Both of the City of Keene vs. Robin Hood of Keene cases DISMISSED!

Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
10,554
DISMISSED! Free speech prevails! The city of Keene, New Hampshire lost $40,000 because Merry Men and Merry Ladies were paying for other people's parking meters = less parking ticket revenue. So it created 2 lawsuits against the Robin Hood of Keene people saying that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply in Keene. Since the lawsuits started, the city lost tens of thousands of addition expected parking ticket revenue and spent around $20,000 on lawyer's fees for the lawsuits. The state of New Hampshire lost thousands of dollars in wasted court time over the course of the lawsuits.

Learn more about or even donate to Robin Hood of Keene if you want. https://www.facebook.com/KeeneRobinHood
Mission
Saving the good people from the king's tariff by depositing a small coin into the "parking meters" so the the king's "Meter Maids" cannot demand their tax.

Description
Paypal: [email protected];
Bitcoin address: 16Ka4fUMh5LNUJy6g8toNqQ9stCR8RKJ4c
Mail:
Keene Activist Center
75 Leverett Street
Keene, NH 03431

General Information
Robin Hood and the Merry Men believe in openness and accountability - see hours of raw video recorded by activists at http://youtube.com/Fr33manTVraw

Here is the Free Keene story. Other stories will be posted later.

BREAKING NEWS: Robin Hood Cases DISMISSED!!
December 4, 2013 by Ian
http://freekeene.com/2013/12/04/breaking-news-robin-hood-cases-dismissed/

603361_144538052363233_907016078_n1-171x300.jpg


There are a dozen links in the story but I didn't transfer any of them over. So click on the above link if you want to see the interactive version of the article.
Robin Hood and the Merry Men and Women are victorious over the lying, corrupt “City of Keene” in BOTH Robin Hood cases! The first civil case was filed by “the City” back in May seeking a preliminary injunction against the six named respondents, in hopes banning them from being near, speaking to, or recording video of the parking enforcers. It was heard over three full days of court “evidentiary hearings” later in the summer and afterwards, heroic free speech attorney Jon Meyer filed a motion to dismiss the case.

Attorney Meyer’s motion has now been granted in a 17-page notice of decision from Cheshire “superior” court judge John C Kissinger Jr., which also dismisses the second civil case against us that was filed by “the City” in September, seeking monetary “damages”. The second suit proved what we all knew and the city people had originally denied with their first lawsuit – that ultimately this was about their lost parking revenue.

Ultimately, the Robin Hooders have been completely vindicated. The city people were lying (as is typical of governments) when they claimed Robin Hooders were harassing, intimidating, and threatening their parking enforcement agents. Again, the proof that they were lying is that no Robin Hooder has ever been arrested for “harassment”. Even if Robin Hooders were saying nasty things (no evidence of that was presented in court, and I’ve never seen it happen), the job description of the parking enforcers makes it clear they must put up with “mental and verbal abuse” from members of the public. The city people tried to illegally oppress our right to free speech and to hold government agents accountable for their actions, and the court made the right decision and dismissed their frivolous, aggressive, unconstitutional cases against us.

In the notice of decision, judge Kissinger notes that the free speech rights of the Robin Hooders outweigh all of the claims of “the City”:

The Court agrees with the Respondents that their free speech rights under the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution will be violated by permitting the City to move forward on any of the claims in this action or the more recent action or by granting the requested preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.

In the rest of the notice, Kissinger defeats the ridiculous claims of “the City”, rejecting the claim of “tortious interference”, denying their request for an injunction, and dismissing the second suit for damages from “intentional interference with employment contractual relations and negligence”.

Will “the City” appeal the case to the supreme court? Given their past history of blowing taxpayer dollars on frivolous appeals, there is a good chance they will. They don’t know how to handle taking “no” for an answer. Speaking of wasting your tax dollars, we’ll be digging into the financials of this case to see just how much was spent hiring their fancy private attorneys to handle the Robin Hood case.

