Free Speech a Criminal Act in New Hampshire?

January 15, 2009 by
Filed under: Personal Freedom, Police 

RiveraAs announced on last night’s Free Talk Live, the Keene city prosecutor, Sgt. Eliezer Rivera has sent me threatening paperwork where he is requesting that Keene District Court force me into a hearing which could result in the suspended sentence I was given being revoked, thereby landing me back in jail for 90 days. Why? Apparently because I sent out Andrew Carroll’s press release in regards to this past Saturday’s marijuana protest, blogged about it, atttended, videotaped it, and because I had Andrew on Saturday night’s Free Talk Live.

Here is the threatening “Motion to Show Cause” from Mr. Rivera in PDF form.

So, because I engaged in freedom of speech, I’m now a criminal? How many others will they target over this? Free Minds TV, the NH Free Press, and NH Capitol Access were also “promoting” the event. What about the other attendees? Are they at risk as well? Does Rivera realize that in his attempts to intimidate NH’s liberty activist community, he will only create more peaceful disobedience and outrage?

Is he scaring you, or is he making you more determined to get active and if you’re not yet here in NH, to get here sooner?

Sam from the Obscured Truth Network is helping me work up a “Motion to Quash” this nonsense. Will post more later.

Comments

32 Comments on Free Speech a Criminal Act in New Hampshire?

  1. Josh on Thu, 15th Jan 2009 12:37 pm

    Looks like Sgt. Rivera is overpaid. He obviously does not have a sufficient work load to justify his salary, if he has enough spare time to dream up this bullshit.
    It seems as though perhaps his assigned job is indeed not essential.

  2. Slim on Thu, 15th Jan 2009 12:42 pm

    Sounds to me that the RSA violate the NH constitution article 22 which says “Free speech and liberty of the press are essential to the security of freedom in a state: They ought, therefore, to be inviolably preserved.”

  3. nick on Thu, 15th Jan 2009 1:01 pm

    I, for one, cannot wait for Curt’s opinion of this.

    We don’t even have to openly and purposefully break the law, and they will come after us.

  4. Ganja Blue on Thu, 15th Jan 2009 1:14 pm

    My wife and I were discussing the other night whether the bureaucracy would come after civil disobedience advocates as accomplices. I guess I have my answer, I just didn’t think they would have the cajones to come after a member of the press for doing his job, a job that’s explicitly protected by the First Amendment. I’ll support the Constitution again once there’s a death penalty for bureaucrats that violate it.

  5. jitgos on Thu, 15th Jan 2009 1:20 pm

    Wow, they really are scared! I thought maybe they were just seeing the activists as pests and laughing, but this clearly shows they are freaking out about their precious authoritarian system being exposed so openly.

    The ACLU should be on speed dial for this.

  6. Rance Muhammmmmitz on Thu, 15th Jan 2009 1:57 pm

    This is not just protected as free speech, but also the NH Article 10 right to revolution. This is obviously Ian’s attempt to reform or replace government.

  7. Joe Stalin's Cadillac on Thu, 15th Jan 2009 2:01 pm

    Dugg!!

    http://digg.com/politics/Free_Speech_a_Criminal_Act_in_New_Hampshire

  8. Mitch on Thu, 15th Jan 2009 2:04 pm

    Wow, I am speechless.

  9. Andy on Thu, 15th Jan 2009 2:38 pm

    WOW! This is crazy!

  10. Curt Springer on Thu, 15th Jan 2009 3:50 pm

    Ian,
    This is not the time for amateur efforts. I speak as one who also favors “do it yourself” to the maximum extent.

    Please please get a real lawyer and/or contact the NHCLU.

    As for the action itself, I think it is despicable. It will backfire on them, if you respond effectively. But thus far IMO you have played into their hands.

  11. Shepherd on Thu, 15th Jan 2009 4:36 pm

    This is unbelievable. I am glad that Sam has finally made his way up to NH and will be available to give Ian a hand. Although I am opposed to the idea of higher lawyers, I will have to agree with Curt and see what the NHCLU thinks about this. Best of luck Ian.

    -Shepherd

  12. Puke on Thu, 15th Jan 2009 4:44 pm

    I had no idea that supporting someone else, by writing or attending an event, is illegal.

    It’s not like Ian provided the drugs (Drugs are bad! [drools] ) or drove the get-away car from a robbery. Ian has a talk show, he talked about current events and provided his opinion, how is that illegal?

