What? Where? The Pine Tree Riot? One of the first acts of rebellion by the American colonists in their struggle for independence? Yeah, you know Weare. A celebration of the Pine Tree Riot for its 250th anniversary, Weare, NH, 4/9/2022. And you thought we wouldn't make it...
The Weare Historical Society is commemorating and celebrating the 250th
Anniversary of the Pine Tree Riot, one of the first acts of rebellion
against the crown that later inspired the Boston Tea Party.
Come
learn about the Pine Tree Riot, watch the one act play, see
demonstrations of period equipment, meet the author of the book
"Ebenezer Mudgett and the Pine Tree Riot" Connie Evans and purchase an
autographed copy of the book.
You'll have an opportunity to meet
descendants, purchase Pine Tree Riot merch, sign the commemorative pine
board and be included in the group aerial photograph.
Kick off the fun early! Sue Edge of the Weare Historical Society will offer a lecture overviewing the Pine Tree Riot at Weare Middle School on March 29 at 6:30 p.m.
Let's raise a very appropriate tankard this day to the very able Ebenezer!
What is the Pine Tree Riot? Presented
by Sue Edge and Tom Flaherty, at the Weare, NH, Middle School, March
29, 2022, in advance of the town's 250th Anniversary celebration of the
Pine Tree Riot.
Certainly, the subsequent war of secession wasn't precipitated by the
colonists' desire for independence -- which itself is entirely peaceful,
like an uncontested divorce -- but rather by the British empire's
reaction to it -- which was anything but, as is so sadly typical of
entitled empires. If, instead, the Brits had said, "Sorry to see ya go,
have a happy life," things would surely have been different.
Nevertheless, do keep celebrating Secession Day every July 4th!
Pine Tree Riot 'Temporary Marker' Ceremony
Tom Flaherty and the Weare Historical Society compensate for the state
of NH's tardiness -- despite having a quarter-millennium to prepare --
and supply, April, 8, 2022, a temporary marker just in time for the Pine
Tree Riot's Sestercentennial Celebration the following day, in Weare.
The state promises to have the permanent marker ready in a year or so...
Pine Tree Riot Commemoration and Celebration
On the occasion of its 250th anniversary, Town of Weare, April 9, 2022.
'Ebenezer Mudgett & the Pine Tree Riot' A dramatization of the book by Connie Evans, presented by the Weare Community Theater, Weare, NH, April 9, 2022.
Well, before next year's Sestercentennial, anyway. You're not gonna miss that one, are ya...?
What? Where? The Pine Tree Riot? One of the first acts of rebellion by the American colonists? Yeah, you know Weare. A celebration of the Pine Tree Riot for its 249th anniversary, Weare, NH, 4/17/2021...
Join Americans for Prosperity New Hampshire in commemorating one of the earliest organized acts of American resistance against British tyranny as we celebrate the 249th anniversary of the Pine tree riot which occurred in 1772 in Weare, New Hampshire. Long a symbol of centralized government overreach, the Pine Tree Riot was a testament to the spirit of independence, freedom, and the New Hampshire way of life. Therefore, it is fitting that the celebration of the anniversary of the spark of the American Revolution takes place during the same week as the day Americans are normally forced to hand over their hard earned money to an overgrown federal government.
Today, both the State and Federal government make a habit of increasing the burden on taxpayers by continually growing Washington based programs without any expectation of accountability. We have an incredible opportunity to roll back those burdens, the NH State legislature is considering reforms on taxes in this year's budget. It is up to WE the people, to ensure those in elected office live up to their promises of lifting the weight of government from the backs of the taxpayers.
Further update: Nobody else in attendance agrees. Nobody...
HB1217, "requiring police officers to report misconduct", before the NH House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee", 3/3/2020. Shouldn't we, the taxpayers -- who employ them -- be entitled to expect them to react at least as officiously as they do to our "transgressions", to those of their public-sector brethren? Should cops be entitled to get a pass -- from other cops, conveniently, remember -- for "wink, wink" transgressions? The Thin Blue Line is under direct attack. What ever will the law enforcement response be? Let's find out, shall we...?
Testimony from the state rep prime sponsor (one of mine, in fact) in favor; a cop/union rep opposed; another state rep (and also a cop) in favor; and the ACLU-NH in favor. Signing in on the blue sheet: 4 in favor, 2 opposed (both cops, one of whom gave the testimony, so double-dipping, just like their retirement plan...). (Oh, and here's where you can read all about the various historical abuses of Weare PD --
including the undisciplined [and undisciplined] murder of the set up and alleged drug dealer Alex Cora DeJesus, as referenced by Rep. Burt.)
One might be excused, therefore, for anticipating this will be a relatively noncontroversial bill, right? We'll see. The cops expect -- and far too often receive -- special consideration behind the scenes in these "hallowed halls". And even (particularly?) then, there's the Senate...
