Group of activists arrested, Keene District Court April 13, 2009

[lberns1]

The FSP is a pretty large group, is it not?   One which also carefully plans its protests and supports practitioners of civil disobedience?

The only real difference is that Rosa Park's cause was more popular at the time among the wider  population.  But at one point it wasn't.  Had she tried the same thing five or ten years earlier, she probably would've been evicted from the bus and possibly arrested and nobody would've cared....those who heard about it would just say the exact same things people in this thread are saying. 

Claudette Colvin did it nine months before Rosa parks:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/187325

[blackie]

The FSP is a pretty large group, is it not?

No, the FSP is a pretty small group.

One which also carefully plans its protests and supports practitioners of civil disobedience?

The FSP does not plan any protests, or support practitioners of civil disobedience.

[Rillion]

Claudette Colvin did it nine months before Rosa parks:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/187325

Wow, great article....thanks for that. 

No, the FSP is a pretty small group.

I'd say over 9,000 is pretty big.

The FSP does not plan any protests, or support practitioners of civil disobedience.

Funny, I've been seeing FSP members planning and supporting protests all over the place.  Where've you been?

[DadaOrwell]

NH: Jailed Free Stater screams in pain

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxbWBlzE-uQ

[sillyperson]

No, the FSP is a pretty small group.

"small" is a subjective term

9200 members, 700 in-state. That's pretty big for a libertarian group, esp. in a state with 1.3 million people

[blackie]

No, the FSP is a pretty small group.

I'd say over 9,000 is pretty big.

There are not 9,000 free staters.

The FSP does not plan any protests, or support practitioners of civil disobedience.

Funny, I've been seeing FSP members planning and supporting protests all over the place.  Where've you been?

FSP members != FSP

The FSP will not allow CD planning on the FSP website. According to the FSP, the FSP is not involved in CD in any way.

http://www.freestateproject.org/intro

The Free State Project is NOT a political action organization. It is not tied to any political party. It does not run candidates for election, and it does not financially support or endorse candidates. It neither opposes nor endorses legislation.

[blackie]

No, the FSP is a pretty small group.

"small" is a subjective term

9200 members, 700 in-state. That's pretty big for a libertarian group, esp. in a state with 1.3 million people

How many of the 9200 still want to be FSP members?

How many FSP members are active in NH?

And what does the FSP do in NH besides the Liberty Forum and Porcfest?

[sillyperson]

How many of the 9200 still want to be FSP members?

I have no clue. I'd realistically guess a little over half, just because the other ~60% signed up long enough ago they would need to see something big to get re-energized

How many FSP members are active in NH?

Depends on what you mean by active.
I'd guesstimate  ~400 active, 250 hang around and sometimes show up at parties, 50 vaporized

And what does the FSP do in NH besides the Liberty Forum and Porcfest?

nothing

[blackie]

http://forum.freekeene.com/index.php?topic=799.msg6601#msg6601

Ivy reports that Sam is in on a $10,000 cash-only bail.

Also, they were planning on assigning him a court-appointed attorney who can act on his behalf without his permission, so Ivy will step forward as his representation to prevent them from taking that step.  Sam is in no way required to accept this, but we figure it is better than the state attorney doing things in Sam's case without his consent.

[JWI]

http://forum.freekeene.com/index.php?topic=799.msg6601#msg6601

Ivy reports that Sam is in on a $10,000 cash-only bail.

Also, they were planning on assigning him a court-appointed attorney who can act on his behalf without his permission, so Ivy will step forward as his representation to prevent them from taking that step.  Sam is in no way required to accept this, but we figure it is better than the state attorney doing things in Sam's case without his consent.

Well isn't the government illegitimate?  So who cares about their little attorney?  Don't play by their rules!  Don't pay their fines!  Stand strong and the state will go down!

[blackie]