    I’ll tell you how it’s illegal, the court and the gov’t can do whatever they want. It’s all a complete bull-shit system. There is no justice in the justice system.

  13. nick on Thu, 15th Jan 2009 4:51 pm

    Ian,
    This is not the time for amateur efforts. I speak as one who also favors “do it yourself” to the maximum extent.

    Please please get a real lawyer and/or contact the NHCLU.

    As for the action itself, I think it is despicable. It will backfire on them, if you respond effectively. But thus far IMO you have played into their hands.

    Curt,

    What’s the point? We beat them in their game this time, and they will find something else to go after. Unless Ian is ready to start registering his car, getting his business out of his house, and correcting every minor code violation on his property, they will find something. This isn’t about breaking a law, this is about how much “the city” is afraid of what Ian has to say.

  14. Curt Springer on Thu, 15th Jan 2009 5:27 pm

    The “city” isn’t afraid of what Ian has to say, although this action conveys this impression, which is one reason, not the main one, they shouldn’t be doing this.

    Let’s cut to the chase. It’s about Ian going back to jail, possibly. If he does get slammed back in, I don’t think there will be a videoconference with the judge three days later. He will be there for a while.

  15. Brent on Thu, 15th Jan 2009 6:13 pm

    This is called a shakedown on the city of Keene’s part. I do believe it will end up backfiring on them. They also threatened to arrest other activists who attended the event. They obviously are trying to strongarm these activists into not participating in any further civil disobedience nor watching others do so.

    This will only encourage the activists to participate in further civil disobendience and encourage others to participate as well. Exactly the opposite of what the government wants. Pretty stupid move on the city of Keene’s part. This Keene policeman/prosecutor should be fired for harrassment, intimidation, and incompetence.

  16. Vesuvius on Thu, 15th Jan 2009 9:05 pm

    Pardon me, honorable sir, but I trust you have a permit for that gun in the room. If the people out there that think free staters and libertarian activists are batshit insane, here is your evidence to the contrary. Once the injustice systems gets hold of you, your liberty is subject to their permission only. The sad thing is they apparently don’t realize that they are openly displaying the violence of the system and the irrational and immoral grinding of its gears.

  17. houston criminal lawyer on Thu, 15th Jan 2009 10:40 pm

    Those “strong arm” tactics are only going to backfire on him. That is ridiculous! They only hope to quiet you based on the potential litigation fees you may incur.

  18. geofalon007 on Fri, 16th Jan 2009 4:10 pm

    What is a police prosecutor in the State of New Hampshire anyway? The federal Constitution has a separation of power dotrine as does the Massachusetts Constitution. It says that the executive branch shall not exercise the power of the judicial branch or the legislative branch. In general one branch cannot exercise the power of another branch.

    Does the police prosecutor represent the State of New Hampshire or its political sub divisions like the City of Keene and does the police prosecutor have to be a bar card carrying attorney or act like one prior to the local district attorney’s office getting involved?

    Wouldn’t this violate a seperation of powers doctrine? (Assumming the State of New Hampshire has one). Wouldn’t an non attorney be acting like an attorney an subject to an unlicensed practice of law?

    How can a police officer, an executive branch , performer any other function in the court room except sit in the witness chair and testify as to the elements of the crime? All else would be handled by an officer of the court, an attorney.

    I noticed the PDF file ,and that t had used the term “officer of the court”, a judicial branch functtion, and it was signed by an executive branch employee someone from the police department.

    I am not an attorney in real life nor do I play one on tv or radio. I do however understand that ignorance of the law is not an excuse and everyone is presummed to know the law. So I do not offer anty legal counsel but discouse to understand the law.

    Remember this is not a dress rehersal, this is the real deal.

    The lines between Ian being a reporter and a member of the press have been blurred becasue he is also part of the “story”. The story being the FSP people, the liberty based society people, desending on New Hampshire to bring about change when it comes the government that uses force,especially when the force is used arbitrarily and capricously.

  19. Brent on Fri, 16th Jan 2009 11:00 pm

    I am not a lawyer either but I believe a prosecuter is a member of the executive branch of government not the judicial. There shouldn’t be any reason why a prosecutor should have to be a lawyer. I hate lawyers anyway- we have way too many of them.

