Kudos to Foley for citing my blog, where I point out that Monadnock school administrators lied to parents when claiming activists recording students who are outdoors somehow violated their privacy. Derrick is also interviewed in the piece:
They came, they handed out pamphlets about “The Philosophy of Liberty,” and they left.
Ten days later, they came again, handed out the same brochures, and this time were told to leave school grounds by Swanzey police officers on behalf of Monadnock Regional Middle/High School administrators.
They left, and haven’t returned since. But that doesn’t mean these individuals associated with the libertarian-leaning, anti-government Free Keene movement, and their friends, won’t return to spread their message.
Derrick J. Horton, who was the main organizer of the two visits last month, said Monday he plans to continue the outreach at Monadnock Regional Middle/High School. (more…)
“Today’s decision is a victory for First Amendment rights,” said Gilles Bissonnette, legal director for the New Hampshire chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a brief on the case. “The court recognized that government actors cannot sue citizens for alleged torts in an attempt to suppress legal, but unpopular, speech in public places. We must all remember that the First Amendment only means something if it protects popular and unpopular speech alike.”
In a nearly complete victory for Robin Hood of Keene, the NH supreme court has affirmed nearly all of the superior court’s decisions against the people calling themselves the “City of Keene” in the city’s libelous assault on the heroic activists who have rescued thousands of motorists from parking tickets in downtown Keene in the last couple of years.
The victory is nearly complete, with one exception. The supremes ruled that the lower court needed to consider the city’s request for injunction separately from the claims of “tortious interference” and “conspiracy”. Therefore, the supremes remanded only that detail back to the superior court to decide. If you’ve been reading Free Keene for a while, you may recall that the city’s original suit in 2013 asked for a in injunction of a 50ft radius “buffer zone” around each parking enforcer that would preclude the named Robin Hooders from being in that zone. Eventually, they reduced their request to 30ft, then 10-15ft. The buffer zone concept has previously been ruled unconstitutional in other courts and likely will be again when it goes back to Cheshire superior court.
The rest of the court’s twelve-page opinion backs up the lower court’s dismissal of the city’s outrageous case. The claims of “tortious interference” with the city’s “business” of screwing over people shopping downtown and the claim of “conspiracy” were shut down on a free-speech basis:
However, we need not decide whether a viable tortious interference claim can exist under the circumstances present in this case because we agree with the trial court that holding the respondents liable for tortious interference based upon their alleged activities would infringe upon the respondents’ right to free speech under the First Amendment…we also conclude that the First Amendment bars the City from pursuing its claim that the respondents are liable for conspiring to commit the very same tort.
The city’s lies about the behavior of Robin Hooders (they claimed, without evidence, we were “harassing, threatening, and intimidating” the parking enforcers) had no effect on the court’s decision to dismiss. The court’s judges know that telling government bureaucrats how you feel their job is wrong is fully within free speech protections, even if the bureaucrats don’t want to hear it. Further, the court opinion backed up the Robin Hooders’ non-verbal actions as protected free speech: (more…)
On June 9, the NH Supreme Court released the long awaited ruling in the case of City of Keene v. James Cleaveland, et al (aka Robin Hood of Keene). It looks like Robin Hood of Keene is heading back to court for the request for injunctive relief, the rest of the case was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Here are three relevant portions of the decision:
Affirmed:
“[W]e conclude that the trial court correctly determined that enforcing the City’s tortious interference with contractual relations claim would violate the respondents’ First Amendment rights. Given this conclusion, we need not reach the respondents’ argument that the tortious interference claim is also barred by the State Constitution. (more…)
Today is my birthday, and where else would I want to be at 8:30am except in Judge Burke’s courtroom, awaiting another parking ticket arraignment? Last time I tried the “dead fish” strategy: I didn’t speak during arraignment, I barely spoke during trial, and I was predictably railroaded by the prosecution. Judge Burke found me guilty of two parking violations and fined me $10.
The trial and everything leading up to it costs the court (and therefore the taxpayers) far more than the $10 collected in “revenue”. Not only is it costly for the government to prosecute this victimless crime, it’s also time consuming: the prosecutor was kept busy filing paperwork, gathering witnesses, and preparing his arguments. The entire parking enforcement (which only consists of 2 people) was incapacitated for nearly 4 hours while sequestered for trial. How much money can the city government collect in 8 parking enforcement man-hours? Well, that opportunity was lost because I chose to take these tickets to trial.
If you think this is stupid, you might be surprised that I agree with you. What a waste of time and money! But remember — I didn’t set the system up this way — the people calling themselves “the government” did. And they can stop this charade at any time by simply dismissing the parking tickets. What would they have to lose? They’d certainly have a lot to gain.
Anyway, this time, I chose a new strategy: Go to arraignment with a piece of paper already written out, explaining that I want to plead GUILTY, except the paper is *UNSIGNED*. Once Judge Burke accepts this piece of paper, it becomes part of the record. It is now on the record that I want to plead guilty.
You’d think that would be enough, but Judge Burke did something interesting. He entered a plea of NOT GUILTY on my behalf. Why would he do that? The answer can be found in the following short video from court this morning:
In short, my point was: The judge has demonstrated bias against me, the defendant. Judge Burke is presuming (without evidence) that I am subject to the laws of the State of New Hampshire, but that is one of the elements that must be proven by the prosecution! How can I be forced to be at arraignment if the Judge is not presuming jurisdiction?
What do you think about this strategy? My next step is to file a motion to reverse the plea and motion to have Judge Burke recuse himself because of the bias he demonstrated. He is protecting the prosecutor and doing his job for him by assuming one of the essential elements of the crime: jurisdiction. Without jurisdiction, the case must be dismissed, but he’s not going to let that happen, is he?
Delicious treats will be delivered tomorrow to the folks calling themselves the “City of Keene” as thanks for all the publicity they have given to Robin Hood of Keene with their ridiculous lawsuit against us. Look for the decision to be rendered by the NH supreme court tomorrow. The chocolate-covered strawberries will be delivered regardless of how the supreme robed men and women decide. Stay tuned here to Free Keene for the latest on the case.
A note of gratitude.
Should you like some Sherri’s Berries for yourself or for someone as a gift, please use code FTL by clicking the microphone at the top right of their website.
On June 3rd, 2015 as a board member for the Foundation for New Hampshire Independence, I organized a Brew and Sedition event at Able Ebenezer in Merrimack NH. Able Ebenezer is a popular fairly new micro brewery in Merrimack NH. Able Ebenezer was chosen for the event because of it’s name. Able Ebenezer’s name is branded from the inspirational actions of local New Hampshire citizens who rallied behind Ebenezer Mudgett in 1772 to defy British oppression. History remembers this event as the Pine Tree Riot in which Able resisted the state’s assertion that they owned his trees. The purpose of this event was to promote Independence by getting supporters together for drinks and for networking purposes. Chandler Gabel also gave a speech on the need to network with others in the state that also support Independence. There were over two dozen supporters that came out to this event. This may seem on the light side but where else in the United States are people getting together for the purpose of declaring Independence from the Union? Future meetings and planned events for Independence Day were discussed. For more information on New Hampshire Independence, check out nhindependence.org
