New Hampshire Group Tests Their Rights: Extent of USA Tyranny Revealed!

The police were called to a political rally in Keene, New Hampshire after someone allegedly reported to the police that someone (not a part of the rally) was filling up a large water container at a public water fountain. The police arrived to investigate and were perhaps too late for the water fountain user, but did see a woman there drinking a beer while outside. This was across the street from an official "outdoor beer drinking zone". The woman refused to enter the beer drinking zone to drink her (alleged) beer, and was arrested as a result. This made the crowd there so upset that four people who attended the rally stood in front of the police car to block the arrest. They succeeded in doing so for about 45 seconds before they were also arrested.

All four were offered a plea deal. Three of them accepted a plea deal and received zero days in jail. One of them, Ian Freeman, insisted on going to trial because "his friend was being wrongfully arrested and he had a right to stop it from happening". Ian Freeman's trial for standing in front of a police car was delayed by about a year despite a speedy trial being defined in New Hampshire as six months. At the speedy trial hearing, the judge stated that since it was not his fault the trial was taking too long, that was just too bad and the trial would proceed.

So after a year, Ian Freeman finally stood trial and was declared guilty by a jury. The judge sentenced him to one year in prison, and "generously" to allow him to serve only 60 to 90 days "for now" and "maybe more later"(on a suspended sentence). Ian Freeman was not allowed the chance to appeal to a higher court and was imprisoned immediately, despite two very obvious grounds for appeal (no speedy trial and a brutal sentence) which the judge knew about very well. So three of the four received zero(0) days in jail, but one was sentenced to 360 days without option to appeal before he would be out of jail any way.

To object to this inconsistency in punishment (three getting zero days and then one getting 360 days), Ian's supporters arranged for a Habeas Corpus hearing. That happened (or maybe did not) yesterday. About that time, the courtroom doors were locked and the public was denied access to the hearing. About twenty people showed up to try and attend the hearing but were denied access. During the proceeding (according to Ian's legal representative), Ian Freeman's legal council was lead to believe they would be allowed to represent him. However, when Mark Stevens arrived yesterday morning to represent him, he was denied the ability to represent him on the basis that he supposedly didn't have his paperwork in order, meaning Ian Freeman was forced to represent him self. Since it the proceeding was locked out, it isn't really even known yet if a hearing actually took place.

One of the first things that happened before the hearing started yesterday was that a local blogger with a news website arrived to cover the event. Jason Talley arrived with a camera and proceeded to the courtroom lobby. He was asked to stop filming, and he refused to do so because he believed the law was on his side. The police disagreed. He was arrested, then "roughed up" outside the courtroom according to an eye witness, and taken away to jail. You are not allowed to have a camera in courtroom lobbies in New Hampshire according to many judges (though you are according to other state laws).

One of the first things the police usually tell us when you're under arrest is that "You have the right to remain silent.". But they are just kidding... you don't. What Jason Talley of Talley.TV did differently yesterday morning was decide to exercise his right to remain silent after being told he was allowed to do that. So, when they asked him his name in jail, he did not tell them his name. He remained silent. Across the USA, that is a "crime" worthy of up to life in jail. This threat goes on in every jail and every courtroom in America.

Obviously there are circumstances where you'd want to keep someone in jail if they are in danger of escaping their punishment for the alleged crime. However, when you're in jail after not stating your name for longer than the maximum sentence for the crime itself, like staying six months in jail for a crime that doesn't even normally get a jail sentence (like videotaping a courtroom lobby), that is nothing more than punishing someone for exercising their freedom of speech, and that is what seems to happen every single time someone in the US actually chooses to exercise their right to remain silent.

That is exactly what has been happening in the USA and specifically New Hampshire where activists regularly exercise their rights for no other reason than to grow them stronger. Last year one of the activists, Sam Dodson, spent over a month in jail. Why? He didn't give his name after he was arrested for having a camera in a courtroom lobby. He finally was released over a month later after he did state his name, although they had already learned it (along with his address) shortly after his arrest. As expected, he was never punished for his videotaping, proving that the reason he was in prison was simply that he would not utter his name, even though they already knew his name! Yesterday morning, Jason Talley did the same thing. He brought a camera into a New Hampshire courtroom lobby, was also arrested for that crime, and "roughed up" according to an eye witness on the street. Now he will also be in jail for potentially forever since in the US judges can convict you of contempt of court without a trial, and not stating your name is considered contempt of court. They can then bring you back into court from jail, ask you your name at the end of six months, and then send you back another six months.

