Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Group of activists arrested, Keene District Court April 13, 2009
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 26   Go Down

Author Topic: Group of activists arrested, Keene District Court April 13, 2009  (Read 81226 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

NHArticleTen

  • Guest
Logged

anarchir

  • Extraordinaire
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5103
  • No victim, no crime.
    • View Profile
    • Prepared Security
Re: Group of activists arrested, Keene District Court April 13, 2009
« Reply #331 on: April 25, 2009, 07:24:34 PM »

I don't understand hunger strikes that involve more than drinking water.

Yeah, it kinda negates the point. 

If he continues to not eat he wont be able to think straight, and thus will eventually slip up and tell them his name.
Logged
Good people disobey bad laws.
PreparedSecurity.com - Modern security and preparedness for the 21st century.
 [img width= height= alt=Prepared Security]http://www.prepareddesign.com/uploads/4/4/3/6/4436847/1636340_orig.png[/img]

Rillion

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6804
    • View Profile
Re: Group of activists arrested, Keene District Court April 13, 2009
« Reply #332 on: April 25, 2009, 07:47:24 PM »

I don't understand hunger strikes that involve more than drinking water.

Yeah, it kinda negates the point. 

If he continues to not eat he wont be able to think straight, and thus will eventually slip up and tell them his name.

A hunger strike was probably not the best idea, then. 
Logged

Ecolitan

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Re: Group of activists arrested, Keene District Court April 13, 2009
« Reply #333 on: April 25, 2009, 07:53:25 PM »


A hunger strike was probably not the best idea, then. 

I don't get hunger strikes.  Do they want to illicit sympathy?  Do they think it works?  I'm sympathetic towards a harmless person being in jail.  I'm sympathetic about the terrible food (some worse than others) available to them.  I'm incredibly sympathetic about being awake at 3am and hungry and nothing you can do about it, to me that's the worst part of jail.  Increasing your own suffering because you refuse to eat at all...  I don't get it.
Logged

NHArticleTen

  • Guest
Re: Group of activists arrested, Keene District Court April 13, 2009
« Reply #334 on: April 26, 2009, 11:02:35 AM »


A hunger strike was probably not the best idea, then. 

I don't get hunger strikes.  Do they want to illicit sympathy?  Do they think it works?  I'm sympathetic towards a harmless person being in jail.  I'm sympathetic about the terrible food (some worse than others) available to them.  I'm incredibly sympathetic about being awake at 3am and hungry and nothing you can do about it, to me that's the worst part of jail.  Increasing your own suffering because you refuse to eat at all...  I don't get it.

with respect to kidnap and imprisonment and it's inherent denial of self-determination...

one sometimes uses the refusal of nourishment as a further act of defiance...and continued self-determination...


as a side note, if it were not for the religious "taboo" of self-extinguishing...many, MANY more individuals would voluntarily choose to "leave the building"...

but, of course, the global-elite money-master prison-planet-keepers CAN'T have such "escapes"...

they would rather get the enjoyment of murdering you...versus "allowing" you to "escape" via your own devices...

cruel world indeed...

enjoy!

Logged

blackie

  • Guest
Re: Group of activists arrested, Keene District Court April 13, 2009
« Reply #335 on: April 26, 2009, 10:44:45 PM »

Sounds like Sam is breaking down.

http://freekeene.com/2009/04/26/sam-update-phone-call-from-sam-help-get-him-on-freedom-watch/
Ian:
Quote
I spoke with Sam this morning. He’s wondering if he should stay in jail as the writ of habeas corpus is taken to the NH supreme court. (The superior court judge denied it, saying he couldn’t let Sam out without having his “legal” name.) Sam also didn’t get mail yesterday, which he seemed bummed about. I suggested the guards have been holding his mail. I also suggested he start eating. The hunger strike hasn’t done anything to gain publicity for his case, and will only serve to weaken his composition and distract his mind. Two weeks is enough, especially for someone with Sam’s body type. So, to get out of jail, he can either wait there and see what happens, pay $10,000 cash bail (which you can bet will have whatever fines he’s ordered to pay taken out of it after a trial, so this is the worst option), or give up his “legal name”, which may lead to a bail hearing and release on recognizance.

