Cops Caught on Camera

Man, they hate that. But with a little luck, NH will be spelling it out unambiguously for your servants -- public employees on the job, on your dime, in your name -- very soon. Here, Radley Balko on Fox Business Channel's FreedomWatch from 12/15/2010...

Fourth Estate cum State Organ

Freedom of the Press continues to transition unabated to Propaganda Organ of the State. Notice any basic similarities between this still-developing Amazon story and YouTube summarily pulling videos on the complaint of public employees embarrassing themselves on the job? (No, I don't equate myself with WikiLeaks in anything but kind. WikiLeaks rocks. I'm just a pissant local activist.)

Government demands submission, private company obeys, free speech and open, accountable government lose. Should either be acceptable? Should the companies' actions be excused, should opposition be denigrated, merely because they're not (yet) government entities expressly bound by the 1st Amendment?

Yes, it's private property. Yes, they have a right. Should they expect to exercise it (quite arguably in opposition to the "public interest," as government is quick to assert when it suits its purposes) without backlash and economic consequences? Didn't we expect that outlets like YouTube were going to be the adversarial watchdog antidote to "Regime Stenographer Syndrome?" (And yes, I'm well aware this blog is hosted by a YouTube sister entity. For the moment...)

As Greenwald says:

But any attempt by political officials to start blocking Americans' access to political content on the Internet ought to provoke serious uproar and unrest. ...
If anyone is aware of some sort of campaign to boycott Amazon's web services over its capitulation to Joe Lieberman -- and there should be one -- please alert me to it so I can promote it.

Expect all those "cop abuse" -- or legislative hearing, or government-official interviews gone "badly," or... -- videos to start disappearing as this tactic becomes more widely known among government cockroaches, and press outlets don't grasp -- or aren't made to care about -- what's going on. You good with that...?

One more point I'd like to make while I'm on WikiLeaks. I keep hearing Defenders of the Regime spout on about how these leaks threaten "the United States," thereby conflating the U.S. country or the U.S. People with the U.S. government. They are not the same thing.

The U.S. People would be far less threatened if the U.S. government were held more accountable.

The state spends much time and effort persuading the public that it is not really what it is and that the consequences of its actions are positive rather than negative.
-Hans Hermann Hoppe-
A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism

And all us ungrateful little brats just keep undoing their earnest effort with nettlesome elements like the truth...

UPDATE: For those having trouble keeping up (and who wouldn't), you can now get to WikiLeaks here or here or here. At least for the moment..

YouTube-enabled Government Censorship

YouTube has summarily rejected 2 Concord, NH videos from 11/13/2010 exposing government violence, following government complaints that said violence -- and its perpetrators -- shouldn't be exposed (sound at all familiar?). The videos have now been reposted elsewhere.

Read the backstory, including the YouTube email citing the government complaint, here and here.

Now see the original videos your government got pulled, and the new YouTube replacement video, right here.

UPDATE: Threads on more YouTube censorship of the same event here and here.
And again, images are not a crime. Let alone government thug accountability...

And here's something to chew on: YouTube could conceivably pull any video of NH legislative hearings. Or any of the many police abuse videos all over the internet. Or dashcams of chases, right? Well, OF COURSE it's private property. But I can still expose censorship and government collusion just as I can with any other media outlet. Government employees are accountable to their employers -- that's you -- for their actions. If they want to hide, they need to work in the private sector, for a different boss.

Let's just say it flat out. YouTube is condoning government abuses and absolving it and its functionaries of any accountability by banning reporting of such abuses simply on government's whim. "Only doing my job" hasn't been a valid excuse since Nuremberg, at least. And government has a favorite low-bar charge for colluding with others to defraud and deprive: conspiracy.

UPDATE 2: This, just for example -- evidence of destruction of evidence by law enforcement -- could disappear very quickly.

The Empire's Underlings Frown On (Their Own) Accountability

Who knew...?

I received the following email from YouTube on 11/24/2010.

Dear bikerbillnh,

This is to notify you that we have received a privacy complaint from an individual regarding your content:

-------------------------------------------------------------

Video URLs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPIgDVLpzKU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9QvKwfRg_I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPIgDVLpzKU
The information reported as violating privacy is at 0:23

-------------------------------------------------------------

We would like to give you an opportunity to remove or edit your video so that it no longer potentially [emphasis mine] violates the privacy of the individuals involved. You can edit your video by removing names and other personal information from the video's title, metadata or tags. Annotations or marking the video as private are not acceptable forms of editing and your video will still be at risk of removal. Please edit or remove the material reported by the individual within 48 hours from today's date. If no action is taken, the video will then come in for review by the YouTube staff and be prohibited from being uploaded again.

If the potential privacy violation is contained within the metadata or title of the video, you should be able to edit this content without video removal. If the potential privacy violation is within the video content, the video may have to be removed completely.

Protecting a person's privacy is protecting their personal safety. When uploading videos in the future, please remember not to post someone else's image or personal information without their consent. Personal information includes things like names, phone numbers, and email addresses. For more information, please review our Community Guidelines at
http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines and our Safety Center at
http://www.youtube.com/t/safety

Regards,
The YouTube Team

Interesting that there seems to be no opportunity for rebuttal offered: "There's been a complaint. Must be valid. Take it down or edit it, or we will. As to the specific complaint and its source (which might help identify the "offense"), you're required to guess. Tick, tick, tick..."

"[T]he video will then come in for review ... and be prohibited from being uploaded again."
-YouTube-

"We're gonna give you a fair trial, followed by a first class hangin'."
-Sheriff Cobb-

So what is the complaint, exactly? Is the alleged start point really identical for both? This we don't know.

They're my 2 videos from the 11/13 "Tilting at Windmills" protest at the Concord Fed building, and :23 appears to be the approximate start of footage in each, or the entrance, stage right, of "Our Heroes." My best guess is that the taxfeeding public employee who nominally "engaged" us in "Silent Propaganda Minister" complained to YouTube that somebody'd posted his name (and contract employer -- like, you know, they'd do, and more, in an MSM news report to one of their "suspects") in the video comments (hey! the Feds are watching my videos! and reading the comments!).