I find it refreshing that there are people, most notably in the Free State Project in New Hampshire, who are willing to exercise their rights and force the system to make public just how bad the system really is here in the US. New Hampshire is actually the most free state in the USA which goes to show you the level of injustice that goes on. While it sounds like the Free State Project members are getting pummelled into submission in New Hampshire the real story is that they are actually making serious inroads to an actual restoration of a large number of rights in New Hampshire that have unfortunately been totally and completely destroyed piece by piece over the life of the USA.

Source 1: traffic.libsyn.com... (from www.FreeTalkLive.com)
Source 2: www.freetalklive.com...
Source 3: freekeene.com... (@ 16:07 Prosecution objecting to speedy trial because 'it wasn't their fault')

This is one of the saddest places to live in. When I was young, I was happy, now that I've grown up and have seen the world for what it is, damn..Life in society is meaningless.

Interesting find. I've shared it with a couple friends already whom are also interested in this subject. Just makes meh want to listen to some Rage Against the Machine. (Know your enemy...)

But this is a great example of why myself and so many others love our government(s)!

The militarized police and the federal government are expecting us to lay down and willingly accept subjugation. Unfortunately for them, they will find citizens like myself. I won't lay down, I won't be quiet, and I won't miss.

/TOA

Yep, you jusrt made the RED list.
There is a spercial swat team for those when it is time......
The New Hampshire group remind me of the stuff a guy named Jerry Rubin was doing fifty years ago.....
Theres fewer people who have this kind of balls every day.....
Sheeple make up the majority and theres no other way but shock the sh&t out of em to wake em up.

This is much ado about nothing. Routine stuff in Keene, where Freeman and his band of loons do nothing but antagonize the local legal systems. They are a mockery and an embarrassment. You don't want to get involved with these moonbats, believe me, or else you'll be held up to ridicule as they are across the civil part of the state.

Originally posted by mishigas
This is much ado about nothing. Routine stuff in Keene, where Freeman and his band of loons do nothing but antagonize the local legal systems. They are a mockery and an embarrassment. You don't want to get involved with these moonbats, believe me, or else you'll be held up to ridicule as they are across the civil part of the state.

1. If someone calls the police saying "I see a man filling up water bottles with a drinking fountain", and the police actually send an agent to investigate. That is nothing to you? Sure seems peculiar to me.

2. In the US, you have zones where you can only officially approved drinks. Is that nothing to you?

3. In the US, if you exercise your right to remain silent, you can spend the rest of your life in jail. Is that nothing to you?

4. In many or most courtrooms in the US, you cannot freely film a "public trial" or a "public hearing", even at the request of the defendant. Is that nothing to you?

5. In Keene, the judge locked out the public from attending his hearing yesterday? Is that nothing to you?

6. Ian Freeman was supposed to have the right to a speedy trial defined as six months by New Hampshire law. But the trial took about a year, with the prosecution's main reasoning being (see source I just added) that "it wasn't their fault". Is that nothing to you?

I'm not sure how you can fail to appreciate people that are out there testing the limits of their freedoms. I realize that people in Keene go extremely far overboard at times and do things I view as obnoxious, but I absolutely do not believe we should ignore human rights violations, do you?

reply to post by seachange


Given the links you've provided I'm going to guess that you're really only hearing one side of the argument. Both sides matter.

After reading this article, it sounds exactly as mishigas suggested. People out to harass local government officials.

Ian "Freeman" is a stage name, his actual name is Ian Bernard...that's kind of irrelevant I suppose.

I never realized that New Hampshire was such a libertarian locale:

The Free State Project website lists “101 Reasons to Move to New Hampshire,” including no sales tax, no mandatory seatbelt law for adults, no mandatory helmet law for motorcyclists, pro-gun laws, and having “the best representation of any state in the nation with a 400-member House of Representatives.”