So Sam can get out on $10,000 cash bail without giving up his "legal name"?

Why is that the worst option? It also sounds like Ian and Sam know they will not win at trial if they think there will be fines.
Logged

blackie

  • Guest
Re: Group of activists arrested, Keene District Court April 13, 2009
« Reply #336 on: April 30, 2009, 09:09:06 PM »

http://forum.freekeene.com/index.php?topic=880.msg7645#msg7645
Quote
Keene District Court

Standing Order Re:
Cameras in the Coutroom and Other Areas

In accordance with District Court Rule 1.4 (e)(1), the Supreme Court's Order dated January 11, 2008, and the inherent discretion of the Court in supervising the proceedings that come before it, the print and broadcast media, as well as the public, are advised that, unless otherwise permitted by the Court, pool coverage will be required will be required for all video and still photographers at any courtroom proceeding. Two seats, at stationary locations determined by the Court, will be reserved for one video and one still photographer representing credentialed media. Designation of the pool photographers will be determined by members of the media who want to partipate in the pool. [Note: the next two sentences are a repeat of the previous two.] Two seats, at stationary locations determined by the Court, will be reserved for one video and one still photographer representing credentialed media. Designation of the pool photographers will be determined by members of the media who want to partipate in the pool.

No photgraphy is permitted in the in the lobby and corridors outside the coutroom.

All celluar telephones, including those with cameras functions, muts be turned off ot put in silent mode prior to entering the courtroom. hand-held tape recording devices and laptop computers are permitted, unless the presiding determines that the use of such equipment is distracting from the proper administration of coutr proceedings. Computers may not be used for photographic purposes. No photography may take place prior to the presiding judge taking the bench. The pubilc seating area may not be photographed.

All persons intending to use cameras or recording devices are expected to be familiar with District Court Rule 1.4 in its entirety. A copy of Rule 1.4 is availabe for inspection by contacting a bailiff. Being granted permission to record court proceedings is deemed agreement to abide by these rules. Any violation may be punished as contempt and/or as a criminal offense.

February 18, 2009
Logged

slayerboy

  • Untitled
  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 250
    • View Profile
Re: Group of activists arrested, Keene District Court April 13, 2009
« Reply #337 on: April 30, 2009, 09:31:19 PM »

http://forum.freekeene.com/index.php?topic=880.msg7645#msg7645
Quote
Keene District Court

Standing Order Re:
Cameras in the Coutroom and Other Areas

In accordance with District Court Rule 1.4 (e)(1), the Supreme Court's Order dated January 11, 2008, and the inherent discretion of the Court in supervising the proceedings that come before it, the print and broadcast media, as well as the public, are advised that, unless otherwise permitted by the Court, pool coverage will be required will be required for all video and still photographers at any courtroom proceeding. Two seats, at stationary locations determined by the Court, will be reserved for one video and one still photographer representing credentialed media. Designation of the pool photographers will be determined by members of the media who want to partipate in the pool. [Note: the next two sentences are a repeat of the previous two.] Two seats, at stationary locations determined by the Court, will be reserved for one video and one still photographer representing credentialed media. Designation of the pool photographers will be determined by members of the media who want to partipate in the pool.

No photgraphy is permitted in the in the lobby and corridors outside the coutroom.

All celluar telephones, including those with cameras functions, muts be turned off ot put in silent mode prior to entering the courtroom. hand-held tape recording devices and laptop computers are permitted, unless the presiding determines that the use of such equipment is distracting from the proper administration of coutr proceedings. Computers may not be used for photographic purposes. No photography may take place prior to the presiding judge taking the bench. The pubilc seating area may not be photographed.

All persons intending to use cameras or recording devices are expected to be familiar with District Court Rule 1.4 in its entirety. A copy of Rule 1.4 is availabe for inspection by contacting a bailiff. Being granted permission to record court proceedings is deemed agreement to abide by these rules. Any violation may be punished as contempt and/or as a criminal offense.