'Course, pulling the video wouldn't remedy that issue, now would it? And I'd just put it back up at blip.tv, with a link from YouTube, and a new blog post. In the mean time, I used YouTube's functionality to add a text box over my simple inquiry into his identity at the end:

Turns out self-important police state taxfeeders apparently don't like it so much when THEIR EMPLOYERS ask such questions ABOUT THEM. Welcome to OUR world...

Now, why the other video is included in the complaint is even less clear, as the previously referenced thug doesn't say anything in it, and he's not ID'd in any way, even in the comments (although I'd have to assume that complaint's also his). And the other taxfeeder, the disingenuously gregarious one, claims to love the attention. Surely he wouldn't lie to us...

Oh, and YouTube? Images are protected -- in other words, you don't need to worry about government ordering them taken down. If you really don't support the 1st Amendment rights to speech and press, perhaps you should just come out and say so...

EDIT: One more point: I find it telling that the authoritarian's very first, knee-jerk resort for redress (even, presumably, if it had merit, in this case) is always to "call the authorities." He needs "Big Brother" just to manage to live his life.

Fun With TSA -- And No One Else

It's tough to inform the aviating public of overstepping government when they would appear to be sufficiently informed already. Indeed, they would seem to be voting with their wallets and staying away in droves. It was dead for an average Wednesday, nevermind what I must assume would be considered typical for "the busiest travel day of the year." Herewith, the National Opt Out Day demonstration at Manchester-Boston Regional Airport, 11/24/2010. The day before Thanksgiving.

Your humble chronicler arrived early to case the joint and, them fellers bein' so derned smart an' all, TSA was already on heightened alert, well aware a protest was scheduled for 10am, as I overheard one of 'em commenting to a suspect-- er... customer. Badges and goofy epaulets as far as the eye could see. Granted, that wasn't too tough, given that there weren't any travelers obstructing the view, of course...

Nevertheless, the protesters didn't trash the place, so we settled in to an uneasy peace. Until, that is, TSA decided to start handing out "free speech zone" maps. Which we ignored. And -- at least by the time I left, anyway -- they ignored us ignoring. Not even any threats.

WMUR TV was there even before I was, conducting interviews with "upper thugs." Betcha the "film at eleven" doesn't include images of all the wide open spaces. You go, citizens...

The Regime Can Be Brought Down

EDIT: These YouTube-censored (on behalf of your government) videos are now available here.

With chalk, evidently. Ephemeral chalk, it seems, scares the regime absolutely shitless. Scares them into cackling like the insane. Scares them into silence. Scares them more than the relatively more permanent cotton and rubber and flesh residue left by dragging uppity, disobedient civilians away to cages.

For chalk!

Don't ask me why. Clearly, don't bother asking them, either. Fortunately for them, they don't work for you, right...?

The now regular monthly "Tilting at Windmills" protest in front of the Concord, NH "Federal" Building, 11/13/2010. Keep apprised of future opportunities to join the fun on the forums at the NH Underground.

Porc411 calls here and here.

The Regime Can Be Brought Down


The Silent Propaganda Minister

Hey! We're Complaining Here! WE'RE COMPLAINING HERE!!

Although decidedly peacefully...

No longer merely a 4:20 celebration, the, um, "forces of good" take the battle directly to the enemy. Physically again, and now in a more "legal" context, as well. The concept of "redress of grievance" is prominently ensconced in both the federal Constitution (1st Amendment) and the NH Constitution (Part First, Article 31), yet has long been moribund under each jurisdiction.

Why might that be? Well, when government is directly confronted with the damage that it does to peaceful people, it gets uncomfortable. It has an image to uphold, after all. Its solution, of course, is to avoid that informed confrontation. Pretend it's not necessary, that the process to respect an expressly enumerated right isn't mandatory. Even when it's such an explicit requirement of its charter. But hey, nobody's paying attention, right? We can just continue to ignore it. Indeed, it's best that we do so. And this day will be no exception.

'V' masks oddly entirely absent (the preference being, apparently, to celebrate in the spirit of a different holiday, if somewhat prematurely), as NH free people descend on the NH State House in Concord for another Guy Fawkes Day 4:20 celebration, 11/5/2010, insisting on Government responsiveness to grievances and the protection of rights, including the foundational right to self-ownership.

Weare (PD), Everybody Kno-o-ows You're Lame!

daa, da-da-da-da daat daaa, daaaaaaa
If only that were the extent... (There's a video down below somewhere. Trust me...)

OK, so let's review some of the more pertinent NH laws, principles and Constitutional provisions that we've previously discussed regarding the right to record your servants, on the job in your name, on your dime, in public.

• RSA 91-A, the "right to know" statute, is a fairly clear exception to the "wiretapping" statute, authorizing the recording of all "government proceedings" not specifically exempted. (Unless, of course, the cops don't really work for the government...)
• RSA 570-A, the "wiretapping" statute, requires an expectation of privacy before a charge of "wiretapping" -- whatever the definition -- is valid.

Courts (including federal, I believe) have ruled that "public spaces" afford no such expectations. Even if the jurisdictions aren't directly applicable to NH (yet), these rulings have certainly set an imposing precedent. Additionally, employees simply have no legitimate expectation that their work-time is off-limits to their employers' scrutiny.

Radley Balko's been doing yeoman's work, as usual, reporting on this issue at theagitator.com and Reason.com. He and Carlos Miller were on NPR's "Talk of the Nation" for a half-hour segment in July, 2010, to discuss it. He reports that there are, IIRC, only 3 states that outright ban recording without consent. The others (including NH) that don't expressly authorize the recording of cops still stipulate a general "expectation of privacy."

But along with the court rulings, there's also the idea that as an adversarial encounter -- as one that by design and intent can quickly put your liberty unilaterally in jeopardy, on the whim of your servant who, it simply can't be ignored, will get the benefit of the doubt before the state's magistrate -- the cops themselves would have no problem whatsoever using the exchange -- and their video evidence -- in open court, so even they understand it's not a private, privileged conversation with any expectations of being such. If the citizen's side of it isn't protected, how can the servant's? And this still barely touches on the unique nature and necessary -- and existing -- safeguards of the citizen/servant relationship, which brings us to "the Big Guns."