  20. Man_Up_North on Sat, 17th Jan 2009 11:43 am

    Marijuana is against the law. Protesting for it is a sickening waste of one’s liberty. Anyone who supports this crime of ownership deserves whatever the police wish to dish out.
    Why was this guy (who videotaped the doper) on a suspended sentenve anyway?
    I knew ir was only a matter of time before the “Free” staters got hijacked by the weed smoking slackers. Thiers is not a “free” state I wish to live in. Go to Massachusetts and smoke your noxoius “freedom weed” there.
    Enjoy the time in jail

    Man_Up_North

  21. Patrick Shields on Sat, 17th Jan 2009 12:00 pm

    “Marijuana is against the law. Protesting for it is a sickening waste of one’s liberty. Anyone who supports this crime of ownership deserves whatever the police wish to dish out.”

    Somebody’s never heard of the non-aggression principle…

  22. Jim Davidson on Sat, 17th Jan 2009 2:41 pm

    Obviously, the City of Keene is run by stupid, foolish, uneducated, boorish criminals. I think the people of Keene should take them all out of office. Of course, relying on a majority of boorish and uneducated people to do something about direct threats to life, liberty, or property is not necessary.

    There are all kinds of actions that are justified in defending oneself against this kind of nonsense. The question for the liberty activists is what they are willing to do. There’s no question that this attack is outrageous, unconstitutional, criminal, rude, and indecent.

    Given the direct threat of force against Ian’s freedom, I don’t think there is any proper limit to what he and his friends and colleagues may choose to do in response. No one has the right to initiate force, nor to advocate its initiation. Anyone has the right to defend against aggression with whatever actions, up to and including the use of deadly force, just as they see fit.

    I admire the many reasons that liberty activists in New Hampshire are choosing to use non-violent protest in reaction to these things. I think it ought to be clear to everyone involved that choosing non-violence is up to those involved, and that other choices are available.

    No doubt many people think that because they have lived in Keene longer, or because they like city ordinances against couches on lawns, that they can impose by brutal force their will on other people, especially newcomers. But, that’s unAmerican, communistic thinking. People ought to leave each other alone, and that goes triple for people in government.

    If the nasty little jerks in the police department in Keene want to fight the drug war, they should have the guts to go kill the guys with marijuana. Maybe butcher them and put their bodies, entrails showing, on display on the walls of the town hall. Making war against the American people, as the war on drugs clearly does, constitutes frank treason – it is making war on the United States to make war on her people.

  23. lordmetroid on Sat, 17th Jan 2009 5:06 pm

    Now now, if it was really a war we would see far more dead bodies lying around. Both cops, politicians, bureaucrats and marijuana smokers corpses and blood would paint the street red and pink.

    This “War on drugs” is anything but a war, it is simply plain despotic oppression.

  24. Jim Davidson on Sat, 17th Jan 2009 9:00 pm

    You can see the bodies if you would only look. There was a recent story in which the cops busted the wrong house, shot an old woman to death. That’s an example, fairly typical of the kind of viciousness and stupidity that characterises the men and women who brutally enforce the war. Try victims.drugwarrant.com for an alphabetical listing.

    There are also tens of thousands of political prisoners, non-violent drug offenders, who should be regarded as prisoners of war in this war on drugs.

    The war on drugs destroys many, many lives. Millions of people around the world suffer and die from attacks on various places where opium, hemp, or coca are grown. Millions of people are involved in the trade, and many are slaughtered every year over control of the illegal trade who would not be if it were legal.

    Yes, it is a war, and it is horrid.

