City Council Drinking Game Video

Here’s the video the people calling themselves “The City of Keene” don’t want you to see:

After reviewing their city council rules, city ordinances, and state laws; Dale Pregent seems to have made up the rules barring alcoholic beverage containers (not containing alcohol) in order to target free speech. When the Police Chief Ken Meola is unable to determine what is in the closed containers held by Ian  Freeman and Sam Dodson, they were arrested for refusing to consent to search. The video clearly shows, Heika – who consented to the search – being told “your fine”  as she remained in the meeting drinking from her bottle.

Let’s not forget they did all of this on live TV with the community watching.  Plans are in the works for the next City Council Drinking game, Aug. 19th, 7pm. Mark your calendar, it’s going to be a special event.

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


64 Comments

  1. Great to finally see the video of this. There was certainly no one being "rowdy" as the one newspaper claimed. All I saw was a feeble attempt from the mayor to ruin the protest by sicking his goons on peaceful (and silent) people. I can't see any of their charges holding up in court, and suspect they may drop them right before the trial date.

    As much as I love watching Sam and Ian argue with the judge, I hope they get a real lawyer for this one, so they can really knock the city around. How funny would it be to have the city forced by a higher court to pay punitive damages that could go to the CD Evolution fund?

    Reply
  2. They are not "alcoholic beverage containers" if they don't contain alcohol. I think the contents determine what kind of container they are. I think the bottle labels should emphasize the word "Not" rather than "Beer". Eventually it would be neat if Free Staters, Libertarians, etc could grow to be the majority of the population and government officials in Keene, Manchester and surrounding areas. Then the minority statists could protest.

    Reply
  3. The city is going to end up eating so much crow in the end. Well done guys.

    Reply
  4. …makes me want to run for the City Council again…OOPS! I mean run FROM the City Council, again!…"I got dem ole' brown bottle blues again…(…still can't decide whether you guys are more stupid than brave, or vice-versa…)

    Reply
  5. What Ian and Sam got arrested for was not civil disobedience.

    What they were arrested for was protected 1st Amendment speech and protest.

    Game on 😀

    Reply
  6. Brad,

    This just shows everyone that state supremacists make the laws up as they go along. They were arrested for not following non-existent laws. — That's civil disobedience.

    It IS civil disobedience any time the state supremacists kidnap people for celebrating freedom. It's NOT civil disobedience if you don't get arrested and you are not breaking a "law", but It IS civil disobedience if you get don't arrested and you are peacefully braking an illegitimate "law."

    When "Judge" Burke ordered statist thugs to use violence on Ian after 6pm (if they see him outside his home.) It shows us the justice system doesn't protect people from the executive branch of government from executing non-existent laws.

    There are no checks or balance of power, like the lies that they teach in their violently funded child education camps.

    Reply
  7. I respectfully disagree.

    I disagree because I believe the actions of the state agents were unlawful… therefore Ian and Sam were not actually disobedient, the state actors operated outside of the bounds of their "authority."

    Sam, is it true that the state filed the paperwork to charge this case as a class A misdemeanor? Did they do this for both you and Ian?

    If they did…. even better…. a jury trial!

    Reply
  8. State actors operate outside of the bounds of their “authority” anytime they arrest/kidnap peaceful people.

    Reply
  9. Wow, what a joke. You guys are heroes!

    Reply
  10. State actors operate outside of the bounds of their “authority” anytime they arrest peaceful people.

    Not as far as the "system" is concerned. As far as common decency and morality, you're absolutely correct and I agree. You can't file a lawsuit against a state actor because they enforced a victimless law in a "constitutional" manner.

    There are limits on what the system allows its own actors to do… and when they operate "off the reservation" they open themselves up to liability.

    Reply
  11. JARDIS! post us all a link to whatever the NH RSA for Disorderly Conduct is, OK? Thanks. You all can read it and see, there's no way- legally,in THEIR terms- to get a legitimate conviction under "Disorderly Conduct." Read the law yourself, and see if YOU agree…

    Reply
  12. The law:

    644:2 Disorderly Conduct. – A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if:

    III. He purposely causes a breach of the peace, public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creates a risk thereof, by:

    (b) Disrupting the orderly conduct of business in any public or governmental facility; or

    And the NH Supreme Court says about this section of the expansive disorderly conduct law:

    We will not presume that a defendant’s conduct caused a disruption when such a charge is unsupported by evidence. Cf. State v. Murray, 135 N.H. 369, 373, 605 A.2d 676 (1992)

    Reply
  13. So, what exactly IS an "alcoholic Container"? Because I am drinking a beer right now and it comes in a can, just like a can of coke might. And I know RootBeer comes in the same kind of bottles as say a budweiser, but, so does O'doul's, which is a non-alcoholic beverage. I never realized there were actual "alcoholic beverage containers".

