FREE PETE – Wearing a Hat is NOT a Crime

Published On January 24, 2011 | By Ademo Freeman | Articles, Videos

This morning, two activist from Keene, NH had court for different reasons. As is common in Keene several other folks show up to support those who are facing justice from the man which is why Pete and I were in court, even though it was -15 degrees (said one person). The court experience started off like normal with the emptying of your pockets and spreading them for the bailiff to ‘wand you’ which is always a good feeling. Then a few of us proceeded down the hall and into the court room. That’s when another bailiff called out to Pete to remove his hat and I turned on my camera.

Another view from Steve Z’s cell phone:

After Pete was taken out of our site in the courthouse, James Schlessinger of FreeKeene.com, got this footage of two officers putting Pete into a cop car. A short time after that Andrew “280” and I went to the Keene Police department and County Jail to see what we could find. Pete is refusing to provide his name and to willfully proceed with the booking process, and why should he — his actions never harmed anyone, I’m not sure when he’ll be released or how long they can ‘legally’ hold him. I encourage you to pass this post around the webs and to continue calling both the jail and the Keene Police station. Demand, politely, that they release the John Doe who was arrested for wearing a hat in a public building.  This has worked in the past and every time we get more effective. WHAT CAN YOU DO? Make a phone call. The Cheshire Co Jail where Pete is being held: 603.903.1600 Keene Police 603.357.9813 Two officers in video attacking Pete:

  1. James Cemorelis (full uniform, possible Sgt) – Number above + extension 7117 (email: [email protected])
  2. Matt Griffin (grey shirt) extension 7182

Join the FREE PETE page on FB. I hope the call floods to those who are responsible for initiation of force continue until Pete is released. I’ll be attempting to get interviews from police and jailers alike over the next few days or until they release Pete. If you can, please take video of audio of your call and post updates here or on Facebook. Hopefully Pete will be free soon. FYI, George Donnelly has started FreePete.org, where you’ll be able to follow the story as well. From there I found this pic of a police officer wearing a hat in court moments after I was kicked out and after Pete was dragged into a police car. One set of laws for them and another for us… oh and it all started with someone wearing a hat!

One set of laws for them and another for us…

See related:

April 8th, 2011 – Keene Bailiff Pete Macy Typifies Bureaucrat Unaccountability by Pete Eyre
April 10th, 2012 – Keene Documents by Pete Eyre
April 10th, 2012 – My Cheshire County Jail Experience by Pete Eyre

 

Like this Article? Share it!

About The Author

Ademo Freeman is an advocate for a voluntary society, one where people are free to live their lives so long as they don't initiate force on others. Ademo has also been involved with other projects such as the MotorhomeDiaries.com, FreeKeene.com and LibertyOnTour.com You can get more content created by Ademo at his Facebook page and YouTube channel. Enjoy Ademo's post/work? Want to show him your gratitude, simply click here. Thanks in advance for your support, it's greatly appreciated.

280 Responses to FREE PETE – Wearing a Hat is NOT a Crime

  1. Tanya says:

    Nice pic of cop in hat in court – so I guess it’s NOT a law. This will be a key point of argument if they don’t throw this bullshit out! Selective prosecution is a violation of the Constitution.

  2. Donnie Cole says:

    Not to mention the Abuse and Brutality. it’s Insane to see some one smacked in the face for wearing a hat when it’s not even a Violation of law. Then farther Abused with the dragging him like that. I think I have damages just from seeing that. Has any one started a complaint for the assault and brutality that John DOE suffered?

  3. Danny (A) says:

    Best of luck to him. He’ll get out of this.

  4. david says:

    Personaly i think this is a success for the activists:it makes the thugs look stupid and petty……..”arrested and dragged away for wearing a HAT!” I’d say thats a success.
    It just has to be posted on national level now
    AND there is VIDEO of the state idiocy…thats deff a success!

    The only bad part is the abuse that adam gets .which sucks big time……..i hate those mofos for that

  5. Marty says:

    sickening. be careful guys…

  6. j says:

    http://www.uscourts.gov/EducationalResources/ClassroomActivities/MockTrialOfWilliamPenn.aspx

    Thought the cop block readers might find this trial in the link interesting—it was just as ridiculous

  7. We need to try and get this on the news and yes there Is a mouse in my pocket. as for weather this was an exercise and if it was successful we can only hope it was and if so Most def it was successful at showing the evil of the gooberment

  8. Jacob says:

    @j WOW… that story is from September 1, 1670. ..I thought I was reading something current. it’s insane how similar and ridiculous the police are still today! FREE PETE!

  9. Kurt says:

    This is awful. When on when will these thuggs get it? They hurt people! … for a living!!! And help NO ONE BUT THEMSELVES while they are at it! You wonder why everyone thinks you are loosers?

  10. Kurt says:

    Cops, though perhaps their intent was once good, have had their sense of “justice” perverted. There are worse… Judges.

  11. Pingback: Quick video from George Donnelly will get you up to speed on Pete’s recent arrest | Cop Block

  12. Mara says:

    The bailiff asked the guy to remove his hat. He did not. Hats off demonstrate respect for the court. The court was not yet in session but the bailiff was getting ready for it to go into session. Until the idiot decided to play a silly game and wasted more of our taxpayer money. If he really cares about civil rights – and the rest of you, too – then go demonstrate about our phones being bugged by the government. That matters more than hats on in a courtroom. Sheesh.

    P.S. The cop would have removed his hat when court went into session. Bailiff knew the cop knows about courtroom rules.

  13. Pingback: Militant Libertarian » FREE PETE – Wearing a Hat is NOT a Crime

  14. Ben says:

    I gotta say, Pete is kind of a little bitch.

  15. Mel Maguire says:

    Are you people really this clueless? He wasn’t wearing a trucker’s hat with mesh on the back of it because he was cold. He was refusing to take it off just to be a punk.

    First of all, people will walk into courtrooms and communicate with offenders through facial expressions. I’ve seen it happen (no, I’m not a cop – I don’t have the patience for it with idiots like you running around). Because security needs to be able to see people’s faces, they require that ALL of those non-sworn people entering a courtroom have removed their covers. I am a woman and if I am wearing a cover when I walk into a courtroom, they ask me to take it off, too.

    This wasn’t brutality. This was an immature act of defiance on the level with a snot-nosed little brat pitching a fit about his parents telling him to take his hat off at the dinner table. They wouldn’t have had to drag him if he’d actually walked. He was capable of it, he simply refused.

    If the police officers assigned to courtroom security don’t enforce certain rules just because one guy acts like a jerk, nobody is going to respect the rules. It’s that simple. Stop getting emotional about it and try to think rationally for once in your privileged lives.

  16. Jenn says:

    I FUCKING HATE THESE GUYS. THEY ARE FUCKING ASSHOLES. That is all.

  17. To hell with the cops, I want the judge’s contact info. It was his courtroom and his rules. Since when does someone get arrested for violating his rules when court is not in session?

  18. K. C. says:

    @Jenn I agree and empathize with ya!

  19. Pick a time and everyone should wear their hat.

  20. Brian says:

    @Mel: You simply do not understand the concept of Liberty or that of Rights. I will be disregarding your thoughts and your emotional ad hominem attacks on these people.

    It was brutality. They used force against someone who didn’t harm anyone. Period. You have the defiance part correct, this is defiance against those that clearly have no problem with oppressing others in the name of arbitrary rules. Oppression is bad, remember?

    The rational analysis shows the police/court security to be in the wrong as well…if you believe in Liberty.

  21. Scooter says:

    It’s a silly “policy”. But you guys are fighting the matrix…these cops and everyone in the system are running a script. It’s unlikely to be of any great benefit….you won’t make them see the error of their ways.
    But the truth is…if there were a 1000 people out there like him, it could be effective.
    Also…yes, the quickest way to bring down tyrants is to make them act like ones.
    If you were wearing a suit, tie…and your hat was a fedora, I bet the bailiff wouldn’t have come and tried to rip the hat off your head. He’s a machine and you triggered his “this is a little punk” reflex. Use a little smarts before you instigate…flip the script

  22. JF says:

    Next time everyone needs to roll a Gadsden Flag up and wear them as turbans or dastaars.

  23. Matt says:

    There’s only one reason to order someone to do anything in a courtroom: to gain jurisdiction over them. Pete knows this, and chose not to relinquish any of his rights. The bailiff’s main duty is to aquire jurisdiction over the entire audience before court proceedings (robberies) begin. As an American, you are absolutely allowed not to stand when the bailiff says to, to sit when he tells you, or to wear a hat if you want to. “Respect for the court” is a fallacy that over time, people just seemed to adopt. They are untrue. In fact, last time I looked, in America, “All men are created equal”, therefore, I have no use for taking my hat off and showing anyone respect who is not my overlord, including and especially people claiming to be “judges”, and seriously, fuck all cops. They are but the hired hitmen for an increasingly corrupt mafia of a government.

  24. Guy Fawkes says:

    @Mel Maguire

    “Because security needs to be able to see people’s faces, they require that ALL of those non-sworn people entering a courtroom have removed their covers.”

    Come on, that argument is weak. As you pointed out he was wearing a ball cap; are you telling me you can’t see someone’s facial expressions when they are wearing a cap that only covers the top of the head? It’s not like he was wearing a ski mask.

  25. Pingback: Morning Links | The Agitator

  26. J says:

    Uhm, what? I live in an area with a lot of Jewish people. The women AND the men don’t remove their cover in court. I’ve also seen Muslim women in court covering their entire faces. So what’s this BS some of you idiots are spouting about having to remove cover to see people’s whole face all of the time? That’s just absurd.

  27. RT says:

    Shoulda told them his religion requires that he wear a hat.

  28. chad says:

    “Mel Maguire says:
    January 25, 2011 at 12:08 am
    Are you people really this clueless? ”

    This coming from a gay republican? So, youre gay and republican and you call others “clueless”? LOL, thats rich.

  29. Dan says:

    Again

    When you enter an establishment you take your hat off, It’s called manners, “ Good Manners” display respect.

    EVERYONE knows this

  30. Doyou says:

    Do you refuse to take your hat off when they play the national anthem too? Same deal here folks. Though, slapping someone during an arrest is not necessarily warranted.

  31. Jenn says:

    @Mara and Dan and all the other psychotic people who think he got what he deserved or that someone should be jailed for not taking a hat off – why is it the guy who just wants to sit there peacefully with a hat on the one that is wasting taxpayer money, and not the fucking assholes who commit assault, battery and drag a guy out out of the courtroom for wearing a motherfucking hat that are the waste of motherfucking life and taxpayer money? Why do you default to siding with the people who use violence? Why do you default to kissing the ass and licking the balls of people whose response to WEARING A HAT is VIOLENCE?

    Even if you think wearing a stupid hat is rude or improper etiquette, is the appropriate punishment really being treated in that manner and to be imprisoned? So if someone disrespected you in the street, you’d have them beat and arrested and thrown out of your sight? What the fuck is wrong with you?

  32. Simo Hayaa says:

    If KPD has nothing better to do than to arrest peaceful individuals for wearing a hat, maybe it’s time for the city of Keene to start firing the cops like they have been doing in Camden, Maywood and Oakland, in order to save money in these fucked up economic times, because it’s obvious there isn’t any enough actual crimes to justify keeping these tax feeders on the payroll.

  33. Justin says:

    Could not have said it any better Jenn. Free Pete!!!

  34. Guy Fawkes says:

    @Dan

    Againagainagainagainagaintillitpenetratesyourthickskull

    The judge’s job is to interpret laws, pass sentence, and see that the rules of the courtroom are maintained. It’s NOT his job to play Ms. Manners by demanding people remove clothing he doesn’t like. It is not HIS courtroom, it’s the PEOPLES courtroom.

  35. Ogre says:

    I think what saddens me the most is the people rising up to defend the police. After all, if you wear a hat, you apparently deserve to be physically attacked. How sad is that?

    I’m with Jenn — it is proper etiquette to remove your hat indoors. But it’s not proper etiquette to beat someone and jail them for it. I wonder if the people supporting the police here would also support whippings for people using the wrong fork at a dinner table. Maybe we should have 30 days in jail for people who don’t hold the elevator door for others.

  36. Patriot Henry says:

    “Because security needs to be able to see people’s faces, they require that ALL of those non-sworn people entering a courtroom have removed their covers.”

    1. Why does security need to see people’s face? Gotta make it’s not Bin Laden?
    2. How does a cover/hat, which covers the top of the head, interfere with observing a human face?

  37. zencomix says:

    Leave Free or Die, indeed. You’d laugh if you read something like this on The Onion because it is so absurd, but then I guess the cops really don’t have anything better to do than abuse someone wearing a hat.

  38. zencomix says:

    I hope Pete sues the shit out of them. A settlement of several million dollars would act as an excellent deterrent.

  39. Simo Hayaa says:

    Ogre: It’s probably a bunch of po po who are trolling here defending the actions of their dull witted brethren. It’s not like these assholes have anything better to do other than to arrest someone for wearing a hat. Also, you’ve probably heard about those TSA tax slurping parasites who were talking shit on We Won’t Fly’s blog.

    Since there aren’t enough real crimes to justify their jobs, the uniformed Epsilons have to do SOMETHING during their shifts so bullying people and arresting them on horseshit charges, extorting free food from convenience stores and restaurants, getting high from dope pilfered from the evidence room, coercing hookers to give them free sex under threat of arrest, and shaking down drug dealers will have to do.

  40. B.D. Ross says:

    He may have poor manners. But that’s not a crime.

  41. ALowe says:

    @Mara

    “The bailiff asked the guy to remove his hat. He did not. Hats off demonstrate respect for the court.”

    And the court deserves respect why, exactly?

    If I were walking down the street and demanded you removed your hat under threat of kidnapping, would you do it for me? You know, out of respect?

  42. K. C. says:

    @Jenn and Simo: I love your comments and couldn’t agree more or say it better.

  43. Beniamino says:

    For what it’s worth, I just called the Cheshire County Jail to request the release of the ‘person who was arrested for having failed to remove their hat in court.’ I spoke with two people, one of each gender, neither of whom would admit to such a person being in custody. According to the receptionist at the police station, this is a pretty small jail and I tend to think that they knew exactly who I was talking about. Anyway, I’ll keep calling once a day until I get the word at this site that John Doe has been released.

  44. Pat Hines says:

    Gentlemen, you’re going to have to take a more vigorous position on this. Those government thugs need to learn a hard lesson for torturing your friend.

    A very hard lesson.

  45. Simo Hayaa says:

    Mara – respect should be earned. The only things the courts have earned is our contempt.

    As for the cops, they are nothing more than gang members in gummint issued costumes except they get away with assaulting innocents who diss them and are rarely ever pressured by the DA to snitch on their accomplices whereas private sector gangs enjoy none of those privileges.

  46. Brian says:

    Infringing on a person’s rights with the use of force and denied freedom is a greater disrespect than the wearing of a hat. Defending the court/cops in this matter is reprehensible.

  47. Noodly1 says:

    I have briefly researched both NH statutes and court rules and can find zero references to wearing hats in courtrooms. I’ll be interested to see how this shakes out, considering how prevelent the whole “you WILL do so-and-so in MY courtroom” dick waving is (everywhere, not just NH).

  48. Jesus says:

    I figured the hat he had on would be of the tin hat variety. Maybe that’s why he wouldn’t reveal what was under the cap!?!? IT’S THE MAN!!!

    You guys are seriously retarded.

  49. Pingback: FreeWestRadio.com » Blog Archive » FREE PETE – Wearing a Hat is NOT a Crime

  50. Inimene says:

    Pete appears to be a major douchebag. I hope he won’t hurt any people in the future. He clearly has obedience issues.

  51. Ogre says:

    And according to you, Inimene, people who you call “douchebags” deserve to be beaten and jailed. Guess you better hope no one calls you a “douchebag,” eh?

  52. david says:

    A person was attacked , assaulted and jailed for wearing a hat .
    That is so wrong .
    And people here act as if it is fine.And the way it aught to be.
    It is WRONG and will ALWAYS be wrong

  53. david says:

    And it is WRONG no matter WHO it happens to either!

  54. Dawn says:

    @ Guy Fawkes

    “The judge’s job is to interpret laws, pass sentence, and see that the rules of the courtroom are maintained. It’s NOT his job to play Ms. Manners by demanding people remove clothing he doesn’t like. It is not HIS courtroom, it’s the PEOPLES courtroom”.
    Again, who said anything about a judge, I stated that one has good manners when taking his hat before entering a building of any sort.
    We all know this,

  55. Brian says:

    @Dawn:

    Manners are not laws. Yes, most cultures remove their hats in doors. In a free society, the individual gets to choose to follow or not follow these customs.

    It is good manners to not beat up those that choose to not follow etiquette.

  56. Dan says:

    “It is good manners to not beat up those that choose to not follow etiquette”

    In a free society it would be,

  57. Dorothy says:

    Wow, the video is a sad testament to the way things get out of control. I know 2 people who were refused admittance to court because they were wearing jeans. In both instances, they lost their case by default. Many courts DO have a dress code these days, and like it or not, it is their legal right to do so. If you/me/we don’t like that, then we should write and phone our representatives and COMPLAIN LOUDLY and OFTEN.

    One thing that stands out to me is that this case, as wrong as it seems, is a good example of a total lack of overall respect by the younger generation today. “Pete” was asked, politely, to remove his hat. More than once. He refused to cooperate. He suffered the consequences of his choice. Anybody with any common sense at all would have simply removed it. Is that really such a bad thing to have to do??? Maybe if people like “Pete” would cooperate when police make a request, such abuse and/or over-reaction by the police would not occur as often.

  58. Pingback: Video: Pete’s arraignment & Ademo’s arrest and sentencing | Cop Block

  59. Brian says:

    @Dorothy:

    The police didn’t make a “request”, as a request implies he had the option to refuse. Which he should be able to do, we have rights.

    What happened is they issued an order, which does not come with the option to refuse. When he refused to comply they used force and will now penalize him by denying him his freedom. This is wrong on many levels.

    Wearing a hat indoor is not BAD behavior. Using (non defensive) force against someone is BAD behavior. You statements are like saying a rape victim caused the attack for dressing in revealing clothing. Dress modestly and you won’t be attacked by those more powerful. Nice.

  60. Noodly1 says:

    “Maybe if people like “Pete” would cooperate when police make a request, such abuse and/or over-reaction by the police would not occur as often.”

    Maybe if women would cover themselves from head to toe, rape wouldn’t occur as often?

    Maybe if gays would just shut up already about wanting equal rights, gay bashing would noto occur as often?

    Maybe if black people would just sit quietly in the back of the bus, white people wouldn’t commit hate crimes so often?

    Should Pete have removed his hat? Perhaps he should. But the fact remains that he didn’t. And last I checked, being a non-violent, non-conformist wasn’t a criminal act. He did not obstruct justice–which is the basis for contempt of court. If anything, those who dragged him out of the courtroom were guilty of obstruction of justice. Had the bailiff simply said, “OK, son, if you don’t take off that hat, you run the risk of contempt of court, is that a risk you’re willing to take?” and then let the judge decide how to deal with the situation, the court would have gone right on as planned, with not one thing obstructing it.

    Instead, though, someone–no, actually, a few someones–abused their power and turned a molehill into a mountain. And those people are just as much, if not more, to blame for the situation as Pete and his terrible, awful hat.

  61. Dorothy says:

    @Noodly1, @Brian

    The rape analogy is absurd.