That's one representative per 3,300 residents. What's your states ratio? Mine's 1:37,000

reply to post by seachange

1. If someone calls the police saying "I see a man filling up water bottles with a drinking fountain", and the police actually send an agent to investigate. That is nothing to you? Sure seems peculiar to me.

Let's see.... you call the cops, they respond to your call, and that's peculiar?

2. In the US, you have zones where you can only officially approved drinks. Is that nothing to you?

You're missing a verb; your sentence is illegible.

3. In the US, if you exercise your right to remain silent, you can spend the rest of your life in jail. Is that nothing to you?

That's pure bullcrap, and you know it.

4. In many or most courtrooms in the US, you cannot freely film a "public trial" or a "public hearing", even at the request of the defendant. Is that nothing to you?

Cameras in the courtroom with judge's permission. Happens every day.

5. In Keene, the judge locked out the public from attending his hearing yesterday? Is that nothing to you?

The public didn't miss anything, believe me.

6. Ian Freeman was supposed to have the right to a speedy trial defined as six months by New Hampshire law. But the trial took about a year, with the prosecution's main reasoning being (see source I just added) that "it wasn't their fault". Is that nothing to you?

Well then, WHOSE fault was it??? I demand to know!!!

I'm not sure how you can fail to appreciate people that are out there testing the limits of their freedoms. I realize that people in Keene go extremely far overboard at times and do things I view as obnoxious, but I absolutely do not believe we should ignore human rights violations, do you?

Human rights violation? Bwahahahaha!

Originally posted by seachange
The police were called to a political rally in Keene, New Hampshire after someone allegedly reported to the police that someone (not a part of the rally) was filling up a large water container at a public water fountain.

I'm having a hard time believing that. Why would the cops respond to something that isn't a crime. It would be more likely they would arrest the person trying to report something like this.

Click here for more information.

You Have No Rights ....

George Carlin Quote:

At what point does all of this break down into a lot of stupid $hit that someone simply made up ?

It's truly Sad that these people were made examples of for committing such heinous crimes.
But the govt is always looking for volunteer payees into the courts and Legal System to keep the bureaucracy afloat !



But it just goes to show how many Rights we actually have .....which is Zero....because if our so called rights are able to be taken away at a moments notice.

Then they're not Rights but in actuality Privileges.

...here's George Carlin's take on Our Rights....our Legal System and God

reply to post by mishigas


Let me offer some clarifications:
1. Yes, a cop responding to a complaint is ordinary and unpeculiar. But, a cop investigating a non-crime like filling up water bottles in a drinking fountain is tyrannical, and that was the issue I raised.
2. Having beverage drinking zones on public property where only specific types of beverages can be consumed is tyrannical.
3. Lets say for a moment that each courtroom in the United States is a small dictatorship in which the judge is "the supreme lord on high" and can send you to prison FOREVER, WITHOUT A TRIAL, JUST FOR LOOKING AT HIM FUNNY. That would also be nothing to you, would it not? Yes or no please.

In Chadwick v. Janecka (3d Cir. 2002), a U.S. court of appeals held that H. Beatty Chadwick could be held indefinitely under federal law, for his failure to produce US$ 2.5 mill. as state court ordered in a civil trial. Chadwick had been imprisoned for nine years at that time and continued to be held in prison until 2009, when a state court set him free after 14 years, making him the longest person imprisoned on a contempt charge to date.
Source: en.wikipedia.org...

So, what is contempt of court? Showing disrespect to a judge is contempt of court for one. That would include failure to stand for the judge when asked(very common), failure to tip your hat when asked(very common), or failure to state your name when asked(rare but it most certainly happens in most courtrooms from time to time):

Contempt of court is a court order which, in the context of a court trial or hearing, declares a person or organisation to have disobeyed or been disrespectful of the court's authority.

