False Arrest Ordered by N.H. Judge Caught on Tape!

reply to post by Bixxi3


Hey my appologies.. I got you and neuro confused. Neuro is the Freeman, so I am wrong there.

The incident is from 2008 and WMRU as well as other sites that pop up on a google / yahoo search confirm that. The letter sent to the judge is a clear reason why he reacted in the manner he did. When a letter is sent that says a perosn cant control the nehavior of its members, its a veiled threat, no matter how the sources tries to spin it.

Sorry... Didnt mean to unload on you. This topic is very much an annoyance to the extent some groups go in an effort to "prove their point". They do it in such a manner that misleads the people reading the info. They always go off about how the law / constitution is not being followed, while in the very same breath they ignore the parts they dont like themselves.

I have no issues with people holding goverment accountible. I have no issues with people voicing their opinions. What I do have an issue with is when group like the OP purposly misled people in an effort to paint a picture that is not true.

Originally posted by Bixxi3

Well there have been a few cases of judges getting kick backs from private prisons companies. So you can't say its totally idiotic it happens and its wrong.And lets be honest the rehabilitation system just does not work it needs to be changed. Its just a shame no one know how to get it right.

edit on 13-7-2011 by Bixxi3 because: (no reason given)

I wont argue with you there, as all profession in society will have idiots that make it through the cracks. However, when one incident is used to stereotype the entirety of the profession, there is an issue. I always enjoy when the Freeman peoples get pissed about "stereotyping" their movement, yet coincidentally enough they do it themselves when dealing with the government.

In this case, we dont know why the guy was found in contempt do we? Do we know what the exchange was between the origional person and the judge?

As far as the 2nd guy (op up top) as I said before, you dont have to physically attack a person to "assault" them. If I were the judge I would have issues as well if I had received the letters I pointed out above, that coincendentally are absent from the groups portrayal and the website that wants to bring this incident to everyones attention.

Thats my irritation. If your going to call someone out for corrupt / illegal behavior, dont you think we should look at both sides of the story before making a decision and passing judgement? Shouldnt we be familiar with the law, and not just hte laws one group likes while ignroing the ones they dont, before saying a certain action is illegal?

As I said before, these types of groups pick and choose the information that best supports their argument, while ignoring anything that does not. This example is proof of that.

and again, my appoligies for confusing you and Neuro.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
I don;t really understand what that has to do with this judge lying and saying he was threatened and then got that guy arrested. You can't ask questions to a judge in a respectful manner?
Wonder what happened to the guy and the lying POS judge?

edit on 13-7-2011 by Bixxi3 because: (no reason given)

As I have said, I have followed the freestateproject.org for a while, and they are doing exactly you tell "us" to do, change the law, in order to do that you need to draw attention to the law. In the first place there as been atleast three trials before burke, in which hats were an issue, He flip flops on it everytime, sometimes he does nothing and allows the hats to be worn "there are a number of quakers in the area that is actually agianst their religion to remove their hat, think muslim women" and other times threw a temper tantrum.
The primary issue of the activists in keene is consensual crimes are in fact not crimes as there is no actual legal corpus delecti, no intent and no harm or damage to anyone other then those agreeing to engage in the "vice" this ranges from drug reform to gay marriage, so tell me which is it, shut up and say nothing, or try and get the law changed, can you make up my mind for me?
You seem to be a very bitter man, and I hope you get the help you need to overcome this hatred of people who differ with your opinions.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by ugie1028

 

I have no issues with free speech, and no I am not the thought police. However when something is dragged up form 2008 to do nothing but incite people here whats the point?

If he researched the article he would have seen not only how old it is, but the judge had reasons for reacting in the manner he did.

What torques me off are Freeman cherry picking the Constitution while making an argument that it must be followed. Whats the point in calling for that when they dont even bother to follow it themselves?

You seem to have some issue with me so let it all out. No the arrest on the video happened this month, yes that letter was sent to Burke and has nothing to do with ademo being arrested. Talk about cherry picking stuff. I don't believe in the constitution as anything other then a very expensive piece of toilet paper. Since Ademo is a producer and frequent co-host on a national syndicated radio show he is actually a member of the press.

I get that you have an issue with those who choose to believe in individual freedom, I've read the police bulletin that we are to be treated as domestic terrorists even to the point of not supporting the current administration. So since WE KNOW what you think of us and why "your just following orders" don't get so upset when people are doing what YOU PEOPLE tell us time and again, if you dont like the law change it.

Originally posted by NuroSlam
As I have said, I have followed the freestateproject.org for a while, and they are doing exactly you tell "us" to do, change the law, in order to do that you need to draw attention to the law.

I tell people to stand up and try to get laws changed they have issues with. However, a judge is not part of the legislative branch which means he does not say whats illegal, nor do they set the fine and or penalty (im referring to the inception of a law, why its criminal, what happens if someone violates it etc).