    Reply
  14. Alcoholic beverage containers are apparently any beverage containers which cause Mr. Pregent to feel "disrespected". And anything he feels has "disrespected" him constitutes a "disruption", didn't you know?

    Reply
  15. So, what exactly IS an "alcoholic Container"?

    kristofeR,

    This question actually is irrelevant due to the wording of the city council's own rule/ordinance on open containers of alcohol:

    Sec. 6-27. Consumption–Prohibited.
    No person shall consume any alcoholic beverage or liquor upon any public way as defined in section 6-26 and by state statues within the city.

    Sec. 6-29. Open containers on public property.
    No person shall carry or be in possession of any form of open container, either made of glass, tin, or any other material, containing alcoholic beverages or liquor, on any public way as defined in section 6-26 within the city.

    As you can see.. the container being one that originally stored alcohol is not an element of the offense under that section. The elements of the offense is that it has to a) be some sort of container; and b) contain alcohol.

    And anything he feels has “disrespected” him constitutes a “disruption”, didn’t you know?

    His opinion may make sense to him… I have a feeling but we'll be seeing what a federal judge thinks about it.

    Reply
  16. Bradley Jardis on Wed, 11th Aug 2010 6:11 pm

    So, what exactly IS an “alcoholic Container”?

    kristofeR,

    This question actually is irrelevant due to the wording of the city council’s own rule/ordinance on open containers of alcohol:

    Hey Bradley,

    first of all, I'd like to say hello, and thanks for replying to my comment …

    I agree 100% w/ you – I was being a bit facetious in my questioning of this insanity, because I agree w/ the actions of both Sam & Ian here and I agree & appreciate w/ your response to my post.

    All of you up there in Keene are doing terrific stuff, and I can't wait to come visit & meet you all soon – and Michele Seven has been corresponding w/ me and offered to ever so graciously be a sort of guide for me, introduce me to some of you, and I appreciate that greatly :)

    Reply
  17. Sorry I didn't catch the facetiousness 😛

    All of you up there in Keene are doing terrific stuff, and I can’t wait to come visit & meet you all soon – and Michele Seven has been corresponding w/ me and offered to ever so graciously be a sort of guide for me, introduce me to some of you, and I appreciate that greatly :)

    M7 rocks!

    Your home and family of liberty loving friends await you up here in New Hampshire!

    May I suggest http://www.nhmove.info ?

    Reply
  18. Hey Brad

    "Sorry I didn’t catch the facetiousness"

    Yea, I am lacking in the sense of humor funny personality department, so don't sweat it – but, being a fan of FTL I hear a lot about you and the great stuff you are doing up there, so its awesome to get some responses from you.

    Can't wait to come up there (hopefully as soon as possible) and meet "Your home and family of liberty loving friends … in New Hampshire!"

    peace. love. anarchy

    ~kristofeR!

    Reply
  19. "You can’t file a lawsuit against a state actor because they enforced a victimless law in a “constitutional” manner."

    You couldn't file a lawsuit against a state actor in Germany during WW2 for killing Jews, their "constitution" didn't allow it.

    But when their violent system failed, the Nuremberg trials happened and "following orders" was not accepted as a valid defense.

    The violent “constitutional” system is on the brink of collapse. When it does, people will be held accountable for their actions as state actors. "following orders" will not be accepted as a valid excuse for their actions.

    Reply
  20. On another post, we were discussing the activist divide, between those who believe in CD and those who want to work work "within the system".

    Having watched the full video, it's my opinion that this is NOT a case of CD. This is just stupidity on the part of the mayor and cops, plain and simple.

    Ian – In another post you claimed you were, in fact, trying to work within the system, or something to that effect. If you really believe in attempting this, then you need to follow through with it. To me, this is something you and Sam should pursue in the court system, and I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it made it all the way up to the US Supreme Court. It's a Fourth Amendment issue. You may say you don't want to pursue it in "their" system. But imagine the fall out if you won the case!

