My buddy Sam is going in his 6th week of imprisonment for absolutely nothing

[doctorgonzo]

Specifically, he is being punished for exercising his miranda right "to remain silent" which apparently is meaningless. The charge they've cited him with "criminal contempt" doesn't even exist in the criminal code. Sam merely walked into the lobby of a courthouse with a camera and attempted to film bureaucrats while they work.

It should be noted that the judge and jailers already know Sam's name and they also know he has committed no crime so that is not the issue. The issue is that the bureaucrats cannot have their authority questioned in any manner and they will ruin a man's life to preserve that aura of superiority. Sam is a living testament that your rights only exist on the whims of others who allow you to have them. According to the government, you are endowed by your creator with the right to ask permission from bureaucrats.

A battle of wills is playing out within the cinder block walls of the Cheshire County jail in Westmoreland, where an activist has spent more than a month protesting a judge’s order that he identify himself to police.

Miller has been in jail since April 13, when he was arrested for refusing to turn off his video camera in the Keene District Court lobby. An unsigned order taped to the wall banned photography in the lobby.

“There’s a big difference between having your freedom taken away and offering up your freedom,” he said. “Sam has offered up his freedom and it has elevated him and allowed him to get his message out to others and, dare I say, he’s doing a good job of it.”

Testing the System Behind Bars

You can follow Sam's story @

freekeene.com

or

jailedactivist.info

You can also watch Sam's films @ Obscured Truth Network

 

[bamanut_aj]

I couldn't afford to miss that much work. But if he can, more power to him!

 

[It's On A Slab]

WTH?

From what I can tell, this is basically a p###ing match between a political activist and a judge, and the Keene taxpayers are footing the bill.

 

[doctorgonzo]

Sam had a very high-paying corporate job in Texas before he joined the FSP. He's given it all up to fight for your liberty. His bills are being paid right now through contributions by other liberty-minded people.

 

[doctorgonzo]

WTH?

From what I can tell, this is basically a p###ing match between a political activist and a judge, and the Keene taxpayers are footing the bill.

If they cared about saving money, they would let him go. He hasn't broken any law.

 

[Bama Reb]

If they cared about saving money, they would let him go. He hasn't broken any law.

Not necessarily true. Your buddy Sam may be ignorant of the fact that there are laws in every county and state prohibiting cameras in courthouses, whether they are standard cameras, movie cameras, or cell phones with built-in cameras. Their intent is not so much to quash the liberties of the general public, but rather to prohibit someone from filming or taking pictures of minors, undercover law enforcement officers, members of other agencies,, etc., without expressed permission. It's why Family Court is most often closed to the public, and why you don't see names of minors published in newspapers when criminal incidents are being reported.

Perhaps your buddy would do well to inquire as to the purpose of posted instructions before he takes it upon himself to disobey them. His intent may have been innocent, but his actions were clearly criminal.

 

[doctorgonzo]

A piece of paper taped to the wall is not a law and it's no reason to keep a man imprisoned for over a month and a half without a trial. He wasn't taping minors and he wasn't in family court. He wasn't even in the courtroom - he was out in the lobby.

 

[It's On A Slab]

If they cared about saving money, they would let him go. He hasn't broken any law.

That's just it: the judge has no incentive because it's not his money he's wasting, it's the taxpayers.

They know the guy's name. It's on his driver's license that they're holding.

I say, release the guy, and let them go get a room.

 

[Bama Reb]

A piece of paper taped to the wall is not a law and it's no reason to keep a man imprisoned for over a month and a half without a trial.

Sure it is. And with the backlog of cases that GA courts usually experience, I wouldn't be surprised if he's still there in 6 months. They'll eventually slap his wrist and let him go with time served. :wink:

He wasn't taping minors and he wasn't in family court. He wasn't even in the courtroom - he was out in the lobby.

It doesn't matter. As I said before, his intent may have been innocent, but any written instructions, especially those displayed on the wall for the public to see, are to be considered law. If not, it would certainly have been challenged by one or more of the dozens of lawyers and judges that pass by it every single day. Taking a camera into a courthouse without expressed permission is just as illegal as if he had been carrying a weapon.

While filming "bureaucrats" in public may seem like a humorous hobby, doing so on their own home turf is not very smart.

 

[rizolltizide]

Sam had a very high-paying corporate job in Texas before he joined the FSP. He's given it all up to fight for your liberty. His bills are being paid right now through contributions by other liberty-minded people.

Now I didn't read the article, but how is he fighting for my liberty by taking pictures inside the courthouse? Just curious.

 

[cbi1972]

It doesn't matter. As I said before, his intent may have been innocent, but any written instructions, especially those displayed on the wall for the public to see, are to be considered law.

While somewhat original, this legal theory carries approximately as much weight as "finders keepers"

 

[XXL TideFan]

I agree with your buddy. The police and officers of the court have grown way too big for their britches. With Sam exercising his rights he is in essence fighting for your rights as well. Rights not used are soon lost.