This is the other part where you guys confuse me. You guys speak out against judges who legislate from the bench. In this situation, that position seems to be fluid because it supports your argument. Out of curiosity, which is it?

Originally posted by NuroSlam
In the first place there as been atleast three trials before burke, in which hats were an issue, He flip flops on it everytime, sometimes he does nothing and allows the hats to be worn "there are a number of quakers in the area that is actually agianst their religion to remove their hat, think muslim women" and other times threw a temper tantrum.

The purpose of dressing nicely and removing a hat is to show some type of respect to the court itself.
Here is the breakdown -

Under American jurisprudence, acts of contempt are divided into two types.

1.Direct contempt is that which occurs in the presence of the presiding judge (in facie curiae) and may be dealt with summarily: the judge notifies the offending party that he or she has acted in a manner which disrupts the tribunal and prejudices the administration of justice. After giving the person the opportunity to respond, the judge may impose the sanction immediately.

2.Indirect contempt occurs outside the immediate presence of the court and consists of disobedience of a court's prior order. Generally a party will be accused of indirect contempt by the party for whose benefit the order was entered. A person cited for indirect contempt is entitled to notice of the charge and an opportunity for hearing of the evidence of contempt and to present evidence in rebuttal.

As I asked earlier, what was the person's behvior like when he was told to remove his hat? Did the person challenge the judges order? Did he refuse to remove it? Did the judge stop court proceedings to deal with him in the gallery? Is this the first time this individual has ended up in the courtroom?

Originally posted by NuroSlam
The primary issue of the activists in keene is consensual crimes are in fact not crimes as there is no actual legal corpus delecti, no intent and no harm or damage to anyone other then those agreeing to engage in the "vice" this ranges from drug reform to gay marriage, so tell me which is it, shut up and say nothing, or try and get the law changed, can you make up my mind for me?

Opinions and positions on a certain law are fine and I encourage them. As with everything though there is a time and place. As far as the marriage goes, you are missing a key argument, which is the 14th amendment - Full Faith and Credit.

What people tend to ignore is Congress's authority to prescribe what will be acceptable or not acceptable. Secondly, and again you guys confuse me with your argument is this -
Contempt of Court is one of those common law holdovers from our days as colonies of the British Crown. This is why I brought up the cafeteria catholics a few posts up.

Originally posted by NuroSlam
You seem to be a very bitter man, and I hope you get the help you need to overcome this hatred of people who differ with your opinions.

Im not bitter at all man, however I am irritated by not only the hypocrisy exhibted by groups like this, but also their picking and choosing what they will and will not follow. Ironic since this is what they accuse the Government, Police and Judges of doing.

Taking action against the judge also falls into that double standard you guys show. You guys are are upset with this judge because he made a ruling you guys dont like. You guys then dismiss the opposite side of the fence where people are ok with it.

Are those people wrong?
Because they have a differing viewpoint as yours does that make them part of the problem you guys perceive?

If you guys feel that strongly about it, then why not head somewhere else other than the United States. Or would it be more acceptable for everyone to leave the US who dont agree with you and this group? Why should people support and show respect for your beliefs while at the same time you guys ignore / dismiss everyon elses beliefs? Why should we be forced to abide by your laws, while you guys ignore ours?

What you guys are doing would be equivelant of French nationals all of a sudden coming out of the woodwork in the US and demanding a change to any and all laws they dont like or agree with.
My response would be to either find your own island and form your own country become legal and try to effect change by using the system. What do you think would be the outcome if an officer stops a person for breaking the law, say speeding, and the driver completely and totally refuses to provide any information to the officer?

Now, if you guys get your way and you are in charge, what would you guys do if a person refuses to recognize your authority for the traffic stop?

If you dont recognize the police as a lawful authority, then why do you guys pull over when one hits his lights and sirens behind you? If he has no legal authority to begin with, then why acknowledge it by pulling over?

Also, circuit judges are not Federal, they are state. You guys continually invoke the US Constitution while completely ignoring the States and their rights under their own constitutions.

Why can you guys not be consistent in your mission and actions? Again, going back to Cherry Picking....

*** Huge post because of 6 images of a MIAC report ***

Originally posted by NuroSlam
You seem to have some issue with me so let it all out. No the arrest on the video happened this month, yes that letter was sent to Burke and has nothing to do with ademo being arrested. Talk about cherry picking stuff. I don't believe in the constitution as anything other then a very expensive piece of toilet paper. Since Ademo is a producer and frequent co-host on a national syndicated radio show he is actually a member of the press.

My issue is you guys ignore what you dont like, embrace what you do like while ignoring the fact that the States have their own constitutions and are a seperate entity from the Federal Government. My issue is how you guys demand people accept your viewpoint, while you completely crap all over the current system in place and by extension the citizens who dont agree with your view.

If you dont beleive in the Consitution, then what you are advocating is not even remotely in the realm of freeman and their goals.