Meanwhile, Robin Hooders are still on the streets of Keene, saving countless motorists from the aggression of the parking enforcement bureaucracy! We won’t go away until they do. So far, one enforcer quit over the Summer. Will the remaining two follow suit? Will “the city” be able to find anyone willing to fill the empty position? Will they come up with some ridiculous ordinance against Robin Hooding? Stay tuned here to FreeKeene.com for continued updates on the Robin Hood saga.
 
They could probably make up the money they lost on lawyers fees by claiming dominion over the taxpayer built roads and collect fees for something like parking for too long.
 
Here is the article from the Keene, NH newspaper.

City of Keene loses case against 'Robin Hooders'
Posted: Wednesday, December 4, 2013 2:23 pm | Updated: 7:30 am, Thu Dec 5, 2013.
By Sentinel Staff
http://www.sentinelsource.com/news/...cle_65e75db4-4b25-5b89-b7ca-62b6e559624f.html

The city has lost its case against a group of residents that Keene officials contended had harassed city employees.

Judge John C. Kissinger Jr. said that imposing any restrictions on the group members would violate their First Amendment rights, and granted a motion Tuesday to dismiss the case.

The city filed a petition in Cheshire County Superior Court earlier this year, asking for a buffer zone between city parking enforcement officers and members of a group known as Robin Hood of Keene, who officials said were harassing the officers.

“Robin Hooding” began in December, when activists started following parking officers as they patrolled city streets, staying ahead of them whenever possible, filling expired meters to prevent the officers from writing parking tickets. In many cases, Robin Hooders videotaped the officers' actions and posted clips online. Group members also said in court that their eventual goal was to phase out the parking enforcement program.

“The Court agrees with the Respondents that their free speech rights under the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution will be violated by permitting the City to move forward on any of the claims in this action or the more recent action or by granting the requested preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. Thus, the Respondents' motion to dismiss is granted,” Kissinger wrote in his ruling this week.

However, the judge noted that the city could take other steps to address the situation.

“By this decision, the Court does not mean to suggest that the targeting of hardworking PEOs in the manner described above is appropriate or laudable. Each of the PEOs is to be commended for the composure and civility they have shown. The Court notes that the PEOs are not without remedy to the extent that the Respondents violate applicable criminal laws. Nothing in this decision is meant to suggest that conduct that rises to the level of an assault, criminal threatening, or otherwise violates other provisions of the criminal code constitutes protected speech,” Kissinger wrote. “Further, the City may, provided it does not run afoul of constitutional protections, enact an ordinance addressing some of its concerns.”

For the full story, see Thursday’s Sentinel.
Based on what it says right above this, the story in today's paper has more details. I don't know. I don't have access to the printed paper.


Here is the video report by the main TV news crew in NH.
Case dismissed against 'Robin Hooders' after harassment accusations
Judge: Activists' actions protected by First Amendment
UPDATED 6:45 AM EST Dec 05, 2013
http://www.wmur.com/news/nh-news/ca...ons/-/9857858/23298034/-/bp3190z/-/index.html

Here is some of the text from the above video.
The group moves around the city refilling expired parking meters before officers can write tickets.

The city sought an injunction to stop the activists from interfering with parking enforcement officers by keeping members at least 30 feet away at all times.

In dismissing the case Wednesday, Cheshire Superior Court Justice John Kissinger wrote, "Their free speech rights under the First Amendment of the federal Constitution will be violated by permitting the city to move forward."

"It was not a surprise to me. We did really well, and they really had no case," said activist James Cleaveland.

Cleaveland and his fellow Robin Hooders were accused by the city of verbally harassing parking enforcement officers as they tried to ticket vehicles downtown.

"A lot of the things they alleged that I said were untrue, such as I never told them they should find other employment or quit their job or anything. I mean, there were some people who said things like that, but I personally never said anything like that," Cleaveland said.

Cleaveland said video evidence refuted many of the city's claims.

Kissinger suggested the city look at an ordinance to address the issue.

City officials plan to issue public comments on the case on Thursday.
An ordinance? I wonder what will happen.
 