 

[XXL TideFan]

It doesn't matter. As I said before, his intent may have been innocent, but any written instructions, especially those displayed on the wall for the public to see, are to be considered law.

So if someone posts a written instruction in the lobby of the courthouse that all men must wear a pink tutu while in the building...that is given the weight of law? Puhleeeeze......

 

[BamaCurt]

So any person should be able to go into any court house, or other official building, and video tape or take pictures even if it is in the lobby.

What if the person taking the pictures has intentions of planting a bomb? What if they plan to watch a person's daily routine? They too could refuse to give their name and say their intent was for a study.

There are reasons for some restrictions in certain areas. And it is not to keep the little man down. When you fight such issues, you are fighting a losing battle and causing a circus over a trivial matter is senseless.

This is not an issue of individual freedoms, the 1st Amendment, or anything other than "Sam" wanting to have a cause. He would be better selecting a different cause than a piece of paper on a court house wall. The safety of everyone in that building is more important than 1 person. He probably should not spend as long in jail as he has, but I am sure the judge will set precedence before someone else tries it again. Until they figure out his motives and he wants to play hardball, they can hold him as long as needed if they think he is a threat to their security. Lucky he's not in Gitmo!

 

[It's On A Slab]

So any person should be able to go into any court house, or other official building, and video tape or take pictures even if it is in the lobby.

What if the person taking the pictures has intentions of planting a bomb? What if they plan to watch a person's daily routine? They too could refuse to give their name and say their intent was for a study.

There are reasons for some restrictions in certain areas. And it is not to keep the little man down. When you fight such issues, you are fighting a losing battle and causing a circus over a trivial matter is senseless.

This is not an issue of individual freedoms, the 1st Amendment, or anything other than "Sam" wanting to have a cause. He would be better selecting a different cause than a piece of paper on a court house wall. The safety of everyone in that building is more important than 1 person. He probably should not spend as long in jail as he has, but I am sure the judge will set precedence before someone else tries it again. Until they figure out his motives and he wants to play hardball, they can hold him as long as needed if they think he is a threat to their security. Lucky he's not in Gitmo!

I think the judge and Sam should be sent a bill after all of this is settled. The local taxpayers there shouldn't have to foot the bill for these two guys' personal grudge.

 

[Pluck and Grit]

The defendant in this case reminds me of me when I was about 16. A rebel without a clue.

 

[rizolltizide]

Why New Hampshire and not, say, Washington DC? Or NYC? I don't want to offend you gonzo but this guy is what I call looney.

 

[cbi1972]

So any person should be able to go into any court house, or other official building, and video tape or take pictures even if it is in the lobby.

Correct.

What if the person taking the pictures has intentions of planting a bomb? What if they plan to watch a person's daily routine? They too could refuse to give their name and say their intent was for a study.

You will never be completely safe from harm, no matter what laws are passed, or whose whims carry the effective force of law.

Banning photography based upon nothing more substantial than the hypothetical ill will of a picture-taker is antithetical to a free society.

The REAL reason for the illegitimate ban is that the judge is a tyrant who believes he should control everything that goes on, and he has been embarrassed in the past by someone posting of one of his temper tantrums to YouTube.

 

[BamaCurt]

Correct.


You will never be completely safe from harm, no matter what laws are passed, or whose whims carry the effective force of law.

Banning photography based upon nothing more substantial than the hypothetical ill will of a picture-taker is antithetical to a free society.

The REAL reason for the illegitimate ban is that the judge is a tyrant who believes he should control everything that goes on, and he has been embarrassed in the past by someone posting of one of his temper tantrums to YouTube.

You can't say that you will never be completely safe from harm. Many things are preventable. A dear person once said, "You can either lengthen or shorten your days on this earth". That is a fact. Just because you can't stop all harm is no reason not to try. Some areas and locations are outside the general laws. They include schools, municipal areas, gov't facilities, etc. You try to take pictures of people leaving or coming through a military installation and you may not be heard of for a loooong time! It is of serious nature in these type settings and will not be taken lightly. I 100% support that stance and you should too if you know anyone working in these type environments. You never know who has a grudge and what length they will go to. Case in point.

Keep this in perspective. The guy set out to cause an uproar and he got what he was looking for. Moreover, he is fighting the wrong cause and should look for a more productive fight. This is a court house. Regardless of what the judge has represented in the past, the judge has authority in this venue. Again, nothing antiethical about this. No cause of alarm for free society. This law WILL NOT change in this age of society where we have to look over our shoulder and constantly be aware of our surroundings. And that makes us safer whether we are completely safe or not. It is what it is.:biggrin:

 

[Relayer]

Sounds like your friend went in on a mission and he got what he was asking for.

Hard to feel real sorry for him.