NH Constitution Part First, Article 8, 'Accountability of Magistrates and Officers; Public’s Right to Know,' stipulates that

All power residing originally in, and being derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them. Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive. To that end, the public’s right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted.

So just as your "representatives" in the legislature can't escape your supervision -- or that of your camera-wielding proxy, like yours truly -- while they're crafting rules to control your life, so law enforcement must be required to be accountable to the public while it's imposing those rules. With guns. If'n ya don't wanna be accountable to your employers, get another job, buster.

But most recently, in a "D'oh! Why didn't that occur to me before?!" moment, NH attorney and fellow activist Paula Werme pointed me (again -- I really need to keep up better with my reading...) to perhaps the most relevant reference yet: Article 15, 'Right of Accused,' which states in part,

"Every subject shall have a right to produce all proofs that may be favorable to himself"

Now, ya can't very well "produce" proof in court if you've been capriciously and prejudicially prohibited from "producing" it on the street, now can ya? Can you say "mistrial?" Can you say "civil rights violation?"

So really, whoever is unfortunate enough to have attracted the predatory attentions of the state's enforcement arm has the Constitutional right to authorize the recording, for their defense, of video evidence of the encounter -- "proofs that may be favorable to himself" -- and to demand it at trial. And it's so important that it's even ensconced in "NH's Top 15," no less.

This seems to me, too, to be related to the issue of willful "destruction of evidence" that manifests with the return of a camera minus the potentially nettlesome interaction footage. Seems in that context, the cops would be compelled to produce the camera at trial, too. Oh, that's right: it never gets to trial, does it...? Even the press is getting tired of this.

Anyway, following are attorney Seth Hipple and client Carla Gericke as guests on a tv show your humble chronicler works on, Capitol Access, out of Concord, NH, recorded on 10/28/2010. Carla was caught up in what a dispassionate observer would be hard-pressed to describe as anything but thuggery at a traffic stop in Weare back in March. You'll notice in the show that relying on law enforcement's video for "proofs that may be favorable" isn't exactly what one could characterize as a reliable strategy to achieve justice. No, it's not just an urban legend.

Your humble chronicler, too, found himself in a substantially similar "recording" situation with Weare PD just a few months later, only markedly and mercifully minus the thuggery -- despite being the orchestrated effect of other intentional and premeditated thuggery -- so even they seemed to be already well aware they grossly overstepped. My own stop was connected to yet another bit of controversy in which the same department finds itself (still) mired, related to its contemptible dealings with a small and mighty friendly business in town, Palmer's Tavern (tell co-owner George and barkeep Donna I sent ya -- I recommend a seasonal draft and a BBQ chicken pizza or a Burger Special). And regarding which controversy, rumor has it the Board of Selectmen had to step in and issue a "cease and desist," or maybe closer to a "restraining order" on the cops, so perhaps the broader message still needs to sink in. Needless to say, we still have some work to do...

UPDATE: More Radley Balko here, from the January 2011 'Reason' magazine.

J. Irish & S. Taylor vs. The State, Round Two

Jonathan Irish and Stephanie Taylor testify before the NH House 'Redress of Grievance' Caucus regarding the 'Oath Keepers child custody' brouhaha, 10/19/2010. Lots of history 'round here, if you're interested. (FYI, you should be...)

Just a tease. Or is it more...?




Part 1




Part 2

Of Markets and Mayhem

In a recent back-and-forth with long-time favorite tech guru Fred Langa, precipitated by the topic of science funding, I'd been defending limited government, free markets and the principled, consistent, predictable rule of law. I'd started to post this there, but decided it was getting long enough for a post of my own...

Half-listening to 'The Exchange' this morning, I thought I'd offer you one related example of profoundly bad consequences from hubristic government not sticking to its Constitutional mandate.

The housing bubble was clearly not sustainable free-market profit. But the cause wasn't simply "greedy capitalists." An interfering government had chosen to put its thumb on the scale, and had guaranteed (well, taxpayers did, right?) increasingly high-risk mortgage investment for (initially) the privatized short-term "profits" of higher poll numbers and vote counts since at least as far back as Truman's "Rural Housing Guaranteed Loan Program", to Carter's "Community Reinvestment Act", and continued through Bush's "ownership society".

These were borrowers that unmanipulated, naturally "risk/reward"-sensitive free-market capitalists would have avoided (not because they were poor, but because they were demonstrably bad or at the very least entirely unknown credit risks, and you wouldn't lend them that much money, either). Or they would have better-balanced the commerce equation than government does because, you know, they would have actually been directly responsible (to thus-cranky stakeholders, like, say, your mother's retirement account) for the likely losses.

But the banks naturally factored the data point of government's corrupting, coercive incentives into their economic calculations. And so the artificially high demand of many more "qualified" buyers chasing limited goods quite predictably increased home prices, thus actually helping to deny home ownership to fiscally responsible lower-income households (gosh, who could have seen that coming...?). And thus also encouraged mal-investment of limited (as opposed to infinite) resources into accelerated home construction (the supply side of the standard economics equation).

When the people who shouldn't have had mortgages in the first place began to do the inevitable, so did the house of cards. Now the private losses precipitated by government interference in what would otherwise have been rational and sustainable economic decisions are socialized by passing the bill on to the taxpayers.

So the banks get bailed out because government thinks it knows better than markets (that's you, btw), and made unauthorized promises in your name. And yet, the 2 major parties -- and usually the very incumbents -- responsible will still win virtually every single election into the future. And we can do it all over again, maybe this time with health care.

In my best Jubal Early, does that seem right to you...?

Oath Keepers v NH DCYF Cage Match: Introductions

Stewart Rhodes, Oath Keepers founder, visits NH again, 10/14/2010. This time to lead a 1st Amendment Rally at the Dover outpost of the NH Family Division Court, in response to DCYF citing membership in the oath-honoring organization as (at least partial) justification for the kidnapping of a newborn from Concord Hospital on 10/7. The "demand letter" Steward references can be found here.

