Corruption Rises to the Top

On April 14th 2009, I was filming in the second floor lobby of Keene City hall. According to an unsigned document on the wall filming is prohibited. I was arrested and cuffed over a silver bracelet seen in the background of the video.

I dropped to the floor and as they dragged me around the bracelet was cutting into my wrist causing excruciating pain. Eli Rivera, now running for sheriff, found this rather amusing. This video depicts the events that happened before my camera was turned off.

A few months later Activist Kurt Hoffman was taken to the same back room where according to Rivera, he fell while trying to escape. No felony escape charges were ever filed, and according to Hoffman and a witness, Rivera tackled him, putting Hoffman in a wheelchair for several weeks.

Please share this video, include it in your videos, and use it to show people the kinds of sociopaths attracted to power.

Credits:

Produced by – OTN Productions

Edited by – Sam Dodson

Narration – Zeus Legion

Update: I posted a question to the Eli Rivera for Sheriff’s discussion page, and something interesting happened. “Silent Nation” one of the trolls identified himself as Matt Sorenson. Here are a couple of his comments:

Then later he changed his comment. This all happened around 2am, so I’m guessing Matt came back from a bar wasted.

Eli has since deleted his facebook discussion page. I guess he wasn’t all that interested in talking over issues with his constituents.


316 comments
David
David

tea totalers....excuse me COFFEE CUP INCIDENT MAKES IT TO NPR

along w other free state and free keene stuff

david
david

I'm chanting to god Zeus with Swami Samananda and devotee David. Ooooommmm.... Yaba daba dooooo..........

Paul
Paul

Paul-I would have to disagree about the drinking in unison-we both finished our coffees at the same time,and the waitress had no problem ignoring us! ;) Of course,we had be taking up space for about 3 hours! —bil

Lol yep :)

P.S. david, I suggest you avert your eyes, as this post has not one but two emoticons.

david
david

Mmmmm.... Root canal. Ahhhh...nice.

David
David

u guys must enjoy fighting and making personal attacks when you have nothing else...............:worse than a waist of time .I'd rather have a root canal

david
david

Whoa holy, I don't know what Shri Guru Charana Sarojaraja means, but it sure pissed off Swami. Maybe it was the emoticon. You gotta watch that suff. Doesn' always come across well.

David
David

from the master : yaba daba doo

david
david

So Sam, which was it, a compliment or a criticism?

david
david

Snatch the pebble from my hand, Grasshopper holy_canole.

david
david

Om shanti, Swami Samananda

holy_canole
holy_canole

"Is that criticism or a compliment from the master at it?"

haha

david
david

You seem to have a knack for taking small slices of an event to base your opinion upon, while ignoring everything else.

Is that criticism or a compliment from the master at it?

holy_canole
holy_canole

"Sorry Holy – Once again your ignoring reality. The fact is they did ignore unison drinking in far greater numbers at the next meeting. "

That doesn't mean it still wasn't distracting.

"The meeting went on without incident because the bureaucrats decided not to make a scene after they realized they couldn’t enforce their silly ordinances without violating basic constitutional rights they pledged their integrity to protect."

Under Robert's Rules of Order they're allowed to remove anyone, at anytime, whom they feel are disrupting the meeting.

I think they chose to ignore you because they knew you'd go away eventually, which you did.

"You seem to have a knack for taking small slices of an event to base your opinion upon, while ignoring everything else."

My opinion that drinking in unison was distracting still stands.

Sam Dodson
Sam Dodson

Sorry Holy - Once again your ignoring reality. The fact is they did ignore unison drinking in far greater numbers at the next meeting. The meeting went on without incident because the bureaucrats decided not to make a scene after they realized they couldn't enforce their silly ordinances without violating basic constitutional rights they pledged their integrity to protect.

You seem to have a knack for taking small slices of an event to base your opinion upon, while ignoring everything else.

holy_canole
holy_canole

"They could have easily ignored people drinking unison. You have to be beyond thin skinned for something like that to bother you (or more likely, just outraged by the notion that your peons aren’t showing you “respect”)."

No, because once he noticed the drinking, I'm sure he noticed the bottles and possibly the word 'beer' so it got even more distracting.

"Except that the cops were asking what was in the bottles, and let heika be when she told them it was water.

So clearly it was not any aspect of their behavior, but rather the alleged content of the bottles that was the issue."

