Now how about a link from a more neutral source that explains all this "full legal name" stuff and the reason for the stubborn behavior?

ZAZ: Now how about a link from a more neutral source that explains all this "full legal name" stuff and the reason for the stubborn behavior?

Yeah, I'd kinda like that, too

I'm pretty sure the held indefinitely without trial stuff is unequivocal. The rest of it might not matter that much.

Where's the "Dumbass" tag? It's appropriate all around.

Free Staters. They were trying for this.

ZAZ

how about a link from a more neutral source

Looks like FOX News hasn't covered this story.

Must just be an oversight.

They had me at "indefinite detention without trial".

John Paul Jones: Free Staters. They were trying for this.

I'm glad someone is at least trying.

How is indefinite detention without trial even allowed? I seem to recall a document about this.

/RON PAUL

What happened to "Live Free or Die"?

Justice is supposed to be blind but not THAT blind.

Yeesh.

That headline is as confusing as the story.

The guy sounds like an a-hole. Let him rot.

The article reads like it was written by a Freeper with a GED in law.
I'm not privy to the intricacies of New Hampshire law, but in most places, you need to identify yourself when being booked. Even if that's not the case in NH, the court's order that he identify himself was legal (the court needs to know your name to make sure they have jurisdiction).

Presumably, when this "journalist"* refused to identify himself, he was held in civil contempt by the Court. Basically, if you refuse a court order, the court can hold you in jail until you comply with the order. It's not the Court holding you in jail so much as it's yourself. As soon as you comply with the order, you get out. Theoretically, you could be held forever until you comply. Since there's no real charge, you can be held indefinitely without it violating due process.

Although I am not a civil rights lawyer, the "USC 1983" law mentioned in the article refers to 42 USC 1983, which I believe allows you to sue state and state actors who violate your civil rights. You can tell the person who wrote this article did not do even basic research, since "USC 1983" is not a valid citation (the numbers before USC refers to the title of the US Code, the numbers after to the section).

*first rule of journalism, don't become part of the story

// has a JD
// INAL

Info from wikipedia so believe it or not: despite TFA's assertions, there is such a thing as indirect contempt of court that occurs outside the judge's presence, when an order is violated, and you can be detained indefinitely until the order is followed. You get out when you comply (in this case, when the guy gives his name) so you hold the keys to your own cell and therefore due process is not required.

eddyatwork: How is indefinite detention without trial even allowed?

It's not. But there's really no penalty for violating it. Why wouldn't you, if you could, use this to punish people as you saw fit?

If the guy files a civil suit, the money isn't coming out of the judge's pocket.

Welcome to Chimerica. All your souls are belong to us.

I would agree with the folks saying that the article is so obviously biased (not to mention horribly written) that it says next to nothing about what's actually happening here.

If you are booked for a crime and refuse to give your name, you give the authorities an at-least-initially-plausible reason to say "Well, if we don't know who you are, then we can't check for outstanding warrants. You could be wanted for 249 murders for all we know. So we're going to hold you until we find out who you are." Of course, at that point the authorities would normally be expected to investigate reasonably diligently to find out who you are. And in a case as heavily publicized by the "Free State Project" as this one, the notion that it's impossible or even difficult to find out the reporter's identity through other means wears thin rather quickly.

Hoi, so much wrong with this story.

First off the article didn't even try and be unbiased or do proper due diligence. Which makes me face palm as if even a portion of it is true there's a lot of shenanigans going on around there.

In my experience "Freedom of the Press" is the most often miscited of all freedoms. On the other end of the scale, contempt of court is some fo the most easily abused portions of our legal system.

It does raise the question though how can a person be held onc ontempt of court without actually entering court or interfering with the operation of a trial, like blocking access to the courthouse.

May be conspiracy static, but if true, everyone involved on the state side should lose their jobs AND get sued AND face criminal charges.

This guy is a member of the Free State Project, so wouldn't he be salivating over an opportunity like this?

Looks like Subby has problems reading. The guy was arrested for filming in the lobby, not in a "public court room".

Pay the Man: What happened to "Live Free or Die"?

Apparently they went with B.

vertiaset: If this story is true then after his acquittal on the trumped up charges this man should file a civil suit and he will be a very wealthy man.