Including a hastily-called protest at the scene of the crime on 10/8, this is the second major action to date by the liberty community in opposition to this profoundly disturbing violation of the Constitutionally protected natural right of association, just for starters. And as you'll see, (even) John Irish (the elder) agrees with me.

The side-show debates over, e.g., whether Jonathan Irish is actually a "member" of Oath Keepers is absurdly beside the point. It still leaves the shocking evidence that DCYF (even if in error, and independent of any other allegations or their individual veracity) asserted his association with a (any) peaceful (yet regime-"threatening") political organization, and that they considered that association to be a relevant and reasonable factor in taking his child away. What the hell were they thinking?! Well, think MIAC Report. Think many SPLC papers.

NH DCYF has got to understand one thing right now, right to their very collectivist marrow, that this is a profoundly unacceptable violation of the 1st Amendment rights of speech and association. This must not stand unchallenged. By Oath Keepers members, or FSP members, or NHLA members, or FreeKeene members, or any other members of peaceful organizations, inside or outside of NH, that challenge the status quo. Because as Pastor Niemöller observed...

There's a related "redress of grievance," um... "listening session" (see background on that silliness) tentatively scheduled for 10/19 in front of an ad hoc committee of the NH House. See you there...

Updates:

• State expected to return infant daughter of 'Oath Keeper'
• Father Happy With Court's Decision Over Child Custody
• Baby returned to Epsom couple
• "Baby Cheyenne" Returned to Parents in New Hampshire
• Update on the New Hampshire Case After the Hearing and Our Rally: It Was A GOOD Day!

Remember Kids, Legislating and Reasoning Don't Mix

Again, it is not only the end of NH's legislative year, but also the end of the 2-year term. No bill survives over election season. Interim study subcommittees are now making their final reports to House and Senate Committees regarding their recommendations for what the respective body should do about introducing similar legislation next year.

Herewith, such a subcommittee of the NH House Criminal Justice Committee arriving at their recommendation on HB1652, "allowing purchase and use of marijuana by adults, regulating the purchase and use of marijuana, and imposing taxes on the wholesale and retail sale of marijuana," and then, isolated in the first video, Rep. Robertson's thoroughly understandable reaction in the full CJ Committee's "executive session" to determine the final recommendation, 10/13/2010. This all followed by the entire "Executive Session" deliberations. If you dare...!

Update:
House Committee Decides Marijuana Regulation Proposal is ‘Too Much, Too Soon’ for NH

Accountability, Schmountability

It is not only the end of NH's legislative year, but also the end of the 2-year term. No bill survives over election season. Interim study subcommittees are now making their final reports to House and Senate Committees regarding their recommendations for what the respective body should do about introducing similar legislation next year. Here is the NH House Criminal Justice Committee's deliberations on such a subcommittee's report on HB1619, "requiring law enforcement officers to record interviews of suspects in felony cases," 10/13/2010.

Perhaps the least malignant excuse for continuing to deny your right to record your servants on the job in your name, is the cops' lightly veiled concern that your 'mad video editing skillz' will make them look worse than they already do. Well evidently, the cops have impressed upon the committee a lack of faith in their own editing, too...

1st Amendment Rally, 10/14, Dover, NH

From the Desk of Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oath Keepers

As you know the baby of John Irish and his fiancee Stephanie was taken 16 hours after her birth. She was taken in part because of association with Oath keepers.

The time is now to stand up and protect the rights of all all parents freedom to associate and yours too. Join us.

We will be holding a rally in support of the First Amendment protected right of freedom of association, to be held this Thursday, October 14, at:

The Rochester Family Division Court, 259 County Farm Rd, Dover, NH 03820-6016.

The rally will be held from 12PM to 4PM

Stewart will be there, and he is calling on all Oath Keepers, all who "associate" with us, and on all other organizations that stand for the Constitution and for liberty to be there for a peaceful gathering in support of both the due process rights of the parents (who have a hearing there, on that day), but also to stand in support of the rights of free speech and association, free from persecution, for ALL Americans.

There will be many other organizations there standing up in defense of First Amendment protected right of association for everyone.

Gary Franchi, Sons of Liberty Riders, New Hampshire Free State. and more will be there in support for this crucial issue.

We need you there. If you live within a 1000 mile radius, you should be at this rally.

Please join us!

Oppression By Oath

First, do no harm. A day-old infant was abducted by NH DCYF on 10/7/2010, from, and allegedly with the complicity of, Concord Hospital, apparently at least partially because her father had affirmed, by association with Oath Keepers, an oath he'd taken to support and defend the U.S. Constitution. An oath government employees take every day. Do they respect their own promises as much? Do you care...?

This is the hastily organized protest the following day, 10/8/2010, outside the scene of the crime, Concord Hospital, Concord, NH.



MSM sources in attendance included WMUR, the Concord Monitor and the Manchester Union Leader. I'll link as I find stories...

Seriously, WMUR? This is your lede? Even though you quickly acknowledge that, "The hospital said there was no threat made?" Shame on you.

And finally, WMUR focuses on the actual story -- as much as they ever do, anyway (isn't there a pie-eating contest around here somewhere...?) -- 21 hours later.

Other sources of information:

• Learn more about NH DCYF
• Government Agents Seize Oath Keeper's New Born From Hospital
• Oath Keepers' Statement
• Peaceful Oath Keeper's Newborn Baby Seized at Hospital
• Government Seizes Newborn Baby Over Political Beliefs Of Parents
• NH politicos kidnap newborn infant 'cause father is a member of "oath keepers"
• NH DCYF takes children from parents who open carry and belong to Oath Keepers
• Baby Snatching: It's Hilarious When We Just Don't Like Their Kind
• Concord Hospital protest against baby kidnap
• Couple say NH took baby, paperwork cites father
• CONFIRMED: Court Did Rely on Oath Keeper Association to Take Baby
• The Kidnapping of Cheyenne Irish
• Oath Keepers plans rally

NH AG Recommends Less Police Accountability

'Cause, you know, they prefer that. And the subcommittee Chair asserts cops aren't even public employees. HB1372, "establishing a committee to study the provisions of RSA 570-A, the wiretapping and eavesdropping statute, and to study permitting a person to record a law enforcement officer in the course of such officer’s official duties," 9/28/2010.