February 18, 2009

See, i equate what Sam did the same as me going to someone's house and smoking inside when they've asked me to not smoke inside.  I'm going to get bitched at, thrown out, whatever.  If you come into someone's house and disrespect their wishes, you are going to face consequences.

I can hear you all saying "but the courthouse is public property!" No.....it's not.  The taxpayers paid for it, but once that money leaves your hands and goes into the hands of the government, it's no longer public, it's owned by the government.  I'm not saying it's right, but if you want to play, play by their rules.  You wouldn't smoke in someone's house if they asked you not to, why would you blatantly piss someone off?  I'd rather leave people alone and be left alone.  Some things are not worth fighting about.  Change what you can, accept that you cannot change anyone except yourself.  Once you accept that, life will be a lot simpler and you'll find people actually leave you alone.  There's a lot you can change if you don't like what the government is doing.  Instead of rotting in a jail, there are many other ways.  Want to break from the government?  Stop paying taxes, etc, etc.
Logged

blackie

  • Guest
Re: Group of activists arrested, Keene District Court April 13, 2009
« Reply #338 on: April 30, 2009, 09:33:24 PM »

I assume some of the mail he gets has his full name on it.  No doubt they know who he is.  It really just comes down to the fact that they want to force him to declare his identity. 

http://forum.freekeene.com/index.php?topic=799.msg7654#msg7654
Quote
I just talked to Ivy and she says that they got his name from his fingerprints and that she might now be allowed to represent him. Depends on the ruling which we'll figure out today or tomorrow.
Logged

coyote

  • Guest
Re: Group of activists arrested, Keene District Court April 13, 2009
« Reply #339 on: May 02, 2009, 09:28:29 PM »

Besides writing to Sam himself, who should we be calling or emailing if we want to petition for Sam's release?
Logged

blackie

  • Guest
Re: Group of activists arrested, Keene District Court April 13, 2009
« Reply #340 on: May 02, 2009, 09:47:48 PM »

Besides writing to Sam himself, who should we be calling or emailing if we want to petition for Sam's release?

http://freekeene.com/2009/05/01/submit-your-own-writ-of-habeas-corpus-for-sam/

Submit your own Writ of Habeas Corpus for Sam
Filed under: Obscured Truth Network, ToDo, Update — Ian at 9:46 pm on Friday, May 1, 2009

Ivy and Marc Stevens have worked up a writ that you can fill out and file to help get Sam out of jail. The more that are filed, the more likely the superior court judge will look seriously at Sam’s case. Here are her instructions from the discussion thread on the FK Forum:

Download it. Put your name in the “your name” spots. Make sure the dates throughout it are correct (especially at the bottom in the signature line, the certificate of service, and the affidavit). And file them at Superior Court right there in Keene on Monday.
Logged

blackie

  • Guest
Re: Group of activists arrested, Keene District Court April 13, 2009
« Reply #341 on: May 02, 2009, 09:52:06 PM »