Courtrooms in New Hampshire and many other places in the US are tyrannies, and tyrannies are tyrannical.
4. Cameras in the courtroom are extremely rare. Walk into any courtroom in your locality for verification of that fact. Being required to get permission to film in a public place is tyrannical, and ignores the fact that such requests are routinely denied.
5. Courtroom hearings, especially ones where the actions of a judge are in question, are supposed to be public. Disallowing having a public hearing is tyrannical. Not that it is even known if the hearing even happened because the doors were locked. Its fine that you believe that nothing inside the doors matter, so long as you acknowledge that was a tyrannical act.
6. The judge presiding over Ian Freeman's trial made it clear that the fault for the slow trial was the State of New Hampshire. I'll once again cite the Source: freekeene.com... and refer you again to 16:07. You can hear the prosecution saying it was not their fault, then Ian Freeman stating the reason he believed it was actually their fault, and finally the Judge replying that "I think the court shares some responsibility.". In point of fact since Ian Freeman filed no motions prior to the speedy trial hearing, its blatantly obvious that nobody but the State of New Hampshire was responsible for the one-year-long delay before the trial finally took place. Even if the judge had not admitted from his own mouth that the courts was at fault, the facts of the matter clearly prove exactly that. If Ian Freeman had in fact filed motions, the prosecution had the opportunity to object to that statement during the trial shown in the video. The prosecution did not, which is exceptionally strong evidence that in fact Ian Freeman filed no motions that could potentially delay the trial date. If the videotape proves one thing its that EVERY trial should be videotaped that people would like to have taped, as you wrongfully implied was the case already (which you should know isn't the case since you didn't dispute the fact the hearing two days ago was locked out of public view). That left the sole responsibility of the delay in the hands of the state. You demanded the answer to that question and I have delivered it.

reply to post by seachange

reply to post by mishigas


Let me offer some clarifications:
1. Yes, a cop responding to a complaint is ordinary and unpeculiar. But, a cop investigating a non-crime like filling up water bottles in a drinking fountain is tyrannical, and that was the issue I raised.

The cop is there because he was summoned by a caller. The caller is the tyrant, if there is a tyrant here. Maybe the cop thought the person at the water fountain needed assistance, and was there to help.

So how would you classify the caller? Without his actions, none of this would have happened.

2. Having beverage drinking zones where specific types of beverages can be consumed is tyrannical.

I beg to differ. There may be licensing issues. There are several other scenarios I can think of off the top of my head. There are non-alcohol zones. There are private property considerations. So if you allow for one, you must allow for all.

3. Lets say for a moment that each courtroom in the United States is a small dictatorship in which the judge is "the supreme lord on high" and can send you to prison FOREVER, WITHOUT A TRIAL, JUST FOR LOOKING AT HIM FUNNY. That would also be nothing to you, would it not? Yes or no please.

Please. That doesn't happen.

In Chadwick v. Janecka (3d Cir. 2002), a U.S. court of appeals held that H. Beatty Chadwick could be held indefinitely under federal law, for his failure to produce US$ 2.5 mill. as state court ordered in a civil trial. Chadwick had been imprisoned for nine years at that time and continued to be held in prison until 2009, when a state court set him free after 14 years, making him the longest person imprisoned on a contempt charge to date.
Source: en.wikipedia.org...

That is a penalty for contempt, not a case of "JUST FOR LOOKING AT HIM FUNNY".

4. Cameras in the courtroom are extremely rare. Walk into any courtroom in your locality for verification of that fact. Being required to get permission to film in a public place is tyrannical, and ignores the fact that such requests are routinely denied.

When the judge acts illegally, then you'll have a issue. Otherwise, the judge is acting within his rights.

5. Courtroom hearings, especially ones where the actions of a judge are in question, are supposed to be public. Disallowing having a public hearing is tyrannical. Not that it is even known if the hearing even happened because the doors were locked. Its fine that you believe that nothing inside the doors matter, so long as you acknowledge that was a tyrannical act.

Meetings are often closed to the public. Executive session, for example.