The subcommittee was charged with studying "permitting" someone to monitor their public servants, their employees, acting in their name, on their dime, in public space. As we've learned before, our servants aren't all that keen on the idea. Well then, work somewhere else. It's a free country, right...?

So here, highlights, then the whole surreal authoritarian love-fest. Hey, if I can take it, you can take it...

Prohibition and the Wheels of Government Grind On

Mostly everything in their path...

The NH House committee formed by authority of last session's HB1373: "establishing a committee to study the effects of current state and federal laws on illegal drugs and the possession and use of such drugs," votes on its final report, 9/22/2010. Their finding: 'It is just too hard for us.'

Wonder what the bill sponsors, Reps. Joel Winters and Paul Ingbretson, must think of their dedication...




And herewith, the final "interim study" work session of the NH House Criminal Justice subcommittee addressing HB1652: "allowing purchase and use of marijuana by adults, regulating the purchase and use of marijuana, and imposing taxes on the wholesale and retail sale of marijuana" -- the "tax & regulate" bill, sponsored by my own Rep. Cal Pratt and the equally redoubtable Rep. Joel Winters, among others, from the previous session of the NH House, 9/22/2010.

Originating in the second session of the 2-year term, the original bill is now technically gone, but the committee soldiers on in an effort to craft something more, shall we say, "palatable" -- which is also, mercifully, inching toward "rational" in a drug war-crazed world -- for the next session, which begins after November's elections.

Rights and Privileges

I started writing a comment for this post at "Unlawful Government" referencing the (even misdirected) intolerance emanating from a Florida church ("Dove World Outreach Center?" Seriously? Why do I get the feeling they wouldn't even get along with Westboro Baptist?), but my thoughts wandered enough, addressing things I've been thinking about recently, that I decided to just turn it into a post of my own...

Either we consider that freedom of speech (or religion or RKBA or 'due process' or etc) is a fundamental unalienable right, above and beyond infringement by our form of government, or it's merely a "privilege," the regulation of which we just haven't delegated to the federal component of that government. Ya gotta pick one. If it's a "right," then "incorporation" by(/of/to/whatever) the several States is unavoidable, seems to me. Either that, or they can just leave the union. Serves 'em right, eh...?

As long as you're not directly endangering someone else's person or property -- and no matter how "offensive," as that's precisely what the First Amendment was designed to protect, after all -- flag-burning is political speech. As is book-burning, as are campaign contributions. And don't even get me started on the profound, compounded, convoluted insanity of house-of-worship "tax-exempt status." We simply do not surrender the right of speech to obtain the right of association. Or vice versa.

On the other hand, as 'South Park' has (unintentionally) taught us, some religions are evidently more equal than others. And from the same WSJ article, Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle:

"America must contain this pastor if it wants to avoid a confrontation with the Muslim world," Mohsen Pak Aien, the head of Organization for Islamic Culture and Communication, told Iran's Tabnak news website.

And get this...

"The dangers of this despicable action are clear to all. It will ignite massive fires of anger and hatred toward America. The U.S. government and president will be held accountable if this happens in their country," said Grand Ayatollah Lotfollah Sadeghi Golpaygani, according to Fars News.

...because you figure the president of this Constitutional Republic of expressly enumerated powers protecting open-ended rights has been delegated the authority to do what, exactly? Or do you mean it would be ok if only "this" happened outside "their country," like, say, the Middle East equivalent of the WTC?

Or this...

The two top Arabic news channels, Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya, reported the news in the context of a backlash in the U.S. against Muslims, and questioned how U.S. leaders could continue calling for peace and religious tolerance in other countries, if these episodes continued to flare up in America.

I do believe someone's referred to this concept as "blowback," in this case perhaps exacerbated by one faction's (hardly unique) hypocritical insistence that only the other faction's "leaders" exert control over -- or at the very least unequivocally denounce -- ostensibly rogue members of their "flocks."

Yet if Petraeus fears that "images of a burning Quran could be used to drum up anger toward the U.S. and potentially endanger troops," what the hell does he think invading and bombing might do? Has anybody asked him? But at base, we're talking about religions here -- including the one devoted to "the state," of course -- so what rationality can we expect, really?

On to the mosque. If they own the property in south Manhattan, they have the right to decide what to do with it. If they don't get to decide what to do with it, then they really don't "own" it, now do they? Whoever does get to decide does "own" it, regardless of whatever level of substantive "investment" they may or may not have made. Simple. Where do politicians get off telling a private citizens what to do, indeed. Do any of us effectively own anything -- including our own bodies -- anymore...?

In any case, it certainly strikes me as a ridiculously expensive (including the required annual tribute to the state for the "privilege" of continuing to occupy it, of course) piece of property on which to be doing just about anything other than "obscenely" profitable commerce, but it's just not my call.

But if you, dear reader, don't want what they want for their property, if you're sufficiently committed to controlling it, I'm sure they would entertain sufficiently lofty offers. That's right: voluntary commerce. Put up or shut up. Or boycott. 'Course, if you're already that exercised over the issue, that probably won't be a hardship, I'm guessin'...

The Florida ACLU condemned Mr. Jones's message Wednesday as un-American but defended his right to free speech. "We cannot pick and choose who is protected by the Constitution," spokesman Brandon Hensler said. "We're very concerned about this wave of anti-Muslim sentiment. But the answer is not to infringe on their right to say what they want to say."

Gosh, non-chauvinistic, non-jingoistic, uncompromising, nuanced yet consistent principle based on original intent. Liberty.

Ooo. This and this just in.

Say, are there any Toyota dealers on O'ahu? Anybody...?