Why can the taxpayers not expect that their employees conduct the job for which they're hired equally when it comes to their friends? Why can't we expect them to be as accountable as, as we heard in testimony, judges and prosecutors and defense attorneys and nurses and...? Is that really so radical a concept in a free society committed to equal justice under the law...?
During the preceding bill, the Chair informed us that this committee is part of a House "pilot program" committing all hearings and executive sessions to audio recordings. No word on whether those recordings will be made available to the public, at least during the "pilot", so still good that we have video, eh...?
What? Where? The Pine Tree Riot? One of the first acts of rebellion by the American colonists? Yeah, you know Weare. The third annual Pine Tree Riot Celebration, Weare, NH, 4/26/2018...
Two Hundred and Forty Six years ago, a group of loggers from the small town of Weare, New Hampshire took the initial organized action against British tryanny in the eventual war for America's independence. This small act of resistance created a chain reaction across New England and the other colonies powered by the principles of freedom and liberty.
The Pine Tree Riot, as it came to be known, cemented New Hampshire as a place where the seeds of free and open societies grow strong. New Hampshire has served as a model of freedom to the rest of the nation ever since, and continues to lead the way. The Granite State consistently ranks among the most free states in America, and the recent years of tax reductions for employers has helped set the stage for the recent Tax Cuts and Jobs Act at the federal level.
AFP-NH invites you to join us to celebrate this important event in American history and to reflect upon the sacrifice those before us made in the fight for liberty. We will be discussing the recent efforts at the state and federal level to expand economic freedom as a reminder of the fight that continues to this day.
'Course, the subsequently revised default budget was lowered by the Select Board from $5,997,749 only to $5,997,260, with other crap defiantly added back in. Not quite the court-ordered $60k reduction. Not quite contrite...
This recalcitrant board will get the money that it wants from the taxpayers. Screw you meddlers...
And here's the result, at the subsequent Select Board meeting of 3/5/2018 (also at 39:20 - 41:45 of the full meeting available here): 'Thanks for your input. Now piss off...'
You're paying for these shenanigans -- and yes, I call shenanigans -- Mr. and Ms Taxpayer. And needless to say, this is hardly the first time: expensive lawsuits to control servants aren't financed on a whim, after all. Thank you, Rep. Neal Kurk (longtime House Finance Committee Chairman, if knowledge of government finances and their statutes are, y'know, relevant, somehow), for the effort. One way or another, this can't be over. These incumbents simply have got to go, "leaders" and longest-tenured first. Consistently. First pass next Tuesday...
And here, at the "Meet the Candidates Night", Select Board Chair Clow's answer to a voter's early question on this very aspect of the default budget at the 9-minute mark (through 17:00) -- and then the 2nd (at 23:00, and which he protested to the Moderator) -- was truly... utterly classic Clow, who has got to go....
Next issue: Article 23 of the 2018 Weare Town Warrant (today as I amend this, 3/13/2018, is voting day, btw)
"Shall the Town vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen to dispose of all tax deeded property by public auction or sealed bid, regardless of its size? The authority granted in 1994 limited the selectmen’s authority to sell tax deeded property to properties of less than 5 acres (land only) or 10 acres (if developed with a residence). (Recommended by Board of Selectmen)"
(their intention being to free up the board to dispose of any damned thing they seize without any further nettlesome taxpayer oversight -- ever)
As Amended by Voters at the Deliberative Session of 2/10/2018
"Shall the Town vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen to dispose of all tax deeded property by public auction or sealed bid, regardless of its size? The authority granted in 1994 limited the selectmen’s authority to sell tax deeded property to properties of less than 5 acres (land only) or 10 acres (if developed with a residence). (Recommended by Board of Selectmen)"
(the result of this amended article, pass or fail, would be to leave them with exactly the same authority they already had -- which is, if they have any bigger properties, they have to come to the voters for permission; at present, they have only 2 such properties, so it's not actually a problem that needs "fixing", they just chafe at oversight -- or... could there actually be something even more nefarious to it...?) (this timestamp skips the early debate and goes straight to this [2nd of the afternoon] proposed [this by your humble chronicler] amendment -- and a "struck" official paper copy of the warrant is what I handed them, so the above text is exactly what they were looking at when they modified the ballot, no excuses -- and however otherwise unclear, Moderator Foss says, "struck through the word properties", so he understood, so how the hell do we end up with...)
