Begging Won’t Stop Oppression
If you’ve seen the recent videos of courtroom oppression, you already know there’s a crackdown on the free press here in NH. Videographers are being refused entry into district courts across NH! A couple of years ago, begging (asking permission) to video in court was successful. However, when the violent monopoly (government) saw that the videos were helping showcase liberty activists’ successes in court, they started to crack down on cameras in court. In response to the restrictions, Dave Ridley notified the court he’d be disobeying their ban on panning a camera in court. Keene District Court’s judge Burke quickly reassessed his court rules and allowed Dave to pan and silently allowed several activists to bring recording devices in court to document Nick Ryder’s successful refusal to pay a speeding ticket. It seemed freedom was winning.
Then the real crackdown began. Starting with a videographer being ordered to shut off his camera mid-trial, the Keene District Court as well as Milford and Dover have been enforcing a near-complete ban on video devices anywhere near the court, including the lobby, both allegedly “public” places. Nevermind their own court rules that clearly state:
1.4(a) The presiding judge should permit the media to photograph, record and broadcast all courtroom proceedings that are open to the public.
Of course, as OTN’s Sam points out, one doesn’t need to ask permission to exercise a right. Here’s the NH constitution they have sworn to uphold:
[Art.] 22. [Free Speech; Liberty of the Press.] Free speech and liberty of the press are essential to the security of freedom in a state: They ought, therefore, to be inviolably preserved.
Rules, schmules. You probably know by now that the violent monopoly doesn’t even bother to try to follow their own rules. If you’ve not come to this conclusion yet, just open your eyes and look at all the proof we keep posting on this website. Want more proof? Just look at what happens when you try to play by their rules. These are the two motions I filed in Milford District Court to try to get a camera in without risking arrest. The second page I actually filed a motion for “Freedom of the Press” and informed them of the possibility of criminal charges – the judge denied the motion claiming I’d begged too close to the trial. However, this same court just two weeks earlier allowed a newspaper photographer to file a motion DURING a trial and they allowed him in. They also claimed I had no credentials, but when I’d brought credentials weeks earlier I was denied anyway. When I pressed judge Crocker for a definition of credentials she essentially said she’d know them when she saw them. They make it up as they go along. If you have to beg, you have already failed. Having proven this, I will no longer ask permission to exercise rights, and nor should you.
What to do about this situation though? Use the system to change the system? While this is possible in NH, it’s still a slow process. We need freedom of the press right now, not in another ten election cycles. Civil disobedience has had mixed results so far. Dave Ridley had one success at getting the court to do the right thing and back off it’s restrictions, but later they cracked down hard and Dave was arrested for refusing to obey their demands he stop recording in the lobby of Keene District Court.
We know these gangsters are willing to take everything you love from you in order to coerce your obedience, so most activists are frightened to death of doing anything disobedient to change this situation, even though noncooperation and disobedience has proven to be the best way to affect change. Luckily, as more activists continue to take small steps into the noncooperative world, others are being inspired by their example. Discussions are in progress about a larger video camera disobedience in Keene District Court. How many newsmen will they arrest and prosecute before something changes? OTN’s Sam is also looking at filing criminal official oppression charges against the court bureaucrats complicit in this tyranny. Perhaps that will discourage their naughty behavior. Finally, they know they are being watched and that our numbers continue to grow while theirs stays the same. We frequently outnumber the bureaucrats in court these days, thanks to the constant stream of new movers from the Free State Project and the awakening of previously dormant NH native liberty lovers. Don’t just watch this happen though – get involved and get up here! We can get to freedom quicker with YOUR help.
What else can we do to halt this oppression? Post your ideas here or in the Free Keene Forum.
Comments
40 Comments on Begging Won’t Stop Oppression
Would it be terribly difficult or expensive to use hidden cameras to record video?
Patriot Henry,
That is not the point of this fight. It’s not to get around their “rulings,” but to show the world that banning cameras is against their own rules, as well as unconstitutional. Right now, the biggest story is not a trial or hearing, but the fight to get a camera into the trial or hearing.
The media is the final check on government. If they’re banning it, then they have something to hide from the public.
Great article, Ian. And I agree with Nick: the point is to reveal the tyranny, not work around it and leave it in place. However, ours is a decentralized movement; if some people sneak in video recorders and then post them to YouTube, two things would also be revealed: the court is not disturbed by videographers as it claims it is, and the tyranny that occurs in courts that sheeple assume never happens would be made public.