6. The judge presiding over Ian Freeman's trial made it clear that the fault for the slow trial was the State of New Hampshire. I'll once again cite the Source: freekeene.com... and refer you again to 16:07. You can hear the prosecution saying it was not their fault, then Ian Freeman stating the reason he believed it was actually their fault, and finally the Judge replying that "I think the court shares some responsibility.". In point of fact since Ian Freeman filed no motions prior to the speedy trial hearing, its blatantly obvious that nobody but the State of New Hampshire was responsible for the one-year-long delay before the trial finally took place. Even if the judge had not admitted from his own mouth that the courts was at fault, the facts of the matter clearly prove exactly that. If Ian Freeman had in fact filed motions, the prosecution had the opportunity to object to that statement during the trial shown in the video. The prosecution did not, which is exceptionally strong evidence that in fact Ian Freeman filed no motions that could potentially delay the trial date. If the videotape proves one thing its that EVERY trial should be videotaped that people would like to have taped, as you wrongfully implied was the case already (which you should know isn't the case since you didn't dispute the fact the hearing two days ago was locked out of public view). That left the sole responsibility of the delay in the hands of the state. You demanded the answer to that question and I have delivered it.

Too bad you went through all that effort because I was being facetious.

Finally, I think you use the term 'tyranny' much too loosely, and attempt to infer a nation that is ruled by despots. You are being hysterical, imo. You cannot name a country on earth that does not have examples of what you call 'tyranny'. What are you searching for -- some idealistic place that exists only in fairy tales?

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I think that was a little unnecessary, and anyway. Mishigas you made no points in that post that you spent so much time dissecting to give answers to. Somehow me quoting that "it's better to be thought a fool and remain silent then open one's mouth and remove all doubt" got my post removed! However I stand by it. You didn't give a smart argument for anything up there.. you just said believe me. Stop wasting your time please.

reply to post by mishigas


The caller reporting "heavy water fountain usage" was not only being tyrannical but seems to have serious mental issues given how big of a deal it was for them. When cops gets a call its entirely their decision whether to investigate. The decision to investigate the water fountain appears to be a result of the police having too much time on their hands pursing irrelevant issues. If you are correct that the police went there to help the alleged homeless guy get more water or whatever he needed, then I'm wrong on that point, but I don't buy that story.

On public property people should be allowed to drink whatever they want where-ever they want in a free country, and I don't see how it would be anything but tyrannical to have it just about any other way. Whether or not I'm using the term loosely is totally opinional. To me its a pretty big deal to be able to consume whatever I wish in public places. To you it isn't.

You're right that It does not happen yet that a judge will sentence someone to life in jail because they looked at him funny. You missed the point. Sam Dodson proved in New Hamphire that under current US court procedueres a judge may sentence you to life in jail for remaining silent. If that isn't a tyranny then what would be? The reason that insane penalties do not happen on a regular basis is because people know they actually don't have a right to remain silent as they are jokingly told, and therefore know better than to attempt to assert a non-existent right and therefore face LIFE IN JAIL. Sam Dodson in specific is among the first to assert his right to remain entirely silent. So instead of saying "Please. That does doesn't happen." you should research what actually does happen when a person decides to test his right to remain silent such as follows:

"The first order states $10,000 cash bail and only when he reveals his name. In the latest order they have discovered his legal name, but again they say until he tells it to them, and tells them his address, he's staying in jail. In both orders they refuse to schedule any more dates, including trial, in this matter. They will not see him for arraignment, they will not see him for preliminary hearings, and they will not see him for trial until he gives them his name and address," said Dodson's attorney

Source: www.prweb.com...

Sam Dodson was told he would get no hearings. Sam Dodson was told he would get no trial. Sam Dodson was told he would recieve an infinite (life-time) jail sentence. How can you say it didn't happen when it clearly did happen to Sam Dodson? And why did it happen? Its true that Sam Dodson was released about two months later, but it was not because his sentence was overturned. It was because Burke was ending up looking like the dictator he actually is. Sam Dodson remained silent when he was ordered to express his name & address. Burke had every precident to do exactly what he did (the life-time jail sentence) under the current court system in the US. I'd call it legislating from the bench, or I'd call it a problem of absolute dictatorship in US courtrooms. You'd call it what, "much ado about nothing" and "being histerical to complain about"? And what actually happened? The judge turned out to be bluffing and Dodson was eventually let out, AFTER TWO MONTHS OF PUNISHMENT. What makes you so sure it would have been impossible for Dodson to remain in jail forever, given there is precident for exactly that as set by the 14 year punishment for contempt of court?

