the Robin Hooders could violate their First Amendment rights by restricting their ability to hold city officials and employees accountable “in a non-freedom zone,” if the court grants the 50-foot buffer zone.
Mullins said there are not a lot of court decisions to draw on for this case — “there’s not a whole lot of law in general in New Hampshire.”
“Just the way we like it,” Freeman replied, drawing a smile from Kissinger and laughter from supporters seated in the courtroom.
After the hearing, Mullins said the only cases with similar circumstances he’s aware of involved safety zones for employees of abortion clinics to protect them from protesters, or “free speech zones” created for protesters when high-profile politicians make public appearances.
“But those are discrete, limited events,” he said. “What we have is an ongoing pattern or practice over months, with moving targets. I don’t think there’s very much legal authority under that factual circumstance for guidance of the court.”
In the interview with The Sentinel, Mullins said he understands Kissinger’s concerns.
“He wants to be clear that the city has a legal right that it is trying to protect,” he said. “Where’s the line between an individual or group’s right to express its constitutionally protected rights and the city’s right to protect its contracts (with its employees), and can the court even issue an injunction where there’s a question of protected activity?
“The question becomes, on the local level, where is that line, and I think it’s a wickedly important question.”