I say: the more fronts on which we attack government, the more thinly it must spread itself in defense.
I watched the video you linked to in your article about the horses that were stolen in Candia. I am curious as to why exactly the horses were stolen. At the end of the video it said something about the proper paperwork not being filled out. I have also heard rumors about the owners not having proper housing facilities. Can anyone clarify for me why these horses were stolen. Thanks.
i think these videos are great for pointing out the reality of what govt is. they fire up the freedom troops. but i dont think they will change the minds of anyone in govt.
they have the same passion for govt authority as we do for freedom. but they also have all the power. so they dont have to appease u and never will.
i think the only plan that will work is selling the concept of freedom to enough people to get libertarians elected.
the govt will never ever let u live a free life no matter how much they r exposed and no matter how much people complain.
freedom will ONLY come when libertarians r elected to dismantle govt.
so i think 100% of our efforts should be focused on recruiting people to the philosophy of freedom with the goal of reaching X people so that libertarians can get elected.
we need an effective sales pitch that sells new recruits to freedom. and we need a simple, duplicatable system that gets the new recruits to go out and sell freedom to others.
we can then measure our results and see exactly how much further towards freedom we r getting.
i went to the campaign for liberty website, libertarian party, mises, free state project, and every other liberty site and couldnt find that plan or system anywhere.
but if u go to a company like xango (a network marketing company), they have that system in place. and it has managed to convert 1,000,000 ordinary people into people who spend $100 per month on apple juice in just a few years!!!!!!
if some company can pull off that miraculous feat with a sales system, i think we can get millions of NEW people to embrace liberty which will make them wealthy and solve most of the problems in the world today.
our task is certainly a lot easier than convincing someone to spend $100 every month on juice!!!!
am i missing something? is there any other way to freedom than getting a genuine pro freedom person elected to dismantle govt?
and if election is the only way, has someone come up with a complete game plan?
Brent, you have to call the Candia police department about why, cause they made it a secret.
“The media is the final check on government. If they’re banning it, then they have something to hide from the public.”
Correct. Sharing that secret is a great way to shine to sunlight on the “secrets” of the courts.. Protesting the no-camera rule will produce a story of interest only to liberty minded folks. Get a video of a judge fining someone thousands of dollars for mentioning the Constitution in an income tax case and you have a story that will be much more popular.
As of now the rule exists “because we say so”. I’d like some concrete evidence as to why they have this rule. I’ve read many transcripts of judges abusing their power but a video would be much more effective in documenting the crime.
Great article. One of my motivators in moving up is the work being done in Keene. I hope to be up by June.
freedom will ONLY come when libertarians r elected to dismantle govt.
With all due respect, you’re saying we need to use force to make people free, and that is logically inconsistent.
In case you don’t see that, keep in mind that government is force.
you’re saying we need to use force to make people free
huh?!?
electing someone to stop stealing half my income, stop stealing a % of my savings every year and stop telling me precisely what i can and cant do with my life and property is using force!?!
just so u r clear, when someone breaks into ur home and steals ur tv, that is force.
when u tell the robber to leave and not take ur tv, that is not force.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcdxuxufAKY
http://www.strike-the-root.com/71/molyneux/molyneux3.html
Stefan Molyneux explains the point I’m making in either of the above two links.
But if you want the brief version:
- Government is force. It acts via force. It’s just a big ole gun.
- Voting is a battle to see who will gain control of the gun that is government.
- You say that liberty-lovers must gain control of government in order to set us free from government.
Ergo, you argue that we must grab the gun that is government in order to achieve our aim of liberty.
Ergo, you advocate the use of force to set people free.
I hope that makes a little more sense now that I’ve spelled it out a little.
Great blog Ian. The title says it all.
Jeff, I have great faith that you are well meaning, but we are a minority movement, and provably always will be a minority movement. Democracy is never favorable to any minority, weather they be racial or political minorities. The failure of effective action due primarily to a blind faith in politics, has endangered non-initiation of violence to the point,that when we suggest it, we are looked at like we are crazy. We must admit that the old approaches do not work, no matter how good they sound on paper.
George,
If someone is robbing you at gunpoint, it makes all the sense in the world to try to grab the gun. It doesn’t mean you want to commit robberies yourself, only that you want to dismantle/unload the weapon.
Paul
If someone is robbing you at gunpoint, it makes all the sense in the world to try to grab the gun. It doesn’t mean you want to commit robberies yourself, only that you want to dismantle/unload the weapon.