So if when you say "Please. That doesn't happen." you mean infinite jail sentences don't happen, then I'd say you should take a look at New Hampshire case (docket #) where judge Burke of the NH court system was sentenced to an infinite jail sentence explicitally for failing to state his name!

Trials are supposed to be public events. Part of a sentence hearing is part of a trial. Therefore, the hearing in Keene was in fact supposed to be a public event. But, it was a closed event. Having secret trials is considered tyrannical. Ian Freeman's recent trial hearing was a secret trial. A secret session like that is absolutely an obvious assault on human rights. I can't imagine why you'd disagree with that, but you sure seem to.

reply to post by seachange

eply to post by mishigas


The caller reporting "heavy water fountain usage" was not only being tyrannical but seems to have serious mental issues given how big of a deal it was for them. When cops gets a call its entirely their decision whether to investigate. The decision to investigate the water fountain appears to be a result of the police having too much time on their hands pursing irrelevant issues. If you are correct that the police went there to help the alleged homeless guy get more water or whatever he needed, then I'm wrong on that point, but I don't buy that story.

Well, maybe the cops were in the vicinity. Maybe it was a slow day. Maybe the mall had problems with vandals or pranksters at that site in the past.

See how many other possibilities there are? But for you to jump a conclusion that "The decision to investigate the water fountain appears to be a result of the police having too much time on their hands pursing irrelevant issues" is unfounded and simply a product of your imagination and opinion. And for you to further conclude that the cops were tyrannical simply because they responded is just crazy. And it shows a level of antagonism that is worrisome.

I have to leave now; system problems; back later.

reply to post by seachange


So if they ask my name and instead of keeping my mouth shut, I will say "I don't recall". is that still contempt of court? Is it better to remain silent or play "dumb"? That's the question.

Originally posted by seachange

Originally posted by mishigas
This is much ado about nothing. Routine stuff in Keene, where Freeman and his band of loons do nothing but antagonize the local legal systems. They are a mockery and an embarrassment. You don't want to get involved with these moonbats, believe me, or else you'll be held up to ridicule as they are across the civil part of the state.

1. If someone calls the police saying "I see a man filling up water bottles with a drinking fountain", and the police actually send an agent to investigate. That is nothing to you? Sure seems peculiar to me.

It certainly seems very peculiar to me...as I have done this thousands of times here in Florida...without incident...I used to rent a place that had s*** water, it smelled like rotten eggs out of the faucet (sulphur) which is deadly to me I am allergic so I used to get the water from up at the rec center which had a filtration system and filled loads of jugs with that water to use. Never had anyone send the cops out to frisk me.

Then again I probably would have liked getting frisked

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by seachange

 

eply to post by mishigas


The caller reporting "heavy water fountain usage" was not only being tyrannical but seems to have serious mental issues given how big of a deal it was for them. When cops gets a call its entirely their decision whether to investigate. The decision to investigate the water fountain appears to be a result of the police having too much time on their hands pursing irrelevant issues. If you are correct that the police went there to help the alleged homeless guy get more water or whatever he needed, then I'm wrong on that point, but I don't buy that story.

Well, maybe the cops were in the vicinity. Maybe it was a slow day. Maybe the mall had problems with vandals or pranksters at that site in the past.

See how many other possibilities there are? But for you to jump a conclusion that "The decision to investigate the water fountain appears to be a result of the police having too much time on their hands pursing irrelevant issues" is unfounded and simply a product of your imagination and opinion. And for you to further conclude that the cops were tyrannical simply because they responded is just crazy. And it shows a level of antagonism that is worrisome.

I agree that my speculation about the police motivations behind the water fountain incident is just that, speculation.

I can also understand how you believe the idea that cops responding to non-crimes as being something other than tyrannical and admit I'm at a loss to articulate that position, though I do believe it. Maybe others on the thread can chime in as to why it would or would not be tyrannical or oppressive for police to be investigating things that are not crimes. Its a good question you have about that.