CoK Attorneys File for Mediation Conferences

by Garret Ean | Feb 16, 2014 | 0 comments

Thursday’s Keene Sentinel featured an update on the Robin Hood saga penned by Kyle Jarvis. The article overviews how the case is being prepped for presentation to the New Hampshire supreme court, where before being scheduled requires both parties to consider the possibility of mandatory mediation. The mediation process would involve a closed-door meeting between both parties to agree on a legal compromise. Mediation is certainly a fitting alternative to the courts for conflict resolution when a conflict exists, but as is uniquely the case in Keene, city officials can’t cite a single grievance against the Robin Hooders collectively beyond expressing a desire that they do not be in the proximity of or communicate with parking enforcers. For some individual Robin Hooders, no specific issues have been raised at all, and considering that Pete Eyre is still named in the suit when he has at no time been associated with Robin Hood of Keene demonstrates the indiscriminate nature of the city’s straw-grasping lawsuit. Early in the suit, the city requested the ability to add defendants to the case at will, but apparently ceased its hunt for the underground Robin Hooders after at least two individuals officially requested attachment to the suit and were denied, despite one presenting evidence of longtime participation in the activity.

While the ruling from judge John Kissinger was reasonable, a further contemplation of the case may have demonstrated the need for a less traditional ruling, which may have alleviated some of the issues that the legal department of “city of Keene” continues to press today. Though the judge never authorized “harassment and intimidation”, the ruling states only that the facts presented did not constitute any actionable activity. Yet the city’s attorney asserted this about the ruling: “The Order holds that the individual protesters have no duty to be reasonable in their actions and conduct directed toward public employees while doing their jobs … that the individual protesters are allowed to interfere, harass, and intimidate public employees while doing their jobs … (and) that the individual protesters may engage in inappropriate and unreasonable actions and conduct directed at public employees while doing their jobs.” Not only is it unkind to mischaracterize constitutionally protected speech as “harassment and intimidation,” but it is also a distortion of the actual text of the ruling. Perhaps mediation would have been most pertinent prior to the many hours spent in court, where it could have been cleared up ahead of time that Robin Hooders do not engage in harassment and intimidation. Of course, when myself I tried mediate with the city’s attorney prior to court, my camera was stolen for two months under the guise of “illegal wiretapping”. (more…)