"Shall the Town vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen to dispose of all tax deeded property by public auction or sealed bid, regardless of its size? The authority granted in 1994 limited the selectmen’s authority to sell tax deeded property to properties of less than 5 acres (land only) or 10 acres (if developed with a residence). (Recommended by Board of Selectmen)"
So a dependent clause ("regardless of its size") that doesn't functionally change the meaning of the original article because it's still implied ("of all tax deeded property") has been removed (as instructed by the voters), but leaving no limit on board authority (as desired by the board) by also again removing the 1994 limit that was intentionally returned to the article question at the Deliberative Session, thereby neutering it. The last sentence is now again merely an historical explanatory note, rather than reintegrated into the question as an ongoing restriction. And just like the original article, it still implies to the voter in the voting booth that the purpose of this question is to remove that limit.
Last point: Why would the Selectmen still recommend this if it doesn't actually do anything, if it doesn't give them what they want?
Are my grammar skills that lacking? Is this deliberate? Is this another lawsuit necessary for taxpayers to control their servants? Have you voted against Chairman Clow yet...?
This recalcitrant board will get the power that it wants from the taxpayers. Screw you meddlers...
Followup at the next Select Board meeting of 3/19/2018... My response to the complaint that at the Deliberative Session, the Board gets too many 'proposed amendment' notes scrawled on a napkin should have simply been, "Was that the cause of confusion for this article?" No. No, it wasn't...
Assurances are great. I guess we'll just have to see if they survive elections -- and how many...
What? Where? The Pine Tree Riot? One of the first acts of rebellion by the American colonists? Yeah, you know Weare. The second annual Pine Tree Riot Celebration, Weare, NH, 4/12/2017...
"Join Americans for Prosperity New Hampshire in commemorating one of the earliest organized acts of American resistance against British tyranny as we celebrate the 245th anniversary of the Pine tree riot which occurred in 1772 in Weare, New Hampshire. Long a symbol of centralized government overreach, the Pine Tree Riot was a testament to the spirit of independence, freedom, and the New Hampshire way of life. Therefore, it is fitting that the celebration of the anniversary of the spark of the American Revolution takes place during the same week as the day Americans are forced to hand over their hard earned money to an overgrown federal government. Today, both the State and Federal government make a habit of increasing the burden on taxpayers by continually growing Washington based programs without any expectation of accountability. This year's tax day we have an incredible opportunity to roll back those burdens, both the federal and NH State legislature are considering reforms on taxes. It is up to WE the people, to ensure those in elected office live up to their promises of lifting the weight of government from the backs of the taxpayers." Sarah Scott Field Director Americans for Prosperity-New Hampshire
What? Where? The Pine Tree Riot? One of the first acts of rebellion by the American colonists? Yeah, you know Weare...
"We would love to have you join us as we commemorate one of the earliest acts of American resistance against British tyranny. Americans for Prosperity-New Hampshire will celebrate the 244th anniversary of the Pine Tree Riot which occurred in 1772 in Weare, New Hampshire. Long a symbol of centralized government overreach, the Pine Tree Riot was a testament to the spirit of independence, freedom, and the New Hampshire way of life. Therefore, it is fitting that the celebration of the anniversary of the spark of the American Revolution takes place during the same week as the day Americans are forced to hand over their hard earned money to an overgrown federal government. Be a part of a liberty loving community who will hear from distinguished speakers about the importance of standing up for freedom and opposing the encroachments of our rights by an ever-growing government. Refreshments will be served. The event will begin at 6pm and go until 8pm. WHEN: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM (EDT) WHERE: Weare Town Hall Public Meeting - 16 North Stark Highway, Weare, NH 03281 Hope you can join us!" Sarah Scott Field Director Americans for Prosperity-New Hampshire
Let's raise a very appropriate tankard this day to the very able Ebenezer!
(If you're still struggling, the title refers to Captain John Parker's orders to his company of militiamen at the Battle of Lexington, April 19, 1775: "Stand your ground; don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.")
A team of assessors from the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA) will visit Weare on April 6 to examine all aspects of the Weare Police Department’s policy and procedures, management, operations, and support services. ...
As part of the on-site assessment, agency employees and members of the community are invited to offer comments at a public information session that Monday, April 6, at 7:00 p.m. in the Weare Public Safety Complex Training Room at 144 North Stark Highway, Weare.
Do allow your humble chronicler to synopsize the evening's agenda items: "We are The Accreditors. Any questions? Great! Drive safely!" Not quite the "public role" one might have been excused for expecting, no?
This appears to be the local arm of the accrediting cartel. My understanding is that, much like ISO9000, this certification merely confirms that a consistent process is in place, not that that process is actually effective or lawful (as opposed to merely and ostensibly "legal") or desirable, or anything.
And I suspect contrary to Rep. Kurk's hopeful assessment, Weare taxpayers will be paying regardless of the outcome. But they get a plaque an' everything. Hey, what if we made the cops pay for it, themselves? Betcha it suddenly wouldn't be quite so important then, eh...?