'Constitution Ride Across America' Hits Concord

The 'Constitution Ride Across America,' with driving force Daren Gardner, motors into Concord, NH, 8/19/2010, for its eighth stop, spreading "the word that the constitution still matters and that you can do something about it," by delivering copies of the US Constitution to state Representatives in the "lower 48." Well, to the ones who are interested, anyway...




We met up with Daren at Riley's in Hooksett to escort him to the NH State House for the rally. If you couldn't make it, you can relive the 25-minute ride right here in 7 minutes.

Not. Just... Not.

Kelly Ayotte is your venal, arrogant, unlimited, unresponsive, out-of-touch, unauthorized, centralized, wealth-redistributing, lying/cheating/stealing, police-state government on steroids. Any questions...?

Good. Go get yourself some answers...

Memoriam Revisited

The vented frustrations have proved justified, the predictions borne out, their only failing in being overly optimistic. And my memorial to our lost liberties has more than doubled in height and tripled in breadth in the intervening 2 years. I gotta say I deeply appreciate the appearance it's taken on of a defiantly raised middle finger. This tree "knows" me...

Summer 2008

Summer 2010

It's curiously and appropriately reminiscent of another iconic image, don't you think...?

Last Great Act of Defiance

The one where the NH AG intimidates a "citizen of good character"

Ivy Walker has been known to do legal research and/or represent individuals before the servant state of NH -- individuals fully aware, even preferring, that she hasn't sought the sanction of that state or the state's bar association -- and as "authorized" by the state's own laws, specifically, RSA 311:1, which says:

"A party in any cause or proceeding may appear, plead, prosecute or defend in his or her proper person, that is, pro se, or may be represented by any citizen of good character. For the purposes of this section, a citizen shall be presumed to be of good character unless demonstrated otherwise."

Not surprisingly, the state isn't happy about her nettlesome, "insufficiently deferential" competence in this area. Or, perhaps they're just not aware of their own law...

Here, Ivy has been summoned to the NH DOJ by the high priests of NH law enforcement to "explain herself," 8/12/2010. Goes without saying, of course, that your servants don't want their activities in your name being recorded...

P.J. O'Rourke Hates Politics

And I agree with him. NH's own P.J. O'Rourke addresses the Coalition of NH Taxpayers at their Annual Taxpayers Picnic, in 2 parts, 7/10/2010.






And poor Peter Bearse, candidate for Congress, had a traffic accident on his way to the Picnic, and wasn't "allowed" to retrieve his campaign materials or his camera. So by special request...

Itse on ObamaCare

Are federal laws necessarily Constitutional by mere virtue of their passage? Was Congress really intended to be the arbiter of its own authority? Here by special request of the orator, Rep. Dan Itse addresses the NH House of Representatives, in the afternoon session of 5/13/2010, on an amendment to SB455 which would opt NH out of the Constitutionally unauthorized nationalized health care scheme, preceded by an introduction of the amendment by its sponsor, Rep. Gene Chandler. Complete session video can be found here.

The stirring address by "the Representative from Weare," Neal Kurk, regarding REAL ID nullification to which Itse refers may be viewed here. More on NH's nullification and sovereignty efforts, including the legendary HCR6, here.

High Priests' 'New Clothes' Continue to Fade

"House Address" public hearings before the NH General Court's Joint Committee on Address, "for the removal of Philip Cross, marital master in the judicial branch family division in the Derry District Court, from his said office," morning session, 4/26/2010.

This is the first result -- the first officially documented "work product" fallout -- of the (unofficial, of course) "Legislators' Redress of Grievance Caucus'" (not a "committee," dammit!) "listening sessions" that House leadership has so desperately wanted to avoid that it has denied your representatives investigative accommodations within State office space. Find more on this long strange trip here.

Rep. Paul Ingbretson was a guest (again) on 'Capitol Access' (another video project involving your humble chronicler) just last week, discussing this very topic.

But first, the "Curious Timing Award" goes to... The (Merrimack County?) Sheriff's Department, who shows up to serve an arrest warrant on the primary witness, David Johnson -- a long-time, easy to find community member, and rather unlikely flight risk given the potential to further jeopardize contact with his daughter -- before his scheduled testimony in front of the legislative branch against the judicial branch. Hmm...

Cooler heads eventually prevail. Props to the NH State Police on State House duty who allegedly took some issue with the intended process. This is the same State Police detail that didn't overreact at the HCR6 brouhaha, and more recently have left State House 420 celebrants alone twice now...

Guest videographer, my own Rep. Gary Hopper delivers the money shot. Fascinating how law enforcement's attitude of blanket authority changes so quickly with as simple (and so minimally assured) a challenge as, essentially, "what's the law you're citing...?" Straight from "you don't have my permission" (well, you weren't asked for it) to "I'd appreciate it if you didn't" (y'know, you being government functionaries subject to RSA 91-A's exception to RSA 570-A, an' all -- not to mention your utter lack of anything remotely approximating a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in this pubic building WHILE WORKING FOR ME -- I'm infinitely more concerned with David's wishes than your own) just that quick. 'Course, "I'm a state Representative, and I am, too" doesn't hurt, either...

Lastly, I just gotta say, it never fails to make me feel just a little bit more secure in my person, papers and effects when I observe government agencies earnestly occupying themselves with opposing each other rather than cooperating in opposing me...




Part 1



Part 2

"Looks like we're taking the steps..."

420 at 4:20 on 4/20/2010, State House, Concord, NH. Short answer: victory.

In excess of 100 celebrants, with signs and bullhorns, guitars and drums. Dancing girls, even. And lots of cameras...

Initially out front, on the Main St. sidewalk, waving to honking traffic. Eventually smoking right on the State House steps (not that that hasn't happened before, of course), and chiding the bureaucrats inside for their infidelity to liberty.

NH Public Radio had been reporting the planned celebration all day, and much of NH's most dominant mainstream media were represented on-site. Yet despite recent coordinated crackdowns and subsequent roundups related to similar -- and similarly peaceful -- celebrations, the cops apparently never got word, somehow: three uniforms meticulously avoiding us across the street was as close an encounter as we experienced.