Originally posted by NuroSlam
I get that you have an issue with those who choose to believe in individual freedom,

Actually I dont have issues with people like that. Again my issue stems from the hypocrisy the Freeman exhibit. Your individual freedoms end the moment they begin to infringe on the rights of others, unless you are just going to discount that part?

Apparently you guys have issues with the citizens who are expressing their individual freedoms by reelecting people in Government and rejecting your viewpoints. Its funny to watch you guys try to claim the moral highground while doing exactly what you accuse the government of doing.

Originally posted by NuroSlam
I've read the police bulletin that we are to be treated as domestic terrorists even to the point of not supporting the current administration.

You guys only see and hear what you want and this is a HUGE part of the problem. It was not a police bulletin. Its a MIAC report and nowhere does it say what you and the others claim. What it does say, and I will try to find my copy of it to post here since its already in the public eye, is for officers to be cautious and observant to the growing trend of Freeman, specifically some of the more militant groups (I can show you the youtube footage of Sovereign Citizens shooting and killing police officers for the sole reason of not recognizing their authority.

It also talked about how extremists groups in the US are operating under the guise of militias / sovereign citizens. They were adopting 3rd party political groups to hide behind so they didnt stand out in a crowd. The MIAC alert provided information about symbols / bumper stickers etc that were being used and warned officers to excersize caution if stopping a car with those symbols. It in no way shape or form accuse any political person or group as extremists / domestic terrorists.

In case you have not noticed, the Government is not going after groups who dont like the current system in a peaceful manner. What they did with the MIAC was to alert law enforcement officals that fringe groups were posing as 3rd party political candidates (Ron Pauls group was one of those). They are telling law enforcement to be mindful if we come across any of what was described in the MIAC.

Its called offier safety.

Here is the MIAC in question -

Originally posted by NuroSlam
So since WE KNOW what you think of us and why "your just following orders" don't get so upset when people are doing what YOU PEOPLE tell us time and again,

And this is another funny issue. You guys always fall back to dont get upset, find a new line of work, your just following orders...

Again you really need to quit seeing only what you want while you ignore the rest. I tell people to get involved in politics if they want to make changes. You guys on the other hand dont do that. You guys insist on scrapping the current system in an effort to put your system in place.

You dont see the irony / hypocrisy in that?

As far as what I think, I have no issues with people wanting to make changes they think are needed. I have no issues with people / groups who hate the Government. What "upsets" me is how you guys argue in favor of the Constitution while at the same time you know nothing about the Constitution or how it works. What "upsets" me is you guys have no comprehension that the State and the Federal Government are 2 completely seperate entities.

You guys are cafeteria constitutionalists - You pick what you want and ignore the rest.

So since WE KNOW what you think of the Government, Police and the Courts and why "your just following orders" of the group you belong to by posting 4 year old information, don't get so upset when people question your motives. When people affiliated with these groups kill police officers on a traffic stop, dont get upset when people start viewing these groups in a blanket manner as being dangerous.

You know what that is right, a blanket manner? Its what you and other Sovereign Citizen / Freeman groups do when it comes to the Government, Police and Courts.

Originally posted by NuroSlam
if you dont like the law change it.

Change by using the system. Not by showing up in court and disrupting proceedings because you refuse to acknowledge the judge as a legitimate authority. Not by gunning cops down on a traffic stop. Not by sending threatening letters to public officals.

Instead what you guys are doing is ignoring the law, which doesnt change it, nor does it make the law go away.

I would wager money that if you guys got your way, and someone who doesnt agree with your view behaves in court in the manner the op post did, that you would find some form of punishment.

If you are going to argue there would be no punishment for contempt of court, then how exactly would justice be served if the court is interuppted constantly by people?

Hypothetical -
If your movement is succsesfull, please give us a rundown of what changes would be made and why?

reply to post by Xcathdra


See here's the problem with the entire Judicial System in most westernized societies

They enforce the laws (Police, Judge, LEO) but most are all hypocrites because almost all of them feel exempt from any of these laws them-self

and because they are enforcing the laws and the man with the gun or the badge they become exempt from many wrongs they have/will do/done unto society.

And this is the Root of the problem.

They are the biggest hypocrites of all and should be held accountable for all actions.

I liked the Idea of the guy in the other Thread a week ago.

All Cops should be required to wear helmet/body cams so we can record every stinkin minute of their 'PUBLIC DUTY'

So they can be held accountable if anything they do or try to enforce is beyond their legal bounds.

They are serving the Public and should be required to be under the most Careful and invasive(even) Scrutiny because

They have a Gun

They have an Ego

They have a Badge

And they have too make a quota.

They also have some Brutality and Public to Enslave and Oppress.

Quote:
The Universe:

but u pay your taxes from being funded through your employment

by tax money understand! conundrum!

Originally posted by Shadowalker
The judge was correct. If that piece of trash, classless, clueless, idiot, who learned nothing from worthless parents, decides not to show proper respect in a court of law.... then he gets the animal/idiot cage. Period.