Open Forum Meeting with [Weare, NH] Board of Selectmen - Public Welcome
On Wednesday, November 19th at 7 PM at the Weare Town Hall, the Board of Selectmen will be holding an open forum meeting. It will be an informational Q & A to discuss police matters and any other matters you may have regarding the Town. There has been a lot of news about our Town, let's get together and talk about it. Come share your concerns. Question your elected officials. Hope to see you there. Thank you.
When it turns out it's a session to discuss scheduling work sessions. This is the billed-as interim study work session of the NH House Criminal Justice Committee, 9/17/2014, addressing:
HB1550, "permitting the audio and video recording of a public official while in the course of his or her official duties," (10/8)
HB1204-FN, "relative to perjury by a law enforcement officer," (nope -- or...?)
HB1607-FN, "relative to limited driving privileges after revocation for certain financial obligations," (10/7)
HB1575-FN-A, "requiring state police to wear a camera when interacting with the public," (10/1)
HB1485-FN, "relative to vulnerable users of highways, (10/7)
HB1566-FN, relative to warrant requirements," (10/1)
HB645-FN, "relative to an extended term of imprisonment for persons with 2 prior convictions," (uh-uh)
The work product was if and when they'll actually have work sessions (parenthetically appended to the above bills that made the cut, if you're interested). But as the Chair reminds the assemblage, pretty much all that can come of a bill consigned to "interim study" (over the interim in which an election is held) is a recommendation from the Committee that, well, somebody next session should sponsor such a bill. Wonderful. Although, a representative so inclined and paying attention can certainly glean some idea of what aspects might or might not win the Committee's coveted "Ought To Pass" recommendation. 'Course, the Committee might well have an entirely different make-up following the intervening election, so...
So utterly banal and pointless, I almost wasn't going to bother posting until Rep. Vaillancourt and Chair Pantelakos favored us with some of their trademarked, delightfully combative repartee near the end. After several reps in attendance specifically inquired as to my plans, I decided I couldn't just keep it to myself. And it is mercifully short. Comparatively...
A few historical notes to enhance your viewing pleasure:
"Recording of a public official while in the course of his or her official duties" is, at this point, settled law in NH. You're welcome -- not remotely that I did it alone, of course...
While even the notion of just state police SWAT teams wearing cameras was laughed out of its committee hearing just 2 and a half years ago, the zeitgeist has clearly shifted, particularly following the law enforcer horror show that has been Ferguson, MO. And driven in part by the previous note, Weare PD, at least, is now wearing chest cameras.
You read that right, faithful reader. "Regret and apologize." And that's the US Constitution's 1st Amendment 'free-speech' protections and the NH Constitution's Part 1st (the state Bill of Rights equivalent) Article 8 'government accountability' mandates (as well as Article 22 'free speech,' of course), particularly, exercise of which on the fateful night of 7/10/2010 eventually earned your humble chronicler, over 7 months later on 2/22/2011, service of a belated but by then presumably quite carefully considered -- yet still profoundly misguided -- felony 'wiretapping' warrant.
These violations were in addition to their demonstrated serial contempt (and, in fact, uniquely demonstrated, WPD being the only NH police department ever to not eventually, wisely, in a nominally Article-8-'the-boss-has-given-us-our-orders' self-preservation sort of way, drop such charges for recording an employee cop) for NH statute RSA 570-A:1's clear definition of "oral communication." This state law stipulates prevailing circumstances justifying an expectation of privacy first before audio (the only type even at issue) recording can be considered "illegal". You say, officer, that you can't be overheard on a public street -- to say nothing of while coercing a non-voluntary conversation, on highly suspect pretext, as a public servant? I don't think so.
And I really did try to explain all this to them that night. Had they listened -- or hell, just subsequently taken the time to research it, themselves, in the convenience of their lair in the ensuing 7 months -- they could have saved us all a lot of time and aggravation, the taxpayers yet another liability insurance premium increase, and WPD considerable -- additional, I mean -- embarrassment and ultimately (finally) compelled public contrition. 'Course, by then they were "in for a penny" anyway, as the saying goes, with 2 if not 3 other 'wiretapping' cases simmering away already. Then they hit me with a felony charge, which in the booking room I also explained wasn't possible, since the recorder (me) was a party to the conversation. And eventually, while I sat waiting for the bail commissioner, a small voice (earlier that evening, the lead officer on the warrant service) from behind the desk was inspired to offer -- as a result of doing actual research, one might suppose (he's gone now, btw) -- "Y'know? I think you're right..." Hmm. But yeah, the charges were carefully considered, alright...
And other aspects, most notably the Article 15 right to produce potentially exculpatory evidence -- which ya can't "produce" if ya can't "produce," if ya know what I mean -- particularly when dealing with rogue servants with a legal monopoly on force (and a state-sanctioned license to kill, we've since learned, along with historically conveniently unreliable recording equipment of their own) and on top of it all, despite it all, somehow, long-established government permission to lie.