*Afterwards*....we're talking about when Mr. Pregent was originally distracted.

bil
bil

Paul-I would have to disagree about the drinking in unison-we both finished our coffees at the same time,and the waitress had no problem ignoring us! ;) Of course,we had be taking up space for about 3 hours! ---bil

david
david

Zeus, the fact that you still claim James to be the aggressor shows just how warped and twisted your mind to be. Saying, when asked a question, "get you morons out of here." in a completely non-threatening tone. does not aggression make. Free speach might be annoying and insullting. Tough shit. Sam makes the FIRST aggressive AND threatening move by getting in James' face. End of fucking story. You are totally delusional if you see it otherwise.

Paul
Paul

Thanks for those very kind words Zeus, I likewise appreciate your contributions, and very much agree with the bulk of what you say.

Zeus
Zeus

Thank you to Paul for your immense patience, rationality, perspective, open mind, and calm wisdom during the discussion. We may not see entirely eye to eye on this one, but the principles always remain the same.You never wavered in navigating the choppy waters and helped keep the ship steady in an unceasing storm of hostility and irrationality.

Paul
Paul

And, Dale's little speech was about alcohol as well, not drinking patterns.

But it's stupid to still be discussing this so long after the fact. It's past time to let it go. I'm glad Dale seemed to wise up, and stop acting like an insecure bully for the second meeting.

Paul
Paul

For my part, the whole incident made me loose a good deal of respect for both James and Sam, both for their handling of the situation at the time, and in the aftermath.

And if that's the last I hear about this incident, I'll be a happy man, lol.

Zeus
Zeus

Simply because I do not agree with your unproven claims does not mean I haven't been listening nor objective in this entire discussion. You simply haven't provided evidence that convinces me you are correct.

If, after all this discussion and explanation after explanation by both Paul and myself among others, you still think James' spontaneous harassment of a total stranger was somehow justified, that's your choice -- albeit one I see as irrational. I think he could have chosen a more peaceful path to resolve whatever was troubling him.

Good day.

Paul
Paul

If you have to actively ignore something, it’s obviously distracting.

You can often notice something, then ignore it, no problem. That's usually how people respond to signs, which people hold all the time in town council meetings.

A couple of the members, if I recall, said they didn't even notice it until Dale stopped the meeting.

They could have easily ignored people drinking unison. You have to be beyond thin skinned for something like that to bother you (or more likely, just outraged by the notion that your peons aren't showing you "respect").

Not that I'd have minded if they'd been disrupted, as they're mainly in the business of stealing people's money and wasting it anyway (or at least spending it inefficiently).

I’m guessing that the drinking in unison is what drew his attention to the bottles in the first place…but that is just speculation–as is your prediction.

Except that the cops were asking what was in the bottles, and let heika be when she told them it was water.

So clearly it was not any aspect of their behavior, but rather the alleged content of the bottles that was the issue.

holy_canole
holy_canole

I'm done talking to a wall, Zeus. Most people disagree with you in this situation. You can continue to believe whatever delusions you think are true. It's clear that you're not planning on listening to what I have to say any time soon...you simply want to defend the stance you originally took.

holy_canole
holy_canole

"Then you saw a different video than I did. Go rewatch the clip linked earlier in the thread.

Sam asked him a question because James was walking around and through the shot shoving his cup at the cameras to capture the writing on it. He responded with “Get you morons out of here.”, a sweeping insult. Then he continued amping up his harassment until Sam stepped in to defend himself from the hostile man stalking him. Sam asked him to stop, walked away and James followed him blatantly intending to egg it on."

I didn't see a different video. You just agreed with me that James didn't say anything until Sam asked him a question...

And so what if what James was saying was insulting? As I said before, you don't have the right not to get offended in public (according to Sam) so it doesn't matter what James was saying--Sam made the initial aggressive act by rushing James.

"Others may disagree with me or not, but once aggressed against Sam was well with his right to use necessary reasonable force to remove the threat from his immediate presence."

Sam wasn't aggressed against first.

"If you can tell me how Sam harmed James prior to the incident — when it has been already established they didn’t even know each other –, I’m all ears. Otherwise, James was the aggressor who initiated the conflict."

As seen in this much too lengthy conversation, you are *not* all ears. Or if you are, then I suggest you get a hearing aid, because your ears aren't working.