http://gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/644/644-2.htm

Section 644:2

    644:2 Disorderly Conduct. – A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if:
    I. He knowingly or purposely creates a condition which is hazardous to himself or another in a public place by any action which serves no legitimate purpose; or
    II. He or she:
       (a) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior in a public place; or
       (b) Directs at another person in a public place obscene, derisive, or offensive words which are likely to provoke a violent reaction on the part of an ordinary person; or
       (c) Obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic on any public street or sidewalk or the entrance to any public building; or
       (d) Engages in conduct in a public place which substantially interferes with a criminal investigation, a firefighting operation to which RSA 154:17 is applicable, the provision of emergency medical treatment, or the provision of other emergency services when traffic or pedestrian management is required; or
       (e) Knowingly refuses to comply with a lawful order of a peace officer to move from or remain away from any public place; or
    III. He purposely causes a breach of the peace, public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creates a risk thereof, by:
       (a) Making loud or unreasonable noises in a public place, or making loud or unreasonable noises in a private place which can be heard in a public place or other private places, which noises would disturb a person of average sensibilities; or
       (b) Disrupting the orderly conduct of business in any public or governmental facility; or
       (c) Disrupting any lawful assembly or meeting of persons without lawful authority.
    III-a. When noise under subparagraph III(a) is emanating from a vehicle's sound system or any portable sound system located within a vehicle, a law enforcement officer shall be considered a person of average sensibilities for purposes of determining whether the volume of such noise constitutes a breach of the peace, public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, and the officer may take enforcement action to abate such noise upon detecting the noise, or upon receiving a complaint from another person.
    IV. (a) Whenever a peace officer has probable cause to believe that a serious threat to the public health or safety is created by a flood, storm, fire, earthquake, explosion, riot, ongoing criminal activity that poses a risk of bodily injury, or other disaster, the officer may close the area where the threat exists and the adjacent area necessary to control the threat or to prevent its spread, for the duration of the threat, until related law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical service operations are complete, by means of ropes, markers, uniformed emergency service personnel, or any other reasonable means, to any persons not authorized by a peace officer or emergency services personnel to enter or remain within the closed area.
       (b) Peace officers may close the immediate area surrounding any emergency field command post activated for the purpose of abating any threat enumerated in this paragraph to any unauthorized persons, whether or not the field command post is located near the source of the threat.
       (c) Any unauthorized person who knowingly enters an area closed pursuant to this paragraph or who knowingly remains within the area after receiving a lawful order from a peace officer to leave shall be guilty of disorderly conduct.
    V. In this section:
       (a) ""Lawful order'' means:
          (1) A command issued to any person for the purpose of preventing said person from committing any offense set forth in this section, or in any section of Title LXII or Title XXI, when the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that said person is about to commit any such offense, or when said person is engaged in a course of conduct which makes his commission of such an offense imminent;
          (2) A command issued to any person to stop him from continuing to commit any offense set forth in this section, or in any section of Title LXII or Title XXI, when the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that said person is presently engaged in conduct which constitutes any such offense; or
          (3) A command not to enter or a command to leave an area closed pursuant to paragraph IV, provided that a person may not lawfully be ordered to leave his or her own home or business.
       (b) ""Public place'' means any place to which the public or a substantial group has access. The term includes, but is not limited to, public ways, sidewalks, schools, hospitals, government offices or facilities, and the lobbies or hallways of apartment buildings, dormitories, hotels or motels.
    VI. Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor if the offense continues after a request by any person to desist; otherwise, it is a violation.
Source. 1971, 518:1. 1983, 200:1. 1985, 309:1. 2005, 192:1, 2, eff. June 30, 2005; 260:2, 3, eff. July 22, 2005.

Sam, booked as John Doe, got Disorderly Conduct, Resisting Arrest, Refusal to Process and Possession of Property Without Serial Number.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/642/642-2.htm

642:2 Resisting Arrest or Detention. – A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when the person knowingly or purposely physically interferes with a person recognized to be a law enforcement official, including a probation or parole officer, seeking to effect an arrest or detention of the person or another regardless of whether there is a legal basis for the arrest. A person is guilty of a class B felony if the act of resisting arrest or detention causes serious bodily injury, as defined in RSA 625:11, VI, to another person. Verbal protestations alone shall not constitute resisting arrest or detention.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/html/LXII/637/637-7-a.htm

637:7-a Possession of Property Without Serial Number. –
    I. No person shall knowingly remove, deface, alter, change, destroy, obliterate or mutilate, or cause to be removed, defaced, altered, changed, destroyed, obliterated or mutilated the identifying number or numbers or any other identifying mark on any machine, mechanical or electrical device or any other property. Anyone doing so with the intent thereby to conceal the identity of the item or to defraud a manufacturer, seller or purchaser, or to hinder competition in the areas of sales and servicing, or to prevent the detection of a crime shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
    II. Any person who buys, receives, possesses, sells or disposes of any machine, mechanical or electrical device or any other property knowing that the identification number or numbers or any other identifying mark on the item have been removed, defaced, altered, changed, destroyed, obliterated or mutilated shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. However, if a person discovering that the identification number or numbers or any other identifying mark have been removed, defaced, altered, changed, destroyed, obliterated or mutilated shall report the same to the nearest police station, he shall not be charged with violating this section. Further, said provisions do not apply to those persons who, on August 13, 1977, are lawfully in possession of that type of property described in paragraph I which does not have identifying numbers or marks or from which the identifying marks or numbers have been lost inadvertently.
    III. The provisions of this section do not apply to those cases or instances where any of the changes or alterations enumerated in paragraph I have been customarily made or done in an established practice in the ordinary and regular conduct of business by the original manufacturer, or by his duly appointed direct representative, or under specific authorization from the original manufacturer.
    IV. When property described in paragraph I comes into the custody of a law enforcement officer, it shall be considered stolen or embezzled property, and prior to being disposed of, shall have an identifying number engraved on it or embedded in it.
Source. 1977, 187:1, eff. Aug. 13, 1977.

[BonerJoe]

Ah, the Free State.

[JWI]

These are just pieces of paper, they mean nothing!  Make a sign and stick it to the man!

[freeAgent]

I think Sam's argument is that the order was not "lawful".  They'll certainly get them on interfering with "orderly conduct", since once you refuse to follow an order, lawful or not, your actions are generally going to be considered by the court to be disorderly.

I've got mixed feelings on this latest display.  It does sound to me like Sam was over the top and was most likely not in that much pain.  However, I wasn't there so I can't say one way or the other.  In my opinion, everyone who was recording in the court room with the intention of distributing the footage to the public is a member of the press.  Any order to prevent them from recording in a "public" space, therefore, should be considered unconstitutional.

[hellbilly]

So what's everyone think?

Worth it?

I suppose the end result of it all would determine whether or not the CD was appropriate.