    Being asked, or TOLD, to remove your hat in court is more like being TOLD you have to wear a tie to your job. Granted, you won’t be physically assaulted if you fail to wear the tie, but you WILL lose the job.

    When an officer of the law tells you to do something, compliance should be your first priority. If you feel you’ve somehow been violated, then pursue litigation against the offending party(s).

    >> Wearing a hat indoor is not BAD behavior

    Wearing the hat was not the issue, quite obviously. The issue was non-compliance by “Pete” to follow instructions from an officer of the court while within the domain of said court. Why does “Pete” feel he has the right to do as he pleases? No such right exists.

    >> Maybe if gays would just shut up

    Gay activists don’t have to “shut up”, because they are pursuing their goals through legal channels. Your analogies are about as sophisticated as those of a 5 year old.

    >> being a non-violent, non-conformist wasn’t a criminal act

    In a typical public forum, I agree. But in court there ARE rules.

    One thing I see here is that the process of detainment is FORCED upon the officers if they are to maintain any discipline of rules, because if this same scenario unfolded, say, 50 years ago, an officer simply would have taken the hat. But in today’s litigious society, and with the prevalalent entitlement mentality that exists today (WAAHH……my rights were violated!!), there it too much at risk. The officers are not allowed to enforce the simple things through simple methods any more. People like “Pete” are to blame for this, as well as all the other crybabies out there who think they have to right to do whatever they want wherever they want whenever they want.

  62. Noodly1 says:

    Obtuse much, Dorothy?

    Anonymous character bashing doesn’t help your case any, you know? It’s not a well-advise debate tactic (although, in all fairness, Faux News and its correspondents seem to be doing alright using it).

    It’s always unfortunate when the facts of a matter become obscured and ignored by personal attacks and ignorant rantings on a message board. Honestly, I’m not sure why I’m responding to you, except that I get the feeling there is actually a little glimmer of intelligence lurking underneath your inflammatory statements and would like to see if you can be coaxed into a reasonable, rational response.

  63. Dorothy says:

    @Noodly1

    I just call ‘em as I see ‘em. My original post was not intended to change the opinion of anybody, but rather was merely stating my opinion on the matter. Then along come the childish “rape” analogies; the “gay” analogy; the “black” analogy.

    If your skin is so thin as to interpret anything I wrote as a personal attack, you’ve got issues.

    I maintain my opinion that people like “Pete” are a huge part of what’s wrong with America today. The demonstrated lack of respect and lack of common sense speaks for itself.

  64. Brian says:

    @Dorothy:

    Rape is about control/dominance. This “Hat” issue is about control/dominance. The comparison stands.

    What makes a court room so special, different from other public places, that one must check their rights at the door when compelled, or not compelled, to be there? Please tell me this. The hat does not impede court proceedings so that argument is out, nor does it lead to a breakdown of societal discourse, so that is out. So, please tell me how he impeded court proceedings via the hat and not the cops/security via their unnecessary force.

    He got 60 days for this. I call cruel and unusual punishment! Anyone else?

  65. Pat Hines says:

    No, Dorothy, people like YOU are what’s largely wrong in our civilization. Permitting behavior like that is uncivilized, Pete’s refusal to obey is a civilized response to an out of control, lawless government.

    You, Dorothy, should be ashamed.

  66. Noodly1 says:

    I challenge everyone to find the rules/legislation that allow a judge to determine what is and isn’t appropriate attire to wear in a NH (or elsewhere, for that matter) courtroom. I’ve looked and I can’t find anything.

    If there isn’t any basis in the law for the mandate, then there isn’t any basis for Pete’s arrest.

    BTW, does he have an attorney? Has anyone contacted the ACLU or any other legal association about this matter? I’m extremely interested to learn if there is any legal right to detain a person for wearing a hat (or baggy pants, or not wearing shorts, or cursing in the presence of a judge, etc.) in a court of law.

    @Dorothy, ad hominem attacks such as “Your analogies are about as sophisticated as those of a 5 year old” are bad form and have no basis in fact. If you don’t understand the problem, that speaks volumes about your intelligence and your ability to reason, debate, and rationalize.

  67. Noodly1 says:

    Yet the fact remains, Dorothy, that I wouldn’t handcuff you, drag you off, and incarcerate you for your “crime.” You have every right in the world to express your opinion, as fucked up as it may be, in my opinion.

  68. Noodly1 says:

    Woot, woot, JT. I <3 Carlin. He's truly The Man.

  69. perlhaqr says:

    Being asked, or TOLD, to remove your hat in court is more like being TOLD you have to wear a tie to your job. Granted, you won’t be physically assaulted if you fail to wear the tie, but you WILL lose the job.

    The slight difference being, a job is something you attend voluntarily, with an agreement between employer and employee, and a business being a private company. A court one is often forced to attend, and is a public institution, paid for with tax dollars.

  70. Lori says:

    He wouldn’t have had to be handcuffed if he had removed his hat (which has been common courtesy in court for, oh, I don’t know, -ever?). He wouldn’t have had to be dragged if once handcuffed, he had put his feet down and bourne his own weight on his own feet. He wouldn’t have to be incarcerated if he hadn’t continued to resist the idea that life comes with consequences for stupidity–but then, he would have had to not be stupid to know that, so it might have been nice if his so-called friends had encouraged him to take off the hat rather than filming his behavior for the edification/amusement of anyone who needs a lesson and a laugh today.

  71. Simo Hayaa says:

    The statists here seem to see nothing wrong with cops using force – implied deadly force, at that – on non-violent dissenters. I hope they are the first ones in the cattle cars when the police state Sword of Damocles finally falls on the corpse of this once semi-free Republic.

  72. Simo Hayaa says:

    It is truly sad when those who suck authoritarian dick (after it’s been forcibly shoved up their asses) think it’s permissible for idiots in gov’t issued costumes to use force ( implied deadly force, at that )on those who are not guilty of causing harm to anyone.

    How fucking vile, odious, and soulless are these subhuman sadists to approve of the deprivation of a harmless individual of their freedom for the unforgivable “crime” of offending the sensibilities of some self important, pompous, arrogant, officious asshole in state issued gang colors.

  73. Tabby Smith says:

    When is the camera man going to get his butt kicked? Can’t wait for THAT video.

  74. Pat Hines says:

    Mr. Hayaa, we had those types of statists during our war of secession from Great Britain, they were called Loyalists by the British, when in fact they were dirty collaborators. Some were hung, many run back to England, most of the rest to Canada.

    The use of force in response to the obvious force used by the state against Pete is completely legitimate, how and where you apply it should be chosen wisely, but choose it you must.

    Not responding harshly will only get you more statist thug behavior, for they will see inaction as permission to continue.

  75. Xmoney says:

    @Noodly1

    http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/dmcr/dmcr-1_4.htm

    this is the court Pete was at

    “Section (i) # 10 wrote:
    Appropriate dress is required”

    unfortunately it’s completely non-descriptive and therefore the judge can basically decide what’s not appropriate on the fly, but there it is.

  76. david says:

    Umm,
    Not to be like weird or whatever,but there is a big market for “sucking authoritarian dick” on the intertubes

  77. david says:

    (no my thing at all of course)
    I likes the babes

  78. Stephen says:

    “ad hominem attacks such as “Your analogies are about as sophisticated as those of a 5 year old” are bad form and have no basis in fact.”

    Pfft. That’s not an ad hominem attack. That’s saying your analogies are unsophisticated — totally different thing. If you really want to use the neat Latin words to make yourself sound smarter it helps if you use them correctly.

    Fundamentally what we have here is a guy who decided to spit the dummy over not very much and another guy who also decided to spit the dummy over not very much. The difference between them is that one is your friend and the other is a police officer. A bit of perspective on both sides would have helped this situation more than anything else.

    I’m not saying either side was right. I’m saying they both overreacted. Two grown adults were physically fighting over a hat and that’s just stupid.

  79. Dr. Q says:

    “Two grown adults were physically fighting over a hat and that’s just stupid.”

    This an outright lie. Pete didn’t fight anyone; he was attacked and did not fight back.

  80. Noodly1 says:

    “If you really want to use the neat Latin words to make yourself sound smarter it helps if you use them correctly.”

    If you really want to argue about the meaning of neat Latin words to make yourself sound smarter it helps if you know what the fuck you’re talking about. If the best someone debating a subject can do is reduce himself to pesonal attacks/name calling, that’s an ad hominem attack, you ignorant douchebag. (“You ignorant douchebag” = ad hominem attack.)

  81. Noodly1 says:

    @Xmoney,

    Now I’m exceptionally interested in seeing how this works out, since the judge never said anything about the hat. In fact, at the arraignment the judge totally dismissed the whole hat issue and, instead, made it an identification issue, which to me says that there was no basis at all for the bailiff to request that the hat come off.

  82. Stephen says:

    Man, calm down, that’s just called getting into a rage on the internet. You don’t need Latin words for that.

    An ad hominem fallacy is where you (fallaciously) attempt to discredit an argument by playing up unrelated issues about the person saying it instead of engaging with the argument itself. For example, responding to someone who was suddenly tackled to the ground by a police officer by saying “you shouldn’t wear your hat indoors”.

  83. Lester Green says:

    wearing a hat indoors = rude

    goes way back to some good old school antisemitism. Keep that in mind. Wearing a hot indoors became an offensive concept because Jews wear yarmulkes and sensitive bigoted Christians don’t like to be reminded there are other belief systems in the world other than their own.

  84. Lester Green says:

    Simo Hayaa you take my thoughts and verbalize them in the most visceral fashion possible. +1 internet to you!

  85. david says:

    anyone who focuses on whether wearing a hat inside is “proper” is fucked and shouldn’t be allowed to speak on this subject

  86. Ogre says:

    Lori — you seem to think the actions of the judge were okay. Society says that wearing a hat indoors is rude. So I’m wondering if you think this punishment scale is okay with you:

    Talking with your mouth full: 90 days in jail.
    Wearing white after Labor Day: 50 lashes.
    Not holding the door open for someone: punch in the face, chained in public for 2 days.

    After all, you both seem to support violent punishment for people who are rude, so I’m wondering how much violence you support and for what other “rude” actions.

  87. Pingback: Update: Pete Eyre has been moved into segregation | Cop Block

  88. No thanks says:

    Your buddy was there to purposely cause trouble. Should have taken his fucking hat off. Got what he deserved IMO. Sad that he feels the cause is worth that this on his record. Get a life.

  89. Pingback: How to help Pete and Ademo out with their Keene, NH arrests | Cop Block

  90. Vladimir says:

    Pete is a zero. He is a typical arrogant and ignorant american young punk. Maybe it is the local schools, where the liberal neocommunist professors brainwash so many young fools, that foster such selfish idealistic morons who have no clue about the real world. Keene seems to be overrun by them. FPU in particular. It is a cesspool of ultra Marxists who think they know everything. In no other place have I observed so many self-proclaimed “intellectuals” and wanna-be thugs who are virtually brain-dead. Pete will likely end up homeless before he is 50.

    There are so many spoiled children posting here about how bad the police are. You have never seen bad police. So many of you sound like a whining coward. It is no wonder that america is on the verge of collapse, with so many people like Pete here.

  91. Pat Hines says:

    Well, Vlad, you’re projecting your actual self onto those fighting for freedom from arbitrary government exercises of power, power not granted to them by the people.

    We freedom and liberty advocates are sick and tired of rogue government behavior and therefore are ending it, one way or another.

  92. Ogre says:

    Vlad and “No Thanks,” do you realize what you’re supporting? You are saying that you believe people should be beaten and jailed for doing something you don’t like. You better hope that something you like to do doesn’t become something else someone doesn’t like — because then the system that you are supporting will beat and jail you.

    Seriously — you two are saying that people should be beaten and jailed for wearing a hat. I hope you don’t wear a hat in the wrong place at the wrong time. Just wait until untied shoes becomes a capital offense.

  93. Dan says:

    @ David
    “anyone who focuses on whether wearing a hat inside is “proper” is fucked and shouldn’t be allowed to speak on this subject”

    I believe that if he had taken his hat off before he entered the building none of these videos would have existed, the after math would have been that , Pete and Adam would probably have to find a job!

  94. david says:

    Vladimir is speaking out of ignorance

  95. Pingback: “Tipping My Hat to Disobedience” by Darian Worden | Cop Block

  96. david says:

    Ok,
    lets say for the sake of argument he should have “taken his hat off” (though i don’t necessarily adhere to that)
    He DIDN’T so that’s a “woulda shoulda coulda” so it really isn’t relevant.
    So,
    he didn’t take his hat off and whether he should have or not is not relevant.
    So we come to the next point which is the reaction of the controlling control freaks that beat people up for not complying.
    That’s the issue here. The rest is peripheral and irrelevant.
    And they were ,no IFS ANDS OR BUTS, fucking wrong as WRONG can fucking be.
    There is no other issue here.
    Beating someone up for not talking there hat of is fucking crap and anyone who is talking that side of things is a fucking moron.
    peace and love to all and Allah be wit u.
    lol

  97. Dan says:

    Peter and Adam have to sell tickets to their site, people donate money to theses two clowns, how else are they to make a living /money without doing something outrages and then pointing to the system and complain about it, It sells

  98. GENESIS V. says:

    I’m DISGUSTED!!! With all the problems there are outside like drug dealers, kidnappers, rapist, domestic violence, etc their going to worry about a HAT??? Yes if he would’ve taken off his hat to begin with this would have never happened but one thing for sure is that it should’nt have gone this far…its just a hat!!! I’m glad all was caught on tape because cops would lie and exagerate and say he was doing things beyond what actually happened to prosecute an innocent man cant wait to see what judges say about this but this def comes to show how man abuse their authority !!!!!

  99. Stephen says:

    No, the real world is not black and white and what you’re doing before the police beat you up is absolutely not a shoulda, woulda, coulda. The whole point here is what he was doing before the police beat him didn’t justify what happened. Him wearing the hat is completely relevant.

    A clear example of when both sides are in the wrong: all kids should look both ways before they cross the road but it’s not OK to knock down kids who don’t look both ways before they cross. You should still look both ways.

    So, guys, hats are great but don’t just wear a hat because they’re in fashion. Take it off as a sign of respect if you see a funeral procession etc, take it off because it’s not needed when you go indoors and basically be mindful of all of the nuances that make up basic human interaction that your mum told you about. Don’t put your feet on the seat, that sort of thing. You don’t need a business reason to do everything — there’s meat on dogs but I just don’t eat dog. No reason, it’s just traditional.

    Likewise, police officers who go nuts at people who don’t obey them — get a grip and do the job that tax payers pay you surprisingly well to do.

    This isn’t you’re either With us or Against us. I think it’s a ridiculous situation, both for the needless and oppressive overreaction by the police officer and the fact I’m apparently supposed to see this as the Rosa Parks of hats.

  100. Vladimir says:

    Pat Hines wrote “fighting for freedom from arbitrary government exercises of power”

    This has nothing to do with “freedom from arbitrary government exercises of power”, but rather is promoting anarchy. A free society needs order if it is to remain strong and protect the freedoms of citizens. Pete brought on this incident, perhaps intentionally.

    Pat Hines write “We freedom and liberty advocates”

    Advocates of freedom and liberty? I don’t believe it. Again I stress that the consensus opinion voiced in the posts on this page advocate anarchy, whether they realize it or not. The world would be a better place without people like Pete in it. If civil order is not maintained result will be anarchy. Society in america is decaying because of people like Pete. There is a whole generation who do not value education and strong work ethic but instead believe it is more important to be “different” but not in a positive manner. Your idea, and apparently Pete’s, of “freedom” is why we have children who think it is acceptable to use foul and disrespectful language toward their parents, their teachers, and their superiors in the work place. This is why the vast majority of foreign students in higher education maintain much higher GPA. This is why foreigners outnumber native born americans as executives in all the highest level workplaces. America has raised a generation of low-life disrespectful selfish people. I know not ALL americans are that way but so many ARE that way. I have a neighbor who is a single mother. Her husband abandoned her and their children because he wanted freedom; freedom to party at clubs; freedom to dress like some kind of steampunk thug; freedom to drink and smoke wherever and whenever he chooses; freedom to spend more than he earns, in part because he can no longer hold any respectable job. Her son, entering college next year, made a very interesting comment to me last week. He told me that he feels lucky that most of his peers are into the hip-hop thug lifestyle because that means less competition for him in the real world. He told me with no hesitation that after college he will quickly be one of the people who owns his own business, while his current peers will likely be working minimum wage jobs if they can even find work at all.

    People who feel Pete is some kind of hero are the reason america has a corrupt government that is slowly turning this nation into a police state. The situation is out of control because there are too many Petes who are part of the problem and not part of the solution. I do not advocate a police state in any way. I advocate for order, civility, common sense and courtesy. I advocate for society to work as a team instead of all the “us against them” that is prevalent in america today. Your political leaders keep you divided with this very sort of thing, and they love it. They WANT the people divided against each other. Pete adds to that division instead of helping unify people as a team.

    If you really are “sick and tired of rogue government behavior”, then be part of a well conceived solution. Rid the government of its corrupt bureaucrats. Rid the nation of the entitlement mentality that is so pervasive. Build a generation of youth with integrity and strong work ethic and positive attitude and values. Anarchy will increase the divide. To achieve victory against the powers that be, you must achieve unity among the masses.

    Ogre wrote “you believe people should be beaten and jailed for doing something you don’t like”

    That is not at all what I wrote. Apparently it was beyond your level of comprehension.

    Ogre wrote “saying that people should be beaten and jailed for wearing a hat”

    You are either a liar or very ignorant. Pete was not “beaten”, he was restrained for failure to cooperate with the authorities. All the people who continue to say it was because Pete was wearing a hat are dishonest. If Pete had removed his hat there would have been no consequences. He intentionally brought this upon himself. America is a nation of law. If Pete felt like removing his hat was somehow violating his rights, then he should have pursued it through legal channels after the fact. His course of action was foolish and unnecessary. The actions of the officers was way out of line and should not be condoned. Pete should have been charged with contempt, and due process should have followed. Both sides were wrong. But Pete precipitated the incident. After watching the various videos several times I believe that Pete did this intentionally.

  101. Pat Hines says:

    First of all, Vlad, while anarchy has no problematic issues at all, perhaps you meant chaos. If that is, in fact, what you meant then you couldn’t be more wrong. The chaos seen in the video was completely and totally a product of a violent action by government thugs.

    The power for laws in America are delegated for enforcement FROM the people, government has no power than individuals don’t have. Since no power to remove or otherwise even speak to the victim, Pete, was delegated by the people, that power can’t be possessed by the government thugs who, in essence, staged a violent assault upon him.

    Pete and others in the room would have been and remain fully justified in using the level of force necessary to stop further crimes against Pete and anyone else in similar circumstance. Cops do not represent a reduction of chaos, they represent and perpetrate chaos itself. Cops, as a concept and as persons, represent the un-civilization of government.

  102. Vladimir says:

    Pat Hines wrote “anarchy has no problematic issues at all”

    Pat, are you really so ignorant?

    Common definitions in English include:

    “Absence of any form of political authority.”
    “Political disorder and confusion.”
    “Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose”

    Pat Hines wrote “Cops do not represent a reduction of chaos, they represent and perpetrate chaos itself. Cops, as a concept and as persons, represent the un-civilization of government.”

    Is that why every civilized nation on Earth has “cops”?
    You really are mentally ill.