Last edited:
The ditches belong to the king, if an ox stumbles and falls he has sacrificed himself for the kings dinner.

"You shall love the Lord, the state, with of all your heart and mind and soul, for as long as you both shall live" ?
 
Has a counter-suit been filed?
Nope. But keep in mind that the civil rights lawyer that took the case doesn't live in Keene and already spend a great deal of time on the case. Plus, the 6 defendants spent 100+ combined hours on the case. I doubt they have the money to sue so the lawyer would likely have to agree to it. And they would have to continue to want to waste their time. It might happen, though. I'll keep you posted!

BTW, sorry about the formatting, I didn't create this. Here is a decent Keene paper with something that the City of Keene thinks is a possible solution to help it out. The solutions are to give the ability to pay via a smart phone to add time to their meter and to build extra, unneeded parking lots with meters so there is more ground for Merry Men to cover.

2013_11_27_parkingbrngx1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Pretty simple the city makes an ordinance that only people traveling in the car can deposit money into the meter.
 
An ordinance? I wonder what will happen.

That what I'm wondering. How would an ordinance change the relationship between the false claims of a mob labeling it "the city" and the fundamental rights of individual human beings? I see nothing honest and correct that could possibly change anything. I see possibilities, however, of a devious and criminal nature. And what, pray tell, is a judge doing giving such advice as to how a band of thieves should go about in furtive chicanery pursuant to the aforementioned violations of fundamental human rights. The recommendation makes less than zero sense.
 
The ditches belong to the king, if an ox stumbles and falls he has sacrificed himself for the kings dinner.

If the king befoul my day with his presence, he shall sacrifice himself for my divine right not to be so interfered. My bullets shall greet him merrily and with swift certitude.
 
Here are 4 minor stories covering it. There are mostly cut and pastes of other stories already out there. It's nice to know that this story is being covered, even if it's in minor ways. The more coverage, the better. I'll make another post when there is additional MSM coverage. My guess is, there should be several stories coming out of Boston because various reporters went to Keene to cover the 1st lawsuit.

December 04. 2013 3:06PM
Cases against Keene 'Robin Hooders' dismissed by judge
By MEGHAN PIERCE
Union Leader Correspondent
http://www.newhampshire.com/article/20131204/NEWS/131209680/-1/NEWHAMPSHIRE


NH Robin Hood Lawsuits Dismissed, After Dull Article
December 4, 2013 by Free Concord
http://freekeene.com/2013/12/04/nh-robin-hood-lawsuits-dismissed-after-dull-article/


Robin Hood of Keene Cases DISMISSED!!
Posted on 04 December 2013.
http://www.copblock.org/40280/robin-hood-cases-dismissed/


City Suit Against Keene Robin Hooders Dismissed by NH Superior Court Judge
by Steve MacDonald
http://granitegrok.com/blog/2013/12...-hooders-dismissed-by-nh-superior-court-judge
This post has some good original content that I thought was worth sharing. Here is how it ended.
I am still curious to see it the city of Keene will add another new fee or tax (or hike an existing one) to ‘recover’ the parking enforcement funds they believe they have been denied. Make no mistake. They think it is their money and they will punish everyone if they have to to get it back.

Municipalities can be like mob families and Free Keene has cut into their parking extortion racket. While the first ‘hit’ (the lawsuits) failed, others are sure to follow. No Democrat majority government ever goes quietly into that good night when ‘their’ money is concerned.

Yeah, I know it’s your money, but like I said, that is not how they see it.
 
Last edited:
PEOs?

Fucking metermaids are "officers" now?

"He has sent hither swarms of Officers..."
 
Last edited:
PEOs?

Fucking metermaids are "officers" now?

"He has sent hither swarms of Officers..."

Did they swear an oath?

If so, what could it possibly have been?

"I, state your name, do solemly swear to uphold the will of the city council and to meet my citation quotas without fail or regard for lack of honest opportunity, taking the initiative to creatively fabricate opportunities to enhance city income through the issue of parking tickets even in the face of obnoxious Robin Hooders."