Part two. The idiot with the camera was stalking and following too close and invading his personal space. Period. When someone takes a job that makes them a known target has their personal space invaded, and we can clearly see there are no metal detectors or security in the building other than the court... That judge has every right to feel threatened and I hope he had a taurus judge strapped on his hip. He is working under crap security to begin with.

These whiny baby granola crunchers need to take a hike.

What the F%&^ are you talking about...wait are you the judge in that tape?

Nobody knows exactly what happened in that court room with the guy, who you know nothing about, wearing the hat so passing judgement on him or the judge without knowing the facts is silly.

As far as the guy filming the judge in a public building asking questions is perfectly legal in this country isn't it? You say the judge felt threatened by someone asking him about a ruling on a person wearing a hat? Are you kidding?

By the way where does personal space end and public space begin? It looked like to me he was following at a very reasonable distance in order to hold what he thought might be a conversation. That judge should have charges filed on him for making a false report, there was no threat either real or perceived!

Yep! They're changing the New Hamshire state motto to "LIVE FREE OR GET FU$$ED".

Originally posted by TheUniverse
See here's the problem with the entire Judicial System in most westernized societies

They enforce the laws (Police, Judge, LEO) but most are all hypocrites because almost all of them feel exempt from any of these laws them-self

No more exempt than Soveriegn Citizens / Freeman / insert group name here. Is it not hypocritical to use that thought process, to describe law enforcdement, judges and government, when Soveriegn Citizens / Freeman / etc are guilty of the same?
-
Sovereign Citizen / Freeman / etc dont recognize the entire constitution as being lawful, contray to their claims. The pick and choose what fits them and ignore the rest.
They refuse to follow local ordinaces / state laws because they claim its illegal.
They will only recognize the authority of the Sheriff.

I can keep going but you get the idea.

Originally posted by TheUniverse
and because they are enforcing the laws and the man with the gun or the badge they become exempt from many wrongs they have/will do/done unto society.

You keep saying exempt. Please explain what they are eexempt from and support the claim with a source please. While your working on that I can dig up the number of people sovereign citizen / freeman / etc have killed because they feel they are not subject to the law.

Originally posted by TheUniverse
And this is the Root of the problem.

Its a part of the problem, but its not the root by any means. The foundation they base their argument on (sovereign/Freeman) revolves around the concept that cops/courts/government arent following the laws or the constitution. The root of the problem are the sovereign citizens / freeman, who dont even know what the Constitution says, pushing an agenda that is based on ignorance.

Ignorance being lack of knowledge, which freeman and sovereign citizen groups demonstrate everytime they try to make an argument while invoking the Constitution.

Originally posted by TheUniverse
They are the biggest hypocrites of all and should be held accountable for all actions.

and so should the Freeman/Sovereign groups who refuse to follow laws that they personally dont like, and so should the freeman/sovereign groups who gun cops down because they dont recognize their authority, and yes even sovereign/freemman who disrupt court proceedings because they think they know what they are talking about.

In reality they dont.. Need proof - go read up on the groups and their view points and get back to me.

Originally posted by TheUniverse
All Cops should be required to wear helmet/body cams so we can record every stinkin minute of their 'PUBLIC DUTY'

A lot of agencies are moving to that setup, in addition to taser equipping their new models with not only a camera, but audio recording as well. Other departments are testing out the camera system that goes on the officers duty weapons, and their is already a tv show on discovery, if I remeber right, that uses the gun footage. Kind of like Cops without the camera crew and a better view of whats going on.

Originally posted by TheUniverse
So they can be held accountable if anything they do or try to enforce is beyond their legal bounds.

and the people who ignore the laws should be held accountible as well. Simply broadcasting to anyone in shouting distance that a law is unconstitutional doesnt make it so.

Also, its hypocritical to demand cops be held accountible for going beyond their legal bounds, yet be ok with soveriegn citizens and freeman actions that go beyond their legal bounds. If a cop walks up to a person and shoots them in the head for no reason at all, the sovereign / freeman groups go absolutely nuts. Yet when sovereign citizens / freeman groups gun cops down on the side of the highway, there is barely a whisper out the sovereign / freeman groups.

Originally posted by TheUniverse
They are serving the Public and should be required to be under the most Careful and invasive(even) Scrutiny because

Any person should come under scrutiny when they break the law.

Originally posted by TheUniverse
They have a Gun

So do Sovereign Citizens / Freeman

Originally posted by TheUniverse
They have an Ego

So do sovereign citizens / freeman

Originally posted by TheUniverse
They have a Badge

Which is pretty much irrelevant since sovereign citizens / freeman dont recognize the authority of law enforcement aside from the Sheriff.

Originally posted by TheUniverse
And they have too make a quota.

Yeah going back to not knowing what your talking about. Any police agency that has a dedicated division to traffic enforcement can get quotas. Aside from that specialized division there are no quotas because they are illegal. But again thank you for proving my point that people who are not familiar with the law just make up want they want and go from there.