    In recognition that there shall always be evil among the good, police are necessary for the greater good. To even remotely suggest otherwise renders your credibility as zero.

    You lead me to believe that you have no desire for a continuation of america as founded and therefore are against america. I can further surmise that you are against any form of organized and well-intentioned government.

    There is no point in continued debate with you because I understand and know what the problems in society are, while you clearly do not. I believe you are paraniod and extremely insecure. Thank you for clarifying those things for all the readers.

  103. david says:

    @Vladimir,
    Many people think “working through the system” is a exercise in futility.
    And it is.
    And with video of the misdeeds put out there, for all to see .
    This could be a good way to change things
    Shouldn’t the public see how there court system operates?
    The good ,bad and ugly of it.
    Show them the video and let them decide.
    Plus sunshine is the best disinfectant,and our “Justice system” could use some “disinfectant”.
    Maybe you haven’t seen our “justice system” in action that much.
    I have and it needs some disinfectant.

  104. Bobo McFadden says:

    Vladimir, see yourself back to Russia. You’ll be more comfortable there with your authoritarian ilk.

  105. david says:

    I welcome vlad to nh or the USA …… all voices are welcome.imho…..and encouraged

  106. Pat Hines says:

    I’m afraid Vlad is not of America, is not of our culture, and as has been typical of all Eastern European immigrants, if he indeed is an immigrant, to America in that they simply do not understand from where law is derived here. In fact, as can be seen by the two Eastern European immigrant descendants on the US government’s supreme court, they work very hard to alter our legal system to be like that from which their ancestors fled.

    Further, Vlad does not understand that an absence of government does not correlate with chaos of any kind. If, indeed, he is an immigrant, life will be better for him if leaves the cultural decisions to we real Americans, and keep quiet. Otherwise, it’s too bad for him, he will not prevail in any case.

    I must also note that Vlad writes and sounds a lot like the national socialist writer on the Powtowmac Institute’s web site, an institute of one, a Mr. Ernst. Strikingly similar in fact.

  107. david says:

    I appreciate vlads voice and welcome it..though i may not agree

  108. Guy Fawkes says:

    @Dawn

    “Again, who said anything about a judge”
    Excuse me? The whole topic of this conversation is that the JUDGE put Pete in jail, not for violation of law, but for what he considers bad manners. What was done by the Judge IS the issue here; did you miss that?

    “I stated that one has good manners when taking his hat before entering a building of any sort. We all know this”

    You seem to have completely missed the entire point, unless you feel that bad manners anywhere should be an arrestable offense. Christ, if that were the case the entire population of Boston, NYC, and Jersey would be in a concentration camp.

    @Vlad

    “If civil order is not maintained result will be anarchy.”
    Sounds like something Stalin would say, to justify the trucks full of people being taken into the woods to be machine gunned.

    “Is that why every civilized nation on Earth has “cops”?”
    Certainly every dictatorship large and small has made great use of the police force. Cops are the most useful tool ever created to keep the population under state control.

  109. Pat Hines says:

    Sorry, David, while I can’t or won’t speak for those of you in New Hampshire, Vlad would NOT be welcome here in South Carolina.

    All voices are not welcome here. We have no room for progressive/fascists here, nor any other totalitarian advocates. Just as we don’t have room for advocates of child prostitution, rape advocates, those who support robbery, and many other such things.

    We regard progressive/fascists as criminals here. That doesn’t mean there aren’t any here, it does mean that we’re working on ridding ourselves of them.

  110. No thanks says:

    @ Ogre says:
    I’m saying that people should have a bit of respect for a judge and officers when in a courtroom. When they tell you to take off your hat, do it. It’s not your fucking living room where you’re allowed to dress like an ass-hat. Pun intended.

    The cops cap is part of his uniform and he’s an officer of the courtroom that dude was in. He refused and then refused to leave. It’s interesting that he resisted by crossing his feat instead of walking. Again, total ass who got what he was provoking.

    I don’t see a problem with what they did to him.

  111. No thanks says:

    Watched it again. Kid behaved like a dumb ass. He was told the rules/policy of the court and told to remove his hat. Instead of listening to the authority in the room he mouthed off and got smart by stating “I didn’t sign that policy” Dumb. Then as they attempted to make him leave, he resisted. I would have said fuck that too and I’m glad to see the cop jump in and not pussy foot around. He up and removed his ass the right way. Kid should have just walked out but again, he crossed his legs and resisted.

  112. No thanks says:

    Triple because I”m a bitch and can do.

    He also should have read the fucking rules. Proper Attire is Required. In a court room that doesn’t mean hat. It also means that the officers of said court decide what is proper.

    http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/dmcr/dmcr-1_4.htm

    They should have done the same to those with the cameras as those are not allowed either. They should consider themselves lucky.

  113. No thanks says:

    @ Brian

    “What makes a court room so special, different from other public places, that one must check their rights at the door when compelled, or not compelled, to be there? Please tell me this. The hat does not impede court proceedings so that argument is out, nor does it lead to a breakdown of societal discourse, so that is out. So, please tell me how he impeded court proceedings via the hat and not the cops/security via their unnecessary force.”

    See my posts above Brian. This kid/idiot doesn’t have the right to ignore proper courtroom attire nor ignore the rules of the court. See my link. The argument isn’t about his rights. It’s about his resistance and punishment for doing so.

    ” He got 60 days for this. I call cruel and unusual punishment! Anyone else? ”

    60 days is appropriate. Especially considering when all the ass-hats with cameras staging this even are now shown an example.

    @ Pat Hines

    ” Pete’s refusal to obey is a civilized response to an out of control, lawless government. ”

    The officers weren’t out of control. They did exactly what more should do, cut through the pussy-foot bullshit of some kid trying to make his dumb ass point that is completely out of line with court room policy and rules. Just cut to the chase and haul his ass away and make him do some quality time with a few roaches in a cell. I bet he listens to the cops now. Entitlement….his sense of entitlement is what’s wrong with the younger generation. Fool needed a little lesson in respect and got it. Good. He should be ashamed and hopefully a little humiliated.

  114. Vladimir says:

    Guy Fawks wrote “Cops are the most useful tool ever created to keep the population under state control”

    You’re no Guy Fawks, that’s for sure. Fawks had a good command of his language.

    Remember, remember….

    America has not yet deteriorated into a police state, though Obama and the far-left loonies are doing everything in their power to make it happen. But even so, a civil society needs rules and order. Somehow I get the feeling you are really one of the liberal self-proclaimed intellectual crowd who really hates america.

    Pat Hines wrote “Vlad would NOT be welcome here in South Carolina”

    Pat, I don’t like to engage in personal attacks, but you are a liar and an extremist, and an idiot. Much of South Carolina is being overrun by liberal extremists, though I am certainly not one of them. While have some moderately left-of-center social views, I tend to be more to the right on most issues. For you to claim “We have no room for progressive/fascists here” clearly indicates you are a liar, attempting to promote your agenda. Let me enlighten you a little:

    Greenville and the surrounding area is becoming an extension of Asheville (NC), politically speaking. I have given numerous lectures at Clemson, Furman and other schools down there. Myrtle Beach declared itself a sanctuary city for illegal aliens. Alvin Green won 30% of your voters, thanks to so many moronic left-wing zealots there. You currently have a “coalition” of far-left liberals who are trying to push for higher taxes, tighter gun control, easier abortions, more welfare, and the acceptance of unions in government there. Thankfully republicans won a strong majority of seats in SC in november, but liberals, funded by foreign sources in some cases, are doing their best to turn red states to blue. In fact I was offered a job to blog for a left-wing interest specifically to sway the minds of youth in red states toward far-left ideology. I declined the offer, despite substantial pay offered, because I am a firm believer in personal rights and liberty. Don’t interpret that to mean I in any way condone the idiotic behavior of Pete in court. Rather I see things very clearly. Perhaps that is a result of having escaped the former Soviet Union, lived in 5 different nations before becoming a citizen here. The path leading to america is a difficult one for non-hispanics. I came here legally and achieved citizenship. I have been successful by diligent work and study, and travel much of america frequently as part of my work. I have set up scholarships for a few different universities and regularly assist in food drives for the poor. I am against “big government”, against over-regulation, against inefficient social programs (all of which have been failing for decades in america), and against union labor in almost all cases. You assume much, yet know little. Perhaps the only things about me that would not be welcomed among certain groups in SC are that I am not a baptist and I am not a redneck. You come across as a bigot and an extremist.

    There is so much wrong in government in america, I hardly know where to start. But I know what the people of america do NOT need is idiots like Pete taking attention away from serious issues. America is falling toward full financial ruin under the “leadership” of corrupt bureaucrats. Pete is doing nothing to help.

  115. Pat Hines says:

    Sorry, “no thanks”, but you’re dead wrong.

    The court had no authority to demand removal of his hat.

    Therefore, the officers were acting illegally and must be dealt with as criminals.

  116. No thanks says:

    @Pat Hines says:
    Sorry, “no thanks”, but you’re dead wrong.
    The court had no authority to demand removal of his hat.
    Therefore, the officers were acting illegally and must be dealt with as criminals.

    Oh really….yeah, what would I know. My wife is an attorney at the prosecutors office. If the court officer asks you to leave, you must leave. If he asks you to comply with the dress code you must do that or leave. If you don’t leave or you resists being removed, you will be held in contempt and can be charged disruption or any number of other crimes. The officers here did nothing illegal. If so, what?

  117. jonw says:

    The word “uniform” means a common outfit, to make them all look the same. Clearly the cop’s hat is not part of the “uniform,” because he’s wearing it and the other cops are not. This by definition is not uniformity. Why is he wearing it? Probably because his head is cold and the hat makes him more comfortable. The criminal of a judge attempted to coerce a citizen into following his arbitrary rules, while regarding the cop as above the law. If the court as a location was somehow deserving of respect, wouldn’t you think the “officers of the court” would be held to that high standard of behavior? It’s a two-tiered system, designed to instill fear (ie “respect”) and blind obedience to arbitrary rules; when Pete didn’t show the proper fear, the judge had no choice but to back down or initiate violence.

  118. Pat Hines says:

    Hey, Vlad, Greene won 30% of the vote because blacks in South Carolina are extreme racists, about 35% of the population is black, hence Greene’s vote tally. Of course, that’s not relevant.

    What is relevant is that the legislature is controlled by what you’d probably call hyper-conservatives. That’s a demonstrable fact.

    As for your “lecturing at Clemson”, I’m not surprised, most of the Universities in South Carolina have progressive/fascists in their student bodies and certainly within their faculties. I’d guess that’s where your invitation came from.

    You’re a progressive/fascist by your posts, I don’t care what you claim, you’re an advocate of state monopoly of force, that’s all it takes to label you, you in fact labeled yourself.

    PS: Don’t come back to South Carolina, I can’t guarantee your safety here.

  119. Brian says:

    Bingo! There we have it. No Thanks is one of them. One that drinks the cool-aid without question. Does not seek to understand the basis of how and why the government was formed and how and why it is overreaching its intended function and granted powers from the consent of the governed. One that does not understand the concept of inalienable rights.

    This courtroom attire point is perfect to illustrate this abuse of power at the lowest of levels. “Can’t let one of them question our falsely secured authority or they all will. Set a harsh example. ”

    No Thanks hasn’t even tried to understand the other perspective. The idea of questioning this authority is too much for you accept. Based on your posts, that is my conclusion.

    “See my posts above Brian. This kid/idiot doesn’t have the right to ignore proper courtroom attire nor ignore the rules of the court. See my link. The argument isn’t about his rights. It’s about his resistance and punishment for doing so. ”

    You still have not addressed my original post. We are questioning the legitimacy of the court rules in the first place. We know they exist, now demonstrate to us that they have a basis in the Constitution. Where did we grant the Judicial Branch the power to incarcerate someone on an arbitrary and inconsistent rule not set by the Legislative Branch. I would like to see the audit trail from the Constitution to this court room rule. Ask your wife to help you with it. It would be an interesting study for all of us.

    From the video I saw on the sentencing, he was found in contempt not for the hat but for what he said disrespecting the court, not the judge, but the inanimate/non-human/non-emotional court… can anyone confirm this or did I simply hear it incorrectly?

  120. No thanks says:

    @ Pat Hines

    Pat, perhaps you should brush up on and share the following bit of information with your friends here and the dude in the video.

    Contempt of court: is a charge which can be laid against someone for interrupting the process of justice in a court of law. A charge of contempt, if proved, can result in fines and jail time.

    There are several different forms of contempt of court. In all cases, they are rooted in the idea that a courtroom and its officers demand respect, both out of common decency and because a court acts as a legal authority. Failure to respect the court can compromise the course of justice, potentially causing a mistrial or compromising the integrity of a trial. As a result, contempt is treated very seriously.

    I’ve not looked into this case, but he was likely charged with Criminal Contempt of Court for actually hindering the operations of the court. Someone who yells at the judge, for example, could find him or herself accused of contempt of court. Guess this dumb ass found out the hard way.

  121. No thanks says:

    @ Brian says:
    Inalienable rights don’t apply here. They are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government. This situation involved a courtroom where the complete opposite applies. Get a clue.

    ” This courtroom attire point is perfect to illustrate this abuse of power at the lowest of levels. “Can’t let one of them question our falsely secured authority or they all will. Set a harsh example. ”

    Are you stupid too? Attire is a rule of the court. No different than no-shirt, no-shoes, no service at a restaurant. Only in court, if you don’t obey the rules, resist and cause disruption, you’ll be charged with contempt. Pretty simple.

    ” No Thanks hasn’t even tried to understand the other perspective. The idea of questioning this authority is too much for you accept. Based on your posts, that is my conclusion. ”

    I completely understand the other perspective. Your friend here needs to learn to pick his battles and when he does, learn how to conduct himself. IMO, the dress code of a courtroom is stupid battle to fight and by doing it his way was plain stupid.

  122. david says:

    @vlad,
    You sounded fairly rational till you started railing about what you refer to as “far left loonies”;
    now you don’t sound rational at all.

  123. Brian says:

    “Inalienable rights don’t apply here. They are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government. This situation involved a courtroom where the complete opposite applies. Get a clue.”

    Should I bold the “government” part of your sentence above for you?

    Thank you for, No Thanks, for confirming my conclusions.

    You may have the last word, as I have already made my points.

  124. Ogre says:

    You got it, Brian. “No Thanks” earns money (or his wife does) from exploiting people and using force. So no one here is going to change his mind. “No Thanks” wants government to have power and control — if for no other reason than so his wife can get some taxpayer cash.

    That said, “No Thanks,” you better hope this “society” you support doesn’t decide that the punishment for wearing whatever color socks you currently have on is a beating and a jailing — because by supporting this system, you’re supporting your own sentence.

  125. No thanks says:

    @ Brian:

    ” Should I bold the “government” part of your sentence above for you? ”

    Bold away Brian but you obviously don’t understand the difference between Inalienable Rights and Statutory Rights aka Legal rights, which are bestowed by a government to the governed people and ARE relative to our culture and government aka the courtroom he was in. His legal rights were not restricted and his Inalienable Rights aren’t applicable in that situation. Ironically, they are now in his current situation as he’s certainly going to experience his Inalienable right to due process

    Dude was out of line and broke the laws of the court and thus charged with contempt. HE made a FREE choice to wear the hat and HE made the choice to disobey those IN CHARGE of the courtroom. Thus HE chose to break the law. If he’s man enough to play, he should be man enough to pay. HE chose to exercise his right to free speech. Too bad he just didn’t do it in the correct place, at better time or in the right way.

  126. No thanks says:

    @ Ogre says:
    “ No Thanks” earns money (or his wife does) from exploiting people and using force. So no one here is going to change his mind. “No Thanks” wants government to have power and control — if for no other reason than so his wife can get some taxpayer cash. ”

    So Ogre:
    So if my wife is prosecuting a cop killer or a drunk driver or a cop on the take (one you would like to see), is she exploiting people?
    How is she using force ? Please define force.

    So who is my wife who is paid by the state using tax payers money working for ? The people she is protecting ? Perhaps you would rather have the cop killer or drunk driver on the streets still ? Please clarify what you would like her role to be. I’m curious. Sounds to me like you’re supporting letting the bad guys go. Is that true?

    ” That said, “No Thanks,” you better hope this “society” you support doesn’t decide that the punishment for wearing whatever color socks you currently have on ”

    So are you dumb too ? Seriously, do you people NOT UNDERSTAND the charge this kid has laid upon him?

    Do you seriously think there’s “no hats allowed law” that was broken? Please show me that law you seem to think exists ? I mean you keep referencing him being in jail for wearing a hat? I’m confused….last I checked, he was charged with Contempt. You do know the definition of contempt right? I posted it earlier but you could look it up you know…..

  127. Pat Hines says:

    Contempt of court under your listed “law” requires an individual disrupt the proceedings. Pete didn’t do that, in fact the bailiff did that all by himself.

    Pete was a non-actor, one cannot disrupt proceedings by simply sitting still, which is what he did.

    All of the attempts to nut swing on the government thugs are despicable, really, and have no place in America.

  128. Dawn says:

    “No Thanks”, I am with you all the way…couldn’t have said it better myself…and I’m not part of the system.
    “the dress code of a courtroom is stupid battle to fight and by doing it his way was plain stupid.” plain and simple!

  129. No thanks says:

    @ Pat

    So Pat, chicken or the egg: Follow carefully, as I’m going to go slow for you.

    Why did the bailiff have to stop the proceedings and confront Pete?
    Was it because Pete didn’t follow the rules of the court and abide by the required dress code? I’ll make it simple for you…..Yes.

    So after the baliff clarified the policy of the court (that pete was too dumb to insure he knew prior to attending) did Pete comply?……No

    After then telling Pete to leave did Pete comply with the officer of that court room? No

    After the Police Officer came over and attempted to remove Pete who was willingly not obeying an order of the court, did Pete get up and allow himself to be escorted out of court by that officer? No. Instead he resisted, failed to walk on his own accord and was thus removed by means not his own.

    Hmmm….sounds to me like Pete was the Egg. He purposely ignored and was defiant in a court of law and was the original source of the disruption. The baliff and officers were merely responding to his CHOICE / disruption.

    ” Contempt of court under your listed “law” requires an individual disrupt the proceedings. Pete didn’t do that, in fact the bailiff did that all by himself. ”

    It’s very clear that Pete disrupted the court and was in turn held in contempt. Justice served.

    ” Pete was a non-actor, one cannot disrupt proceedings by simply sitting still, which is what he did. ”

    I’m confused, so you’re saying that by simply sitting still he could in now way have caused that entire disruption and that all of the points I listed above didn’t happen ?

    Are you stating that a contempt charge is not applicable to people who cause a disruption when sitting still ? I guess I missed that part of the law.

    ” All of the attempts to nut swing on the government thugs are despicable, really, and have no place in America. ”

    Interesting. So you’re saying our “government” which is still based on the very same principles that were in place when “America” was founded have no place in their own land also still known as America ?

  130. Vladimir says:

    Pat Hines wrote “blacks in South Carolina are extreme racists, about 35% of the population is black”

    Pat, once again you are a liar. South Carolina is well known for its racist whites, which it seems you are one of. And according to the latest census the percentage of blacks in South Carolina is NOT 35%, it is 28.2% (August 2010).
    http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/45000.html

    Pat Hines wrote “Don’t come back to South Carolina, I can’t guarantee your safety here.”