Zeus
Zeus

But that’s totally ignoring the fact that when most people see brown bottles, they think beer. And rightly so, seeing as they are pretty much the only beverages served in those containers. Not to mention they were labeled ‘this is not a beer’ and the councilmen might have only seen ‘beer.’

Accusing the councilmen of wrongly assuming it was beer, is like accusing someone of wrongly assuming an airsoft gun with the orange safety ring removed of thinking it’s a gun.

First, are you comparing a beer bottle with a firearm? Because I know both of those things and they are nothing alike.

And what if it was beer? Did you not hear Sam ask on what authority (statute, ordinance, law, policy or procedure) Dale was citing when he claimed alcoholic containers (which they did nothave) was not allowed? Dale ignored him. No proof of jurisdiction or authority = no compliance.

The point being, these people randomly make stuff up and expect you to obey whatever they come up with and if you don't, they kidnap you at gunpoint ("arrest"), cage you ("jail") and demand a ransom ("bail").

Are you suggesting that's okay? That an elite minority of men and women who have sworn to uphold some old document called a constitution which claims they get their authority from "the people", can instead make up any rule they want on the spot and back it up with violence and coercion?

And I think even remotely objective person can recognize that Sam’s behavior, in terms of reaction is just as aggressive as the ‘statists’ often are.

Again, justifiable outrage is a far cry from intentionally harassing someone WHO HAS NOT HARMED YOU. Had James not harassed Sam, Sam would not have been in his face telling him to desist his hostility and the cup would never have been damaged.

I never claimed James’ intent wasn’t to bother Sam…I don’t think anyone did.

Again, it sounds like he was looking to incite a conflict and he got what he wanted. The world is now a better place, isn't it? Harassment and purposely inciting a conflict resolved everything, did it?

James was standing in a public space. He didn’t say anything until Sam said something to him.

Then you saw a different video than I did. Go rewatch the clip linked earlier in the thread.

Sam asked him a question because James was walking around and through the shot shoving his cup at the cameras to capture the writing on it. He responded with "Get you morons out of here.", a sweeping insult. Then he continued amping up his harassment until Sam stepped in to defend himself from the hostile man stalking him. Sam asked him to stop, walked away and James followed him blatantly intending to egg it on.

And you think Sam getting within an inch of James’ face was handling the aggression well, and making his ‘peaceful, non-violent’ point heard well?

Others may disagree with me or not, but once aggressed against Sam was well with his right to use necessary reasonable force to remove the threat from his immediate presence.

Bottom line: If you start it, don't be surprised if someone else finishes it.

If you can tell me how Sam harmed James prior to the incident -- when it has been already established they didn't even know each other --, I'm all ears. Otherwise, James was the aggressor who initiated the conflict.

holy_canole
holy_canole

"Meh. It’s easily ignored. I’m sure if they’d obviously been water bottles, they would have been ignored. Note that dale didn’t complain about synchronous drinking, but his assumptions about the contents of the bottle."

If you have to actively ignore something, it's obviously distracting.

I'm guessing that the drinking in unison is what drew his attention to the bottles in the first place...but that is just speculation--as is your prediction.

What remains is the fact that their actions were obviously distracting, and therefore disruptive.

Paul
Paul

Multiple people obviously drinking in unison? That is obviously distracting, and therefore disruptive.

Meh. It's easily ignored. I'm sure if they'd obviously been water bottles, they would have been ignored. Note that dale didn't complain about synchronous drinking, but his assumptions about the contents of the bottle.

holy_canole
holy_canole

"So what? Even it had been beer, their behavior was completely harmless. They were sitting there quietly drinking. That behavior is not disruptive."

Multiple people obviously drinking in unison? That is obviously distracting, and therefore disruptive.

Paul
Paul

But that’s totally ignoring the fact that when most people see brown bottles, they think beer. And rightly so, seeing as they are pretty much the only beverages served in those containers. Not to mention they were labeled ‘this is not a beer’ and the councilmen might have only seen ‘beer.’

So what? Even it had been beer, their behavior was completely harmless. They were sitting there quietly drinking. That behavior is not disruptive.

It's dale's absurd biases and behaviors that created the disruption.

outsider
outsider

Have you stopped beating your girlfriends?! Answer: yes or no ! Answer, or, you must be hiding something!