Originally posted by TheUniverse
They also have some Brutality and Public to Enslave and Oppress.

I completely agree and any person with intelligence should hold the Freeman / Sovereign citizen groups accountible for their opression and enslavement.

Of course that only applies to the citizens who dont agree with sovereign / freeman. Cops on the other hand face summary execution by sovereign / freeman groups at traffic stops.

Originally posted by TheUniverse
but u pay your taxes from being funded through your employment

by tax money understand! conundrum!

Lol you guys are funny. As I said before, go back, read the constitution. Then read your state constitution. Then get back to me.

reply to post by NuroSlam

Messing with a judge and asking him why he arrested someone in his courtroom for wearing a hat? You know this stuff happens all the time right?

Now,there was no threatening going on, just a pissed off judge...But really, all I can think to say is.....Was it worth it to piss off a judge over something that happens all over the place?

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
reply to post by NuroSlam

 

Messing with a judge and asking him why he arrested someone in his courtroom for wearing a hat? You know this stuff happens all the time right?

Now,there was no threatening going on, just a pissed off judge...But really, all I can think to say is.....Was it worth it to piss off a judge over something that happens all over the place?

There are some facts missing. When you recevie letters that do threaten your life it changes the story and viewpoint. This judge had recevied letters essentially telling him to quit presiding over "consenual" cases. In the letter, the author told the judge that he cannot control the members in his group and is not responsible for their actions.

This group has a history with this particular judge.

Anyone else find it humerous this group demands the judge follow the law, yet its perfectly acceptable for this group to ignore the law?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
I tell people to stand up and try to get laws changed they have issues with. However, a judge is not part of the legislative branch which means he does not say whats illegal, nor do they set the fine and or penalty (im referring to the inception of a law, why its criminal, what happens if someone violates it etc).

Again, this judge does not follow the rules of the courts, it is legal to film in a courtroom in the state of NH yet he has banned cameras from the entire property, even the parking lot. Why would you expect anyone to listen to man makes his own laws for no rhyme or reason. Ah, but he does have a reason, he's been caught disregarding the laws he has SWORN to uphold, that is a big difference between the government and the people, the people have taken no such oath, in fact, its clear that this oath to the constitution is meaningless.

This is the other part where you guys confuse me. You guys speak out against judges who legislate from the bench. In this situation, that position seems to be fluid because it supports your argument. Out of curiosity, which is it?

Yes, they wear hats in his court because they do not respect him. Another big difference between those in the government and the activists is that the activists are not in anyway using violence to protest.

The purpose of dressing nicely and removing a hat is to show some type of respect to the court itself.
Here is the breakdown -

Opinions and positions on a certain law are fine and I encourage them. As with everything though there is a time and place. As far as the marriage goes, you are missing a key argument, which is the 14th amendment - Full Faith and Credit.

The time and the place is not dependent on the permission of anyone other then those who wish to protest. Its absurd to think that you need to get permission to protest from those you wish to protest. Unless you would like me to think that you would have shot the protesters in Boston having a tea party.

Im not bitter at all man, however I am irritated by not only the hypocrisy exhibted by groups like this, but also their picking and choosing what they will and will not follow. Ironic since this is what they accuse the Government, Police and Judges of doing.

Again the people have sworn no oath to obey any law.

Taking action against the judge also falls into that double standard you guys show. You guys are are upset with this judge because he made a ruling you guys dont like. You guys then dismiss the opposite side of the fence where people are ok with it.

Are those people wrong?
Because they have a differing viewpoint as yours does that make them part of the problem you guys perceive?

No, its because they break the oath that they have sworn to uphold. plain and simple.

If you guys feel that strongly about it, then why not head somewhere else other than the United States. Or would it be more acceptable for everyone to leave the US who dont agree with you and this group? Why should people support and show respect for your beliefs while at the same time you guys ignore / dismiss everyon elses beliefs? Why should we be forced to abide by your laws, while you guys ignore ours?

I am just so sick and friggin tired of hearing "love it or leave it". "you" people make me sick, you stand there and preach about the freedom everyone has yet when people choose to exhibit that freedom you scream "get out" well I'm not going anywhere, "you" people have slaughtered millions of people in this world to prove how good you are, entire nations of people wiped out. Get off your holy band wagon. This country is going to hell in a hand basket and it is not because of these protesters, its because of you hypocrites that wont leave people alone that you don't agree with.

What you guys are doing would be equivelant of French nationals all of a sudden coming out of the woodwork in the US and demanding a change to any and all laws they dont like or agree with.
My response would be to either find your own island and form your own country become legal and try to effect change by using the system. What do you think would be the outcome if an officer stops a person for breaking the law, say speeding, and the driver completely and totally refuses to provide any information to the officer?

Now, if you guys get your way and you are in charge, what would you guys do if a person refuses to recognize your authority for the traffic stop?

If you dont recognize the police as a lawful authority, then why do you guys pull over when one hits his lights and sirens behind you? If he has no legal authority to begin with, then why acknowledge it by pulling over?