On the drive home, NHPR was reporting that the NH State Police stationed inside (as usual) were watching, but had no intention of doing anything unless the crowd got agitated. (edit: the word they used was "unruly," actually)

Umm, yeah, uh-huh. The pot smokers were gonna get agitated. So basically, the official position was that as long as the cops didn't escalate the situation, the cops wouldn't escalate the situation.

Boringly uneventful as a result, actually. Which is the point, after all, right...?

And here's an interesting list.

Coverage (as I find it):
Associated Press
Concord (NH) Monitor
Manchester (NH) Union Leader

Fox Boston
Manila Bulletin
Seacoast Online (borrowed from Concord Monitor)
NPR
(Johannesburg) Times LIVE
(Munich) Focus
CBC
Daily Mail

More coverage links

NH's 2nd Amendment March

Scenes from the 2nd Amendment March and Rally in Concord, NH, plus a modest proposal, 4/10/2010.




This. Just... this.

NH Liberty Alliance Campaign Training, Level 2

As a follow-up to former NH state Rep. Don Gorman's session of 2/6, Free Staters, Rep. Joel Winters and Rep. Carol McGuire lead phase 2, on the 'nuts-'n'-bolts' of running a political campaign, on how to get elected, for the NH Liberty Alliance, 4/3/2010.

Part 1



Part 2

Weare, NH PD: The Empire Strikes Back

Tyler and friends respond to Weare PD's friendly midnight invitation to chat, 3/28/2010.

Do take note that since the reported official hostility toward NH's "right to know" law, RSA 91-A and Part First, Art. 8 of the NH Constitution at the original incident of 3/24, there hasn't been a single mention of the cameras by the local gendarmes.

See my "Right to Record" tag for background and commentary, including on the precursor event...

Porc411 messages:
1:50pm
2:21pm
2:49pm
3:42pm
3:55pm
4:01pm
4:03pm
4:17pm

Weare, NH, PD Left Speechless

Activists attempt to discover the disposition of private property seized, without the issuance of receipts, by Weare, NH police in the wee hours of 3/24/2010. This event is from the following afternoon, 3/25/2010, a dozen or so in attendance. Here's the most relevant forum thread, and here are links to the Porc411 calls from the original incident, and the afternoon follow-up:
12:08am
12:14am
12:30am
1:05am
2:38am
12:41pm
3:56pm
4:07pm

More of my thoughts on the right to record here. NH attorney, Paula Werme has a page on recording our servants here.

Part 1



Part 2

Can 8 Individuals Overrule the Constitution? In Your 'House'?

Let's find out. Herewith, the public hearing for HB1693, "relative to the powers of the joint committee on legislative facilities," a "late-filed" bill to rescind the 8-person majority of the Facilities Committee's self-delegated authority to circumvent the previously demonstrated will of the full legislature and (thus merely unilaterally) overrule the NH Constitution (Part First, Article 2-a), as well as existing state statute, before the NH House Legislative Administration Committee, 3/8/2010. Here was the call to, um, arms...

From: Jenn Coffey
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 9:07 AM
Subject: EMERGENCY at the State House!

In an effort to stop the Second Amendment Community from organizing the Legislative Administration Committee has suddenly scheduled a public hearing for HB1693 for Monday March 8th at 2pm in the Legislative Office Building room 208!

HB1693 is a late filed bill by Rep. Chandler to strip the Facilities Committee of the power to control Firearms, knives, and other tools of self-defense within the State House complex, it also repeals the ban put into effect on December 21st of last year.

It is vital that our community come to this hearing and show in numbers how we feel about the unconstitutional actions of the facilities committee last year by supporting Rep. Chandler! I know this is short notice and some may not be able to attend, and they know this as well which is why we believe this hearing was scheduled with little notice, so if you can not be there PLEASE, write a PERSONAL AND POLITE letter to the members of the Legislative Administration Committee and letters to the editor of your local paper TODAY!

Click here to find the text of the bill.

Click here to find the contact information for the members of the committee.

Be sure to spread this message far and wide!

In Liberty,
Rep. Jenn Coffey

Find more on this ongoing battle here and here. Then contact your Reps.


Here, Rep. DJ Bettencourt nails it, even when Chair Lucy Weber attempts to take away his hammer -- "attempts" being the operative word. Also included: statistics from the hearing's "Blue Sheets," which let citizens weigh in on bills without having to testify.



And here, former state Senator Bob Clegg, who, while he doesn't quite grasp the fundamental right to contract or why mounting government mandates on coverage invariably result in increasing health insurance policy costs, he certainly gets the basic human right to self-defense (and is literally half the man he used to be).



Finally, the entire hearing...

Part 1



Part 2

Another Stab at Ending Prohibition

Selections from the NH House Criminal Justice Committee's deliberations on their recommendation to the full House -- "exec-ing" the bill -- on HB1653, marijuana "decrim," 2/11/2010. What a difference 2 years can make, huh? In the apt words of Rep. Charron, "Unbelievable..."

Another Stab at NH Sovereignty

The NH House State-Federal Relations Committee hears public testimony on HB1343, "establishing a joint committee on the constitutionality of acts, orders, laws, statutes, regulations, and rules of the government of the United States of America in order to protect state sovereignty," sponsored by the bipartisan team of Reps. Dan Itse, Paul Ingbreton, Tim Comerford, and Kris Roberts. It's popularly known as "Son of HCR6," last year's "NH sovereignty bill," regarding which, much video and commentary can be found elsewhere on this blog.

This is the sort of intended state-level deliberate and binding oversight of federal shenanigans that the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution utterly obliterated. It would be glorious to royally piss off the feds by establishing an end-around. The federal government was never intended to be the judge of the limits of its own authority. That is the domain of the states that created it. Eventually, one way or another, it's gonna be restored. Only a matter of time...

Federalist Paper 41, which Rep. Itse mentions, can be found, among other places, here.

First, of course, the spicy appetizer...



And the full hearing...

NH Liberty Alliance Campaign Training

Former NH State Representative, inaugural NHLA Political Director, and 2000 candidate for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination, Don Gorman leads a NH Liberty Alliance training session for potential candidates and supporters, at Murphy's Taproom, Manchester, NH, 2/6/2010.