But seriously, can we get back to this pig, full of shit, rising to the top please?

And forget Sheriff, I nominate this sadistic animal to head our local Obama-Jugend division: "Scream swine, louder, louder!"

holy_canole
holy_canole

"That’s right. But as you may have noticed, Sam and Ian were seated. They didn’t suddenly get up and start shoving stuff at people, insulting them, or touching the councilors’ stuff. They sat there until Dale stopped the proceeding and blew the whole thing out of proportion."

James was standing in a public space. He didn't say anything until Sam said something to him.

"Again, it isn’t about being offended. It’s about initiated aggression. I feel James could have handled that a lot better, without the conflict, and still made his point, whatever it was."

And you think Sam getting within an inch of James' face was handling the aggression well, and making his 'peaceful, non-violent' point heard well?

holy_canole
holy_canole

"By the council? Absolutely they were hoping their actions would be unnoticed or ignored. The point is precisely that drinking out of brown bottles should not cause disruption, if drinking out of clear bottles doesn’t."

But that's totally ignoring the fact that when most people see brown bottles, they think beer. And rightly so, seeing as they are pretty much the only beverages served in those containers. Not to mention they were labeled 'this is not a beer' and the councilmen might have only seen 'beer.'

Accusing the councilmen of wrongly assuming it was beer, is like accusing someone of wrongly assuming an airsoft gun with the orange safety ring removed of thinking it's a gun.

"Yes, absolutely, or spoken to him politely about it.

But I think any even remotely objective person can recognize that to equate the drinking game to James’ behavior in terms of intent to cause disruption is extremely absurd."

And I think even remotely objective person can recognize that Sam's behavior, in terms of reaction is just as aggressive as the 'statists' often are.

I never claimed James' intent wasn't to bother Sam...I don't think anyone did.

Paul
Paul

david, your silence is deafening. You're not disputing the behavior of your gang.

When will you stop endorsing this behavior?

Zeus
Zeus

david:

Good to know you are a liar as well, Zeus. It’s good to see you have such high regard for honesty. You just pick and choose who to be honest with. Oh wait, that’s not being honest at all, is it?

I'm not sure what you're referring to, david. If you mean like telling the Nazis where the Jews are hidden, you're right. I don't tell them the truth. Same goes for the mugger in the alley. I don't tell him about the money I have hidden in my sock. I don't tell the serial killer where my knives are either. Shame on me.

holy:

Then WHY are you asking me for examples of his behavior?

Because you keep saying you have evidence that he has acted inappropriately i.e. aggressive behavior. If I see evidence that he has acted wrongly and outside the philosophy of liberty, I will say that he has acted wrongly.

Think of it this way...

Video 1: Man A comes up to Man B. Man A kicks Man B in the nads.

Video 2: Man B comes up to Man A. Man B punches Man A in the nose.

Who is responsible for the aggression in each of these imaginary videos?

Clearly Man A is in Video 1 and Man B is in Video 2.

In the cup video, James is responsible according to the evidence I've seen.

If you have a video where Sam does something that is inappropriate and unprincipled, I would say the same about him.

And Sam is a perfect angel, I suppose.

Nope.

And James was in a public space, exercising his right to protest. As Ian *and* Sam have told me multiple times, you don’t have the right to not be offended in public.

That's right. But as you may have noticed, Sam and Ian were seated. They didn't suddenly get up and start shoving stuff at people, insulting them, or touching the councilors' stuff. They sat there until Dale stopped the proceeding and blew the whole thing out of proportion.

In the camera incident, the law allows for filming in court. The court personnel chose to ignore the law (as they often do) and threw Sam et al out into the stairwell. When Sam filmed via the window, the court goon smashed his camera.

Again, it isn't about being offended. It's about initiated aggression. I feel James could have handled that a lot better, without the conflict, and still made his point, whatever it was.

All very subjective and irrelevant…

I say tomayto, you say tomahto.

Sam and Ian were *obviously* trying to distract Dale. James didn’t say anything until Sam said something to him. It was just as much Sam’s doing as it was Dale’s.

See Paul's response on this.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised to see you turning a blind eye to the parallels.

You're free to believe whatever you want, Holy. I stand by my observations and I'm willing to be has impartial as I possiby can whether you choose to believe that or not.