That’s what the folks in NH are attempting to do with their civil disobedience.
What Jeff proposes is not what you’re saying, but instead attempting to be elected leader of the mob the gunman is a member of. See Molyneux on this, seriously.
david, i disagree. the whole world is moving towards more freedom. there will be ups and downs along the way, but overall we have been becoming more free.
im not an expert, but my guess is that few people r hardcore republican or democrat. most people dont care about politics and have not adopted a permanent, unchangeable political philosophy. these r the people we need to target.
u probably r not going to change the mind of a hardcore republican or democrat. but they r in the minority too.
i think we go after the people who r the blank slates, who r openminded to ideas. these people r the majority, the ones who have not sworn eternal allegiance to some political party.
these people can be recruited and there is enough of them out there to sway elections.
and to recruit them, we dont sell them on philosophy which nobody cares about. we sell them on how to get rich. instead of an ad that says: “END THE FED” we run an ad that says: “BUILD A $20 MILLION FORTUNE ON AN ENTRY LEVEL WAGE”
then we show that if an 18 year old with just an entry level wage saved his tax money and earned an avg rate of return on it, he would be able to retire a millionaire in his thirties.
in a world without govt taxes, a person with no skill and an avg job will become wealthy early in life. it is because of govt that people r forced to live paycheck to paycheck.
forget trying to “end poverty.” we have a plan that can make everyone on the planet a millionaire.
very few people r interested in learning about politics, history or philosophy. but EVERYONE is interested in how to improve their finances.
we use that to pique people’s interest and then show them how freedom can deliver.
once they r shown how freedom will make everyone rich, end all wars, stop most crimes and solve nearly all of our social problems, we tell them to join the cause (who dont wanna be part of a mission to save the world?).
we lay out the plan for making society free. and give them very specific instructions on how to just go out and simply ask people if they wanna learn how to bank $20 million on an entry level wage.
most people will say yes. they become leads which r then plugged into the freedom recruitment system. the leads r given a persuasive sales pitch on what freedom can do for their life and the rest of the world.
they get sold on freedom, get recruited to the cause and the process continues generating more and more new recruits. 5 years later, we got 1,000,000 people actively recruiting new people to freedom. shortly thereafter, govt topples.
ok, that’s the plan!
George,
Yes, I’ve seen Molyneux. I think becoming an elected leader of a gang, in order to dismantle it, is a worthy goal. I also think seeking the enactment of gang rules which restrict them from instigating violence is a worthy goal.
Suppose a particularly violent gang in LA had open elections. Suppose that the elected leader had the ability to dismantle the gang, or to prevent it from committing violence.
If my goal were to end gang violence, and I had a chance of winning, I would absolutely run.
You assume that seeking to obtain the tool of political power implies the intent to wield that tool. Yet, you forget that one can also obtain a tool in order to destroy it or weaken it, or prevent it being used to harm others.
Paul
If my goal were to end gang violence, and I had a chance of winning
How could those two situations remotely possibly co-exist? It’s irrational to think they could.
In order to have a chance of winning you would have to have earned your street cred by … engaging in violence, thus violating your own principles and reinforcing the gang’s violent profile.
And once you had done that, your constituents would expect you to continue. They would sooner turn their violence against you than allow you to stop participating in their violence.
You assume that seeking to obtain the tool of political power implies the intent to wield that tool. Yet, you forget that one can also obtain a tool in order to destroy it or weaken it.
Don’t assume too much about your opponent! It just gets in the way.
Intentions don’t count for much and in fact pave the road to hell, as they say.
Just as in Molyneux’s example that I linked to above, in order to gain control of a violent organization, you must participate in the violence, which makes you one of the bad guys.
Government is not a tool. And in order to gain control of it, your participation in the electoral process inevitably strengthens it.
Anytime you use force you are also pointing the gun at your own head. You can not use force to free people; it’s logically inconsistent and plain nonsensical.
george, u cant be serious. none of ur statements make sense. u may have to kill someone to get into the bloods. but u dont have to kill to get elected in govt.
while u r in ur fantasy world of paradoxes, paul went thru hell night, completed initiation into the bloods and stopped the murder of hundreds of kids each year. and i got elected president, repealed all tax laws, shut down the empire, opened all govt services to the free market and changed the world forever.
George,
The two situations could co-exist, if there were enough people sick and tired of government abuse, that they formed a majority of those willing to make the effort to vote and campaign — or at least a majority of the most effective. The same way you win any election … It is not true that you must commit violence to get elected, if the people who vote are looking for someone who will not commit violence.