Law enforcement and court officers routinely violate the First Amendment rights of videographers and reporters documenting abusive conduct in the public exercise of their official duties.

These image takers have had tape and digital media confiscated, destroyed or "lost", expensive equipment destroyed, damaged or seized. They have been illegally jailed, beaten, tasered and even in a few cases murdered.

For some strange reason police and government officials seem to believe that the constitution does not apply when it comes to photographing them in the public exercise of their duties.

If they weren't doing anything wrong, why are they so scared?

Guns, it's the only language that they understand.

Have none of you been read your Miranda rights? "You have the right to remain silent...."
Also the 5th Amendment to the constitution "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The law itself prevents nothing

All the law does is make a violator potentially liable for punishment IF he is prosecuted, convicted, and actually punished.

So, yeah, all kinds of illegal activity can go on if there is no credible threat of legal action.

AbiNormal: Have none of you been read your Miranda rights? "You have the right to remain silent...."
Also the 5th Amendment to the constitution "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Civil contempt doesn't violate due process because the person controls the keys - he just needs to comply with the judicial order. Stating your legal name in and of itself is also not incriminating, just like you must provide your fingerprints.

Courts must be open to the public, but they can restrict the use of video and audio equipment inside the courtrooms.

Hello,

Here's a mainstream article from the Boston Globe that talks about Sam:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2009/05/29/antigovernme n t_activists__putting_down_roots_in_nh/

Here's his appearance on FOX News' "Freedom Watch":
http://freekeene.com/2009/05/27/sams-appearance-on-fox-news-freedom-watch/

For Sam's blogs from jail, audio of the arrest, video of him being carried to a police car, and more:
http://freekeene.com

If they found out who he was through his fingerprints, doesn't the 'we're holding you because we can't ascertain your identity and we need to make sure you're not a menace to society' argument totally fall apart? The state is being a bag of d*cks.

/Hope he sues them for so much he can buy his own island.

Nem Wan: Info from wikipedia so believe it or not: despite TFA's assertions, there is such a thing as indirect contempt of court that occurs outside the judge's presence, when an order is violated, and you can be detained indefinitely until the order is followed. You get out when you comply (in this case, when the guy gives his name) so you hold the keys to your own cell and therefore due process is not required.

Well if all he has to do is comply with the judge's order, it's all perfectly fine then.

The guy should shut the fark up, and be grateful that the judge didn't order him to castrate himself.

/here's a knife
//let us know when you're done

eggrolls: If they found out who he was through his fingerprints, doesn't the 'we're holding you because we can't ascertain your identity and we need to make sure you're not a menace to society' argument totally fall apart? The state is being a bag of d*cks.

/Hope he sues them for so much he can buy his own island.

He'll be lucky to get out of jail and not get hit with a crippling fine.

our society lives in fear and our government demands obedience. Even if - or especially if - you're mostly harmless.

AbiNormal: Have none of you been read your Miranda rights? "You have the right to remain silent...."
Also the 5th Amendment to the constitution "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Yes, you have a right not to incriminate yourself. But you do not have a right -- at least not an absolute right -- to be released on bond prior to trial; that's a discretionary decision a judge makes, weighing the seriousness of the charges, the defendant's reputation, the risk of flight, etc. If you don't say who you are, and if we indulge what in this case appears to be the legal fiction that the judge doesn't know darn well who you are, then the judge can't weigh your reputation, and can't weigh your risk of flight because he doesn't know what other charges you might be wanted for. Those are perfectly plausible reasons to deny bond.

The Constitution guarantees you a lot of rights. It does not guarantee that aggressively exercising those rights will lead to the best outcome for you.

I'm not surprised that some here dismissed it due to the source of the story. However, he did provide a link to a Boston Globe article that gave more information and was slanted in the other direction.

Link (new window)

From the Globe Article, this is what jumped out at me.

"You tend to find people [in the Free State Project] who are happy to live in cities and towns and who want to persuade people that freedom is better than tyranny," Swearingen said in an interview.


Would like to see them cock suckers try to jail him without charges.