The State of New Hampshire
CHESHIRE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
<<<<<  YOUR NAME >>>>>
v.
RICK VANWICKLER, SUPERINTENDANT
CHESHIRE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Docket Number _____________________
PETITION for WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Re: JOHN SAM DOE
   NOW COMES  <<<<<  your name >>>>>  , Petitioner in the above named petition, by special appearance, not submitting to the court's jurisdiction, who hereby petitions this Court for a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to be issued  pursuant to the provisions of RSA 534, for JOHN SAM DOE, held at Cheshire County Jail, and to strike/dismiss the complaint filed by Sergeant Eliezer Rivera for lack of standing and jurisdiction..  Mr. DOE is entitled to this relief for several reasons.
A. Mr. Doe has not been sufficiently charged with a crime, therefore he is being unlawfully detained and restrained of his liberty.
   There are basic principles to criminal law.  There can be no crime or punishment if there is no action; there must be a specific offense.  Actus reius: wrong action; an act must have been committed.  Mens rea: mental state; there must be intent, there is no crime without intent.  Fusion of action and intent: there must be the combination of the two to be considered criminal.  There must be harm done; no crime is committed if there is no harm that is legally identifiable.  Causation; there must be a causal relationship between the harm and the act that was committed.
I.  PLAINTIFF LACKS STANDING. 
A)  Standing Must Allege Violation of Another's Rights. 
1.   The foundation for standing is Part 1, Article 1 of the New Hampshire State Constitution: “All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good.”  Standing is required because “courts only adjudicate justiciable controversies.”  United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 337 US 426, 430.
2.   To have standing, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a legal right.  The plaintiff, Sergeant Eliezer Rivera, has not alleged the violation of a legal right.  Therefore, there is no standing to complain.
B.  Standing requires damage. 
3.   Standing requires the violation of a legal right that causes damage  “A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.”  Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) and:
a.   “In evaluating whether a party has standing to sue, we focus on whether the plaintiff suffered a legal injury against which the law was designed to protect.”  Roberts v. General Motors Corp., 643 A.2d 956, 958 (N.H. 1994).
b.   "In evaluating whether a party has standing to sue, we focus on whether the plaintiff suffered a legal injury against which the law was designed to protect...Here, the plaintiffs suffered no injury...They therefore lack standing..."  Malnati v. State, 803 A.2d 587, 590 (N.H. 2002).
c.   “The United States Supreme Court as stated that standing requires one who as suffered an injury to show that the injury in fact is fairly traceable to the challenged action and that such injury is likely to be redressed by the judicial relief sought.  Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737…We have previously held that to have standing a litigant must have suffered a particularized injury that is distinct from the harm suffered by the public at large…We have construed particularized injury as an injury resulting from an action adversely and directly affecting the party’s property, pecuniary or personal rights.  New England Herald Dev. Group v. Town of Falmouth, 521 A.2d 693, 695 (Me. 1987).”  Proctor v. County of Penobscot, 651 A.2d 355, 357.
d.   A plaintiff “generally must assert his own legal rights and interest and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interest of third parties.”  Id. at page 357.
e.   “The requirement for standing that a party suffer an injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged action is met when a defendant’s actions have adversely affected and directly affected the party’s property, pecuniary or personal rights.”  Collins v. State, 750 A.2d 1257, 1260.
f.   “courts must look behind names that symbolize the parties to determine whether a justiciable case or controversy is presented.”  State v. CNA Ins. Companies, 779 A.2d 662 (Vt 2001) [quoting United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 337 U.S. 426 (1949)].
g.   “To satisfy the standing requirement, a plaintiff must show (1) injury-in-fact, (2) causation, and (3) redressibility; thus, the plaintiff must allege a personal injury traceable to the defendant’s conduct that the court can remedy…”  Brigham v. State, 889 A.2d 715.
h.   “The main standing requirement is that the plaintiff show threat of injury to a protected interest.”  Blum v. Friedman, 782 A.2d 1204, 1207.
i.   "the phrase "judicial power" implies the construction of laws and the adjudication of legal rights."  Gould v. Parker, 42 A.2d 416, 418.
j.   “We examined, accordingly, the substance of the plaintiff’s constitutional and civil rights claims, concluding that they implicated no legally protected right under the constitution.  We affirmed, therefore, the trial court’s dismissal both on lack of standing and on the merits.”  Daye v. State, 769 A.2d 630, 633 (Vt. 2000).
k.   “Criminal responsibility is imposed on the basis of the intentional doing of an act with awareness of the probability that the act will result in substantial damage, regardless of whether the injury turns out to be minor or insignificant.”  Com. v. Ruddock, 520 N.E.2d 501.
l.   "To have standing in any capacity, a litigant must show that the challenged action has caused litigant injury."  Perella v. Massachusetts Turpike Auth., 772 N.E.2d 70.
m.   "Courts are not established to enable parties to litigate in which they have no interest affecting their liberty, rights or property."  Razin v. Razin, 124 N.E.2d 269, 270.
n.   “The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) (emphasis mine).
o.   “In addressing questions of standing, we are confronted with “questions of prudential or judicial restraint,” Id., and will impose that restraint to insure that “the case is not moot and the issues will be fully developed by true adversaries.”  Id.  To have standing, a plaintiff “must plead damage from an injury peculiar to him…””  Blanchard v. Show Low Planning, 196 Ariz. 114, 118 (App.) (emphasis added).
p.   “To gain standing to bring an action, a plaintiff must allege a distinct and palpable injury.  Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501.”  Sears v. Hull, 961 P.2d 1013, 1017 (1998). 