    BWAAAA HAAAAA HAHAHA HA HA HAHAHAHAHA BWAAA HA HA!!!!!!
    I’m shaking in my boots. Thanks for the laugh!

    I will be in sunny warm South Carolina again very soon. I invite you to join me in Spartanburg, if you have the courage.

  131. Brian says:

    This goes to all of us participating in this dialog…myself included.

    Please debate the issue(s) and not the person. We have a lot of personal attacks both aggressive and passive-aggressive that compromise the debate. It doesn’t help us understand more than we each do today.

    We are adults here. Right?

    Or some judge will hold us all in contempt. hehe, couldn’t help add a little humor. ;)

  132. Vladimir says:

    david wrote “till you started railing about what you refer to as “far left loonies”;”

    Point taken, thank you. Sometimes I get carried away a little, and at that moment was listening to a newscast where somebody mentioned Rahm’s quote about “F’ing retarded”.

  133. Jenn says:

    Don’t have time to re-read everything… but did someone seriously say “inalienable rights don’t apply here”? Is that some kind of joke? Do they know what the word “inalienable” means?

  134. No thanks says:

    @ Jenn

    Yes. Inalienable Rights are God-given rights. The are basic human rights that cannot be violated (in the USA – the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).

    In this situation, Pete is being charged with ” Contempt”, not “wearing a hat” Again, there’s no law against wearing hats.

    Now wearing a hat in a court room that has clear dress code rules isn’t an Inalienable right. It’s a freedom, along with his freedom of choice. However, he is in a court room, not a living room. There are rules to abide by in a court of law. Those rules are not set “by the people” they are set by the Judge who controls that court room.

    Now he’s still free NOT to obey said rules, but by not obeying the orders given to you by an officer of the court he’s breaking the law; laws of the same society he chose to live among. He’s free to leave the USA anytime. No different than not listening to the flight attendant on an airline or pretty much mouthing off to me in my living room. All three will get you in trouble.

    He exercised his right to free speech. He just was too dumb and spoke at the wrong time and caused a further disruption of the court proceedings. Knowing when to shut up is a freedom too. He should practice that more often.

  135. Pat Hines says:

    Sadly, Jenn, they don’t appear to understand what rights are at all. They seem to think that one must check one’s rights at the door to the courtroom.

    I’m sure that there are things more disgusting than a statist, but right now, I can’t think of one.

  136. No thanks says:

    @ Pat Hines

    Pat, what rights don’t I understand? Please clarify for me the right to wear a hat in courtroom where the rules say I can’t. Is that right to wear a hat in the Bill of Rights?
    Does the Bill of Rights and our pursuit of Liberty mean that I can’t ever be in Contempt ? Where in the studies of Inalienable Rights does is talk about my being allowed to break the rules of the very society in which I live? The very society that put those rules in place.

    Please help me understand.

  137. No thanks says:

    No one told Pete he couldn’t wear a hat. They told Pete he couldn’t wear a hat in a courtroom. Two different things. He can carry a gun with a proper permit too. He won’t however, be allowed to carry a gun in a courtroom. If he wants to do those things, he absolutely has a right to apply to be a police officer.

    Again, what rights of his were violated? He has access to the rules of the court. It’s an open court but that doesn’t mean you can walk in naked. Doesn’t mean you can walk in wearing a hat either. It means if he respects the rules of the court as set by the judge, who IS in charge of the court room, that he can sit there and watch the proceedings.

    I’m confused as to what you all thing is wrong here.

  138. Brian says:

    I looked up many definitions for Contempt of Court…I found this one to be more balanced and neutral than others…so here is a link to some of my coming “clippings”.
    [http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Contempt+of+Court]
    With a few from: [http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c118.htm]

    “Contempt of court is behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court.”

    “The essence of contempt of court is that the misconduct impairs the fair and efficient administration of justice. Contempt statutes generally require that the actions present a Clear and Present Danger that threatens the administration of justice.”

    Now, these are my opinions in more detail. The heart of the matter for this “Hat” issue lies with the essence or purpose of being in Contempt of Court. It is my understanding that it is to prevent the “impairment and efficiency of the administration of justice” similar to the above clipping.

    The authority is supposedly established via….
    “The power to make rules carries that of enforcing them, and to attach persons who violate them and punish them for contempts.” <–Legislative

    "Courts of justice have an inherent power to punish all persons for contempt of their rules and orders, for disobedience of their process, and for disturbing them in their proceedings."
    (Side note: Where is this "inherent power" established?)

    Here is the challenge.
    Does the rule made by the court for the court regarding dress code and hats in particular have merit to exist as an enforceable rule, or does it impede our right to dress as we so choose in a public space?

    Here is my logic.
    Wearing a hat is not misconduct that "…impairs the fair and efficient administration of justice. "

    Now it could be considered "behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court". However that would be totally subjective, and as long as the wearer acts in a dignified manner it is moot. To any rational person the importance of a court is what it does… determine and fairly administer justice. Worrying about its dignity seems foolish/needless next to the justice aspect, as long as it can administer justice unimpeded. It gets its dignity from doing its job effectively and fairly, not by us catering to unrelated subjective rules different at each court.

    The wearing of a hat simply does not impeded the proceedings of court. Things change over time as they should. If I came in dressed like Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson did, I would be held in contempt. Which was perfectly acceptable, respectable even, when the court was established. Courts grew with the times regarding fashion, time for the hats…are they not apart of fashion too? We can move on to suits, jeans, or other things at another time.

    The second challenge is this.
    There is too much power centralized into one individual which can/has easily lead to abuse. It should have more checks and balances.
    "The discretion permitted to judges in determining what is contempt and how to punish it has led some legal scholars to argue that the contempt power gives too much authority to judges. Earl C. Dudley, University of Virginia law professor, wrote that in the contempt power, "the roles of victim, prosecutor and judge are dangerously commingled.'"

    "Much of the criticism focuses on the lack of restraint or due process in determining punishments for contempt. "
    Exactly…. NO DUE PROCESS. As seen by Pete's situation.

    "Failure to complete an act that, if completed, would tend to bring the court into disrespect does not preclude the act from being contemptuous."
    And circular reference, damned if you do and damned if you don't. But that can be debated further elsewhere.

    And a couple more interesting points…
    "Indirect contempt occurs outside the presence of the court, but its intention is also to belittle, mock, obstruct, interrupt, or degrade the court and its proceedings."

    "Contempt charges may be brought against parties to proceedings; lawyers or other court officers or personnel; jurors; witnesses; or people who insert themselves in a case, such as protesters outside a courtroom. Courts have great leeway in making contempt charges, and thus confusion sometimes exists about the distinctions between types of contempt."

    Yes, protesters outside a courtroom. A public space and free speech, within reach of the Contempt powers. Not good.

    I anticipate more protesting in a mocking fashion in the future…well, as long as it is not about a "specific case"…but judge/cops/security, why not.

    And then there is that no one can rescue someone falsely or improperly held in contempt…Yes, there are such things as bad judges so don't claim the "judges are all good/impartial" angle.
    "When a person is in prison for a contempt, it has been decided in New York that he cannot be discharged by another judge when brought before him on a habeas corpus; and it belongs exclusively to the court offended to judge of contempts and what amounts to them; and no other court or judge can, or ought to undertake in a collateral way, to question or review an adjudication of a contempt made by another competent jurisdiction. "

    My bottomline…. reform is needed in this area. The best way to start the reform process is to question everything (which tradition hinders). Then it is to test the waters and push the envelope on the absurd areas, which I feel Pete has done. And then it is build support and enact legislative change. If that does not work…then there is always the other thing.

    I don't know if anyone else feels exactly as I do on the topic, or if it is even close to where Pete's head is at…but there it is. I understand there are rules, I am simply questioning their validity and associated punishments.

    As for punishment:
    60 days of lost work: ~15,000.00
    60 days of denied freedom: priceless
    Use of dominant force indignity: incalculable

    Does not equal

    4 hours of court time x 5 people @50.00hr: ~1000.00
    Hat indignity: inconsequential

    [DONE]Check for no personal attacks in this post. :D

  139. Dr. Q says:

    “No thanks” wrote: “Is that right to wear a hat in the Bill of Rights?”

    Yes. It’s called the First Amendment. Look it up.

  140. No thanks says:

    @ Brian & others

    “ Does the rule made by the court for the court regarding dress code and hats in particular have merit to exist as an enforceable rule, or does it impede our right to dress as we so choose in a public space? “

    Yes, he court has the right to enforce a dress code. You’re confusing a public space with a state run office that is “open to the public” There’s a difference. NH Courtrooms are Open to the Public but that public has to obey a dress code. The public is FREE to NOT comply to those rules. Choices are, wear a bikini if they wish but DON’T attend court OR Stay all day and dress appropriately for a court of law.

    “ Wearing a hat is not misconduct that “…impairs the fair and efficient administration of justice. “Now it could be considered “behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court”. However that would be totally subjective, and as long as the wearer acts in a dignified manner it is moot. “

    Dress codes exist for reasons that do more than just elicit fair and efficient administration of justice. Bottom line, the rules in place can be whatever the judge wants. It’s HIS courtroom not that of the public. The public is welcome to attend, but the public doesn’t make the rules on the spot. If Pete wants to change the dress code of the court, have him do so according to the proper process. That process doesn’t involve acting immature and obviously uneducated on the rules of society so that he gets thrown in jail. Dumb.

    “ Worrying about its dignity seems foolish/needless next to the justice aspect, as long as it can administer justice unimpeded. “

    Actually, the opposite is more foolish. How about the public respect the rules of dress that are in place in a court of law. Again, if the public as a whole wants to challenge that dress and show that justice can be administered no differently if hats are worn, then maybe they should go about changing the rules the right way. Otherwise, the rules and punishments in place at that moment will apply. Chicken or egg again….Pete was out of line in a number of ways and justice was served appropriately.

    “ It gets its dignity from doing its job effectively and fairly, not by us catering to unrelated subjective rules different at each court. “

    I fail to see where you or Pete get their sense of “entitlement” to change the dress code of a courtroom without following the proper process ? This sense of entitlement is what many here are calling liberty. Wake up call folks….you live in a society where liberty exists, but that liberty doesn’t mean you can do whatever you wish whenever you wish while among people (aka the society) you live among.
    This is a courtroom not your living room. You’re a guest where it’s open to the public not a public space.

    “ Courts grew with the times regarding fashion, time for the hats…are they not apart of fashion too? We can move on to suits, jeans, or other things at another time. “

    Again, how about you and Pete get together and put a push to make such a change in the right way? The right way being according to the rules of society that are in place now. Rules your fellow human beings voted on and made happen. Perhaps be a little better prepared next time…..

    “ There is too much power centralized into one individual which can/has easily lead to abuse. It should have more checks and balances. ”

    Yeah, that’s exactly what this country needs….more checks and balances and more gov’t involvement What this country needs is for the Pete’s of the world to learn how to properly fight for what he believes in. He went into a courtroom to make a point with absolutely no consideration or business intelligence on how to sway the opinion of the court/those in charge. Very ill-prepared and with a plan that was not at all thought out. He must not play chess very much. He thus had no credibility or respect, both of which he must earn. His actions aren’t doing “your cause” any favors.

    “Much of the criticism focuses on the lack of restraint or due process in determining punishments for contempt. ” Exactly…. NO DUE PROCESS. As seen by Pete’s situation. “

    There is absolutely due process in this situation. Pete’s living that. Again, he’s getting exactly what he asked for…an inside look at how the justice system punishes those that don’t follow the rules in place or take the time to properly change the rules if he so wishes.

    ” damned if you do and damned if you don’t. “

    Not at all. He was damned because he was wrong. His actions caused that, not the actions of the court or it’s officers. They were reactive to him.

    “ A public space and free speech, within reach of the Contempt powers. Not good. “
    Again, the courtroom is NOT a public space. It’s a place of state business that is open to the public. Your local shopping mall is NOT a public space. It’s also open to the public, thus you need to dress appropriately or be asked to leave/charged with trespassing.

    “ The best way to start the reform process is to question everything (which tradition hinders). Then it is to test the waters and push the envelope on the absurd areas, which I feel Pete has done. And then it is build support and enact legislative change. If that does not work…then there is always the other thing. “

    What pete did hardly started the reform process. He actually did no favors for your cause. His approach sucked and was stupid. The minds of those he seeks to change are now further seated in their ways. You don’t get someone or a group to change by trying to be combative. You have to convince them. What you or your friends here only matters to you. You’re job to affect change has to be to make your ideas the ideas of those you are up against. His execution was poor and your plan to enact change is quite flawed.

    “ I understand there are rules, I am simply questioning their validity and associated punishments. “

    The rules and punishments in place are valid and appropriate. Don’t like them? Then change them the way they need to be changed. Quit acting like a bunch of uneducated mis-fit kids by wearing hat’s in a courtroom. That’s not quite the way you go about changing what it is you seek to change. Very poor execution.

  141. No thanks says:

    @ Dr. Q says:

    “No thanks” wrote: “Is that right to wear a hat in the Bill of Rights?”
    Yes. It’s called the First Amendment. Look it up. ”

    Please explain how his freedom of speech was impeded.

    The first amendment doesn’t grant him the right to do whatever he wants where ever and when ever he wants. He can surely protest on the front lawn (A Public Space) of the courtroom so long as he follow the rules for doing so (meaning he doesn’t interfere with th rights of those around him and the rules in place to protect those rights, but he is NOT permitted to go into a place of business for the state, while said business is being conducted, no obey the rules of a space that is Open to the Public, but NOT a Public Space and disrupt the proceedings.

    I think it’s you that needs to better understand what is meant by freedom of speech and it’s you and others that need to learn how to influence change and actually make shit happen. Your execution and delivery is seriously flawed, not doing you any good, not making any impact nor helping your cause in any way.

  142. Pat Hines says:

    Although I’ve not read the New Hampshire Constitution, I’d expect that it’s quite similar to the US constitution, if not better than that, in its protection of rights.

    Rights protected against usurpation by government do not have to be listed in America. To own a car, a house, a tractor, or anything else is a right, yet no specific rights protection mention any of those things. There is the right to travel, moving from one place to another, without permission of a government, yet that right is not mentioned, at least not in the US constitution. Yet it is a right.

    Take a look at the Ninth Amendment to see how those rights are in fact protected from predation by governments.

    As far as “contempt of court” is concerned, well, we’re guilty of allowing that to be established by the courts and judges, since no power has been granted to the courts to establish that, beyond what needed for an orderly conduct of the court procedures themselves, that is, one cannot stand up and dance during the court secession unless granted permission to do so, but nothing beyond that.

    Pete, brave soul that he is, decided to not accept that usurpation of his right to dress as he pleased. Since no one can claim that he was outlandishly dressed in order to disturb the orderly conduct of the court, say in a hat with a four foot ostrich plume on it. He was dressed well within the norms of his community based on the video, the bailiff simply decided to exercise power, power that he would not have chosen were he not armed or backed up by those who were armed. If all in the room were armed, then he’d have kept his fat, taxeater mouth shut as well.

    As it was, the bailiff was a coward, hiding behind armed thugs, hopefully good New Hampshire men will take the bailiff behind “the barn” and give him the arse kicking he so richly deserves.

  143. Dan says:

    “the bailiff simply decided to exercise power”

    Yes he’s demonstrated his power, power that the government and we as people placed upon him,

    “well, we’re guilty of allowing that to be established by the courts and judges”

    Meaning WE as people decide this was the right action to take towards people who disrupt a court Hearing.

  144. Dan says:

    My question is

    Why do Peter and Adam heckle the little fish, why is there not a video of them tormenting government officials or people who are in power to make things happen, Why didn’t they take their bus to the capital and demonstrate there ?

  145. Pat Hines says:

    No, Dan, unless a power is expressly granted to government, it does not exist for government. Someone, early in this thread, looked up the law concerning the courts in New Hampshire and there’s no grant of authority for a bailiff, nor a judge for that matter, to force hat removals in the manner in which it was done, or any other manner for that matter. No grant of power, no power.

    Most people don’t see the inside of a court room during their lives, therefore they’re not aware of the usurpation of power by the courts, this episode has made many more people aware of the uncivilized manner of the court room and demonstrated what they need to do to regain control from those in government.

  146. No thanks says:

    @ Pat Hines

    ” Pete, brave soul that he is, decided to not accept that usurpation of his right to dress as he pleased.”

    I’m glad to see you recognize he made the free choice to disobey the rules of court and that his own actions are what brought all this upon him.

    ” the bailiff simply decided to exercise power, power that he would not have chosen were he not armed or backed up by those who were armed. ”

    Oh please, give me a break. If the Baliff was a coward hiding behind the officers, then Pete is just as much a coward for NOT making an even tougher stand.

  147. No thanks says:

    @ Pat Hines

    ” Someone, early in this thread, looked up the law concerning the courts in New Hampshire and there’s no grant of authority for a bailiff, nor a judge for that matter, to force hat removals in the manner in which it was done, or any other manner for that matter. No grant of power, no power. ”

    http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/dmcr/dmcr-1_4.htm

    You’re wrong. The District Court of NH absolutely gives power to the judge power and in fact it’s their RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that trials are conducted in a fair and impartial manner, free from undue pressures and outside influences. Similarly, the presiding judge has a responsibility to the public and the press to provide reasonable access to judicial proceedings. Above all, trials must be conducted in an atmosphere of dignity and decorum.

    These two individuals hardly conducted themselves with dignity and decorum. They both blatantly broke the rules of the court and caused disturbances. The judge and courtroom officers are there to use their power to insure this childish behavior, behavior of individuals who lack the proper understanding and skills of how our judicial system works, do not interfere.

    ” Most people don’t see the inside of a court room during their lives, therefore they’re not aware of the usurpation of power by the courts, this episode has made many more people aware of the uncivilized manner of the court room and demonstrated what they need to do to regain control from those in government. ”

    The only things uncivilized in manner here were the actions of Pete and the other guy. That behavior is so contrary and unhelpful to the cause you all seem to thing you represent it’s not funny. Rather ironic actually. Such behavior is exactly why you have zero creditability in the eyes of those around you who’s minds you seek to change. The approach is horrible and delivered in a very poor manner.

  148. No thanks says:

    @ Dan

    ” Why do Peter and Adam heckle the little fish, why is there not a video of them tormenting government officials or people who are in power to make things happen, Why didn’t they take their bus to the capital and demonstrate there ? ”

    Dan, these nuts don’t have a clue how to affect real meaningful change or sway the minds of those in charge to do anything. They are clueless on how it’s done. Instead they resort to some pretty poorly executed displays they video tape, put online and talk about to help pump up their own self righteous ideals.

    Perhaps one day they will figure out how to get it done. Until then, they are simply drama lamas that revel in their own demise, constantly blame others for what they are bringing upon themselves. Oh boo-hoo, look what “the man” is doing to us. Pa-lease.

  149. Dan says:

    On several occasions this woman on the freepete.org web site asks for Donations, since Pete and Adam don’t have jobs they have this very dramatic woman requesting money. I believe that they call this a ponzi scam,

  150. No thanks says:

    So my understanding is he finally self identified and was processed.

    Pete, so you go to court to support some friends, etc…you wear whatever the heck you want…hey, that’s your choice, including a hat….cool so far. However, question, don’t you think if you’re in a court of law, that maybe, just maybe, you would want to dress up a little and show a little maturity when supporting your frined? I mean you can watch 1-2 reruns of any cheesy law and order episode and note that it’s best to dress up not down. Anyway, your call….

