Court Loses its veil of legitimacy

It sounds like the trial was on video from the other room he was moved to? I don't understand why the trial was moved. I can't get any information off google except biased outrage from Freeman (his real name??) supporters, So I'll wait and see what this was all about. I would not go to jail over a couch, myself. But it takes all kinds.

That the judge was rude. I don't think judges should be allowed to shout at defendants. He should be cited for that.

Yeah, secret trials...that's new. And reserved to the United States.

Summary as best I can:

This trial was the culmination of a 'violation' from Sept 26. Ian Freeman, corporate name Ian Bernard, had a ticket placed on his property with no name on it, demanding $100 dollars to be paid to the city within x-amount of days. He didn't bother with it, as he never consented to be governed by whatever rule they wished him to follow. The liberty community laughed.

Then he gets a court summons from the couch enforcer, the guy he got on camera putting the ticket on his property. He wanted to talk with them rather than going to their court. So the couch enforcer has breakfast with him, and Ian asks if there is a victim who actually complained. Couch enforcer says yes, a lady down the street. Ian asks to meet with her. Couch enforcer contacts her, and she refuses. So then the couch enforcer says that he becomes the complaintant.

So Ian has his initial appearance, and asks questions of the court. Judge Burke, pissed because all of Ian's supporters did not stand as he entered, does not allow Ian to ask the questions he has prepared before pleading. The judge threatens contempt of court if he says another word, and enters a 'not guilty' plea on his behalf.

The judge then sent out an order that no cameras be allowed into Ian's trial. A few people informed the court they would be entering with cameras, and would accept arrest for the sake of freedom of the press. Then the judge reversed his ruling, saying one camera would be allowed in for pool coverage. The vid you're seeing is the pool camera.

The day of the trial, many of supporters showed up as always, and the police presence was greatly elevated. The attendees were told in advance anyone who did not stand for the judge would face arrest, causing many to walk out. For the first time, Ian actually did stand, but apparently too long for the judge's liking. Notice he begins to sit when the name, "Ian Bernard" is called, where he stands as the judge barks at him, and within seconds, he's taken into custody.

Some are theorizing the judge was planning to give him contempt charges all along, and was waiting for an opportunity. Since Ian is one of the figureheads of the NH liberty movement, a bogus charge getting him 93 days in jail is meant to scare the rest of us off. It's just made me more anxious to get back to NH and join the cause.

If you're interested:

vid fo the couch enforcer first giving Ian the ticket:

vid of first appearance:

I just wrote a letter to Mr. Burke (who has since earned the nickname "Burke the Jerk") asking him to reconsider Ian's sentence. He only got 3 days for the couch, 90 for striking a chord with his holiness. I also wrote Ian a postcard, as Amnesty International claims postcards/letters, which go through the hands of the guards holding prisoners first, have a great effect on how inmates are treated, giving them 'value on the outside' which their captors recognize.

EDIT:
http://93days.com/
http://www.mail-to-jail.com/

Good stuff.

90 days for not sitting down is ridiculous and wrong. I can really understand where anarchists are coming from when they see stuff like this.

Plus, the guy being arrested here is probably the reason I am an anarchist...or at least so strongly believe in it.

Everyone's saying this is the greatest thing that could have happened for the movement, the judge being exposed for the authoritarian punk he is.

Maybe. Freeman looks like kind of like a punk at his initial hearing which is just to set a trial date. He had 8 pages of questions that he should have saved for the trial. I related to the Judge saying "we have a busy morning." It's real life, he has a docket to get through, he's not about to argue the constitution with someone over a couch. I can understand why he may have received three contempt charges based on that initial hearing. He probably was disrupting and wasting court time during his actual trial. I'm looking forward to reading the transcript.
I'm surprised that I can't find a real newspaper reporting this.

Updates, The Ridley Reports that were being made in the lobby while the trial was going on:

Part 3 yet to come out, I'll post it here.

I might be willing to do civil dis over the standing for the judge thing, because that is an issue where the individual truly has the moral highground. If they want to appear in court to support their friends, they have to lie about having respect for the court.

EDIT: Part 3 posted before I submitted this:

Dave addresses the media coverage issue a bit here, as well as a slight critique of Ian, suggesting he maybe shouldn't have stood...I think since this was shot he's pointed out Ian actually did appear to be on his way to sitting and not intentionally being disobedient there.

Ian has court again on 12/12 for 'assembly without a permit', an unrelated charge from a few weeks ago. Unfortunately it's 2 days before I return to NH, otherwise I'd be attend.

"A little common sense goes a long way." From the first video which I only watched half way till someone asks if it's the law to walk forward on the stairs. Fucks sake.

Haha, it was, "A little common sense goes a mile's...ya know?"

That one cop's face lit up with a smile when Dave asked him to cite the law. He knew the other guy was showing he just didn't wanna be filmed.

Something crazy brought up on the NH forums about this...the bayliff begins walking towards Ian before the judge even says anything!