Again, if every citizen in LA could vote in the leaders of a violent street gang, they would most likely vote in leaders who would dismatle it or turn it into a neighborhood cleanup group. That is, unless enough of them refuse to participate, as you apparently would, in which case the violence would continue.
I understand I’m not going to change your mind, so I’ll just let this go. I do think that you are not thinking clearly about the situation, however.
Getting elected in order to eliminate government abuse is very much like wresting the gun away from a robber. It’s an almost perfect analogy, actually.
You don’t have to respond, we’d just keep going in circles. Hopefully some of those reading this have gotten something out of it, however.
Paul
but u dont have to kill to get elected in govt.
Yes, in a sense, you do. You have to promise something to someone, even if it’s just something as innocuous as a few earmarks for your district, as in Dr Paul’s case.
Think about it now, where do the funds for those earmarked projects come from? They’re either extracted from people’s current production with a credible threat of force or they’re extracted from people’s future production with a credible threat of force.
Either way, force is being used to take someone’s property. And when that force is resisted, agents of the state will put someone’s life, liberty and/or property on the chopping block.
I’d like to see you get elected to anything above dog catcher without promising someone’s property to someone else.
The two situations could co-exist, if there were enough people sick and tired of government abuse, that they formed a majority of those willing to make the effort to vote and campaign
Never in history has government gone backwards in size.
Again, if every citizen in LA could vote in the leaders of a violent street gang, they would most likely vote in leaders who would dismatle it
First off, why would a violent gang hold elections? And why it would allow non-members to vote. You’re already in fantasy-land with those suppositions.
And why would the gang members abide by a decision they don’t agree with? In your unlikely scenario, they’d just go out and form a new gang and it’s business as usual.
I run into some of the most misguided of people in the comments section of freekeene.com and I have to say, it really gets my spider-sense tingling.
george, i just watched stefan’s video. i think u misunderstood it. stefan was making the case of no govt vs a small govt.
he said a person getting elected to the klan who wanted less lynchings is just as immoral as the guy who is calling for more lynchings.
he was not saying that getting elected to the klan to abolish it is immoral. in fact, he said that is what should be done.
so he would support my idea of getting elected to govt in order to dismantle it. he says so right in the video u linked to!
With all due respect Jeff, no he does not agree with your plan.
yes he does. if u go to the text at strike the root, the 30th paragraph reads:
“So why don’t you tell people that? That you want to take over the Klan in order to abolish it!”
that was his advice to his son. he didnt want him to try and reduce lynchings. that is immoral. instead he suggested that he run for grand wizard with the goal of abolishing it.
i think if u read thru it again u will see that he was just making the claim that a little bit of a bad thing is just as immoral as lot of a bad thing.
Your last paragraph is correct but that does not jive with your claim about what the 30th paragraph means.
george,
i said u should run for office so that u can abolish it.
then u pointed me to a video where stefan says his son should run for office so that he can abolish it.
me and stefan r advocating the same thing.
Molyneux does NOT argue that his hypothetical son should run for office in the Klan in order to abolish it. He argues against it.
Take the time to understand what Molyneux is saying.
I just wanted to say that I’m high and I agree with everything in this post. Andrew Carroll’s trial and the events surrounding it should be made into a documentary.
I’d like to see you get elected to anything above dog catcher without promising someone’s property to someone else.
George, it’s different in Keene. We just might have the critical mass of activists to get an anarchist into office. This person would not make any promises to anyone, except to stop the initation of force against peaceful people. I think it’s worth trying.
One of the cool things about our group is that we aren’t subscribing to a single method of abolishing government. Some people work in the system; some do civil disobedience. Any argument that in-the-system activism won’t work on philosophical grounds will probably fall on deaf ears. I think pragmatic/consequentialist arguments would work best. (e.g. “You could never realistically win” would work better than “You’re just trying to grab the gun!”)
Hi Patrick. Well, after many years of reading and thought and interaction with others of all philosophical stripes, the only thing I’m interested in talking about is what is right.
Everything else is a distraction or obfuscation.
Even when you talk about what is/not pragmatic, morality is still at play there, it just is not being consciously considered or overtly discussed.
What is right IS pragmatic. So when I hear people talk about pragmatism, I know they’re doomed to failure because what they really mean is that they don’t want to consider morality.