  25. elkheart on Sun, 25th Jan 2009 8:46 pm

    WHY, WHY, WHY, are you all so restrained in your comments???…Why so polite???…Me, I have been the victim of capricious and arbitrary acts of official oppression – Police brutality by psychosocial torture and extortion – many times over the years. Yes, “Eli”(E-LIE-zer) Rivera figures prominently in many of those crimes of Official Oppression committed against me. So does burkah-the jerkah…As a KPD Officer, Eli is a City of Keene employee. Subject to terms of his (Unionized) Employment contract, he is I suppose, subject to dismissal/firing/discharge by the Chief of Police, Mr. Arthur Walker, the “City Manager”, Mr. John MacClean(sp?), and maybe the City Council. Who knows for sure? How could an exact answer be determined? What if there exist conflicting opinions as to who exactly has the power to tell Eli what to do, or not do? Yes, I surely love all you peace-loving, Liberty-loving activists. You read the posts I blog on here. Doesn’t that put me and you(ALL of you!…), in the exact same legal position that Ian is in?…How much coverage is this getting in the Keene Sentinel? Fair coverage? NO COVERAGE???…NAZI-STYLE Censorship?…Here in Jumanjiville/Keene?…Honestly, I really see this as a bunch of schoolchildren who were given too much Ritalin, and now you’re all fighting on the Playground…& The “judge” is the teacher…”Teacher, teacher, Ian Bernard’s saying naughty words!”…”Put him in time-out JAIL!”…Finally, can anybody besides me see that the “city” is merely mirroring the posturing of all you FSP’s, Liberty activists, etc…??? Yes, I did see Andrew Carroll, whatever Cop they had on to lamely talk up the “D.A.R.E.” Program-…(Remember the “D.A.R.E.” Motto: “Dare to Resist Drugs & VIOLENCE”???…(<-”allcaps” in “violence” added by this writer for emphasis.)-and whoever those two clowns they have hosting the show, on “Capitol Access.”…Yes, I do respect & appreciate the time you all gave to this program, but, I can scarce recall seeing 4 bigger idiots looking so stupid, & intellectually crippled…I heard only very old, worn-out cliche’-type “truisms” spouted badly, by all parties…JESUS-FUCKING H. CHRIST ON A POPSICLE STICK! JEEZUM CROW, still stumbling over the pseudo-reality of “gateway drugs”???…MARIJAUNA – Cannabis Sativa/Indica, &etc. sub-species are ***ALL*** ***FLOWERING HERBAL-TYPE PLANTS***…Read Genesis, Chapter 1, verse 29: “God said, Lo, I have given you every herb bearing seed, & tree bearing fruit, which grows on the face of the Earth – to you, it shall be for (your) meat (food, etc.).” – King James Version, paraphrased quote. What part of “FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION” does Eli & Co. ***OBJECT TO***???… Also, I now have to file an Appearance, in Jumanjiville/Kangaroo/Keene “District Court”, by Jan. 28. I am calling on all of you to join me, and assist this disabled man – me! – to represent myself, Pro Se-Esq…I am going to request the reasonable accomodation, under the Protection & Authority of the Federal Americans w/Disabilities Act of 1991, signed by Pres. Bush, Sr., of the “Court” providing me with an *audio*, *AND* *VIDEO* recording of the (possibly) up-coming “Hearing on the Merits” in a “Landlord/Tenent”(Civil Eviction) case…shit, I hate the fucking dump, & want to move out, but my Disability/Poverty makes finding/getting/moving into, a new apartment very difficult. I guess that flexing their legal hate-dicks’ muscle is more important than protecting NH’s most vulnerable citizens…YO!, Curt SPRINGER!…HELP!….~elkheart~…P.S.: To Mr. Andrew Carrol. What you lack as the sole result of youth, inexperience, a propagandized, brainwashing-style educational / media system, you more than compensate for by sheer force of the righteousness of your acts. You made the best points, & most sense, over the other three “elders”…Please accept my sincere thanks and respect, Andrew. You have more supporters than you know. Please just don’t push them too hard. They are all so ***POWER-MAD-DRUNK-INTOXICATED*** that they might just topple over on top of you! And that eli’s a FAT-ASS BIG OLE PIECE OF HUMAN WASTE…(Didn’t I hear something about a *BUDGET CRISIS* in NH???….I guess KPD & Kangaroo Court burn money faster than a Rastafarian burns ganga!!!…(swim your wet-back ass back to peurto rico, puta…)…Hey, are juvenile insults and petty name-calling *NOT* ***PARODY & SATIRE*** anymore???… That’s my defense. I’m just kidding. Except what I said about Andrew Carrol. He’s on the right track. Congrats. Keep us posted, kid. Old Coach here wants to see you out on the “court” getting some playing time in…pps: is / are “bad jokes” now “criminal speech”???…ad nauseum…

  26. Jim Davidson on Sun, 25th Jan 2009 10:32 pm

    Restrained and polite? I haven’t been accused of those things in a long time.

    If there are people in local government who deserve to die for their acts of official oppression, why would you talk about it? If you believe you have a case for defensive or retaliatory force, then do what you think is the right thing to do. Writing a long diatribe about it on the web seems like a poor choice.