Why do "we" pull over? its simple, if we don't we will be murdered.

Also, circuit judges are not Federal, they are state. You guys continually invoke the US Constitution while completely ignoring the States and their rights under their own constitutions.

Why can you guys not be consistent in your mission and actions? Again, going back to Cherry Picking....

The protesters are invoking the NH Constitution not the federal one. And I invoke no such piece of garbage as i know it means absolutly nothing to those who claim to honor it.

Originally posted by NuroSlam
Again, this judge does not follow the rules of the courts, it is legal to film in a courtroom in the state of NH yet he has banned cameras from the entire property, even the parking lot. Why would you expect anyone to listen to man makes his own laws for no rhyme or reason. Ah, but he does have a reason, he's been caught disregarding the laws he has SWORN to uphold, that is a big difference between the government and the people, the people have taken no such oath, in fact, its clear that this oath to the constitution is meaningless.

Care to pull put the law where it states a persron can record inside a courtroom. Again this is what I am talking about, you guys only see what you want to see. You ignore the fact that a judge, or administrative judge (supervisor so to speak) can prescribe what is and is not allowed in the courtroom.

He is doing his job and upholding the laws. As I said before, just because you and sovereign / freeman dont like something, doesnt mean its illegal or can be ingored by you guys.

Again, you really need to learn what the Constitution syays, as well as the State Constitution.

Originally posted by NuroSlam
Yes, they wear hats in his court because they do not respect him. Another big difference between those in the government and the activists is that the activists are not in anyway using violence to protest.

A protest that revolves around violence is not a protest - Its a riot. Please learn the difference.
Respect is a 2 way street in this case. Also, again you guys miss the point. You dont have to respect the judge, however you should show some respect for the position / court.

To use a military anaology - You salute the rank, not the person.

Also, its not protesting when its done inside a court thats in session - That is interfering with the administration of justice and is also interfering with the rights of the people who are also going before the judge.

Again, your groups mindset is screw anyone who doesnt see your view points. Apparently you guys did read animal farm. Everyone is equal, but Sovereign citizens / Freeman are more equal than others.

Originally posted by NuroSlam
The time and the place is not dependent on the permission of anyone other then those who wish to protest. Its absurd to think that you need to get permission to protest from those you wish to protest. Unless you would like me to think that you would have shot the protesters in Boston having a tea party.

Lol... Had the British caught the people involved in the Boston Tea Party, chances are they wouldnt come out of the encounter alive.

Secondly, there is a time and place, and the inside of a court room is ot the time nor place. And contrary to your opinion, yes the judge can say no to protests in the courtroom, no to cameras in the courtroom, no to media in the courtroom, and no to hats in the courtroom.

Again just because you and some others dont like it, doesnt make it illegal, nor does it give you the right to refuse to follow directions in that setting. If you ugys would learn the law and the constitution you would already see case law by SCOTUS addressing the areas you say are illegal.

If you think there is a difference, got walk onto a military base and try to protest there.

What you and the others are confusing, as well as ignoring, is your rights come to a schreeching halt when they infringe on the rights of others. Namely, your right to protest is invalid in a court room because its infringing on the rights of the people to a quick and speedy trial.

Or does the constituion only apply to sovereign citizens / Freeman?

Originally posted by NuroSlam
No, its because they break the oath that they have sworn to uphold. plain and simple.

No, they are upholding the oath they took. What it boils down to is you and other groups who dont like the way things are, so you go off on this flight of fancy and made ridiculous claims that are not supported by law, but merely your opinion. I am going to point out that you completely ignored the question about citizens who dont share your view point. I guess they are bad americans for disagreeing with you guys?

Originally posted by NuroSlam
I am just so sick and friggin tired of hearing "love it or leave it".

i never said this, but again thank you for proving my point that you guys only see and hear what you want in order to support your uninformed claims.

Originally posted by NuroSlam
"you" people make me sick, you stand there and preach about the freedom everyone has yet when people choose to exhibit that freedom you scream "get out" well I'm not going anywhere,

Well first off, again if you and the others knew the law, you would know your first amendment rights can be curtailed without violation. You cannot walk into a crowded theatre, mall etc and yell fire. Your right to pretest also ends when that action infringes on the rights of others in the courtroom.

Secondly arent you and your groups attempting to do to the judge that you claim the judge is doing to you? Arent you guys trying to force the judge recognize your points of view. The letter sent to the judge pretty clearly spells it out. Stop enforcing certain laws or else.

Huh.. Infringing on a judges right to carry out his oath of office while arguing the judge is infringing on your rights.

On the contrary. I have been telling you to challenege the law. However what you dont grasp the concept of is how to effect that change.

Protest in a courtroom all you want.. In the end your just going to be found in contempt of court. If you guys new what you were doing and actually new the law, you would know you need to effect the change in the legislature and not the courts or the police.