    So when the baliff comes over and tells you to remove your hat because it’s the courts policy to not have them on, you get lippy with him about not “signing that policy” WTF is that about dude? Smart ass comment is all it was, no coloring that one innocent.

    You’re in open court, not a Public Space, so while your interview after your bail was posted eludes to if this happened on the street….but it didn’t. It wasn’t a group of thugs on the street trying o take your hat. It was an officer of the court ordering you to obey the dress code.

    You didn’t have your rights violated, the rules of the court are posted and well known. You obviously didn’t brush up on rules and etiquette of being in a court room. You’re right, it’s not about the hat. It’s about your attitude and actions. YOUR actions. They DID very clearly tell you to get out. Right after you made the comment about the hat being your property, the baliff said get out. You should have left right then and there dude. You didn’t.

    The cop then grabbed you and pulled you away. You kept your hands in your hoodie instead of getting up and leaving. You weren’t assisting them in getting your ass out of the room. BTW, putting your hands in your pocket isn’t a wise move. They don’t know if you have a weapon hidden in there. You feel like you were treated cruel? Dude, you’re a big guy, have your hands in your pockets, resisting their efforts. They certainly aren’t going to kid-glove your ass out the door. Not a wise thing to do for an officer.

    I like how the guy interviewing you calls it “their system” It’s the system of the people. They demand that you “bow down” to them either. Take off your hat….a pretty simple request.

    You were not the victim dude. You weren’t then further victimized buy being asked to process. It’s the law to self identify. You don’t have to “jump through hoops” just do what you need and are required to do by the laws that society…the same people you live among have put in place.

  151. No thanks says:

    Yep, I watched it back again, the baliff told you to Come On and waved for you to get up and leave, you didn’t and in fact resisted his attempt to get you to stand up and leave. When the cops grabbed you, it was all over. You were being arrested as you should have been. After, whoever kept yelling they were hurting you….STFU….you should have put your feet on the ground and stood up. Officers clearly told you to stand up and you continued to resist crossing your feet and not standing up. Thus the reason they carried your ass down out and door and down the stairs. YOU could have made things a lot easier but exercised your FREEDOM and didn’t Not the cops fault….yours.

  152. No thanks says:

    @ 5:48 into the video……..guy who made the tape makes a comment that “just because it’s US” Us as in this wasn’t staged eh? Us as in you made it clear you had a group of people in court, likely the baliff and others knew too, but you implied us…hmmmm No, it wasn’t staged. Insert some rolling eyes here…..

  153. No thanks says:

    @9:00 they weren’t “hurting him again” he was refusing to walk again. He very clearly wouldn’t put his fee on the ground, so they carried his ass. Wow….love the drama you can make up when the video facts you took clearly show a completely different story. Ha ha!

  154. Pat Hines says:

    Good men of New Hampshire, rise up and do your duty. Give the government thugs the justice they deserve.

    I’m done here, by the way, this is a New Hampshire issue, those freedom advocates in New Hampshire know what duty requires, I wish them well in their endeavors.

  155. Brian says:

    No Thanks continues with his rude comments directed at other posters, his actions tell us he is not interested in civil discourse but rather berating others. He is posting his points in a repetitive fashion now, and making claims without citing specifics. He altered my post, condensing some of my quotes into sentences that do not retain their meaning and then addressing the altered version, which is in bad form.

    Furthermore, his outlook is that it is morally acceptable to use violent force against someone who is non-violent.

    At this point, it may be best to not feed the trolls.

    I hope those that have more to offer this debate, other than what has already been discussed, continue to join in.

  156. No thanks says:

    @ Brian

    ” No Thanks continues with his rude comments directed at other posters, his actions tell us he is not interested in civil discourse but rather berating others. ”

    I’m not berating other. I’m being blunt. My apologies. I’ve yet to see anyone answer any of my sincere questions or provide ME any insight. IMO, that’s rude.

    “He is posting his points in a repetitive fashion now, and making claims without citing specifics. ”

    Have you ever clearly identified an area in which you would like to me to cite some specifics? If I have not met your expectations in terms of making my point, please, by all means, ask me to clarify. Thus far you have not. Please don’t blame me for that lack of communication.

    ” He altered my post, condensing some of my quotes into sentences that do not retain their meaning and then addressing the altered version, which is in bad form. ”

    ?? Please. You and I both write at length. If I condense your points, it’s only to remove text for the sake of length, not to alter your points or meaning. Again, if you need clarification, please communicate where and I’ll gladly reply. Thus far you have not.

    ” Furthermore, his outlook is that it is morally acceptable to use violent force against someone who is non-violent. ”

    Please show me where there was violence used in this incident with Pete ? Please. I look forward to that portion of the video. I’ll agree that Pete was not violent. Niether were the police. I also think I’ve made myself more than clear on step by step how Pete was not cooperating and thus forced the police to carry him away. Were they violent? Not at all. Again, if you disagree, please communicate with me here and ask for clarification. I have but I’ve yet to see ANYONE reply to my very valid questions through out this entire thread.

    ” At this point, it may be best to not feed the trolls. ”

    Please share with me your definition of a troll.
    I’m hardly a troll. I’m a citizen just like you engaged in a conversation. If I were a “troll” I’d pop in and leave and never address or ENGAGE anyone directly or ask as many questions as I have. I’ve reviewed just about every post and minute of video. Please, if I’m a troll by internet standards, please clarify for me what it is you would like to see. Communicate with me. Thus far you haven’t.

  157. No thanks says:

    @ Brian

    Sorry I missed this section of one of your replies.

    ” You still have not addressed my original post. We are questioning the legitimacy of the court rules in the first place. We know they exist, now demonstrate to us that they have a basis in the Constitution. ”

    What are you looking or what don’t you see that suggests you the rules of courtroom are not constitutional? I think I’ve already beat the various amemdnemtns others have called into question to death. This isn’t a freedom of speech issue.

    The Supreme court grants the power for lower courts to be created. The district court hold their lower courts, namely the Keen County courts responsible for creating the rules to maintain order and an atmosphere of dignity and decorum. Part of their definition includes proper attire. I’m sorry, but if you want to call that into question, then do so, but do so the correct way. Not by acting like a gang of Rebels out to make a point and record you tube videos to fuel more drama.

    ” Where did we grant the Judicial Branch the power to incarcerate someone on an arbitrary and inconsistent rule not set by the Legislative Branch. I would like to see the audit trail from the Constitution to this court room rule.

    I would say you need to look at who created the local court you have there. It’s all going to roll up to the power given to them by the supreme court. The same court that Pete can take this issue up with if he so chooses to fight it all the way to them. So your audit trail is eventually going to lead to the higher courts. I’m certainly not going to bore my wife with looking at something that she isn’t involved with. That’s your job as an activist. Heck, ask Pete. He’s now on the front lines of it all, have his lawyer track that audit trail for you. He’s already on the case. I too am curious what you will find.

    My role here is to clarify that what everyone is all bent about is their need to follow the rules of the court as they stand today. I have no problem if you all want to try and figure out if the rules have validity in your eyes. I do have a problem when you incorrectly go around blaming others for your actions. I do have a problem when you go about trying to affect change by acting like rebels without a clue. You yourself admit you’re looking for an audit trail or proof, yet even though it might be right in front of you, you go ahead and have members make fools of themselves in open court, resisting arrest, ranting and blurting out curse words to a judge. I’m really, come on, is this how you go about fighting your cause? Do you really wonder why the courts and elected officials and police don’t take you seriously?

    ” From the video I saw on the sentencing, he was found in contempt not for the hat but for what he said disrespecting the court, not the judge, but the inanimate/non-human/non-emotional court… can anyone confirm this or did I simply hear it incorrectly? ”

    Yes, he was out of line and disorderly. The judge was referring to the court as the system. Pete however will likely be facing contempt for not obeying orders of a courtroom official or disorderly conduct for his behavior and resisting. End of story. It doesn’t matter what the judge called it at that moment. It’s what appears on the formal charges.

  158. Dorothy says:

    After watching the different videos on Youtube and reading the comments here I now believe that Pete and accomplice(s) staged the whole event as a way to make some money and as a way to divide people against each other. If you research some of the people involved, there is a clear history evident. They are extremists who cannot be trusted at any level.

  159. Guy Fawkes says:

    @Vlad

    “You’re no Guy Fawks, that’s for sure”
    Sorry my phrasing isn’t good enough for you professor, you can give me a red mark on my report card. BTW genius, it’s Fawkes not Fawks.

    ” Somehow I get the feeling you are really one of the liberal self-proclaimed intellectual crowd who really hates america.” (Since we are criticizing grammar here, it’s America, not america. Sorry Vladi, no gold star 4 U.)
    Ahahahahahaha, couldn’t be more off base there. They may protest about police brutality here and there, but liberals love the cops as much as conservatives do. How else do you enforce nanny-state regulations such as seat belt laws, helmet laws, smoking bans, etc? I am non partisan, there are issues I agree and disagree with on both sides.

  160. Dan says:

    I wonder if anyone could tell me how much Peter and Adam raised from this skit they put on that day?

  161. Tyranny Sawusvexed says:

    Pete’s stunt here strikes me as roughly equivalent to eating food containing trans fats, or using too much salt, while in New York.
    http://gothamist.com/2010/04/20/fda_joins_salt-ban_bandwagon.php

    Or maybe it’s more like if he participated in the distribution of non-pasteurized milk.
    http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/aa/aa-26april2010.htm

    Under the Obama administration we are losing our freedoms. The government is turning America into a police state.

    I wish Pete would do something similar to this stunt at an airport to antagonize the TSA. There’s already some horrific videos of people be grossly abused by the TSA. Those incidents make this one look insignificant. I don’t understand why major lawsuits have not been filed against the TSA.

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/01/29/tsa.private/?hpt=T2

    http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/tsa-pat-down-search-abuse

    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700083731/Losing-our-freedoms.html

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=228637

  162. freedom in america is an illusion. it is the same old story of control and oppression of the masses by the few who can afford to buy justice. antole france says in the laws majestic equality it is illegal for rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges beg for change and to steal bread. the tree of librty needs to be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots alike. when will enough be enough nazi germany started out the same way suspending the rights of individuals in the name of the collected good. you want your voice heard stop paying taxes and within weeks the government will be on its knees. 95 percent of american citizens arenot represented by the elected. is this the america our fathers died for? and our brothers fight for today

  163. racethe1320 says:

    ” 95 percent of american citizens arenot represented by the elected. is this the america our fathers died for? and our brothers fight for today ”

    No, the America today is much better. Honestly, 95% of the 95% you speak of haven’t enough intelligence, education or pure common sense to make decisions that will move us forward. Hell, the mere fact that Pete and company don’t understand why all this happened or how to affect real change in matters that they disagree with is proof enough that not everyone should be involved in decisions.

  164. david says:

    @dan,
    why do you say “skit”? Do you think people are getting arrested for a “skit”?
    Why do you say “skit”?
    ( i doubt you will answer)

  165. Dan says:

    @ David

    If you notice in one of the videos after Adam is getting dragged to the ground in the court room, a couple of camera people (where sitting right next to Adam in the court )whip out there recording device, so my instant thought was that Hollywood was in the state of NH and they were filming a skit for the upcoming show “Simpletons with no Jobs Wasting tax payers money with very immature attitudes “

  166. david says:

    It is the “free state project” and they carry cameras and there is a bill that is making it NOT a crime to FILM our public servants.
    Did you know it is a crime to film the police , and many courts don’t allow you to film or record?

    Yet they have cameras on YOU, AT ALL TIMES.
    And they are paid by US:our PUBLIC servants!
    The reason for the cameras is so they can be held accountable and they can’t DENY ,because it will be on film.
    Why is it ok for them to film us but not us film them?
    Ever wonder that.
    Then when the time comes for people to look at the film that THEY filmed ; the parts that make them look ,not so good , somehow went missing.
    These are reasons for the video ; it is easy to film today with the new technology.

    I was in some of the courts hearing and it is just regular folks filming with permission from the court………no fancey schmancy Hollywood.
    peace

  167. Dan says:

    @ David

    First, I said nothing about the cameras in court, I am not questioning the laws/policy or rules about cameras in the court house.

    It’s interesting that most of the by standards ( People sitting next to the Adam in the court room ) have cameras, If you watch in one of the film footage they all grab for their cameras immediately when Adam is being placed in the prone position.
    I just thought that the Director of the skit order the filming at that precise time in order to catch the actor (Adam ) in a fine performance. Excellent filming by the crew.

    “the parts that make them look ,not so good , somehow went missing.”
    No missing footage there, too many cameras around, the director made a wise decision on loading up by standards with cameras in order to get a great performance by Adam, Bravo!!

  168. david says:

    I live in the town.I know the judge..it is a real court with real judge and real court case………. ……….there is no skit

  169. david says:

    when one person in the FREE STATE PROJECT has a court case many people go to the court room to support their friend , and often they have their cameras with them.
    That is what is going on , everyone that has a camera is a member of the free state project or a supporter ,,,,,,quite often there is over ten people there and sometimes over 20

  170. Dawn says:

    David, I live in the town too…there’s no doubt it’s a real court with a real judge…
    they weren’t the ones staging the event…everyone else in the court (you all) seem to be the stagers!

  171. david says:

    I guess you can call it “staging a event” if you want.

  172. david says:

    It is just people attending a court hearing ,and some speaking their minds and some saying “I’m not taking this unjust crap”.
    Nothing is “staged”.

  173. Pingback: Free Ademo! | Cop Block

  174. Unbiased says:

    Currently reviewing more of your work where, thus far, you seem to be politely in compliance with the officers you tend to encounter.

    However, this particular incident reflects rather poorly on your group, especially concerning Pete. The officers were clearly following proper procedure and had Pete merely complied or made any effort to comply with some of the basic requests, I wholeheartedly believe this could have all been avoided.
    1) The hat. There may not be laws concerning hats overall, but certain institutions are given the power to decide what attire is deemed appropriate. I have always seen it to be more of a respect thing than anything else. Both for your personal appearance and theirs. If you disagree, there are much better ways to go about trying to change this common practice. Pete did disrespect the officials involved, even if he did so in a calm and quietly voiced manner, the disrespect was still evident.
    2) Resisting and obstructing. Once it was clear Pete was going to be detained, he started exhibiting behaviors I usually see in elementary school level kids. Refusing to walk and being difficult with his body in general. This greatly hindered any reason for the cops to try and handle him like a normal adult. I have been arrested and I can tell you, the cops will not respond nearly as harshly if you do not behave the way Pete did. They had to hold and carry him the way they did because Pete refused to use his own two feet.

    Now, I support wholeheartedly citizens being more conscious of their rights and fighting to protect them. There are crooked cops and officials and this does need to be brought to life. However, if more protests are handled in this manner, who is going to take any of the rest of us seriously?

  175. david says:

    @Unbiased .
    1: you are not “unbiased”
    2:you are wrong from top to bottom.
    peace

  176. Dorothy says:

    @Unbiased

    >> “…the cops will not respond nearly as harshly…”

    The purpose of the behavior was to obtain the harshest possible response while appearing to be a pacifist, specifically for the cameras on hand. This whole thing was a setup if ever there was one.

    @david
    If you believe “Unbiased” is biased, maybe you could point to some specifics. You are the one who is clearly biased, demonstrating it for all to see by your statements. After reading your comments here, I believe you could save yourself some time and effort by simply writing “If you don’t support my agenda you are wrong.”

  177. Ogre says:

    Unbiased, two questions:

    1. What do you believe the punishment should be for wearing socks with sandals and for wearing white after Labor Day? After all, you’re supporting the idea that bad manners or disrespect should be punished with violence.

    2. Will you help me if I come to your house to rob you? You’re saying that Pete should have cooperated with people who wanted to do him harm, so I’m wondering if you will do the same.

    [WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.

  178. david says:

    @dorothy,
    I don know how you can say “The purpose of the behavior was to obtain the harshest possible response while appearing to be a pacifist, specifically for the cameras on hand”
    The activists are not in control of what the cops and court people do ..

    And then you said “This whole thing was a setup if ever there was one.”
    Where is the “set up”? You are wrong on that.
    The people sitting in the court are not puppet masters for the court personnel .

    As far as me having a “bias” my only bias is against authoritarian regimes , abuse perpetrated by court , personal freedoms ,.
    and i am bias against people getting beat up in court for wearing a hat .
    The court is suppose to be a place were JUSTICE happens.
    I don’t see justice with a man being beat up and carried away for a hat.
    And anyone who does see justice there ,in my opinion ,has been corrupted.

  179. No Thanks says:

    @ david:

    ” And then you said “This whole thing was a setup if ever there was one.”
    Where is the “set up”? You are wrong on that.
    The people sitting in the court are not puppet masters for the court personnel . ”

    I would say the liberty bent folks sitting in the court knew exactly what they were doing and had the intent to stir up trouble. Whether ahead of time by purposely deciding to wear a hat to stir trouble or at that moment, when he reacted the way he did, Pete decided to be a rebel. IMO, I don’t think he pre-planned the whole situation but I do feel at the moment the baliff told him that courtroom policy required him to remove his hat, he instantly went into a rebellious mode. Poorly executed and bringing zero to his/your cause.

    ” As far as me having a “bias” my only bias is against authoritarian regimes , abuse perpetrated by court , personal freedoms ,.and i am bias against people getting beat up in court for wearing a hat . ”

    Fair enough for you to have a personal opinion. However, I disagree that his freedoms were violated. Again, he doesn’t have the freedom to do anything he wants in a court of law. HIS actions are what led to how he was treated. He was a cocky smart ass who then became resistant and finally defiant. All dumb moves in a court of law with officers aware of your groups presence and underlying purpose for being there.

    ” The court is suppose to be a place were JUSTICE happens. I don’t see justice with a man being beat up and carried away for a hat. And anyone who does see justice there ,in my opinion ,has been corrupted. ”

    So you are still focused on the hat. Why? If you want to argue hats in court, go for it. What happened here wasn’t due to a hat. It was due to Pete not respecting the order of a baliff/officer at a point in time prior to you and others successfully challenging the allowance of hats in that court room. He knew where he stood at that moment and HE chose to act as he did.

    So you don’t see justice in punishing someone for not obeying a rule that is place in a court room ?
    You don’t see justice in punishing someone who resists verbally and gets cocky with an officer of a court “what contract sir? Ididn’t sign any contract? ” That’s being a smart ass and defiant.
    You don’t see justice in punishing somone who refused to leave when verbally told to “let’s go” and waved to leave the room?
    You don’t see justice in punishing someone who refuses to walk on his own accord, crosses his feet and forces the police to carry him out?

    Wow…sounds to me like your not just brainwashed with an extremely liberal and out of place mindset, (you do freely choose to live in our society with rules don’t you?).
    Sounds to me like you don’t understand the root cause of what happened here.
    Sounds to me like you don’t know how to properly and effectively influence change.

  180. david says:

    The point is that government,laws encroach too much on personal freedoms and rights.
    Also, the point is that the courts don’t mead out justice.
    So, cameras are there to capture this.
    Our freedoms are being taken away by degrees.
    And government is too big and too controlling.
    Perhaps you don’t think what the freekeene folks do is the right way to go about achieving the ends we want .
    You can criticize as much as you want.
    Just as I can disagree with you .
    The free keene folks are TAKING ACTIONS ,right or wrong,(in who evers eyes), .
    They are TAKING ACTIONS.
    I’d say that is a bit more than you are doing by sitting on the sidelines critiquing.
    When you say stuff like “you do freely choose to live in our society with rules don’t you?” .
    The “rules” were that black folks were on the back of the bus.