From the announcement:

The NH Liberty Alliance will hold a training session on how to get elected to State office in New Hampshire. Whether you are considering running yourself, or just want to help get good, pro-liberty people elected.

Consider: in 2007, medical marijuana was defeated in the NH House by a margin of five votes. Five more pro-liberty people would have changed that outcome. Margins of less than 2 dozen happen over and over for issues like seat-belt laws, home schooling, jury nullification, taxation, state sovereignty, and regulation of all kinds. A few hours of your time at election season can provide the "swing votes" on all these issues for two solid years. And if you can run for State Rep -- and win -- you can be one of those who casts those critical votes.

Thanks to the generosity of Murphy's Taproom, this session will be free of charge. Please help Murphy's defray costs by consuming their delicious food and drink.

Hit the NHLA site for updates on future sessions...


Essence




Training




Q&A

NH House Hears from Bikers

The NH House Transportation Committee holds consecutive hearings on 2 motorcycle-specific bills, HB1261, "relative to motorcycle noise emission controls," followed by HB1162, "relative to the wearing of motorcycle protective headgear," 1/28/2010. I must say I was pleasantly surprised that there was far less "nanny-state"-style opposition than at last year's identical-concept seatbelt bill.

Testimony from ordinary citizens, of course, plus from the NH Motorcyclist Rights Organization, the American Motorcyclist Association, the Motorcycle Riders Foundation, and the Massachusetts Motorcycle Association. Oh, and some supercilious authoritarian bureaucrat from NTSB. Check out his contemptuous tone when challenged by a "mere" State Representative in the YouTube teaser clip just below (as well as in the full HB1162 video). You go, Rep. Packard...!

Note in the HB1261 video how indignant sponsor Rep. Day is made by the notion that the electorate is actually made aware of her incessant shenanigans. She certainly does get a lot of consistent pushback on her bills, doesn't she? I can see how it might eventually get frustrating for her. Why, oh why can't they just let her do what she wants to them...?

But first, a couple highlights, each grasping the essence of their respective bills. Plus a, um... "bonus"...




HB1261




HB1162, Part 1



HB1162, Part 2




Press

• Helmet bill draws hundreds to hearing

NH House Committee Hammers Gun Ban

The NH House Legislative Administration Committee takes up HB1654, relative to state house security, in Executive Session, 1/26/2010, following the 1/11 public hearing. The gun grabbers would appear to be running out of ammo, as the Committee quickly ITL'd the bill -- unanimously -- eventually placing it on the Consent Calendar, although there's little likelihood it'll stay there.

Disregarding the legal proscriptions, including NH Constitution Part First Article 2-a and "preemption" -- a daunting task on its own -- if one's goal is safety, then disarming law-abiding citizens -- and make no mistake that's exactly and only what's proposed -- will be counterproductive. See Ft Hood or VATech or Columbine or Luby's Diner or...

For the proponents to actually cite these tragedies in defense of their misguided scheme, as they did at the public hearing, is to fundamentally, profoundly, even jaw-droppingly misunderstand the entirely avoidable condition that precipitated them.

420 Returns to Manchester Ahead of Schedule

Manchester 4:20 celebrations return from hiatus, 1/23/2010, earlier than planned, in response to the Manchester PD overreaction to an impromptu 4:20 celebration on 1/16 that was precipitated by an early spring-like day. And you know what spring conjures in young men's minds, right? That's right: freedom.

Anticipating a vigil like so many other jail vigils, I didn't tag along to the jail. But according to early reports, it did get interesting for a few minutes...

See the 1/16 arrest video

See the (first) jail protest video

Read the threads

Hear the Porc411 calls from this evening's subsequent jail protest

RKBA Takes on the NH House. Again.

The NH House joint Legislative Administration and Criminal Justice Committees hear testimony on HB1654, relative to state house security, essentially codifying into actual law the recent decision of 8 timid yet arrogant authoritarian Leviathan-enablers on the Joint Committee on Legislative Facilities, to ban "weapons" in the People's house. By the tenants. 1/11/2010.

What we are treated to are three sponsors blithely unacquainted with the concept of cognitive dissonance. Then three solid, uninterrupted (although often electronically unintelligible, unfortunately) hours of opposition.

But first, some appetizers. From the hearing, here's your latest YouTube hero. UNH student, honorably discharged Marine Sergeant Andrew Cullen, from Fremont, NH. I wish I'd caught the dramatic shedding of his overcoat to reveal his uniform as he stood. You can hear the murmurs ripple through the room. (And remember kids, applause is a no-no. No biscuit next time...)




And by special request, Rep. Jenn Coffey. But we lead off with some shock video. Bill co-sponsor, the horror show that is micromanaging, Utopian nanny-stater Rep. Judith Day. You remember her, right? The legislator who's never seen a piece of liberty-sapping legislation she didn't drool over, ever confused as to why anyone would oppose her meddling in their lives. Her determination would almost be cute, in a revolting sort of way, if her anti-Constitutional collectivist opinions didn't potentially carry the force of law. Are her constituents paying attention?




Then, at about 4:30pm, the Criminal Justice Committee finally gets around to hearing the philosophical twin, HB1635, prohibiting the open carrying of a firearm in a public building. Or "place." Like parking lots. Or hunting forests. Or roads. 'Cause, you know, it's only scary if they can see it. And the right to feel safe shall not be infringed, an' all. Nevermind that, as we all know, guns can do nothing but make you unsafe...

Anyway, mostly the same arguments, being essentially the same unconstitutional crap, which was fortunate given that battery life and recording media were rapidly reaching their usable extents. Here, then, is attorney Penny Dean's testimony highlighting only a few of the likely unintended (but not to be claimed unforeseen now, fortunately) consequences.




Now on with the full show, HB1654

Part 1



Part 2




Press

• NHPR: Critics Draw A Bead On State House Gun Ban
• Concord Monitor: 'Potential victims' protest proposed gun ban
• Keene Sentinel: Local lawmaker wants gun regulations