So you and others can scream all you want about your freedoms being taken away, which they arent btw. It doesnt change the fact that what you guys claim your goals are, a return to constitutional law, your actions say otherwise.

Originally posted by NuroSlam
"you" people have slaughtered millions of people in this world to prove how good you are, entire nations of people wiped out.

Please refine and give examples, and please provide a source for your examples to support this claim.

Originally posted by NuroSlam
Get off your holy band wagon. This country is going to hell in a hand basket and it is not because of these protesters, its because of you hypocrites that wont leave people alone that you don't agree with.

Its going to hell in a handbasket because people are apathetic about politics. Change can be brought if people would get off their asses and take part in the process.

The manner you and other groups have chosen wont effect change in the least. In order to get soething changed, you must first understand how it works, what doesnt work about it, who created and why. And then you can formulate a game plan to have the most impact and affect.

Until that happens though, you guys are just as guilty as you claim the judge is. You say hes not following the law, and yet neither are you guys.

again, ironic but not surprising.

Originally posted by NuroSlam
Why do "we" pull over? its simple, if we don't we will be murdered.

i see.. So when faced with a logical question, instead of answering it, you make a false allegation. Typical yet again not all that surprising.

I thought you guys stopped to make it easier to kill people / police who dont share the same views as sovereign / freeman?

Originally posted by NuroSlam
The protesters are invoking the NH Constitution not the federal one. And I invoke no such piece of garbage as i know it means absolutly nothing to those who claim to honor it.

Well, the protestor arent since they are ignoring the law when it come to intefering with the rights of others in the name of their own self righteous cause.

Your guys ability to invoke law, and then ignore the ones you dont like, is just staggering and beyond words at this point.

And I invoke no such piece of garbage as i know it means absolutly nothing to those who claim to honor it.

Funny.. You, the sovereign citizens, the freeman etc are doing the exact same thing. Claiming in one hand the Constituion to support your argument, and in the other a list of laws you refuse to follow because you dont like them.

Exactly how are you guys honoring the Constitution again?

Its funny how you and these groups invoke the constitution when in fact you have absolutely no idea what it says. As an example please show me where it says its legal to protest inside a courtroom. Tell ya what I will save you the time because its non existant. All the 1st amendment does is guarantee that the government cannot infringe on certain rights.

However, your high an mighty constitution also says anything not specifically spelled out is reserved for the states. The states allow the judges to run their courtrooms without interference since it would be a injury to seperation of powers if they dictated how court works. Or is this another part of the Constitution you guys are ignoring because it doesnt fit in with your arguments?


Honor that and get back to me.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Care to pull put the law where it states a persron can record inside a courtroom. Again this is what I am talking about, you guys only see what you want to see. You ignore the fact that a judge, or administrative judge (supervisor so to speak) can prescribe what is and is not allowed in the courtroom.

Sure

RULES OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
PHOTOGRAPHING, RECORDING AND BROADCASTING


78. (a) The presiding judge should permit the media to photograph, record and broadcast all courtroom proceedings that are open to the public. The presiding judge may limit electronic media coverage if there is a substantial likelihood of harm to any person or other harmful consequence. Except as specifically provided in this rule, or by order of the presiding judge, no person shall within the courtroom take any photograph, make any recording, or make any broadcast by radio, television or other means in the course of any proceeding.

www.courts.state.nh.us...

A protest that revolves around violence is not a protest - Its a riot. Please learn the difference.
Respect is a 2 way street in this case. Also, again you guys miss the point. You dont have to respect the judge, however you should show some respect for the position / court.

Please explain to me which violent protest im referring to

Also, its not protesting when its done inside a court thats in session - That is interfering with the administration of justice and is also interfering with the rights of the people who are also going before the judge.

Again, your groups mindset is screw anyone who doesnt see your view points. Apparently you guys did read animal farm. Everyone is equal, but Sovereign citizens / Freeman are more equal than others.

Please stop referring to me with "you guys" and "your group" I am a member of no group or orginization, the only one I have ever been a member of is the United States Army. Period.

Again just because you and some others dont like it, doesnt make it illegal, nor does it give you the right to refuse to follow directions in that setting. If you ugys would learn the law and the constitution you would already see case law by SCOTUS addressing the areas you say are illegal.

If you think there is a difference, got walk onto a military base and try to protest there.

What you and the others are confusing, as well as ignoring, is your rights come to a schreeching halt when they infringe on the rights of others. Namely, your right to protest is invalid in a court room because its infringing on the rights of the people to a quick and speedy trial.

Or does the constituion only apply to sovereign citizens / Freeman?

Originally posted by NuroSlam
No, its because they break the oath that they have sworn to uphold. plain and simple.

No, they are upholding the oath they took. What it boils down to is you and other groups who dont like the way things are, so you go off on this flight of fancy and made ridiculous claims that are not supported by law, but merely your opinion. I am going to point out that you completely ignored the question about citizens who dont share your view point. I guess they are bad americans for disagreeing with you guys?