  27. elkheart on Sun, 25th Jan 2009 10:54 pm

    Jim, I’m not sure that i *want* to understand what you’re talking about. Only the President has the Constitutional authority to declare war, which Nixon did against drugs – thus, “The War on Drugs”…so, being war, if i kill a cop, that’s just an “act of war”, and thus legal, is that kinda what you’re saying?…Look, I’m buddhist. Seriously. I don’t even like to read/hear about, or see, acts of violence and death, etc…It’s traumatic. Like watching burkah-the jerkah in action…scary…But, what are you really saying???…*NEW POST*:

  28. elkheart on Sun, 25th Jan 2009 11:08 pm

    BINGO! I just realized! Rivera, you are so full of shit…you’re a big fat fucking idiot….you have mixed up, confused, & confounded *2* totally different meanings of the word “promote”…1.promote: advertise, etc., protected free speech. 2.promote: “advance the cause of”, or “assist in the act of”…#2 *COULD* be actionable. But, that’s not what Ian did. He didn’t help Andrew Carrol posess weed, he did, however, help the people learn the truth. Your whole “Motion to Show Cause” just fell flat on it’s face. Seriously, you’d like Castros’ cuba better…Get the fuck out of my town, asshole…*AFTER* you cite *LEGAL DEFINITIONS* for “active participant”. See paragraph 2:…”That, James A. Carroll’s arrest was a staged civil disobedience…” SEE! I *TOLD* you it was also *FALSE ARREST*…(it was just a play, huh, Eli???…)

  29. Jim Davidson on Mon, 26th Jan 2009 1:38 am

    Your unwillingness to look at the tens of millions of people massacred by your government in your name does not make them any less dead.

    What I’m really saying is that if you aren’t prepared to use deadly force in self defense, you won’t be able to defend yourself. You can talk all you want about non-violence, but that has nothing to do with Buddhism. Look at the Shaolin. Buddhists that invented a large set of martial arts so they could resist tyranny. Shaolin are Buddhists who kick ass.

    You apparently have a different constitution from the one they gave me in high school. Mine says that only Congress has the power to declare war. The president never had power to declare war.

    And the war on drugs is a war on the United States, and its people. Last time I checked, that was treason. I tell you what, though, you need a constitution you can understand. Try constitution.org for the one that was ratified by the several states.

  30. Ricky on Mon, 26th Jan 2009 6:03 pm

    Shared this with my readers at TheLeviathan. I hope you get this ridiculous nonsense thrown out. Good luck.

    http://www.theleviathan.net/2009/01/26/talk-radio-host-charged-talkingblogging/

  31. elkheart on Thu, 29th Jan 2009 11:47 am

    Yo, Jim Davidson! I think we have more in common agreement than we realize. This is too serious for my usual “fooling-around” style of writing. “Cancer, Crime, Poverty, & Drugs” are the 4 Presidentially declared “Wars” that America suffers under. At the respective times of their Presidential Declarations, these “declarations of war” were seen as having a “nudge-nudge, wink-wink” sort of aspect. The Presidential “war” declaration was meant as symbolic, more than actual “WAR”. Which raises a whole lot of very serious Constitutional & other legal questions. For example, being the “War on Drugs”, that makes the Geneva Convention on Rules of War, apply, right? The penalty for spying in wartime can be summary execution. So, if a “drug narc” is murdered, that would be OK under the Geneva Convention regarding Acts of War, correct? See what I mean? We need to get Obama to OFFICIALLY end, by the same Presidential Authority he used to end bush-puppets’ illegal “War on Terror”…Well, did anybody *ELSE* notice *that* change in the new Administration???…this is going somewhere good. Thanks also, Curt, good to see you back on here, too!~elkharpo-marks~

  32. Jeffersonish on Fri, 30th Jan 2009 5:14 pm

    I just started listening to the FTL podcast again recently. I guess I need to go back and listen to some archives. About 3-4 years ago I started drawing comparisons between the U.S. and Nazi Germany. I’m not saying we are just like them, but there are many parallels and the use of intimidation to shut up critics is one of them.

    I might have to get busy and wrap up my California ties and become an early mover.

Post your comment below. Login in the far right column to get rid of CAPTCHA. If you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!





*


Want to discuss rather than just comment? Visit the Free Keene Forum.


Send your news tips to: News at FreeKeene.com