    Tt makes me think you don’t understand things very well.
    Also when you say stuff like “liberal” it makes me think you trapped in a mind set.

  181. Dorothy says:

    @david

    I agree with you that gov’t law is out of control, in so many ways.

    However, you are either very naive and ignorant, or you are lying. Perhaps you wear blinders. First of all, Pete was NOT “beat up”, a phrase you have repeated here many times. It is a lie. Pete was restrained, and the officers exhibited remarkable self-restraint in their bahavior. I’m told it is because they know this bunch, and know that provoked actions are hoped for, so subsequent lawsuits can be filed.

    You claim “The activists are not in control of what the cops and court people do”, which is part of why I say you are extremely naive, or lying. It is called “Predictive Response”, and has been used by activist groups for years. Many of the groups now offer classes, to those they completely trust, where the topic is “Steered Predictive Response”. They have psychologists and lawyers, and even disgruntled members of law enforcement to help train the people how to elicit various responses while avoiding risk. In Pete’s case, he completely avoided risk, and was able to get the incident on video to use as propaganda, telling the viewers “Pete was beat up for wearing a hat”, which of course is a complete falsehood on more than one level.

    I know that the classes for SPR are real, because as part of an under-cover investigation I attended some of them. One thing we learned is that their funds primarily come from the middle east. I guess the anti-American powers over there are ever-hopeful for predictive responses by activists – and they are generally correct on that score.

  182. david says:

    @dorothy,
    you say “disgruntled members of law enforcement”
    What if they are not “disgruntled” but people who found out that law enforcement was more corrupt and not “protecting and serving”. Maybe they are X-law enforcement that found out that law enforcement wasn’t the idea they thought it was;which gives them a more informed view than the vast majority of people i.e. they know what they are talking about!
    You said “not beat up” :would a knee to your head be “beat up” if it was you?
    Yea i said “The activists are not in control of what the cops and court people do”
    Because I KNOW that attacking someone for wearing a hat is NOT the only recourse.
    I HAVE SEEN PEOPLE IN COURT WEARING HATS.
    Also i have SEEN the court take other ACTION rather than that EXTREME ABUSIVE ACTION . MEANING THE COURT DIDN’T THINK IT WAS WORTH IT.
    That you defend this speaks much about you and says you you have a huge double standard. I have been in court plenty and they don’t HAVE to attack people for wearing a hat,You can argue the righteousness of this till you are blue in the face and all it will do is show your double standard and bias.
    You don’t seem very credible on this matter.

  183. Dorothy says:

    @david

    I grant you that maybe not all the LE folks at the activist classes I referred to are necessarily disgruntled. The ones I interacted with were clearly disgruntled.

    NO, Pete was NOT “beat up”. A knee on your head when you are clearly being uncooperative with the authorities is not unexpected, and the officer definitely did not handle Pete in a rough manner. Only a sissy would think that the handing was rough.

    Once again you claim “attacking someone for wearing a hat is NOT the only recourse.”

    Are you completely brain damaged??? Pete was NOT attacked, and the restraint action was NOT because he was wearing a hat. To imply such a falsehood reveals your true nature.

    Yes, I’ve seen people in court wearing a hat also, and if/when asked to remove it, they did without hesitation. Pete could have complied, or he could have voluntarily left the courtroom. It was his intent to cause an incident, hence he refused to remove the hat, and further refused to cooperate.

    Had Pete ever served in any military unit and behaved in such a manner, he would have learned the meaning of being “beat up”, in short order.

    Your comment, as you have done repeatedly in this forum, of “That you defend this speaks much about you and says you you have a huge double standard” is a ludicrous statement. You follow that with “they don’t HAVE to attack people for wearing a hat”, repeating the same lie over and over again. Pete was NOT attacked, and the incident was NOT precipitated because Pete was wearing a hat. Pete failed to comply with the court rules. If he disagrees with said rules then he should work to change them. But you can not possibly be that stupid to not understand that.

    If you get stopped for going 35 in a 30 MPH zone, and refuse to produce your license and registration when asked, You will be arrested. The arrest, quite obviously, would NOT be because you were driving a little too fast. Just because you don’t feel that the 30 MPH speed limit is fair does not enter into it. And further, imagine if the officer was only stopping you to give you a verbal warning, to tell you “Please slow down”, and your response was “No! I am NOT going to slow down, and you can’t make me!” Effectively, that is what Pete did.

    There is ONE thing you wrote that I believe to be very true and accurate:
    “I have been in court plenty”

    You accuse me of having a double standard and being biased, yet offer no explanation as to how you arrive at that opinion. I have observed that this is your SOP here: you make unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations.

  184. david says:

    @dorothy,
    I have seen the court ask people to remove their hat and have seen the person say no and that was the end of it and the person did not remove their hat.
    And because someone doesn’t see things as you do does not make them “brain damaged”.
    nor does it mean they are “stupid”
    Seems your view is that “he’s lucky he didn’t get worse”.
    Well your view is what people are fighting against.
    Your “double standard” is ,as i SAID, if it was YOU being treated that way (knee on the head etc) you would call it being “beat up”.
    And your bias is you are bias against free staters and you are bias in favor of abusers and a bias for excess state control/abuse/ state sanctioned assault.
    And there is no “activist school” that you speak of ,no one is going to “activist school” more evidence that you don’t know what you are talking about.
    I am done talking to someone who can only call people “stupid” and “brain damaged” when they have nothing else;just because someone doesn’t see things YOUR WAY doesn’t mean they are “brain damaged” or “stupid”;it COULD MEAN they have more experience than you do.
    Bottom line beating someone up is not the only recourse.
    And if it was YOU, it would be “beating someone up” …there’s your double standard that you fain unawareness of.

  185. Dorothy says:

    @david

    >> “if it was YOU being treated that way…”

    I do not have a double standard about this issue. If it was me being treated that way, I still would not consider it being “beat up”. The officers exhibited remarkable restraint during the whole process. Pete should try this stunt in Los Angeles, and see what happens.

    >> “…your bias is you are bias against free staters and you are bias in favor of abusers…”

    I’m not really clear on what a “free stater” is. From what little I’ve read, they are mostly fringe extremists who refuse to conform to rules of society, unless it is a rule THEY approve of.
    As far as being biased in favor of abusers, that is another of your many ludicrous statements. I have very little tolerance for abusers. However, it is obvious that we see “abuse” quite differently. In this case, I do not believe Pete was abused. Clearly, you do. The officers were operating within the parameters of their job. If you don’t like that, write your representative, and/or vote for different representatives.

    In my opinion, Pete is one of many cowards who sort of “take a stand” against something they believe is wrong, but are afraid to *really* take a stand. The little skit enacted by Pete will do nothing to change the system. If he genuinely believed his liberty is being violated, then he should have put up a fight. He did not. He is a coward. Had he the courage to fight, then this issue could have been visible in the major media. Without some kind of mass coverage, he will effect no changes in the system, and will win only support from his peers; other fringe extremists.

    I think Pete, and people like him, should consider doing things to actually help humanity.

    >> “And there is no “activist school” that you speak of ”

    Why?? Because YOU don’t know about it??? Or maybe it is because you DO know about it but don’t want the readers here to know about it. Try Google some time. Or ask your local “free staters”; they probably know about it. If not, ask any GLBT activist, or any senior members of ACORN. They can tell you all about Predictive Response strategy in activism. The concept goes back as far as Tzu’s “Art of War”, and has been used for centuries not only for war against foreign enemies, but also by many groups bent upon the destruction of their domestic enemies.

    >> “if it was YOU, it would be “beating someone up” …there’s your double standard”

    Well, nobody was “beat up”; but if it was me, I would have either removed the hat, or peacefully left the courtroom, or put up a real fight if it was something I felt strongly about.

  186. Dorothy says:

    PS:

    I guess people like Pete will want to change “Live Free or Die” to “Live Free or be a Whining Sissy”.

    Long ago, when people actually had integrity, and were honest and forthright, they would fight for that which they believed in. Back then, people also showed respect and consideration for the views of others. Pete and his ilk lack those qualities entirely.

  187. Dr. Q says:

    Dorothy, why don’t you start showing some “respect and consideration” for people who want to wear hats and other clothing that you dislike?

  188. Dorothy says:

    @Dr. Q

    My respect and consideration has nothing to do with it. The rules were not set forth by me. I do not object to those rules, and even if I did object, my behavior would certainly not be what we see in the video of Pete.

    I believe that Pete brought this incident on by intent. Whether or not I agree or disagree with the rule in question has nothing to do with my opinion of Pete.

    And really, why should a low-life like Pete merit my respect or consideration???

  189. No Thanks says:

    @ david says:

    ” Perhaps you don’t think what the freekeene folks do is the right way to go about achieving the ends we want . You can criticize as much as you want.
    Just as I can disagree with you . The free keene folks are TAKING ACTIONS ,right or wrong,(in who evers eyes)They are TAKING ACTIONS. ”

    They aren’t going about it the right way. What happened here is complete the opposite of what should have been done to affect change on the courts. I don’t care if they are TAKING ACTION. It’s the wrong action and makes their group look dumb.

    ” I’d say that is a bit more than you are doing by sitting on the sidelines critiquing. ”

    You have no idea what I do. Sure I’m critiquing but I’ve asked a shit-ton of questions too. Just review my posts. Seems no one here wants to answer them though.

    ” When you say stuff like “you do freely choose to live in our society with rules don’t you?” .
    The “rules” were that black folks were on the back of the bus. ”

    and blacks quite honestly didn’t choose to live here initially. they were brought as slaves and tossed into semi-freedom. completely different scenario anyway. there isn’t an entire country of people who are defending the rules of the courtroom and proper attire as they were with the immoral treatment of a race.

    ” It makes me think you don’t understand things very well. Also when you say stuff like “liberal” it makes me think you trapped in a mind set. ”

    I understand things just fine. I understand that you feel that any action, even ineffective action is helping and the right way to behave.

  190. Dr. Q says:

    “The rules were not set forth by me. I do not object to those rules, and even if I did object, my behavior would certainly not be what we see in the video of Pete.”

    Your underling premise that there are rules for dress in the Keene District Court is simply false. There are no legally-binding rules for dress in the court or any other public place in the United States. People have the right to freedom of speech and expression. One way people is express themselves is by exerting control over what they wear therefore the government — according to its own laws — has no right to regulate the way people dress.

  191. No Thanks says:

    @ david

    ” You said “not beat up” :would a knee to your head be “beat up” if it was you? ”

    hardly. he was arrested and treated in line with someone who simply resisted. had he been combative, we would have seen him beat up.

    ” Yea i said “The activists are not in control of what the cops and court people do”
    Because I KNOW that attacking someone for wearing a hat is NOT the only recourse.
    I HAVE SEEN PEOPLE IN COURT WEARING HATS. ”

    Pete was not attacked for wearing a hat. He wasn’t attacked, he was placed under arrest and treated firmly as anyone who resisted would be. You may very well have seen other wearing hats in court. Perhaps the judge presiding didn’t care. Just tonight I went past a cop shooting radar going 72-75mph as I always do. Once in a while you’ll find a cop who writes someone up for that. I typically do not. Such is life when people are involved in determining the enforcement of the rules.

    ” Also i have SEEN the court take other ACTION rather than that EXTREME ABUSIVE ACTION . MEANING THE COURT DIDN’T THINK IT WAS WORTH IT. ”

    Again, discretion is up to the judge/officers of the court. Not every cop believes 5mph over the limit is an issue either. However to 100% insure you don’t get reprimanded either way is to obey the rules and listen to the authorities when they tell you to follow said rules.

  192. FreeRoy says:

    Well, respect the institution of the Court — better way to settle disputes than blood feuds — but for this particular court and its officers I have only contempt.

    That being said, I need to correct one point here. The article said, “I found this pic of a police officer wearing a hat in court moments after I was kicked out and after Pete was dragged into a police car. One set of laws for them and another for us… oh and it all started with someone wearing a hat!”

    The general rule, at least when applied to members of the Armed Services, is that you remove your hat indoors, in Court, in places of worship . . . UNLESS you are armed and on duty. Those who are carrying weapons, in accord with their duty, also wear their hats, even in places where other people are required to remove their hats. That single point does not show a double standard.

  193. No Thanks says:

    @ Dr. Q says:

    ” This is simply false. There are no legally-binding rules for dress in the Keene District Court or any other public place in the United States. People have the right to freedom of speech and expression. One way people is express themselves is by exerting control over what they wear therefore the government — according to its own laws — has no right to regulate the way people dress. ”

    Courts rooms are not public places. They are open to the public but they are place of state run business. You don’t have the right to just hang out in court and wear whatever you want. You have to abide by the presiding judge and his enforcement of the basic guidelines of that do exist for this court. I posted the link several days ago. Proper attire is his discretion, not that of those observing. He can tell them to remove a hat. My wife and I work in the legal system and spend 50% of our days in court.

    You can express yourself all you want on your time in your space or a public space, but not in open court. You can’t go into any place of business wearing just whatever you want. Even state run offices. Don’t believe me, try walking into the capital building or courthouse in a bikini or without a shirt. You won’t be there very long.

  194. david says:

    @dorothy,
    Bottom line is The cops and court officers could have let the hat go.
    The chose to be exsessive and abusive.
    There are people who wear hats and thats it .
    Those cops and court officers chose the wrong way.
    And it would have been wrong had it been done to YOU dorothy or to pete who it was done to.
    It is WRONG if it is done to pete and it is wrong if its done to YOU dorothy.
    That is the difference between you and i dorothy :you would only think its wrong if it was done to YOU.
    Having it done to pete is ok with you.
    One last thing.
    I dont care to read your stuff anymore because i prefer discourse without demeaning put downs.
    peace

  195. Dorothy says:

    @Dr. Q

    Many courts do have a dress code. But you, as others here, are being dishonest. Pete was not restrained because of the hat, he was restrained for contempt of court.

    I agree that we should, and do, have freedom of expression so long as it does not negatively impact others. Pete can file suit if he believes his rights have been violated.

    I am more concerned with the courtroom dress codes that forbid denim jeans, work boots and other attire that “working people” commonly wear. I’ve read numerous articles about people being refused entry to court because of their clothing (not something simple like a removable hat) who lost their case by default for “not appearing”. To me, that is grossly unfair, in particular because a traffic citation does not include the dress code of the court on it, and some people simply do not have a “nice” wardrobe.

    But regardless, for you to believe that “There are no rules for dress in public places” when the courtroom is the public place, is foolish. Courts DO impose dress codes, more now than ever before in my lifetime. If those codes are unfair, there is a process by which we can try to make changes. Contempt of court is a poor choice for making changes.

  196. No Thanks says:

    Dorothy, your post at 7:35pm is spot on. Working in a court with my clients and even my wife’s, and we both practice two different areas of law, courts will make exceptions based on the client/case.

  197. Dorothy says:

    @david

    >> “Bottom line is The cops and court officers could have let the hat go”

    I agree. But they didn’t, and Pete COULD have removed the hat, but he didn’t.

    I guess you don’t understand me. I disagree with courtroom dress codes. Even if somebody comes in wearing “rags”, the court should handle the legal aspects of their case. But the court has made rules, and like it or not, breaking those rules will bring on consequences. Pete, if he really felt so strongly about this, could have taken a different path. He was the one who precipitated this incident, and I sincerely believe it was intentional. I base that on numerous things I’ve read about Pete’s brand of activism.

    >> “The chose to be exsessive and abusive”

    We disagree on that point. I do not believe they were excessive, nor were they abusive. Pete was out of line, and is required by law to adhere to the will of the officers of the court. As unfair as that may be, that IS how it is. And I reiterate, if Pete really felt so strongly about the hat issue, he had alternatives that would likely have a more positive yield. But Pete went in there fully intending for this kind of action to occur. It’s what he does.

    >> “you would only think its wrong if it was done to YOU”

    You really are being assinine about that point. I would NOT think it was wrong if it happened to me, because I would immediately understand what constitutes contempt of court and what does not. My own personal desires for “freedom” do not outweigh the rules of the court. If/when I encounter something I deem grossly unfair (as above mentioned dress codes that forbid jeans, boots, etc) then I pursue it through the system. We are a nation of law. If said law, and administrators of, and legislators, offend me so strongly that I can not tolerate it, then I would seek like-minded people. If I believed a strong majority of people were in agreement with me, and the system continued to fail due to corruption or whatever, then it would be time for a violent solution. And I have no problem with that. But not for my “right” to wear a hat in court. That’s ridiculous.

  198. Dorothy says:

    @NoThanks

    Thanks for your kind words.

    >> “courts will make exceptions based on the client/case”

    It is good to know that some (most??) courts will do that. The ones that have been in the news were in New York, Washington DC, Chicago and Los Angeles. Those are all “deep blue” domains, so it surprised me to read about people losing traffic violation cases by default (no appearance) because they were denied admittance to the court due to their attire. To me, that is a disgrace.

  199. david says:

    @Dorothy,
    Well It is activism.
    So this was the course of action chosen.
    It is less about the hat .
    It’s about the larger picture
    People do different activism.
    It’s hit or miss.
    I personally think this was pretty good.
    Because ” arrested and jailed for wearing a hat” is a good headline.

  200. david says:

    and its true

  201. No Thanks says:

    FYI: Here are some rules for our court room: If you have a problem with them, see the municipal judge or presiding judge for your case. Don’t expect much leniency though.

    GENERAL ORDER

    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all persons entering the courtroom as spectators or participants shall be dressed in the following manner:

    MALES: shall wear shoes, long pants and collared shirts that are tucked in.
    FEMALES: shall wear shoes, dresses, skirts, or long pants, with blouses, sweaters or casual dress skirts.

    Here are some things you should NOT wear:

    * Hats inside the courtroom (except those worn for religious purposes)
    * Sunglasses
    * T-shirts depicting violence, sexual acts, profanity, or illegal drugs
    * Tube or halter tops/plunging necklines/midriffs
    * Ripped or torn jeans
    * Mini skirts or shorts
    * Baggy pants that fall below the waist
    * Muscle shirts (usually worn as undergarments)

    If you are not dressed properly, you will be asked to leave the court and return at a later date. This will delay your hearing and require you to appear in court more than once.

  202. No Thanks says:

    ” Because ” arrested and jailed for wearing a hat” is a good headline. ”

    It would be good if that’s what he was actually arrested and jailed for. However, in his case it was being disorderly and or in contempt. I believe he was charged with disorderly. Don’t have the details handy.

  203. david says:

    Its close enough for a headline
    there is enough truth there for the headline.

  204. Dr. Q says:

    “[Y]ou, as others here, are being dishonest. Pete was not restrained because of the hat, he was restrained for contempt of court.”

    No, he wasn’t. Pete was never charged with “contempt of court” nor could he have been since no judge was present in the court at the time of his arrest. Pete was charged with “disorderly conduct” and “resisting arrest,” not “contempt of court.” If anyone here is being dishonest, it’s clearly you since you’re written endlessly about this incident but can’t even get the most basic facts about it right.