For those of you saying "HOW ABOUT AN UNBIASED, NOT POORLY WRITTEN SOURCE" (and I have to say this objection has merit), being a local Keene resident and friend of Mr. Dodson, this HAS been and IS beening covered by all of our local press, and was even received some national attention at certain points.

As for those of you saying "They're Free Staters; they're asking for it", we're not asking to be imprisoned, hurt, or harassed. You're functionally ignoring the immorality of the situation we're facing, and even go so far as to make it seem like all of this is self-inflicted-- it's not, and I dare say it is impossible for it to be, given that we're most certainly not the ones putting ourselves in cuffs and dragging us to cages.

I know Sam, and I can tell you he wouldn't pay a "crippling fine".

Useful collections of stuff about Sam's situation:
http://sam.jailedactivist.info
http://freesamdodson.com

eggrolls: If they found out who he was through his fingerprints, doesn't the 'we're holding you because we can't ascertain your identity and we need to make sure you're not a menace to society' argument totally fall apart? The state is being a bag of d*cks.

/Hope he sues them for so much he can buy his own island.

It's civil contempt.

The most amusing thing I saw in my internship with a judge was a similar defendant who didn't believe in paying taxes and was going before the court pro se. This guy sounds like a similar idiot.

I'm curious-- those that advocate locking Sam up forever, etc., would you personally see this through and made sure yourself that this human being never saw the light of day again? Or would you have someone else do it for you?

ZAZ: Now how about a link from a more neutral source that explains all this "full legal name" stuff and the reason for the stubborn behavior?

There is a link to a "differently biased" article from the Boston Globe at the bottom of the page. Might not be what you want...

Yeah, it was hard to get past the big red fist at the top, but I found that pretty impressive. I just don't see links to opposing views very often. Bad for business.

Damn red states...

thirdgen: Presumably, when this "journalist"* refused to identify himself, he was held in civil contempt by the Court. Basically, if you refuse a court order, the court can hold you in jail until you comply with the order. It's not the Court holding you in jail so much as it's yourself. As soon as you comply with the order, you get out. Theoretically, you could be held forever until you comply. Since there's no real charge, you can be held indefinitely without it violating due process.

Nem Wan: Info from wikipedia so believe it or not: despite TFA's assertions, there is such a thing as indirect contempt of court that occurs outside the judge's presence, when an order is violated, and you can be detained indefinitely until the order is followed. You get out when you comply (in this case, when the guy gives his name) so you hold the keys to your own cell and therefore due process is not required.

KickahaOta: I would agree with the folks saying that the article is so obviously biased (not to mention horribly written) that it says next to nothing about what's actually happening here.

If you are booked for a crime and refuse to give your name, you give the authorities an at-least-initially-plausible reason to say "Well, if we don't know who you are, then we can't check for outstanding warrants. You could be wanted for 249 murders for all we know. So we're going to hold you until we find out who you are." Of course, at that point the authorities would normally be expected to investigate reasonably diligently to find out who you are. And in a case as heavily publicized by the "Free State Project" as this one, the notion that it's impossible or even difficult to find out the reporter's identity through other means wears thin rather quickly.

THESE

IANAL, but I know there's more law involved than just WHAGRBLists'literal readings of the Constitution.

Pay the Man: What happened to "Live Free or Die"?


The problem is interpretation: politicians have convinced us that to prevent the "death" part we have to give up the "living free" part. A fat, frightened citizenry has basically acquiesced, hence the current state of perpetual fear & eroded freedoms.

/though, there haven't been any 767/skyscraper incidents in 8 years, and it's not probably not due to a worldwide increased love for America over that time, so I'll give them that...
//also, everyone with a camera is a terrorist & photography is illegal everywhere -- didn't you get the memo?

I've read about this before. The guy complied with all laws to allow his camera into the courtroom. They denied him, because the judge requested his full name, which is not what law requires for someone to bring a camera into a courtroom. The judge has him arrested on contempt of court, for not following the judges request. A judge cannot go around making up rules for citizens to follow on a whim, then arresting citizens when they invoke their rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The man broke no laws, and has been falsely imprisoned. Is he an asshat for doing so? No. He is standing up for the same rights most of you take for granted every day.

thirdgen: The article reads like it was written by a Freeper with a GED in law.
I'm not privy to the intricacies of New Hampshire law, but in most places, you need to identify yourself when being booked. Even if that's not the case in NH, the court's order that he identify himself was legal (the court needs to know your name to make sure they have jurisdiction).