    To flesh it out a bit, the Fourth Amendment reads:
    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    There are two cases on the books I can think of that are relevant this situation. First, a search needs to occur where "society believes that expectation is reasonable" (Katz v. United States, 1967). To me, once the officer determined Heika didn't possess any alcohol, it becomes a lot less reasonable to need to search you and Sam. Second, when a police officer witnesses "unusual conduct" leading him to reasonably believe "criminal activity" may be taking place, a search is possible (Terry v. Ohio, 1968). Although what you were doing can be considered "unusual conduct" by this standard, again it becomes a lot less unusual once it's revealed no alcohol is possessed by one person.

    For what it's worth, I strongly encourage you to consider pursuing it in this way. Otherwise, what's the point of CD? You want to effect a change in the system, right? Well, I think this is how you do it. Of course, I am not a lawyer. So, there could be no case after all. But, you won't know until you investigate further. Contact the ACLU. Share your experience on some lawyer websites (abovethelaw.com). See if someone is willing to take the case.

    Reply
  21. I guess it depends on whether civil disobedience means not obeying bad laws or not obeying government employees. If CD means disobeying bad laws, then this was not civil disobedience, since no laws were broken. If it means not obeying government employees, then this would count as CD.

    Reply
  22. What Gabe said.

    +1,000,000

    Reply
  23. Thank-you, Bradley Jardis, for the RSA citation. I don't see this as "Disorderly Conduct", even under NH RSA. The council meeting was not "disrupted", until MAYOR PREGENT & CITY CLERK PAT LITTLE DISRUPTED IT THEMSELVES. Pregent knows that he has no legitimate claim to be Keene's mayor, besides his buddy-buddy with (now-former)Mayor Blastos, and the fact that the people who REALLY run "keene, inc.", like Pregent's brain-dead smileyface act…The disruption was caused by the disrupted themselves. CASE DISMISSED!

    Reply
  24. Thank-you, Bradley Jardis, for the RSA citation. I don't see this as "Disorderly Conduct", even under NH RSA. The council meeting was not "disrupted", until MAYOR PREGENT & CITY CLERK PAT LITTLE DISRUPTED IT THEMSELVES.

    You are most welcome, sir…. and I completely agree with you!

    Reply
  25. Thanks, Bradley. I thought you might appreciate the indirect reference to a Terry Stop. How many do you think you've done in your lifetime?

    Reply
  26. Thanks, Bradley. I thought you might appreciate the indirect reference to a Terry Stop. How many do you think you've done in your lifetime?

    Thousands and thousands.

    Many motor vehicle stops can be classified as Terry stops.

    Reply
  27. SAM– I dropped off my letter to the clerk's office today…There is no city council meeting on the 19th. It's tonight and then the 26th. Last week's meeting was a 'special' meeting.

    Reply
  28. bigScrotum on Thu, 12th Aug 2010 2:35 pm

    Sam could use a lesson from Ray Lyman:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVW9_ieM14s&fe
    Thanks for the link, BigBallSack! Ray is correct, though. The Consilution DOES trump consil ruls. Don't you know shit? "Conflict of Laws" is one legal phrase for it…Apparently, guys(&gals) like Ray bother you, testicle-breath…There are folks like Ray all over the world. Remember when Jesus said "the poor will always be with us"???…or Mark24…"whatsoever you have done to the least of them, so also have you done unto me"? What Jesus is saying is that it is not the "THEM", but rather the "US"…How will WE treat THEM?…What kind of people are WE???…juvenile boys mostly like the pee-pee jokes which "bigscrotum" is…Yeah, bigscrotum, I just called you a pee-pee joke. So what?…where's YOUR youtube video???…Let's see YOU get up and speak at the Keene City Council meeting…

    Reply
  29. …where DO those backslashes come from, Ian???…

    Reply
  30. Sam, I guess August is a vacation month, so it gets all messed up. I'm just going by what the lady at the desk told me today when I submitted the letter. I can go down tomorrow morning and ask again if you'd like:)

    Reply
  31. Yeah,where DO they come from?? And why are your posts the only ones with them? The backslash isn't even near the quote key!! WTF??? Are you using a homemade keyboard, or maybe someone switched the keys on you!? I think they are on to you-be careful!! —bil

    Reply
  32. Thanks Heika – That doesn’t make sense. There’s a sub committee meeting tonight which is probably where the letters go. Here;’s their calendar:

    http://www.ci.keene.nh.us/calendar/meetings-calen

    It shows a full council meeting next week.

    Is this a joke? They use Google Calendar to manager the city calendar? Do they realize how unsecure that is? I'm surprised no one has had any fun with this yet…

    Reply
  33. PS – Sam, what I wrote to Ian (above) goes for you too. You can either continue being disgruntled, or see if something real can be done about it.