    Furthermore, Pete was most definitely arrested for wearing a hat. The entire justification behind his arrest was the fact that he had a hat on and would not take it off. The fact that his charge was called “disorderly conduct” and not “wearing a hat in court” or something to that effect does not change the fact that his wearing of a hat was the reason behind his arrest.

    “I agree that we should, and do, have freedom of expression so long as it does not negatively impact others.”

    Are you saying that wearing a person peacefully and unobtrusively wearing a hat in court “negatively impact[s] others”? If so, how?

    “[F]or you to believe that ‘There are no rules for dress in public places’ when the courtroom is the public place, is foolish. Courts DO impose dress codes, more now than ever before in my lifetime.”

    The fact that courts do enforce dress codes does not mean it is legal or just for them to do so. Accepted legal precedents can be false and are sometimes overturned for this very reason.

  205. david says:

    SEE
    so he WAS arrested for a HAT.
    :-)

  206. Dr. Q says:

    No thanks wrote: “It would be good if that’s what he was actually arrested and jailed for. However, in his case it was being disorderly and or in contempt.”

    This is an incredibly dishonest use of language. Pete was charged with “disorderly conduct,” but the basis for the charge is that he was wearing a hat. The fact that the charge is called “disorderly conduct” and not “wearing a hat” does not change this.

    If a man was arrested for “first degree murder” after shooting his wife and a journalist wrote an article about it called “Man arrested for shooting wife,” would you complain that “he wasn’t arrested for shooting his wife, he was arrested for ‘first degree murder'”? Probably not.

    Pete was arrested both for wearing a hat and for alleged “disorderly conduct.” There’s no contradiction there.

  207. david says:

    I DID know that the judge had yet to be in the court room.
    when the hat embroglio transpired.

  208. Dr. Q says:

    No thanks, your court’s dress code is unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court’s own rulings. See California v. Cohen. The Supreme Court upheld the right of a man to have a jacket reading “Fuck The Draft” inside a courtroom on First Amendment grounds. People can legally use “profanity” and express controversial views inside courtrooms.

  209. No Thanks says:

    Dr. Q says:
    February 2, 2011 at 8:41 pm

    ” Pete was charged with “disorderly conduct,” but the basis for the charge is that he was wearing a hat. The fact that the charge is called “disorderly conduct” and not “wearing a hat” does not change this. ”

    He was charged with disorderly conduct as that’s exactly what he was. He got smart with the bailiff after telling him to remove his hat. He didn’t get up when the bailiff told him to leave and waved for him to go. He also didn’t walk under his own power when the officer arrested him and made attempt to remove him. So by definition, he was behaving in a disruptive manner to himself and those around him. He doesn’t need to be seen as as a danger or hurting anyone else.

    ” If a man was arrested for “first degree murder” after shooting his wife and a journalist wrote an article about it called “Man arrested for shooting wife,” would you complain that “he wasn’t arrested for shooting his wife, he was arrested for ‘first degree murder’”? Probably not. ”

    Pete was disorderly for not listening to an officer of the court….oh….and a hat was involved. You could easily change that to wearing a sleeveless tee shirt and then changing the Headline to him being arrested for wearing a T-Shirt. Both are inappropriate in court and against the judges wishes.

  210. Dr. Q says:

    @No thanks

    Court bailiffs have no right to eject people from courtrooms for refusing to comply with non-existent rules. People can wear hats in court if they want to and court bailiffs have no right to remove them for it. This is basic freedom of expression.

    You say Pete was behaving in a “disruptive manner,” yet all he was doing was sitting down minding his own business. The entire disruption you describe was totally the fault of the bailiffs and the police. If they had ignored Pete — as they should have since he wasn’t doing anything wrong — then there wouldn’t have been any disruption. If anyone was “disorderly,” it was the bailiffs and cops.

  211. Dorothy says:

    @Dr. Q

    >> Pete was charged with “disorderly conduct” and “resisting arrest,”

    If Pete was not charged with contempt, then that’s my error. Somewhere in one of the videos one of the officers can be heard saying he would be charged with contempt of court, and that’s where I got it from.

    Regardless, disorderly conduct and/or resisting arrest was the issue. The hat was a tool, the basis by which to obtain a steered predictive response.

    >> “Pete was most definitely arrested for wearing a hat”

    No, Pete was arrested for “disorderly conduct”, remember??? To claim that Pete was arrested for wearing a hat is a lie. It is kind of like saying that a terrorist was arrested for lighting a match, when the real issue was the match ignited the fuse to a bomb. IT IS NOT A CRIME TO LIGHT A MATCH!!!

    >> “Are you saying that a person peacefully and unobtrusively wearing a hat in court “negatively impact[s] others”? If so, how?”

    No, that is not what I meant at all. I meant that *IF* some “expression” negatively impacts others it should not be allowed. Like if a person wants to express their inner self by screaming “FIRE!! FIRE!!!!” in a crowded theater where no fire exists, for example. No such freedom of expression exists in such as case. The hat does not fit that scenario, obviously.

    Frankly, I don’t care if somebody wears a hat in court. But it bothers me that the headline reads “Wearing a Hat is NOT a Crime”, which is intentionally giving people a false view of what really happened.

    >> “Legal precedents can be overturned if they are incorrect”

    I agree completely. And if this issue is SO important to Pete and others, then let them follow procedure and get things changed. His actions in the courtroom were intended to provoke a response, and then open the door for misleading headlines like “Wearing a Hat is NOT a Crime”, and to have supporters repeatedly write “Pete was beaten up for wearing a hat” and “Pete was attacked for wearing a hat”. Anybody with any common sense at all can see what bullshit that is, especially given that there are videos of the whole thing.

  212. Dr. Q says:

    “No, Pete was arrested for ‘disorderly conduct’, remember??? To claim that Pete was arrested for wearing a hat is a lie.”

    As I’ve already explained multiple times, this argument is incorrect. Pete was charged with “disorderly conduct,” yet was still arrested because he was wearing a hat. There’s no contradiction.

  213. david says:

    @Dorothy
    you said “But Pete went in there fully intending for this kind of action to occur. It’s what he does.”

    I have been in court with pete.
    He “fully intended” to wear his hat.
    That,s all..
    The rest was up to them .
    I have seen the court people let it go.
    Again, they were being power freaks.
    They could have used their smart discretion but they were dumb.
    Now there are videos of a man getting assaulted for wearing a hat in keene nh court room.

  214. Noodly1 says:

    C’est la guerre…

  215. Noodly1 says:

    Oops, forgot the “y’all.” C’est la guerre, ya’ll.

  216. Dorothy says:

    @Dr. Q

    Sorry, I still don’t see that Pete was “arrested for wearing a hat”. You could say that by not removing the hat after being told to, that THEN he was arrested. But he was not arrested for wearing a hat. Pete was given a choice, and would not have been arrested if he had cooperated and removed the hat. It’s that simple.

    I wonder if this case will ever make it before the Supreme Court some day. After reading the text of the case in California you provided the link to, it surprises me that many courts all across the nation have published dress code rules, and are beginning to enforce them.

  217. No Thanks says:

    Dr. Q says:

    ” No thanks, your court’s dress code is unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court’s own rulings. See California v. Cohen. The Supreme Court upheld the right of a man to have a jacket reading “Fuck The Draft” inside a courtroom on First Amendment grounds. People can legally use “profanity” and express controversial views inside courtrooms. ”

    Funny, I’ve seen several people try it and guess what….they were removed from court. Perhaps they should have read the dress code and had it printed on a collared shirt that they wore tucked in.

    Feel free to try it. If asked to leave and change, you better do so on your own accord and file a case against our court in return. If you pulll a stunt like Pete, you too will end up in jail and the case will be based on your conduct/disturbance regardless of whether the judge is right or wrong. Same thing when getting a traffic ticket. Piss and moan and argue with the cop all day long and you’re wrong. Want to be right? Take it up in court by filing a case.

    Besides, it’s simple case law for your attorney to site. In Cohen v. California the case wasn’t just about the words. They ruled it was freedom of speech vs conduct. However, in the court rooms where I have seen folks removed, it wasn’t because of the words on their shirt (freedom of speech) it’s been the judges rules are collared shirts. One could argue however, that wearing the shirt was causing a disruption in the court room too. Tons of case law proving that too. Don’t like it….see you in court.

  218. Noodly1 says:

    If you never fight the power, how do you control it?

    Sorry, but wearing a hat in a courtroom simply should not be a crime. And the fact that a number of people are willing to call it that is frightening. I’m hoping that this is indicative only of the phenomenon of being willing to hide behind online anonymity, and not what would really happen in the “real” world, should one be physically present in the face of such an abuse of power. Repeat after me: Group think is BAD.

  219. No Thanks says:

    @Noodly1

    ” Sorry, but wearing a hat in a courtroom simply should not be a crime ”

    It’s not a crime. You don’t get cited for wearing hats. It’s a rule in many courts as related to proper attire that you have a CHOICE to obey or not. You’re FREE to leave or take it off. Again, you’re not going to be charged with a crime simply for wearing a hat in court. The crime would in turn be as a result of you’re not complying with a court officers request/demand and your subsequent actions.

    The whole hat issue relates to proper attire which are completely the judges discretion and can vary from court to court. Bottom line, just like someone walking into court with profanity on a shirt or jacket, the judge is given the right to decide if such actions convey a lack of respect for the proceedings that their following in court. Most every court has rules regarding that. Nothing new here folks.

    Cohen vs California could in turn be compared and brought up, but in that case it was clear that the sides were arguing free speech vs conduct. That case doesn’t go very far very often as today a judge could easily show it being disruptive to the proceedings or again, disrespectful to the court proceedings. Those rules were granted to them by the higher courts, so going back to that higher court and arguing the rules they granted permission to be created…..well, if that’s a battle you wish to raise…..

    Would it be a sure fire win either way? No; but then cases rarely are, so that’s nothing new. Bottom line, don’t like it, take it up in court.

  220. Dorothy says:

    @Dr. Q

    >> “Court bailiffs have no right to eject people from courtrooms for refusing to comply with non-existent rules”

    Define “non-existent rules”. The court DOES have a dress code.

    I have read, and re-read, Cohen v. California, and I believe the SC was wrong in its decision. And here’s why:
    When in a courtroom, one’s freedom of speech is surrendered. That is shown in so many ways. If you are simply sitting in the courtroom, you are not free to talk because it has the potential to distract and/or disrupt the proceedings. If you are on the stand, your freedom of speech is severely restricted, and it is quite common to be allowed to only give a “yes or no” response. If you speak without permission, you face serious consequences. Many lawyers use that restriction to circumvent true justice.

    I submit that the court clearly can and does impose rules, like it or not. Thus, why should they be disallowed from creating a dress code, while being allowed to prevent you from telling “the whole truth” when being questioned??

    >> “People can wear hats in court if they want to and court bailiffs have no right to remove them for it. This is basic freedom of expression.”

    I disagree, and I’m guessing the judge(s) will disagree with that concept as well. There is no “basic freedom of expression” in a courtroom. If there was, our justice system would crumble. A courtroom is a place to administer justice. It is not a place where personal expression needs to be exercised, unless directly applicable to a case at hand.

    >> “If anyone was “disorderly,” it was the bailiffs and cops.”

    That’s a bunch of crap, and if you don’t know it then you’ve got issues. The court officers were doing their jobs. Pete intentionally failed to cooperate, and THAT is why he was arrested. Regardless of how stupid the rule may be, it IS the rule of the courtroom, and the officers acted within their bounds.

    Life isn’t always fair, and rules imposed by the “powers that be” are virtually never universally acceptable. There will always be some people who disagree with some of the rules, and there will always be some people who will ALWAYS find things to complain about, no matter what gets changed. I believe Pete is one of those people. I believe several of the people who comment here, claiming that some imaginary freedom of expression was violated, are among those people.

    Don’t you people have anything important to worry about???

  221. Dr. Q says:

    “If you are simply sitting in the courtroom, you are not free to talk because it has the potential to distract and/or disrupt the proceedings.”

    Yes, speaking in court can be prohibited, but this has nothing to do with freedom of expression. Speaking can be prohibited because, as you put it, “it has the potential to distract and/or disrupt the proceedings.” Wearing a hat is completely different from verbally interrupting court proceedings because wearing a hat not disrupt the proceedings in any way. Banning hats in courtrooms is therefore completely arbitrary and an infringement on the right of freedom of expression.

    “I submit that the court clearly can and does impose rules, like it or not.”

    This is totally meaningless. The fact that something happens does not by definition mean that it is legal or just.Think about it: people can and do murder each other. This does not make murder legal or just. Similarly, courts may impose rules about dress, but this does not make their rules legally or morally legitimate.

    “Pete intentionally failed to cooperate…”

    Pete has the right to not “cooperate” with strangers barking orders at him to take off his hat.

    “Don’t you people have anything important to worry about???”

    I must say, it’s rather amusing hearing a person who had posted more than a dozen comments under this article — some of them fairly lengthy — asking me if I “have anything important to worry about.” Please spare me the hypocrisy.

    More importantly, don’t the court bailiffs and police have more important things to do than arrest people for wearing hats? As I’ve pointed out in the past, millions of violent crimes and property crimes go unsolved in the United States every single year. Maybe if cops weren’t so busy arresting people for wearing hats, they’d solve a few more of them.

  222. Pat Hines says:

    I see that the martinettes and goose stepping progressive/fascists are still attempting to rationalize the criminality of the state in their posts.

    Pathetic, really, that there are people like these in America today. These are the people that are responsible for where we are today.

    They are the people that would send jackbooted thugs to your home to collect the Obamacare fee even though a court has ruled it an unConstitutional law.

    These are the people who want to vote away your right to self defense with any weapon.

    These are the people who want your rights licensed or prohibited outright.

    Last, these are the people who need to leave America and never come back.

  223. david says:

    @dorothy,
    (seeing as you think your so smart on the subject)
    What about THIS argument.
    The Judge WASN’T EVEN IN THE COURT YET HE WAS LATE(THUS BEING DISRESPECTFUL AND BEING CONTEMP OF “WE THE PEOPLE” IE “WE THE BOSSES”)
    ipso facto there WAS NO “COURT” !BECAUSE A JUDGELESS ROOM DOTH NOT A COURT MAKE!
    HA!
    I’m sorry dorothy you are inundated and inoculated and anointed in the corruption of the state mess

  224. david says:

    @Dorothy,
    Basically we ,that are arguing on my side of things, are arguing against the excessive overreaching over controlling government and FOR the rights and personal freedoms,
    and you are arguing in their defence and against your own best interests .
    Which is why we have to argue for your interests because you aren’t.
    Also you are arguing for your own chains.

  225. david says:

    @dorothy,
    when you say “Don’t you people have anything important to worry about???”
    It just tells me you don’t understand .
    As i already said ,its not about a hat.
    Listen to free talk live on the radio ..

  226. Dorothy says:

    All the debate trying to convince me of this, that and the other thing, is not changing my mind. It’s the same old same old reiterated ad infinitum.

    Pete should probably avoid court confrontations in Alabama:

    Witnesses: Cop shot unarmed man in Alabama courtroom
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-02-03-alabama-court-shooting_N.htm

    That one may be a case of excessive force. On this site, the headline will probably be something like “Innocent man gunned down by rabid cop for carrying crutches”.

  227. david says:

    I guess your last post means you mind is closed.
    I thought it was open, otherwise i wouldn’t have wasted my time.
    I have better things to do.
    Now i know i was wasting my time.

    bye

  228. david says:

    @dorothy
    you complain about our stance
    and then post more justification for it.

  229. No Thanks says:

    @ Pat Hines says:

    ” They are the people that would send jackbooted thugs to your home to collect the Obamacare fee even though a court has ruled it an unConstitutional law. ”

    For the record I’m not at all a fan or supporter of Obama.

    ” These are the people who want to vote away your right to self defense with any weapon ”

    Quite the contrary. I probably own more weapons, including AR 15’s and other sporting weapons than many here.

    ” Last, these are the people who need to leave America and never come back. ”

    Says the person who refuses to live by the laws of the society around him. Who should leave who’s country?

  230. Pat Hines says:

    No thanks says, “Says the person who refuses to live by the laws of the society around him. Who should leave who’s country?”

    I hold government to the laws under which THEY must remain, you do not. Apparently, from all of your posts, you think government can be self actualizing. They cannot.

    For further information, read Dr. Q’s elegant and accurate treatment of your statist views at 1AM above.

  231. Dorothy says:

    @Pat

    >> “read Dr. Q’s elegant and accurate treatment…”

    Elegant? Accurate??

    Sorry, I didn’t realize you two were lovers.

    Here’s a story you folks can whine about. Maybe the headline could be “Cops murder innocent man for wearing Hoodie”
    http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/robber-slips-on-ice-shot-by-police-012811

  232. Dorothy says:

    @Dr. Q

    >> “This does not make murder legal or just”

    There are laws against murder. Tell us, please, what laws exist against a court imposing their rules?

    >> “Pete has the right to not “cooperate” with strangers barking orders at him to take off his hat”

    Sure. And then the officers have the right to arrest him. Pete then has the right to fight the case in court. It’s a beautiful system.

    You claim to be supporting individual freedom. But what you’re really doing is dividing people against each other. That’s a big part of modern activism. It is “How to create turmoil to help break down the nation”. You and your ilk are nothing but anti-American soldiers. Your enemy is society. You do whatever you can to cause decay of society. Your masquerade does not fool me. People like you, and at least half of the ACLU, should be put on a terrorist watch list.

  233. Dorothy says:

    “Cop murders Bear for trespassing on Indian reservation”
    http://email.powweb.com/sqmail/src/signout.php

  234. david says:

    the jury is out.
    dorothy is a house slave

  235. Dorothy says:

    This is what I expect to see on this site:

    “Cops arrest man for asking a simple question”
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41427036/ns/us_news-weird_news/

    To be fair, there ARE cases of excessive force being used. This shows a bad one:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41421119/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

    You people who claim Pete was “beat up” don’t know what you’re talking about. The 15-year-old in the video was beat up. Pete was politely and gently restrained.

  236. david says:

    dorothy,
    again ,if it had happened to YOU it would have been “beat up”
    this is why your cred is diminished
    and quit acting like your educating someone with your links.
    peace

  237. Dorothy says:

    @david

    In your view, Pete was “beat up”. So, what do you call what the Houston police did to that boy in the video??

    >> “quit acting like your educating someone”

    I’ve read about how the literacy rate in America has been dropping for a long time. You’re living proof.

    As for you telling me what to do or not do; don’t you believe in freedom of expression???

  238. david says:

    My point is that ,he was beat up.
    I don’t need a education on what beat up is or isn’t.
    Sigh,i guess i have to tell you stuff that is oblivious to a child:that there are different degrees of being beat up.
    It’s rather tiresome that i should have to point out that oblivious thing.
    I am about done with you if we are going to have to digress into basic things.

  239. david says:

    peace dorothy.
    we are veering off of the important stuff into .simple definitions.
    bye now

  240. drgsnoop says:

    im just wondering when you walk into a court room dont you agree by being present that you will follow and obey court room rules… so if the judge (or balif in this case) ask you to do something you are technichally required to do it… all of you were getting off topic a bout the hat and how dress code relates to the law….its as simple as, sorry pete… pete didnt do what he was asked several times and then was aressted for disorderly conduct…im going to have to agree that the dragging of pete wasn’t completly neseccary but meanwhile if pete would’ve stould up and taken the discussion or a.k.a argument outside he probably could’ve avoided this whole situation… anyways theres my two sence

  241. Beau says:

    To be fair, I only watched the video once, but I have to get up for some state mandated protectionist empowerment in 3 hours, so, im not going to give this deep study at this time.