Ian posted a thread on one of the forums recently suggesting liberty activists protest outside a federal judge's house. We know feds monitor the forum. That would explain why this district judge was excited before the first round, they were looking for a reason to grab him.

IAN IS FREE!

Sentence suspended in a secret trial this morning!

In initial trial where he was held in contempt, the name of the person who ratted him out slipped...turns out she's a city planner who was offended by a call Ian made to her show when he spoke about the inherent violence of the system. Clearly, it was personal.

Her info, according to the clip from the show that preceded Ian's ticketing by less than a week, can be found here:

http://jailedactivist.info/bureaucrats/city-officials/mikaela-l-engert/

Since the posting of this website, all public info of Mikaela Engert was removed from Keene's sites. That was quick.

They could toss Ian in cell for any reason within the next 90 days or whatever, but for now, he's out!

Wow. What a bitch. So, did anyone explain what the other two contempt charges were for?

Do you know if the transcript will still be available since it's being thrown out? I went to the NH court website and it said transcripts are available after 30 days. I was looking forward to reading that.

There's actually an audio recording Ian took but hasn't checked yet that he mentioned on tonight's FTL. People were talking about getting the document transcript which the court will charge per-page for. They also said they could give their audio recording for $25, which I think some of the activists will be getting then posting online. The court claimed it would have to be mailed to Concord, then sent back, which would take 2-3 weeks (bureaucracy moves slowly but steadily), but it's on its way.

Ian admitted that at the hearing he asked to be released because his girlfriend was not taking the situation well. He was expecting to do a weekend in jail because he was going to refuse to pay the fine, and the judge said he'd suspend the sentence if he has the couch removed by the end of the week. However, he said they did not credit him for the fine with the three days served, therefore he'll probably still be going away for three days in the future because he refuses to pay, unless someone Thoreau's him and pays it behind his back. I don't know if the court would allow that though.

But yeah, a suspended sentence means he can be hauled in for the most minor violation cause it's like he's supposed to be in jail, but not. This morning as I sent my letter to the judge and postcard to Ian, he was already approved to be released, but it won't hurt for support to pour in after the fact, it'll remind those involved how much attention cases like this will bring them.

Recent Ridley Report says the vid made infowars. Good to know Alex Jones has taken note.

Apparently (I haven't heard the audio) on a Keene radio show featuring some of the city counselors, the focus of the show that day was on Ian and the video, and the counselors were trying to distance themselves from the 93 day sentence. There was a guy from Sweden who called up which everyone said was icing on the cake saying he saw the vid and was wondering what was going on in America.

Looking over my last post, "according" should be "including". The clip of Ian calling the show is on there as well is what I was getting at. In fact, the clip is so classic, that I'll post it here. It touches upon the free market vs. gov't control, the crap I usually and up dialoguing with ppl about on here. Ian comes in at 10:30, but the whole piece is worth a listen.

http://jailedactivist.info/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/16/mikaela-l-enger...

ASS

Yeah, I found that forum. He sold the couch for $275. He still doesn't say what the contempt charges were for. He apologized to the judge because he couldn't collect call his gf on her cell.

I don't think anyone should go to jail for three months over a couch, but I also think he's wanted to make a mockery of the court and then backed the fuck down when he had to pay the consequences.

I don't agree with the way Judge Burke addressed him but I am reserving judgment (teehee) until I find out what the contempt charges were for. They might be trumped up, they might be valid. If the first one was because he didn't sit down fast enough then that is really disgusting and Judge Burke should be reviewed.

Back off, morey. I've seen three posts like this from you in the 20 minutes I've been reading threads and it's not cool.

New stuff posted today. While the transcripts in text I haven't seen, Ian posted his own audio recording of the proceedings which is just about everything. It's about 13 minutes long, and is classic. Audio, and 2 pdfs, one of the judge's reasons for the first 2 contempts and one of the third are online here:

http://freekeene.com/2008/11/23/couch-court-audio-orders/

Again, the audio is classic and everyone should listen.

The third contempt I think the judge later realized (and why Ian was likely released) that he had the right to remain silent, so he can't be forced to answer a question.

And based on the judge's writeup of the first contempt charge, he probably realized how wrong he was after seeing the video. The vid and the writeup tell a very different story.

This also: "Despite the fact that I just spent the weekend in jail, which was originally supposed to be in lieu of fine payment, he still demands payment of a $120 fine or 10 hours community service. I have decided that the final card I’m going to play in all of this is to make one last offer. I will offer to pay $240 to the Keene Community Kitchen if Burke’s agency will accept that as satisfaction of the fine payment. Will he be feeling charitable? I’ll let you know what he decides."

Haha, wow. I bet the judge will allow that. I'mma offer that to beaurucrats next time they want from me. I know some anarchists are against fines immensely because you shouldn't feed the system, and some offer to do comm service. Others call that slavery, and would rather take the jail sentence. I don't think comm service is a bad idea in leui of jail, for one you get freedom and also you're being productive. But yeah, it remains interesting.