    Reply
  34. BigScrotum – I could care less what people who only seek to spew negativity and anger at others. If you expect me to take you seriously, try using your time here on earth to actually help rather than criticize others.

    Of course that would take courage and stepping out behind your anonymity.So far all I have seen is negativity spewing from someone so ashamed of what they are doing the have to hide themselves from the word. Too bad, focused in the right direction, people might actually give a shit about what you have to say.

    Reply
  35. Gabe – I never called this CD. I told the city councilors this is your ordinance I will be non-cooperating with today, as I handed them the notice.

    Reply
  36. Sam – What notice?

    Also, regardless of whether or not you consider it CD, what I wrote about pursuing it in the courts system still stands.

    Reply
  37. You people are a bunch of idiots. This is what happens when fools don't have enough to do to keep themselves busy. You bitch and moan about losing your personal freedoms, try going somewhere which actually does limit your freedoms. Today you can't drink out of the bottle of your choice at a city counsel meeting, tomorrow they will take your guns away. I can see the logical jump to that. GROW UP. You are way less mature than my kids were at 2 years old. Whine and moan when you don't get your way.

    Reply
  38. Bob, what do you see as the most problematic restrictions of liberty these days, and what are you doing about it?

    Reply
  39. taxes. I vote. And what do you people do other than STUPID protests that mean NOTHING? Your approach seems to be, "If I yell real loud, what I'm saying must be right." You are all full of shit, and I mean no disrespect to shit when I say that.

    Reply
  40. taxes

    I'm definitely with you there :)

    I vote

    I vote too, but that alone seems fairly ineffective, don't you think? Have you considered getting involved with an anti-tax lobbying group, or running for office? Do you call your representatives (especially at the state level) often?

    And what do you people do other than STUPID protests that mean NOTHING? Your approach seems to be, “If I yell real loud, what I’m saying must be right.” You are all full of shit, and I mean no disrespect to shit when I say that.

    Keep in mind that not all people here agree on all things. There are many particular cases of activism that I haven't agreed with, for example.

    Don't you think civil disobedience can be effective? I mean, there are plenty of historical examples where it has been very effective — MLK and Gandhi are two of the more famous ones.

    Reply
  41. Please, do not even think to refer to yourself in the same context as Martin Luther King and Gandhi. Yeah, right, they were being arrested, hosed with water cannons, attacked by police dogs and shot for things like disrupting a city counsel meeting or smoking pot on central square or women going topless on main street. Civil disobedience can be effective when the causes are just and real. Your 'causes' are meaningless. To in any way try to elevate your stature or presume legitimacy by claiming to use the same tactics as KIng and Gandhi is pathetic.

    Reply
  42. Almost as pathetic as 'adults' who use emoticons. Losers.

    Reply
  43. I am glad you're experiencing cognitive dissidence Bob. Thanks for posting.

    Victims of the illegitimate "drug war" have been arrested, hosed with water cannons, attacked by police dogs and shot.

    The same tactics King and Gandhi used should be useful for ending violent state supremacy. Right?

    Reply
  44. Lots of great people use emoticons, don't be mean.

    Please, do not even think to refer to yourself in the same context as Martin Luther King and Gandhi. Yeah, right, they were being arrested, hosed with water cannons, attacked by police dogs and shot for things like disrupting a city counsel meeting or smoking pot on central square or women going topless on main street. Civil disobedience can be effective when the causes are just and real. Your ’causes’ are meaningless. To in any way try to elevate your stature or presume legitimacy by claiming to use the same tactics as KIng and Gandhi is pathetic.

    So it's the issues you disagree with, more than the tactics, is that right? That is, you'd support the tactic of civil disobedience if it were used against laws you consider immoral?

    Reply
  45. Like I said, pathetic losers. Just keep yelling louder, maybe someone will hear you. No one's gonna care, because what you are yelling is so stupid. But maybe you will be heard. Again, to invoke the names of Dr. King and Gandhi show how skewed your mind is. You barely belong on the same planet as them, let alone in the same conversation.

    Reply
  46. Can you answer my question Bob? And, what idea, precisely, do you think is stupid? I certainly don't agree with everything everyone says, so who knows, maybe I'll agree.

    Are there any other issues you think the government is overstepping on? For example, do you think a person has the right to allow smoking in their business?

    Reply

Care to comment?

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!