But the courts have all agreed that WPD should have already known they were acting illegally by arresting citizens recording their servants -- before I helpfully tried to explain it to them, detained against my will (and the law, for that matter) on the public roadside of a public thoroughfare. So again, no special some-pigs-are-more-equal-than-others "qualified immunity" (at least not on this particular issue anymore, in this jurisdiction, anyway...). Bottom line, if you're arrested in NH for recording cops, call a lawyer. No-brainer. (And no great surprise, I have an excellent experienced suggestion for ya...)
Yet all along, they and their (also -- and far too often and easily) tax-funded legal representation insisted on disdainfully maintaining their defiant denial of the ever-growing clarity of their situation's stark reality. Always petulantly (yet somehow still self-assuredly) behind the curve. Kicking and screaming and digging their hole. And it certainly did cost them. Repeatedly -- and, it should have been, entirely predictably. It all really could be terribly amusing if they weren't so terribly dangerous to life and liberty and town budgets...
Sidebar, your honor: One might posit that in the Grand Scheme, all this might not be all that important on its own, in isolation. I'd still object, but... An "alternative timeline," a "thought experiment" -- and a call to action -- that I think should be considered here, too, is that had the stunning exposures of 'Hodgdon' and 'Chatel' (even a cop/lawyer they attempted to destroy) and 'Gericke' and 'Kostric' and 'Alleman' (and...) all somehow been able to have run their collective legal course and exerted their collective influence only a year sooner, had activists (reluctant or otherwise) intent on reform somehow compelled from the grassroots up the long-necessary fundamental change (that very clearly was never going to be driven from anywhere else, anywhere with a metaphorical sceptre and fancy hat, any government entity actually stepping up and accepting responsibility, anywhere with effective jurisdiction and control and something remotely resembling an ethical code or even earnest fiducial concern for the ever-mounting tax impact), succeeded in compelling that real change in the Weare police department just a measly year sooner than they (hopefully) did, then Alex Cora DeJesus might very well still be alive today instead of having been murdered in a lunatic clusterfuck of contemptuous, incompetent, unsupervised (and ultimately unaccountable) cowboy police-state authoritarianism. In fact, the new chief, despite the "Thin Blue Line" traditionally separating employer and habitually insular and recalcitrant employee (so props for that), has invoked the "c" word. That's right, corruption.
Don't let this shit slide, people. Hold "troublesome servant and fearful master" government (excellent advice, disputed provenance or not) accountable and tightly tethered. Always. That's your responsibility if a free society is to be retained. If ya give 'em an inch, suddenly they think they're a ruler. They work for you, gorram it. Aim to "misbehave". Somebody's life could depend on it, after all -- could depend on you. Take a stand. Never forget, never dismiss, never underestimate the tangible cost of complacence and inaction.You, too, cancompelpositivechange. Hell, someday soon we might even be able to stop the BEARCATs...
"We are not powerless. We have tremendous potential for good or ill. How we
choose to use that power is up to us; but first we must choose to use it. We're
told every day, 'You can't change the world.' But the world is changing every
day. Only question is...who's doing it? You or somebody else?"
-J. Michael
Straczynski-
Apologize. With a formal letter. From the Weare police department. Yes. I don't know what it may have cost during settlement negotiations in terms of potential maximum monetary damages, but it was my (perhaps unrealistic) objective from the beginning. And my attorneys got it. And it was so worth it... (Although, formal "free speech violation" apologies from police chiefs might just be becoming a "thing"...)
Oh yeah, and $35K is nice, too, particularly given that my property taxes will likely be going up -- again -- to pay "my fair share" of so very much restitution for all WPD's arrogant transgressions against its employers, AKA humanity, and humanity's inalienable rights. And with it, too, WPD might just discover that they're helping to fund some more "projects" they'd probably still rather not be associated with...
And again, a profoundly heartfelt "thank you" to the Free State Project community, as well, for rallying to my financial and emotional support, desperately needed for me to wage this small, but I believe significant, and now finally successful fight against today's aggressively metastasizing police/"security" state. And thank you, Carla, for (being forced to) taking point in the 1st Circuit so I didn't have to. ;-) Hey, you got this kind of community where you live now, dear reader...?
So here's the letter of regret and apology, originally received via PDF'd fax on 6/25/2014 during final negotiations, 15 days shy of 4 years since the start of this oppressive odyssey -- again, one for which, as a Weare taxpayer, I've been "privileged" to fund both sides. Given the department's apparent cultural transformation (so far), I believe it was worth it. "No admission of wrong-doing" standard boilerplate? Ri-i-ight...