I get your point you are correct, the common man has no rights, may not protest or attempt to effect change in a system that is inherently flawed. We are to submit ourselves without question to those with badges and guns, allow them to enter our homes whenever they decide to, that we must worship the badge as a symbol of good and honesty. Our only purpose is to slave away for pennies in order to support the system.
You continue to lump me in with people who wish to do violence, but time after time, in thread after thread, post after post, I have stated that I believe in the natural rights of life liberty and property for every human being even of those I disagree with. I have also said time after time it is a crime to violate those rights of other human beings, even ones as inhumane as you and your fellow badge wearers.

I see our recident "cop" has thrown in the towel and just given up and gone all in Also there is another guy who gets arrested by the same guys. He was arrested for videotaping and when told to stop and he asked by what law they tell him he doesn't need to see the law and cuff him.
Btw, Xcathra this is a recent event. The hat incident may be old. Also I'm wondering why it is ok for a judge to lie in your opinion? Also ever heard of citizen journalism?

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Here's a very relevant and recent video of how cameras catch corruption of judges too:

Now check out the response of the court:

1. No cameras or audio equipment may be used at any time in the court's lobby or anywhere in the public area of the court's leased premises;

So you catch a corrupt judge in the act on video and the response is not to punish the judge but to blanket ban all photo / video in the area? Btw. That order doesn't have exemption for their own security cameras so better go in there and do an citizens arrest on the building manager!

Source: PINAC

[add]

Also the same guys, same courthouse and another illegal detention of a photographer. He asks to see the law and their response is to detain him.

Source PINAC

edit on 8/7/2011 by PsykoOps because: add

Originally posted by Xcathdra
There are some facts missing. When you recevie letters that do threaten your life it changes the story and viewpoint. This judge had recevied letters essentially telling him to quit presiding over "consenual" cases. In the letter, the author told the judge that he cannot control the members in his group and is not responsible for their actions.
This group has a history with this particular judge.
Anyone else find it humerous this group demands the judge follow the law, yet its perfectly acceptable for this group to ignore the law?

This "Group" has at no time committed any act of violence. There was no threat in that letter, that letter was informing him that people will continue to move there and protest, it was a statement of fact, people are moving there almost daily as part of the free state project. How you come to the conclusion that protesting is threatening you really must explain. I know that as a LEO you would prefer them to be violent so that you can justify their arrest, kidnapping and murder.

You continue to claim cherry picking but you left out a very important part of the letter you posted, and you as well as I know most are not going to from an engaging thread to rea the facts

Mr. Burke,

Earlier today, I had intended to tell you of my appreciation for some of the decisions you have made recently. I will do so now, as I have the opportunity. I’d like to thank you for your recent “not guilty” decision in Nick Ryder’s “speeding” case, your sensible decision to allow multiple recording devices into your “court”, allowing camera panning, and the reasonable ways you handled Russell Kanning and David Krouse’s “driving without registration” cases. Also, a while back I was pleased with how you handled David Manning’s “illegal U-turn” situation. You appear to be a reasonable man and I hope this letter finds you and approachable mood.

Before I continue, I’d like to apologize for the rather unusual situation you have been put in. I do not know you, but I would like to imagine that in your private life you are very nice man who is appreciated by your many friends and family. The situation I refer to is one you’re probably already aware of. I imagine you’ve been advised on the fact that liberty activists have been moving to town here in Keene. You’ve no doubt noticed us in your courtroom as most of us remain seated when you enter. I hope you understand, we are just doing our jobs. One of our jobs is to stand up, or in this case sit, in support of others who are being targeted for “consensual crimes”. Unfortunately, we do not have enough numbers to operate regular sittings in your “court”, otherwise you would see us outside the occasion when your “business associates” decide to do their “business” with one of our friends or associates.

In fact there was a great amount of respect shown to judge burke before his increasing heavy handed crack down
Then you leave out a very important part of the second excerpt from the letter so here is the whole paragraph.

Please stop hearing cases that do not involve a victim. If you would do this, you would likely never see another liberty activist in your courtroom again. Plus, you’d be saving a lot of people a significant amount of money and time. I understand that part of your job is probably to raise revenue for the “City of Keene”. However, I would rather your job be arbitrating disputes involving allegedly damaged parties, and awarding restitution, or in extreme cases, incarcerating. If that described the job you were doing, people would likely be singing your praises rather than protesting.

If you choose continue to hear cases involving “consensual crimes”, prepare yourself for more activists paying more attention to the job you do. The liberty movement in New Hampshire is decentralized. I cannot control nor predict the actions of those activists who choose to focus their efforts in Keene. You can expect all kinds of peaceful outreach and protest. We are changing hearts and minds. Perhaps yours will be included. Many of us have a vision for a 100% consensual society. I invite you to learn more about how we can get from here to there.

You are so drunk with power you can't see the forest for the tree.

Being a pain in the ass isn't illegal, the judges actions were (lying to a court officer)