q.   “To gain standing to bring an action, a plaintiff must allege a distinct and palpable injury.”  Fernandez v. Takata Seat Belts, Inc., 108 P.3d 917.
4.   The plaintiff, Sergeant Eliezer Rivera, has failed to allege the elements of standing.  Therefore the plaintiff, Sergeant Eliezer Rivers, lacks standing to complain.
II.  No corpus delecti. 
5.   There is no corpus delecti.  The corpus delecti is related to standing and must be proven in every prosecution and has two elements:
a.   “The corpus delecti of a crime consists of two elements: (1) the fact of the injury or loss or harm, and (2) the existence of a criminal agency as its cause [citations omitted] there must be sufficient proof of both elements of the corpus delecti beyond a reasonable doubt.”  29A American Jurisprudence Second Ed., Evidence § 1476.
b.   "Proof of the corpus delecti is required in all criminal cases...There are three basic elements in the proof of a crime: (1) the occurrence of loss or injury, (2) criminal causation of that loss or injury and (3) the identity of the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime.  However, it is firmly established in this State that the term corpus delecti embraces only the first two of these elements-loss or injury and criminal causation."  State v. Hill, 221 A.2d 725, 728 (NJ) [bold emphasis mine].
c.   "Though questioned by Wigmore, the prevailing American rule is that proof of the corpus delecti requires (1) proof of the injury, death or loss, according to the nature of the crime, and (2) proof of criminal means as the cause.  7 Wigmore on Evidence, [section] 2072.  This is the rule in Delaware."  Nelson v. State, 123 A.2d 859, 861. (D. E.)
d.   ““Corpus delecti” consists of occurrence of specific kind of loss or injury embraced in crime charged, rather than commission of crime charged by someone.” State v. Vuilleumer, 210 A.2d 673, 674, 3 Conn.Cir. 223. (C.T.)
e.   "It has long been fundamental to the criminal jurisprudence of the Commonwealth that a necessary predicate to any conviction is proof of the corpus delecti, i.e., the occurrence of any injury or loss and someone's criminality as the source of this injury or loss.  See Commonwealth v. Burns, 490 Pa. 619, 627, 187 A.2d 552, 556-557 (1963); Commonwealth v. Turza, 340 Pa. 128, 133, 16 A.2d 401, 404 (1940)."  Commonwealth v. Maybee, 239 A.2d 332, 333. (P.A.)
6.   Corpus delecti, or the body of the crime, refers to an act or omission to act (failure to act), and it also requires criminal agency to be in the mind.  That is, there must be intent, criminal negligence, or strict liability.
a.   "In every criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the corpus delecti, or the body of the crime itself-i.e., the fact of injury, loss or harm, and the existence of a criminal agency as its cause."  People v. Sapp, 73 P.3d 433, 467 (Cal. 2003) [quoting People v. Alvarez, (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168-1169, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903, 46 P.3d 372.].
b.   "As a general principal, standing to invoke the judicial process requires an actual justiciable controversy as to which the complainant has a real interest in the ultimate adjudication because he or she has either suffered or is about to suffer an injury."  People v. Superior Court, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 793.
c.   "An analysis of standing begins with a determination of whether the party seeking relief has sustained an injury (see Society of Plastics Indus. v. County of Suffolk, 77 N.Y.2d 761, 772-773, 570 N.Y.S.2d 778, 573 N.E.2d 1043 [1991])."  Mahoney v. Pataki, 772 N.E.2d 1118, 1122 (N.Y. 2002).
d.   "To adjudicate upon, and protect the rights and interests of individual citizens, and to that end to construe and apply the laws, is the peculiar province of the judicial department...The judicial power "is the power to hear and determine those matters which affect the life, liberty, or property of the citizens of the state."  (City of Sapulpa v. Land, 101 Okl. 22, 223 P. 640, 644, 35 A.L.R. 872, 878.)"  Nash v. Brooks, 297 N.Y.S. 853, 855-856.
e.   “In order to establish corpus delecti, state must prove that a certain result has been produced and that someone is criminally responsible for that result.”  State v. Gerlaugh, 654 P.2d 800, 134 Ariz. 164.
f.   “To establish corpus delecti, there must be some proof that a certain result has been produced and that someone is criminally responsible for the act.”  State v. Pineda, 519 P.2d 41, 100 Ariz. 342.
g.   ““Corpus delecti” of a crime is established by showing proof of result and that some one is criminally responsible therefore.”  State v. Flores, 454 P.2d 172, 9 Ariz.App. 502.
h.   ““Corpus delecti” has as its two elements that a certain result has been produced and that some person is criminally responsible for the act.”  State v. Wilson, 548 P.2d 23, 113 Ariz. 145.
7.   Without a corpus delecti there is no crime:
a.   “Component parts of every crime are the occurrence of a specific kind of injury or loss, somebody’s criminality as source of the loss, and the accused’s identity as the doer of the crime; the first two elements are what constitutes the concept of “corpus delecti.”  U.S. v. Shunk, 881 F.2d 917, 919 C.A. 10 (Utah).
8.   The Plaintiff, Sergeant Eliezer Rivera has failed to allege the fact of an injury or loss or harm.  Therefore there is no corpus delecti, and as such no crime has been committed.
III.  Lack of jurisdiction.
9.   “Standing represents a jurisdictional requirement…”  National Organization for Women, Inc., v. Scheidler, 510 US 249.  As with standing, the foundation of the court’s jurisdiction is article II § 2 of the Arizona constitution: “governments…are established to protect and maintain individual rights.”
10.   If the constitution applies to this court, then the court’s jurisdiction is “to protect and maintain individual rights.”  The plaintiff, Sergeant Eliezer Rivera has not alleged the violation of a legal right therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction. 
Conclusion
Because the plaintiff has failed to allege the required elements to establish standing to complain and jurisdiction, and there is no corpus delecti, the Court should dismiss or strike the complaint filed against John Sam Doe.  Further the Court should issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus for the immediate release of John Sam Doe.
Submitted this 1st  day of May, 2009.