Although, the courts said that this, specifically, wasn't "new case law." That this was already established law. That's why we're here, after all, isn't it? "New law," unfathomably granting the protection of "qualified immunity," was expressly not the problem in this case. 'Feel-good aspirations going forward' are fine, but not keeping up with old established law was what got them in so much trouble. They clearly need continuing ed on the influence of old case law, too, seems to me.
Or, hell, maybe screw the ever-mounting self-serving conveniently-servant-government-interpreted court-decreed "precedents," and just review the actual, authorizing Constitution(s) and some "Andy Griffith Show" reruns -- you know, from back before the "War On People Who Use (Some) Drugs"™ and the "Perpetual Global War on Tactics" somehow eradicated the (supposedly binding) enumerated powers and the Bill of Rights, and rendered us all prisoners of our own ostensibly servant government.
I was recently approached at a local charity event by one of the principals in this particular adventure in the free state, to assure me that the change in his department is real and permanent. Only time will tell, of course, but I still want to see less "enforcement" and more "keeping the peace." As the new chief, himself, put his perception of what the people want (and what took them so long, anyway?)...
Even the unit’s longtime motto, “Maintaining Unity in the Community,” was overhauled. It now reads: “Preserving the Peace.”
“That’s what our community wants us to
do,” Velleca said. “They want us to understand, ‘Look, it’s peaceful
here. Try and keep it that way. Don’t disrupt it. We’ll call you when we
need you, and when we need you, please be professional and intelligent
and know your job. But until then, let us be.’”
Good advice. But for whatever apparent deliberate change may have been implemented so far -- and given the above-related ignominy, where the hell else could they be at this point without sparking a sequel to the Pine Tree Riot (celebrated by the town's own historical society)? -- we're not quite there yet, young fella. Always out on the prowl, looking to start trouble, rather than just quietly sitting on your hands waiting for that call for assistance. From my perspective on the opposite side of the police radio scanner, "Sheriff Taylor" is still just an aspirational objective. Why can't police departments be more like fire departments? Weare's 2015 Town Meeting sure should be interesting...
Anyway, take it away, Martin & Hipple. Following, victories first in my criminal case (a 'Golden Oldie' from 11/4/2011 -- and is it just me, or does Seth look a little like Malcolm Reynolds...?), and then (eventually, as soon as my attorneys return from their well-deserved 'victory lap') in my freshly settled civil case (hey, ya knew there'd be video here eventually, right?)...
Addendum. "It could be worse." I hear that occasionally, usually voiced with at least mild exasperation -- "What's wrong with you? Be happy you're not in a gulag...!" The suggestion, apparently, being that incessantly compounding rights violations by ostensibly servant government are trivial and inevitable, and we simply shouldn't poke the deadly and conscience-free dragon.
I concede that I'm not in an actual gulag (yet -- although how far off is the "effective" border fence, which necessarily works both ways? And the metaphorical "border fence" of the capriciously pulled passport, or the secret "no-fly" list clearly already exist -- 'cuz obviously people need government's gracious permission to exercise their inalienable rights. Or "extraordinary rendition." Or the NDAA. And what of the fundamental right to travel, enjoyed by "all men," according to this government's charter, and protected by this government wherever it enjoys lawful jurisdiction -- and outside of which it's acting criminally, anyway). Is that then necessarily cause for rejoicing, or even mere complacence? I don't live in North Korea or Cuba -- or even New Jersey, for that matter -- and that should be good enough for anyone? What would the Framers think? And even if the US were "the freest country in the world," that's damning with faint praise, anyway, as far as I'm concerned. Only the "best" of an entirely bad lot.
But "it" -- by which I'm referring particularly to our strained (even one-sided, the wrong, the unauthorized, the unlawful way) relationship with our increasingly recalcitrant overlords (a condition that, refreshingly, seems to escape the notice of fewer every day) -- didn't used to be this bad, now did it? And not all that far back, either (relatively speaking, of course). By rights (see what I did there?), there should have been another secessionist revolution (like the one we all just ostensibly celebrated on Independence Day, right?) long ago, but it got this bad because too many Stockholm Syndrome sufferers have always protested, at their least conspicuously sycophantic, "Hey, it could be worse."
Sure. And following utterance of that phrase, it will always get worse. And mostly for future generations, sadly, who conveniently have no say in the matter and, also conveniently, will never have a nettlesome memory of "how it used to be" hampering their resigned compliance -- particularly if they're fed their history by self-serving government schools, lionizing oath-breakers like--. Well, this post has prattled on long enough already.
Anyway, at the very least, "it" will get worse because it's perceived as a challenge. But more likely because it's perceived as a gift-wrapped, silver-plattered opportunity by self-authorized thieves of other people's "life, liberty and property." Worse because the depths of the people's tolerance, inexplicably, has yet to be plumbed. Worse until some semblance of effective resistance is met.