    I am philosopher in my family-not the lawyer. So, I may not be an expert on the monopolistic jurisprudence policy in NH, however, I do understand logic as it applies to sequence, cause and effect.

    To suggest that Pete was arrested for disorderly conduct because he failed to remove himself, or that he failed to be led into a cage by his own power is, as we say in Texas, plumb loco.

    The guys in the silly costumes engaged Pete BEFORE any of his actions that could have been construed as disorderly. He did not disrupt the court, then they noticed his hat, followed by a rather unnecessary arrest. It seems pretty clear that it was about the hat. Actually, it may have been about the shirt, but the hat had less potential for a cohen argument.

    Furthermore, and i cannot stress this enough: We really need to stop using the constitution as an argument for liberty. I submit to you the first amendment. I think most of us voluntaryists agree that you do not have a right to free speech. At least, not in the way it is normally used. You express yourself in whatever way you want, provided that it does not harm another or their property, so long as you do so either on your property or on the property of another who grants you that right. For example, we do not need to make exceptions to liberty in order to extract justice from someone who screams “fire” in a theatre. What kind of a person would argue that the when you purchased a ticket, you also purchased a right to endanger the sellers business and the other customer’s lives. In fact, we know that this idea is silly. How? Because you can get kicked out of movie theaters sans refund for whispering too loudly to the person next to you. And aren’t we all happy about that. No one claims that their freedom was violated. Okay, some might but no one who has understands liberty would.

    Anyway, I do not know any of you fine Keene folks, but I wish you the best, I have been to NH once when I was working at FEE and some of us wanted to breathe air in a state that did not have sales tax. I really appreciate what you are doing up there. I only wish I saw that here in Texas to the same degree. I miss Austin…. San Antonio is the Pyong Yang of Texas.

  242. Beau says:

    OH, i forgot to add that if the court was private they could have whatever dress code they want. Just another way that socializing any industry will lead to all sorts of ridiculous problems.

    I mean, if the court is supposedly the property of the people and Pete is “a people” doesn’t he own at least enough of it to wear a damned hat. I supposed you could say that his hat took up more space than share of ownership would allow, but what about the other guy in the hat. His hat was far larger. But maybe he pays more taxes.

    See what i mean about ridiculous?

  243. Mark Edward says:

    I read the New Hampshire statute. “disorderly conduct” is not possible in this situation. Pete did nothing to “disrupt” (read the dictionary definition of that term – it was the POLICE that disrupted). Disorderly Conduct implies aggressive behavior. “Disruption” (especially to be a “crime”) implies INTENT to interfere unlawfully. Wearing a hat is not only not illegal, it is not an actionable issue by any law enforcement anywhere in America.

    Besides, this happened IN COURT. Why did they drag him OUT of court, process him into jail, then wait until the next day to bring him before a judge??? Until the court personnel illegally assaulted him (did you see the bailiff physically grab the man’s hat?? I did. That’s an unlawful touching. Did you see how quick he backed off when Pete informed him of this – “don’t touch me”?? Bailiff knew he overstepped!) Pete was sitting quietly. How can sitting quietly be “disruptive”? The question of law that must be answered is simple: DID the government agent have a law or statute that ENABLED them to demand Pete remove his hat? No they did not. Therefore, the POLICE acted beyond their authority and initiated aggression against an American. That is illegal and criminal. Back to my point – An arrest MUST have “probable cause”. Only a judge can determine “probable cause”. THAT is the whole point and purpose of arraignment, which by the way is supposed to be preceded by the “probable cause hearing” (preliminary hearing) which Pete DID NOT GET. And where was Pete’s attorney? That is illegal to have him speak to a judge prior to having counsel. Since he was IN COURT when this fantasy “crime” occurred, it SHOULD HAVE been nothing more than “contempt”. In any event, why didn’t they simply have the judge walk out of his cave and determine on the spot if there was probable cause to arrest him!!?? Police DO NOT have authority to detain someone one minute longer than necessary to get them to a judge to determine if there was probable cause. On the streets and such, they have an EXCUSE that they routinely abuse, to delay bringing someone to court. The jail doesn’t make money unless they book you in and get their accounting records done, so they book first, and then bring you to the judge. Illegal and immoral behavior, racketeering. The judge was 20 feet away. That should have been handled on the spot.

    They RELY on the 95+% “plea bargain” process. No jury would ever convict Pete. But how long does it take sitting in jail before an offer of “plead guilty and go home today” sounds really really good? A counter suit needs to be initiated immediately – BEFORE the criminal process gets underway – for false arrest and abuse of power and denial of due process and all sorts of other crimes. Also for civil damages, damage to reputation, embarrassment, slander, etc. Become the Plaintiff with real injuries, and make THEM answer first.

    It’s just outrageous that police will act violently and illegally even when they know they are being recorded. They are completely out of control. And the people of this “free state” movement really need to get an education on how to behave in court, how to not submit to the jurisdiction, and generally regarding the nature and character of the beast they are up against. These are Administrative Agencies, NOT “courts”, and I haven’t seen much to indicate that any of these people have any idea what they are doing, besides generally “resisting” and “disobeying”.

  244. Pat Hines says:

    Good post, Mr. Edward and spot on. The whole event was an assault upon Pete initiated by the state. They need a firm lesson that they won’t soon forget.

  245. Dorothy says:

    New Hampshire law: Disorderly Conduct
    http://law.justia.com/newhampshire/codes/2006/nhtoc-lxii/644-2.html

    See section II.(e):
    “Knowingly refuses to comply with a lawful order of a peace officer…”

    Only if the order issued was unlawful could Pete possibly have a case. Under New Hampshire law, officers of the court may remove any person(s) for any reason(s) deemed justifiable at the moment.

  246. Mark Edward says:

    “(e) Knowingly refuses to comply with a lawful order of a peace officer to move from or remain away from any public place”

    Is the court bailiff a “peace officer”? Did he give Pete an “order”? Is wearing a hat a “justifiable” reason to remove someone from the court? Did Pete “knowingly refuse to comply”? Or was he asking for clarification when he got attacked? Was it a “lawful order”? Is a court room considered a “public place” under this statute? (i.e. You can “move from” the city park, but you don’t “move from” a room, you “leave” a room.)

    Back to my point regarding “lawful orders”, etc. It all requires JUDICIAL DETERMINATION, and since they were IN THE COURT, and since judges love to pretend they own “their courtroom”, this should have been an issue for the judge to decide right on the spot. They DID violate his rights by taking him AWAY and holding him captive (deprivation of liberty – see Trezevant v City of Tampa) and not letting him have a probable cause hearing until many many hours later.

    You cannot even get to the issue of Pete’s “crime” until all these issues are sorted out first. The cop did not have jurisdiction because they are already in court and the judge is the only one at that point who can give an order, and because it occurred in the judge’s immediate vicinity the cops can only obey the judge. The cop and the jail and the bailiff all violated Pete’s fundamental rights, which automatically strips the government of any standing, which leaves the court wanting for jurisdiction. And besides, as stated so many times, WHO IS THE VICTIM? No “body of the crime”, then no crime. COUNTER SUIT. IMMEDIATELY.

  247. Mark Edward says:

    One more thing that occurs to me. Under the principle of “due process”, the cop would have had to literally look Pete in the eye and say to him “I am ordering you to move from this public place. Failure to comply will lead to your arrest for disorderly conduct.” And then give Pete a reasonable time to comply. Simply jumping him violates all sense of justice and due process… From the video, Pete had absolutely no possible way of knowing that he could possibly be “breaking a law” simply by asking about the court’s dress code policy. It stands to reason that an order must be clearly given, and time to comply must be allowed, before one could ever reach the level of saying he “knowingly refused to obey a lawful order”. Or are we all so brainwashed as to be expected to think that any word from a cop’s mouth is automatically considered “a lawful order”? There was no danger, and there was no critical situation involved that required absolute split second actions. The fact that they booked him into jail PROVES that they were doing it for the money with no regard or respect for People’s rights or the law. Which demonstrates that it was not a “lawful order”, but rather pure tyranny.

  248. Mark Edward says:

    I went back and read the entire statute at issue here. Sorry to be so long winded, but the last part of that statute answers most of my questions, and verifies all that I have stated. The cop knowingly, willfully, and intentionally assaulted Pete without lawful authority and without any hint of reasonable cause. The paragraph (e) part quoted above is the “catch-all” paragraph which REQUIRES some other part of the statute to be at issue. It does NOT stand on its own as a punishable statement. This is standard operating procedure for tyrannical government – taking bits and pieces of their codes out of context and intentionally misapplying them to pretend it justifies hurting a civilian.

    Exact quote from the statute:

    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.

  249. Dorothy says:

    Well Mark, based on your advice Pete should file suit against the court (which I think he should anyway, to see how the state of New Hampshire sees things).

    Some states have some peculiar exceptions. In Massachusetts there are “default warrants”, and if you are mistakenly marked as not having paid a fine for a traffic violation, even a parking ticket, the police arrest you and incarcerate you until a judge can hear your case. There is no bail allowed if you’re arrested on a default warrant. And if the judge dismisses the case because, for example, there was some clerical error, you can not sue them. I know people that have had this happen, and have read articles in various newspapers that warn about the complete lack of due process in Massachusetts when a default warrant is issued.

    I believe the wearing of a hat should not be a problem. It seems foolish for the court officers to worry about such a thing. I also believe Pete brought this upon himself by refusing to remove the hat and refusing to leave the courtroom. It could have all been so easily avoided. But of course, this is what Pete does. This whole incident was planned, in my opinion, and the court officers appeared to have some previous experience with Pete. When Pete was arrested, the officers exhibited self-restraint much more than I’ve witnessed in the past. They appeared quite “gentle” with Pete, compared to the typical arrests I’ve seen.
    And of course this web site has blown the whole incident way out of proportion, in part by using the headline “Wearing a Hat is NOT a Crime”. Clearly, Pete was not arrested for wearing the hat, he was arrested for lack of cooperation with officers of the court. If the court officers behaved in a illegal manner, then Pete should pursue legal action against them. I don’t have a problem with that. In fact, I would very much like to see legal action taken, to see the outcome.

  250. david says:

    yada yada yada
    your wrong about things being “planned” dorothy .
    this is a fact i know.
    but you can say your lies/”opinion”

  251. Dorothy says:

    @david

    >> “this is a fact i know”

    So enlighten us. Exactly how do you know that it was not planned??

  252. david says:

    I live in the town and i was AT some of the trials you see in the videos.
    And I have association with the people ……… if you listened to free talk live you will get the bigger picture.Though something tells me you won’t.
    If you want to cal something “planned”.

    He “planned” on wearing his hat ………..thats it.
    Rather innocuous…..

  253. david says:

    I know to you being beat up for a hat is something you fucking endorse
    Oh ya
    only when it happens to others,do you endorse it

  254. david says:

    ……you can say all you want.
    I know right from wrong .
    and all your and rationals and legal citations and etc etc don’t change that.

  255. Dorothy says:

    @david

    How could I possibly trust “free talk live” to present the truth if they are of the same mindset as you and Pete?

    You did not present any proof regarding whether or not the incident was planned.

    I do not endorse anybody being beat up, in particular for wearing a hat. Your statements about that are bizarre, to say the least. Pete was NOT “beat up”, and his being restrained was NOT because of wearing a hat. But you have made it painfully clear that either you don’t comprehend the concept of being restrained for not following instructions of a court officer, OR you are simply lying. Yes, the ball got rolling because of the hat……maybe. It is certainly possible that the court officers are acquainted with Pete, believe him to be a troublemaker, and persecuted him because of that. If that happened, they are in the wrong. But Pete could have SO easily defused the situation if he wanted to. It is my firm belief that this was a case of premeditated “I’m not going to cooperate with anything, no matter what” on the part of Pete.

    Your use of profanity only serves to diminish any credibility you may have had.

    You claim to “know right from wrong”, but it does not appear that way to me. And you just don’t get it……I do not condone what happened to Pete. My criticism has been that 1) Pete behaved like a child, and 2) that this web site intentionally tries to deceive people (they LIE) by claiming Pete was arrested for wearing a hat. If they really believe their cause to be so righteous, they should state the TRUTH. There is plenty of fact to cite without having to distort what really happened.

  256. david says:

    I said stuff in earlier posts……….
    nevermind

  257. Pat Hines says:

    Again, Mark Edward, thank you for your additional series of posts yesterday, all are actually enlightening, at least they should be for those who are supporters of the state.

    Yet, we still see attempts to rationalize the behavior of the state actors after your lengthy and very cogent explanation of why the state wasn’t just wrong, it acted criminally against Pete.

    Again, thanks.

  258. Mervin Fried says:

    Same stuff going on in Mohave County Arizona. One set of laws for them, and another for you. Stand up! When those guys stood up from cuffing their friend, they all should looked around and seen all of his friends wearing hats!!!!!!!!!

  259. vinny says:

    and people say these assholes wont follow their “GOPHER” orders in killing us when ordered to do so by the one world order BASTARDS. Have you noticed they follow the same bull shit tactics as “GANGS” they always out number the VICTIM, were protective gear and are armed so I ask WHAT THE F*CK IS THE DIFFERENCE ??? no wonder they won’t close borders nor PROFILE terrorist types, it must be because they are on the same agenda, destroy the US population. Hell, I’ve seen these cowards wear MASKS, if they’re so tough why are they afraid of being recognized ?? That old fart bald headed ass h*ole sure acted tough with his boyfriends protecting him didn’t he ? I HATE THESE BASTARD ASSHOLES !

  260. Addison says:

    What a bunch of whiny douches. He entered the court knowing full well what the rules and regulations of the court were and willfully chose to disobey those rules and regulations. He was given the opportunity to remove his hat, was asked a number of times, and still refused. What was he expecting? It’s also my right to walk around my house in my boxers if I choose to do so, but I imagine doing so in a courtroom wouldn’t fly. There is a certain level of decorum and respect to be exhibited in the courts, and not wearing a hat in one is nothing new.

    Maybe if the attitude of the man detained and others in the courtroom was not so hostile/stand-offish the officers would not have responded in the manner they did. His arms getting hurt? Choking a little? Maybe he should those two legs of his and walk his ass around.

    Seriously, figure it out.

  261. Addison says:

    One more thing: from the original site, the author/man who was wearing the hat states “Keene police officer James Cemorelis yanked me to the ground and shouted “You’re out of here!” but he never gave me the chance to leave, let alone respond.” Are you brain dead? The video clearly shows officers of the court asking you to remove your hat and to leave. Your response? Multiple refusals to comply with any of their requests, including to remove your hat voluntarily and the leave the premises voluntarily.

    You didn’t sign that policy? I don’t believe that you were so completely ignorant and ill-informed that you had NO idea that hats were not allowed in the courts, and if you had been, I’m sure that there as multiple signs around the building stating some of the basic rules. By entering the courts, whether or not you agreed with or signed the policy, you gave your implied consent to obey those rules. Don’t follow the rules, there’s gonna be consequences.

  262. beats says:

    I do trust all the concepts you have presented to your post. They are really convincing and can definitely work. Nonetheless, the posts are too brief for novices. Could you please extend them a little from next time? Thank you for the post.

  263. obviously like your web-site however you have to check the spelling on several of your posts. Many of them are rife with spelling issues and I in finding it very bothersome to inform the reality on the other hand I will certainly come again again.

  264. GRAPENUTZ says:

    DONT FREE PETE!!!!!!!
    not very wise going to court dressed like a bum then wearing a hat at that. They did ask him to remove it but he acted like an ass. This guy is an idiot I would of sent him to jail also. don’t you know that you never win when you try to fight the cops. Blah ha ha blah ha ha.

  265. Pingback: Manchester's Chalking 8 | Cop Block

  266. Pingback: Caged for Four Days in Manchester | Cop Block

  267. Pingback: Caged for Four Days in Manchester | Musicians for Freedom

  268. Bill Davis says:

    Cops can wear their hats in a courtroom because they are under arms i.e. they have a firearm. It works the same way in the military. When you are indoors your cover comes off unless you are carrying a firearm or sword in which case it stays on.

  269. Pingback: Right to resist police passes Indiana house, but before you get excited….. | GrassrootsHeadlines.com

  270. Bill Davis says:

    By military regulations you can wear a cover (hat) indoors if you are under arms (i.e. are carrying a gun).

  271. Pingback: Keene Documents | Cop Block

  272. Pingback: Injustice System-related content, by Pete Eyre - Free Keene

  273. Den says:

    What a dumbass … just remove the fucking hat. It’s a sign of disrespect and always has been ..

    It is traditionally considered an act of charming courtesy and respect for men to remove their hats in the presence of a woman.
    Men should remove their hats while on an elevator, especially if a lady is present.
    Men typically remove their hats when entering a building or upon arrival to their destination.
    Men shall not wear their hat inside a church; it is appropriate for women to wear dress hats, however.
    Traditionally, a gentleman will tip his hat to a lady in passing. He may replace it after she has passed or as they begin to walk/talk together.
    It is very poor manners and could be taken as an insult if a man were to tip his hat to another man.

    When knights in medieval times intended to show friendly intent, they would raise their face masks and reveal their faces. This, apparently, evolved into the custom of “tipping” one’s hat to say hello or acknowledge another, particularly a woman.

    When knights would enter a building, the removal of the helmet signified a non-combatant or friendly role, since a knight could not very well defend completely without the helmet. This evolved into the removal of one’s hat when entering a building. A hat is also removed when hearing the national anthem. Interestingly, the practice of saluting is also, evidently, derived from the practice of knights lifting their visors to show friendly intent.

    He showed disrespect .. he is a ‘grown up’ they say in the video .. then why act like a petulant five year old ..

    You deliberately pick a fight and goad the court and expected what ??

  274. titegtnodI says:

    Makes sense he was arrested, after all he was hurting people. No one hurt him at all, however he seriously injured people by wearing his hat.

    I personally find it disrespectful for people to impose their beliefs on me (Ex: They believe it’s disrepectful to keep a hat on indoors, I believe it’s a sign of comfort to keep your hat on indoors). Considering it’s supposedly a free nation …

  275. Billy Sheers says:

    I learned my lesson. I won’t wear my hat in any government buildings. Even if I’m embarrassed about balding.

    It is really unAmerican to wear hats in court, or Church, or anywhere else a flag is flown indoors.

    The cops were wrong for not informing Pete of the crime he was being arrested for.

  276. Texas freeman says:

    FYI- Origionally, judges would enter the courtroom holding an opened Holy Bible (God’s word). People would stand to honor GOD not some tyrannical office or even out of respect of the man. God and God alone deserves this level of reverence. No man, no matter how honorable he may actually be ever deserves worship. God is a jealous God. It’s the first and second commandments of the Ten Commandments,

    “I am the Lord your God, who rescued you from the land of Egypt, the place of your slavery.

    1.

    You must not have any other God but me.

    2.

    You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image of anything in the heavens or on the earth or in the sea. You must not bow down to them or worship them, for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God who will not tolerate your affection for any other gods. I lay the sins of the parents upon their children; the entire family is affected—even children in the third and fourth generations of those who reject me. But I lavish unfailing love for a thousand generations on those who love me and obey my commands.

    Christians and Jews would be specifically forbidden to comply with any judges demands for worship.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>