Or perhaps more along the lines of a Marine: "This is my ticket book. There are many like it but this one is mine..."
 
PEOs?

Fucking metermaids are "officers" now?

"He has sent hither swarms of Officers..."
Parking Enforcement Officers start their days at the Keene Police Station, picking up their official vehicles, which are parking behind the Station, along with other police vehicles (except the BEARCAT). They are employed by the Keene Parking Department, which is a part of the Keene Police Department, located in the Station. They are allowed to lie, even on the stand, just as police are allowed to do. And they are members of the same police union as the other Department employees. The main differences seem to be they don't have arrestable powers and they are paid less.


The City of Keene and it's highly paid spineless lawyer have responded. Here is the most recent Keene newspaper article about the case. I only quotes selected parts of the article.

Judge cites First Amendment in dismissing Keene case against Robin Hooders
Posted: Thursday, December 5, 2013 12:00 pm
By Kyle Jarvis Sentinel Staff
http://www.sentinelsource.com/news/...cle_40e36444-6dcb-5cc6-b6e2-a0bfa3e96930.html

Judge John C. Kissinger Jr., in a 16-page decision Tuesday, sided with the Robin Hooders.

“The Court agrees with the Respondents that their free speech rights under the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution will be violated by permitting the City to move forward on any of the claims in this action or the more recent action or by granting the requested preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. Thus, the Respondents’ motion to dismiss is granted.”

Citing previous First Amendment-related cases, Kissinger noted the Robin Hooders’ actions occurred “on streets and sidewalks throughout downtown Keene ... used for public assembly and debate, the hallmarks of a traditional public forum.

“Such space occupies a special position in terms of First Amendment protection,” Kissinger noted.

City officials filed a second action against the Robin Hooders in September, claiming they were entitled to reimbursement for the parking officers’ “inability to properly perform their employment duties,” as well as the “loss of an employee, a modified schedule for another employee because of the defendants’ behavior, hiring costs to replace the lost employee, monetary and administrative expenses with regard to counseling and other human resources issues.”

The suit also argued that the city could suffer further damage if other parking enforcement officers quit or require special accommodations due to the Robin Hooders’ alleged behavior.

Kissinger dismissed that complaint as well.

During a three-day bench trial that ended in early October, city attorneys asked the court for a 30-foot buffer zone between the officers and Robin Hooders to protect the officers and ensure their ability to do their jobs effectively.

Parking enforcement officers Linda Desruisseaux, Jane McDermott and Alan Givetz — who said he eventually quit as a result of stress induced by Robin Hooders — testified during the trial that Robin Hooders called them names and told them they should quit their jobs.

Attorney Jon Meyer of Manchester, who represented the Robin Hooders for free, said he was pleased with the judge’s decision, “because I think Judge Kissinger not only recognized, but basically affirmed, the importance of free speech and political expression and activity in public places, whether you agree with it or not.”

At various points during the trial, both sides — and Kissinger — commented on the unusual nature of the case, and the lack of precedent in the context of the city’s suit.

Meyer said the case was unique only because of the city’s approach to its arguments.

“The type of political expression in this case was certainly different. But I’m not really sure it was necessarily, in terms of concept, different from many other groups of activists on many different issues on many different points of view,” he said.

“What was different was the city utilized a legal theory, interference with contractual relations, which in my experience had never been used against a group of political demonstrators. It was a novel tactic, and if it had succeeded, it would have, in my mind, had devastating consequences across the board.”

Freeman said that while he was confident that he and his fellow defendants had done nothing wrong, believing they were morally and legally in the right, “You never know what to expect from government judges, since they do tend to lean in favor of the state.”

Ean said he was surprised that city officials brought the suit against him and his friends in the first place.

“The fact that there was so much action and resources invested in this particular legal battle, and now it’s all for naught on the city’s part,” he said. “I’m surprised they were so flagrantly wasting resources and being cagey about what it all stood for, when I think we all knew it was about revenue the entire time.”