Until a day or two before this thread, I hadn't interacted with Sam in several months as I have been busy and he's got his own things going on as well. We don't play golf together, he doesn't buy me pizza, and I have no other vested interest in sticking up for him if he does something I find inappropriate. Just like James and Rivera, I will call him on it as I have done with other activists and non-activists alike.

Paul
Paul

Quietly drinking. In unison. In containers that were meant to look alcoholic. They weren’t hoping that their actions would go unnoticed.

By the council? Absolutely they were hoping their actions would be unnoticed or ignored. The point is precisely that drinking out of brown bottles should not cause disruption, if drinking out of clear bottles doesn't.

And Sam should have just ignored James’ actions.

Yes, absolutely, or spoken to him politely about it.

But I think any even remotely objective person can recognize that to equate the drinking game to James' behavior in terms of intent to cause disruption is extremely absurd.

holy_canole
holy_canole

"That’s completely false. They were quietly drinking. Trying to make a point about the absurdity of the “open container” laws? Yes. Trying to be a distraction — quite the opposite."

Quietly drinking. In unison. In containers that were meant to look alcoholic. They weren't hoping that their actions would go unnoticed.

"Dale was the one who made an issue of, basically, the color and material of the bottles (nobody would have considered soda or water bottles a “distraction”). He should have just ignored it – as he wisely did the second time."

And Sam should have just ignored James' actions.

Woulda shoulda coulda, huh?

Paul
Paul

I think this debate is way, way, way past its "best by" date.

But I want to respond to this:

Sam and Ian were *obviously* trying to distract Dale.

That's completely false. They were quietly drinking. Trying to make a point about the absurdity of the "open container" laws? Yes. Trying to be a distraction -- quite the opposite.

Dale was the one who made an issue of, basically, the color and material of the bottles (nobody would have considered soda or water bottles a "distraction"). He should have just ignored it - as he wisely did the second time.

holy_canole
holy_canole

"What Sam “does all the time” is irrelevant in this SPECIFIC INCIDENT."

Then WHY are you asking me for examples of his behavior?

" In this instance, James was the one behaving inappropriately."

And Sam is a perfect angel, I suppose.

"Sam was in a so-called “public” place filming bureaucrats performing their duties using money they’ve stolen from him (and everyone else). When he was forced into the stairwell he filmed through the window and the bureaucratic goon took great sadistic joy in breaking Sam’s camera. So no. Out of any number of videos you might have picked that I am not familiar with, I am aware of that one and its a terrible choice to try and make your point."

And James was in a public space, exercising his right to protest. As Ian *and* Sam have told me multiple times, you don't have the right to not be offended in public.

"Clearly, Dale stopped the meeting himself"

And in the cup incident, clearly Sam stopped the interview himself...

" Even when Sam admonishes John MacLean regarding their hostile actions, there is no anger or rage in his voice. He is loud enough to be heard, he is seen smiling early on, he is not touching anyone, dancing around them, putting things in their face, messing with their property, calling them names or anything else that I can deem remotely hostile."

All very subjective and irrelevant...

"Sam, Ian, et al made a point without actually doing a single thing. Dale made it all happen on his own. That’s a far cry from James’ behavior in the other incident."

Sam and Ian were *obviously* trying to distract Dale. James didn't say anything until Sam said something to him. It was just as much Sam's doing as it was Dale's.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see you turning a blind eye to the parallels.

david
david

Good to know you are a liar as well, Zeus. It's good to see you have such high regard for honesty. You just pick and choose who to be honest with. Oh wait, that's not being honest at all, is it?

David
David

well i dont......:-) lol

Paul
Paul

Yeah, stealing's ok when you do it from people with low incomes. How silly of you to object, Zeus. Make more money, then you can complain about getting mugged.

Zeus
Zeus

I don't need to nail you, david. It's clear you've got nothing to add to a real discussion.

Other David:

I never said I didn't make decent money. I only mentioned a portion of how much they were able to steal from me. :P <--emoticon!!!!!

David
David

thats attractive .trashing someone because they don't make a ton of money...............

guess i'm trashed too.lol

david
david

Yeah, welfare. You sure nailed me.

david
david

There goes your job security.

Zeus
Zeus

Of course he is, Paul. He's got nothing but insults. He can't explain why he supports the violence of the state, he can't think or reason for himself, he just knows he likes things the way they are and liberty activists are a threat to his sweet, sweet welfare check.