_________________________________
<<<<<<<<<<<<<your name>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Certificate of service

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been mailed this 1st day of May 2009, to the plaintiff at the following address:

Superintendent Rick Van Wickler
Cheshire County Department of Corrections
West Street
Keene, NH 03431

_________________________________
<<<<<<<<<<<<<your name>>>>>>>>>>>






Affidavit

I do hereby certify that the foregoing petition, motion, and facts are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.


_________________________________
<<<<<<<<<<<<<your name>>>>>>>>>>>




Logged

Bill Brasky

  • Guest
Re: Group of activists arrested, Keene District Court April 13, 2009
« Reply #342 on: May 02, 2009, 10:27:41 PM »

So...  I put my name on that form, because he won't.  

Feds are gonna laugh themselves sick over this one.  
Logged

NHArticleTen

  • Guest
Logged

NHArticleTen

  • Guest
Re: Group of activists arrested, Keene District Court April 13, 2009
« Reply #344 on: May 03, 2009, 08:29:06 AM »

So...  I put my name on that form, because he won't.  

Feds are gonna laugh themselves sick over this one.  

the more data they have on the dissenters...

hmmm....

what's that smell?

rat?

or just poo?

enjoy!

(your mileage may vary)

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 26   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Group of activists arrested, Keene District Court April 13, 2009

// ]]>

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 31 queries.