City Manager John A. MacLean said the money to pay for attorney Charles P. Bauer of Concord and his legal team came out of the city attorney’s line item budget, and estimated that cost to be somewhere between $20,000 and $25,000. The city hired Bauer’s firm because it has more experiences with these kinds of cases than the city attorney, officials said.

In a statement, Bauer said, “The City believes it has the right and obligation to try to protect its employees from workplace interference, harassment, and intimidation,” adding that city officials brought the suit with the hope that the court would affirm that right, rather than to inhibit the activists. “The City did not request the Court stop the individuals from protesting against the City or its employees.”

Bauer said he’s disappointed with Kissinger’s decision and disagrees with the ruling.

In his decision, Kissinger did not to endorse the Robin Hooders’ actions, saying, “the Court does not mean to suggest that the targeting of hard-working (parking enforcement officers) in the manner described above is appropriate or laudable,” adding that “each of the (officers) is to be commended for the composure and civility they have shown.”
That's laughable. The Parking Enforcement Officers made fun of (to their faces, on Facebook, on YouTube, on the streets), laughed at, incited people they knew to attack Merry Men (3 separate Merry Men were attacked because of PEOs), called the police on Merry Men with false reports, lied to people on the streets, lied on the stand and so on. The PEOs, while paid employees, acted much less professionally and in a much more disrespectful way than the Merry Men.

He noted that city officials have other options for addressing the situation.

“The Court notes that the (parking officers) are not without remedy to the extent that the Respondents violate applicable criminal laws. Nothing in this decision is meant to suggest that conduct that rises to the level of an assault, criminal threatening, or otherwise violates other provisions of the criminal code constitutes protected speech,” Kissinger wrote. “Further, the City may, provided it does not run afoul of constitutional protections, enact an ordinance addressing some of its concerns.”

Bauer said he expects to confer with City Attorney Thomas P. Mullins, MacLean, and the City Council soon to determine whether to appeal.


BTW, the Keene newspaper has asked for YOUR OPINION on the judge's ruling. What do you think of the Robin Hooders decision?
Give you feedback. http://www.sentinelsource.com/opini...cle_e960c4af-ed5d-56ab-ab4e-736bc7185263.html
 
Last edited:
The absurdity of Keene's claims is really the big picture, here. I've pointed this out before and some people seemed to understand what I'm getting at:

The city claims that it "loses" money if people put money into parking meters for other commuters.

What the city of Keene is really saying is: "If everyone obeys the law and pays as required to park, then we will lose money." This is a HUGE budget flaw that needs to be exposed repeatedly and loudly, if indeed the city NEEDS people to BREAK THE LAWS on parking in order to turn a profit. That's basically what the city officials are claiming, am I right? You must break the law by not inserting coins into the parking meter, or we will lose money. It almost sounds as if their main source of revenue doesn't come from the meters, but from people who don't use the meters.

Imagine a store that somehow devised a way to make a profit by closing its doors and turning away customers, but at the same time, charged them for their 'non-patronage'. In fact, it would actually prefer not to have any shoppers. But, that would be a ridiculous business model. People would say that's a pretty dumb system.

In my opinion, that's the way the Merry Men need to frame their arguments to get more people to realize how absurd the parking system is, and hopefully get support from others.

Summary: If everyone uses the parking system like they're supposed to, the city will go broke. If you really want to do your civic duty and fund government (that's my devil's advocate speaking), break the law.

Sounds stupid, right?
 
Last edited:
You must break the law by not inserting coins into the parking meter, or we will lose money. It almost sounds as if their main source of revenue doesn't come from the meters, but from people who don't use the meters.
It is terrible budgeting.


NH WMUR has a 2nd news video out. Here it is.


Here are some additional newspaper scans featured on FreeConcord.org
UL, Sentinel Report on Robin Hood Case Dismissal
Posted on December 5, 2013 by freeconcord
http://freeconcord.org/2013/12/05/ul-sentinel-report-on-robin-hood-case-dismissal/

2013_12_05_sentinel-3b.jpg


2013_12_05_unionleader1.jpg
 
Back
Top