It could also always be better, however. Hell, that's the direction the activists united by the FSP are all about charting. Toward better. But 'better' won't happen as long as too many are satisfied with it simply not being worse -- which, since empirically they aren't at their tolerance limit yet, it will be tomorrow. Worse. Continually, until their limit is found -- at least. Guaranteed.
"The natural tendency of things, it seems, is for government to grow and for liberty to retreat."
-Thomas Jefferson-
Me, I'm aiming for better. I'm agitating for better (not as effectively as some, but hey, we do what we can, right?). But that must start with simply not being resigned to 'not worse (yet).' "Show up," and demand better, as your birthright.
Just for the record, though, in this particular odyssey, starting at this particular midnight, I was actually making a verifiably coordinated effort to avoid this particular challenge -- just like the naysayers would want me to do. Just trying to get home uneventfully. Yes, granted, following a marvelous (entirely peaceful) rally that certainly attracted (further heightened) infelicitous unlawful attention. Is that, too, illegal now?
But "worse" was relentlessly intent (in a violent-latchkey-teenager-with-too-much-idle-time-on-his-hands sort of way) on testing my tolerance limit, regardless. It hunted for me (well, for someone leaving that particular parking lot -- I was just the ultimately-illconsidered-prey-of-opportunity), and it stalked me with the objective of intimidating me, and it violated the law as well as my inalienable rights. Great job "protecting and serving," that. Fortunately, like that mouse flipping off the diving hawk, righteously indignant self-defense just took over, and I did what I could.
And justice has now finally been served. Cold as a "Live Free or Die" winter...
The Weare, NH, Select Board is here finally compelled to address (if you can really call it that) citizen unrest regarding the homicide on 8/14/2013 (8 full months ago now) in a donut shop parking lot (who would dare make this shit up?) by Weare PD of Alex Cora DeJesus, and the ongoing stonewalling in the entire matter by the NH AG's office, 4/14/2014. This community requires, deserves, demands answers. And justice. And this is all the "assistance" our local servants will provide, all the accountability in our name they're willing to expend any effort to pursue.
Even the 2 trigger-pullers' names haven't been released yet. Officially, that is... Allow me to repeat that. After two thirds of a year, the shooters are still unnamed. And they're still prowling the streets of Weare, armed, with a legal license to kill. Would any "mere civilian" have been offered such legal deference after taking a life? And if -- and this is a mighty massive "if" -- the AG's report actually finally finds no alternative but to rule homicide, would the other 3 (officially) involved in that night's violent rogue activities avoid legal culpability were they not wearing badges? I have my suspicions...
Find plenty of links to mainstream press coverage of the incident and the aftermath, interspersed with just run-of-the-mill WPD corruption and thuggery here.
The Therapeutic Use of Cannabis Advisory Council, established by the NH state legislature this very year via HB573, and signed into law by the governor on 7/23/2013, herewith holds its latest Regular Meeting in the Legislative Office Building, Concord, NH, 12/19/2013. (See the April Senate hearing here.)
Do please note that the ostensible "public member" is not only a government employee, not only a cop, but a police chief. If you've been following this blog, or the issue of NH prohibition in general, you should be painfully aware that law enforcement has a very definite -- and self-serving -- position on rolling back the "War on People Who Use (Some) Drugs"™, even for those in pain. Even for those dying. They're against it. Unequivocally. Suck it up, employer.
In your humble chronicler's opinion, Chief Shagoury (nor any other enforcer) has no business whatsoever claiming to represent "the public" in this matter. He is no less a representative of servant government than is the HHS representative, or those from the State Board of Medicine or the Dept of Safety or the Dept of "Justice" (who, jbtw, is still feverishly searching, as of this writing, for a means to justify the summary execution at a donut shop of an alleged low-level drug dealer in a 'Keystone Kops drug-sting gone horribly wrong' by Weare PD way back in the middle of August). Indeed, he and his kind quite arguably suffer from an even more distinct, documented and transparent conflict of interest than any other member of this council. 'Gosh, we hadn't noticed...'
This is (still) a stacked deck, dear taxpayer. Long live the unconstitutional, ineffective, and profoundly expensive in both blood and treasure (to say nothing of liberties) drug war. Long live the rogue government...
(This is a whole hell of a lot of inglorious history to attempt to archive. If you find that a link of interest has gone missing, then copy the url, search for it here, and please do your humble chronicler a big favor and let him know what you find. TIA...)
So. What's been happening in Weare lately. Oh yeah...