Have you read Atlas Shrugged? The moochers offered John Galt control of the gun that is government (political power) and he turned them down. Anyone who thinks the solution is electoral politics needs to reread that section of the book.
When I move to NH (~June), I have no qualms about lobbying the little dictators dba “the government”, but I won’t compete to be one of them. Just as I would engage a gang leader in a conversation about how violence is not in his self-interest, but I would never vie for his job.
george, i would say we live in the real world, not in an ayn rand novel.
so with all ur moral indignation, is it true then that u do not pay taxes? nor property taxes? and u dont have a license for anything?
Jeff, I didn’t say that we live in a novel. Either you didn’t take the time to read and understand what I said or you’re just taking potshots now.
I used an event from a novel to illustrate the principle I am defending in this discussion.
I’m not going to discuss my personal life with you because I don’t know you and it’s not entirely relevant.
But I do avoid as many attempts to initiate violence against me as I am able to.
george, i do get frustrated with ur line of thinking, but hopefully im not at the point of taking potshots! i apologize if it came off that way.
if u r not paying taxes and not playing by their laws, most likely u will wind up in jail.
i dont understand what kind of strategy that is! what is ur goal?
the ONLY way u r gonna get freedom is if someone gets elected into office and calls off the dogs. do u know of some other secret way??
Jeff, it used to frustrate me too.
My goal is to live my life as I see fit without initiating force against anyone. IOW, my goal is to do no harm and much good.
Freedom is yours for the taking. Just because there are men with guns, feelings of entitlement and delusions of grandeur who don’t want me to be free doesn’t mean I shouldn’t assert my liberty.
that sounds great. but u will wind up in jail. how free r u gonna be in jail?
How are you going to be free under the thumb of government …
when you lose 50%+ of your production to the little dictators dba “the government” (TLDDBATG)?
when your privacy is constantly violated by warrantless wiretapping and such?
when you can’t educate your child as you see fit without TLDDBATG imposing unfunded mandates on you?
when your ability to save your own life is trampled by the FDA?
when your ability to defend yourself is ripped to shreds by gun-grabbing tyrants?
when a credible threat of force is used to extract funding for big war against innocent brown people overseas?
I could go on and on.
So if I can’t be free outside of jail and I can’t be free inside it, I won’t do their job for them by playing by their rules.
Their precious veneer of legitimacy depends on my consent. Without it, they are seen for the hooligans they are. I will not legitimize them.
everything u just described is a randian paradise compared to living inside a jail cell.
i dont understand the logic of choosing jail over electing someone who is going to not put u in jail.
Clearly you do not understand Objectivism, if that’s what you really think.
I do not choose jail. I choose to live my life without doing harm unto others.
ok, what will u do when the police show up to put u in jail for breaking the law?
We show people over and over, again and again, in every way imaginable, that the government is violence. That they don’t effectively solve problems, and we do everything we can to make it uncomfortable for people who continue their aggression against others.
People are beginning to see this now, and as more and more come around to the idea of liberty, people will evolve beyond the need for government. When the people stop cooperating with government, they will have no choice but to go away, for their Power is derived from the submission of the subjects.
I accept, support and even intend to participate in out-of-the-system activism.
Additionally, I would love to run for city council or school board on a voluntaryist platform. I think that in Keene, doing so would be fun and beneficial.
I think liberty activists should approve of in-the-system activism, as long as it is congruent with the zero aggression principle and supplemented by other courses of action.
Great Blog Mr. Ian!
The right “Credentials” is a joke.. If it’s open to the public and every single person in the crowd wants to record it, then they should be allowed to. What have they got to hide?
And they call it serving…if they were honest, they could at least put it this way:
To Protect and Serve…Ourselves.
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.
Supporters of FK
Recent Forum Topics- FBI is watching February 7, 2012
- New February 7, 2012
- Free Minds Radio 02/05/2012 February 5, 2012
- HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 5, 2012
- Marijuana decrim bills up for vote February 5, 2012
- Episode 35 - Anarch-Elitism February 5, 2012
- HB 1533 -- fines for hurting legislators' feelings February 4, 2012
- HB 1494 -- "Your papers, please" February 4, 2012
- Legislation discussion? February 4, 2012
- What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 3, 2012
- Recent Forum Posts
- FBI is watching February 7, 2012
- Re: Bearcat petition at city council meeting February 7, 2012
- Re: Bearcat petition at city council meeting February 7, 2012
- Re: Marijuana related legislative bills 2012 February 7, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 7, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 7, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 7, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 7, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 7, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 7, 2012