Presumably, when this "journalist"* refused to identify himself, he was held in civil contempt by the Court. Basically, if you refuse a court order, the court can hold you in jail until you comply with the order. It's not the Court holding you in jail so much as it's yourself. As soon as you comply with the order, you get out. Theoretically, you could be held forever until you comply. Since there's no real charge, you can be held indefinitely without it violating due process.

Although I am not a civil rights lawyer, the "USC 1983" law mentioned in the article refers to 42 USC 1983, which I believe allows you to sue state and state actors who violate your civil rights. You can tell the person who wrote this article did not do even basic research, since "USC 1983" is not a valid citation (the numbers before USC refers to the title of the US Code, the numbers after to the section).

*first rule of journalism, don't become part of the story

// has a JD
// INAL

Can you be held in contempt of court when the court is demanding you do something not required of you by law? I mean, if there is no actual law requiring you to identify yourself (I tend to fight pretty hard against such laws whenever the state pushes for an ID carrying law)... and the state can/has identified you through other means, at that point there's no legitimate interest in the state of such compulsion to self-identify, and there is no legal authority for such compulsion.

AnarchoJesse: I'm curious-- those that advocate locking Sam up forever, etc., would you personally see this through and made sure yourself that this human being never saw the light of day again? Or would you have someone else do it for you?

Directly, in accordance with the Fuhrer's court's order. Because that is what is legally binding in this country.

/Pre-godwined so you don't have to!
//Milligram, blah, blah, blah, etc.

firefly212: Can you be held in contempt of court when the court is demanding you do something not required of you by law?


If I were a judge, I'd have fun with this:

"The court orders the defendant to cover himself in chocolate sauce & cluck like a chicken. Perpetual prison if (s)he refuses."

There's nothing quite so fun as exercising arbitrary & absolute power over other people -- it's a great way to feel alive!

Ah, Keene ... the city that dispatched a fire truck to watch a cop take down two signs and a flag on Central Square this morning.

We can't have citizenry recoring the events in our courtroom lobbies. Our Government must be in charge of all information we recieve so that we may be certain of the authenticity.

jshine: firefly212: Can you be held in contempt of court when the court is demanding you do something not required of you by law?


If I were a judge, I'd have fun with this:

"The court orders the defendant to cover himself in chocolate sauce & cluck like a chicken. Perpetual prison if (s)he refuses."

There's nothing quite so fun as exercising arbitrary & absolute power over other people -- it's a great way to feel alive!



"It's good to be the king"!

thirdgen: Although I am not a civil rights lawyer, the "USC 1983" law mentioned in the article refers to 42 USC 1983, which I believe allows you to sue state and state actors who violate your civil rights. You can tell the person who wrote this article did not do even basic research, since "USC 1983" is not a valid citation (the numbers before USC refers to the title of the US Code, the numbers after to the section).

I always thought it was page 42 of the US code issued in 1983? Or is that notation only in federal appellate/supreme court decisions (where I learned it)?

As usual there is a lot of blah blah blah and stark ignorance here.

Sure this guy might be being held illegally in which case, I hope he gets out and let free.

That being said, holding someone in civil contempt is a right the court has and courts have always had, at least under the common law system.

i actually study 18th and 19th century American history and use a lot of legal documents. For those of you who have this odd idea that things used to be "better", judges used to hold people all the time for all kinds of reasons, well beyond civil contempt or as a result of indictment. Sure there were legal forms that had to be followed and one could always appeal, but, if anything, it was probably easier to throw somebody in jail and forget about the key. For exampel, I've seen a judge throw somebody in indefinate detention b/c they witnessed a crime in their district but weren't a resident, so they were a presumed flight risk. I think that person spent nearly a year in the county jail. This was in the 1810s.

/ Point being, don't look to history or a "golden past" to support your argument about legality and rights.
// However, this also doesn't mean I disagree with you; just more of a fun of logic and reason than appeals to the past.