Who could make this shit up? Or there's the Select Board's stumping efforts to regain control of the police chief selection process (since they'd been so good at it previously), and the subsequent conveniently rapid retirement of Begin so they could just get on with it. First order of business? Gunning a man down at a donut shop, a casualty of the rights- and resources-annihilating drug war. In August -- how's that investigation coming, anyway? And notably, there's the last election for chief, with the curious shenanigans involving opponents Massaro and Bolduc, which has completely disappeared down the memory hole -- but I have digital copies of some articles if'n yer interested. Titles like...
(The short-ish version: Begin won only a plurality against a current and a retired state cop when, less than a week before the election, the current state cop informed the front-running retired state cop that he'd lose his pension if he accepted the gig. He dropped out, but the electorate couldn't be apprised in time to transfer sufficient of his support to the current state cop.)
I challenge another community to produce a list (nominally proportional to population, let's be fair) even remotely as relentlessly ignominious -- if you can do it, you have my utmost sympathy. All of which resulted (mercifully, eventually, [yet still somehow surprisingly] predictably) in...
"... Even the unit’s longtime motto, 'Maintaining Unity in the Community,' was overhauled. It now reads: 'Preserving the Peace.'
'That’s what our community wants us to do,' Velleca said. 'They want us to understand, "Look, it’s peaceful here. Try and keep it that way. Don’t disrupt it. We’ll call you when we need you, and when we need you, please be professional and intelligent and know your job. But until then, let us be."' ..."
Leaving us (ok, not so much as of only 10/2014 anymore, a mere year later) with John Velleca, late of the New Haven, CT, pd's drug war, introduced and taking the oath of office as the new police chief in Weare, NH, 10/26/2013...
It's been suggested that we really should give them -- the Select Board and their new enforcer -- yet another chance. When, exactly, do they run out of automatic 2nd chances? What does it take to finally suspend credulity, stop granting passes, and expect obliterated trust to be withheld until actively earned?
Put another way, Velleca is the board's excited choice. Why should we naturally presume that the individual the BoS hired to run their department will install any different priorities than those the board, itself, oversaw subsequent to (the elected, most recently by only a plurality, and under rather questionable political circumstances, to boot) Begin's convenient departure, and quickly resulting in the violent 'Keystone Kops' department sacrificing a man's life and crashing 2 cars to the profoundly immoral "War on People Who Use (Some) Drugs"™ (and there's a rumor supplied by a credible source that the board may have already voted for the taxpayers to cover the criminal defense of the 2 cops involved, if and when necessary [and finally, here's the first, um, 'smoking gun' -- and it's all 5, not just 2]? For all his faults as a public servant and ostensible "peace officer," at least Begin's department hadn't gone that far. But the department the board now again oversees already has. And now they've installed a professional drug warrior. So yeah, I have my doubts.
And if Velleca (not to mention the board that's sat idly by while the above cataloged inglorious history and more has transpired unrestrained) doesn't fully expect (and understand that the situation richly deserves) a "difficult" reception, he's not much of an investigator.
I don't want enforcers. I want peace officers. If peace exists, leave it the hell alone. Don't 'destroy the peace in order to save it.' If it ain't broke, don't break it. No victim, no crime. Keep the peace, protect my rights. That's it. That's the priority. Otherwise, be invisible. And jbtw? "Touched the white line" isn't an example of a peace-breaching infraction -- yet that issue (among too many others) is demonstrably an unhealthy fixation of this department. Leave peaceful people alone. Find something productive and helpful to do. If you can't, then perhaps the taxpayers are being forced to fund too large a payroll -- to say nothing of reparations for its "indiscretions".
What does it take to impress this upon my employees? 'Andy Taylor' doesn't have to be dead if the employers, the taxpayers, relentlessly insist that he's not. That he will not be. Sadly, for quite some time, the greatest single threat to the public peace in Weare has been its own police department. Maybe it's just me, but I'm gonna need some actual convincing now, not just vague (and arguably still meaningless at best) platitudes and assurances. The department's liability insurers just may at this point, as well...
Next Chapter ('cuz it's gotta go somewhere, so...)
"... In 2014, the town of Weare, New Hampshire, paid $57,500 to settle a federal civil rights lawsuit brought by a woman who said police were wrong to charge her for videotaping a traffic stop. ..."
And $35,000,and $6,000, let's not forget. And as with this new case, those settlements were all paid by the taxpayers, too. You can be forgiven for thinking that, following 'Glik', too, the abomination of "qualified immunity" -- on at least this issue, anyway -- was well and truly dead. Evidently government and its 'enforcer class' and its pet courts prefer not to see it that way, so piss off, citizen. And pay up. What will the next excuse be? "Look what he was wearing...!"?
What will it take before the cops, rather than the taxpayers, are held responsible for the cost -- which, apparently, is doing nothing but going up -- of their lawlessness? What do the taxpayers need to do? Well, I guess "care" would be an important first step...
