State vs. Ademo Freeman, the Resistant Chalker

November 27, 2011 by Free Concord
Filed under: Civil Disobedience, Copblock, Court, Free Manch, Free State Project, Manchester, Noncooperation

Ademo Freeman went on trial last Monday in Manchester district court to answer to the charges of criminal mischief and resisting arrest. Ademo was the first of the Chalking 8 arrests made outside the police station during a police accountability rally on June 4. At least 17 supporters and members of independent media were present to witness as the state presented its case against Ademo, with five city of Manchester employees speaking in favor of the state.

Before the proceedings were underway, there was much conversation between liberty activists present and the representatives of the state. As these interactions were being filmed by various camera-wielding individuals, bailiffs approached those with cameras visible and handed them an order signed by the judge that limited recording to the duration of the trial itself. The order effectively banned pre and post trial interviews and interactions, which are often recorded when activists are due in court. The move was likely motivated by an interaction on camera which occurred outside courtroom #201 following my own trial three days prior.

At about 1:30, the event was to get underway when the defendant asked the status of two pretrial motions he had filed. Judge William Lyons indicated that he had denied both motions previously. Ademo responded that he would be ready to proceed after reading the judge’s ruling on the motions, and after a short recess, prosecutor Gregory Muller called his first witness.

Joseph Mucci, a sergeant in the Manchester police, appeared wearing green khakis and an olive t-shirt. His testimony began with him arriving on the scene at a quarter to five after having made an arrest. He observed what he described as a group “writing in colored chalk” on the police station. The group allegedly writing on the station wall were defendants Ademo and Wesley Gilwreath, who were arrested simultaneously. But it was not during their first interaction that Mr. Mucci decided to arrest Ademo and Wes. As the officer first approached the chalkers, he did not instruct them to stop chalking. He explained that he was awaiting orders from his superiors on how to proceed. This suggests that he himself was not sure whether a crime was being committed.

Once Mucci positively identified the defendant as the person he had observed writing on a wall with chalk, he was turned over to the defense for cross-examination. Ademo’s initial questions were met with a string of objections as he asked Mr. Mucci how he would define public property. That was determined to be a legal question, which the court would address, and the witness was not required to answer. Mucci testified that he did not consider the gathering a protest at the time, but that he had in retrospect.

The question was brought up as to whether the police’s actions in not making any effort or request to stop chalkers could be interpreted as permitting the chalkings. The prosecutor argued that this amounted to an ignorance of the law defense, and the rules concerning such an approach were then discussed before more questioning commenced.

Ademo asked each witness to define “damage”, and most explained that damage had been done because a complex cleanup method was used that city officials chose for resolving the colored retaining walls. Entered into evidence for all of the Chalking 8 was a memo written by Manchester police sergeant John Patti explaining that the fire department had a minimum cost associated with bringing their truck around the block to the police station. Though the cleanup lasted about 20 minutes, the memo stated that payment was required for a minimum of three hours of labor. Additionally asked of each of the state’s witnesses was how much they were being paid for their testimony. Most replied that they were currently on duty, and receiving time-and-a-half pay while in court.

Daniel Doherty, another Manchester police officer, testified next that he had assisted in Ademo’s arrest. He denied that there had been any physical, active resistance to the arrest, and noted that Ademo did not walk into the police station.

Doherty’s testimony was followed by that of Timothy Craig. Craig had not been on the scene that day. He is a detective who was, after the fact, given the task of collecting digital evidence, both from the Internet and from phones and cameras stolen by police from those present. He is seemingly the scapegoat for the gross incompetence of the investigation. Craig testified that he took all readable data from phones and cameras, and passed them off to his supervisors. Craig did not recall on the stand the identity of the mysterious next person in the chain of evidence, who so poorly organized the evidence that some relevant videos and photos from that day were never submitted. It should be noted that private, unrelated photos and videos of individuals with family and friends were distributed to all of the Chalking 8 in their discovery requests. As well, the police’s own video footage from the day was never preserved, despite claims by Manchester officers that such footage would be preserved at the time that private electronics were stolen. This was a clear violation of the search warrant, which authorized that only evidence relevant to the case be collected and distributed. Craig also testified that he is additionally employed by the Secret Service and Homeland Security, which perhaps explains why Manchester PD’s inability to properly investigate supposed crimes reaches ineptitude levels of federal proportions. John Patti signed the affidavit for the search warrant, so presumably he was responsible for ensuring that the terms were not violated.

Patti, the other arresting officer, was next on the witness stand. He acknowledged arresting Ademo after he declined to provide identification. Patti also testified to placing himself on top of Ademo after he dropped to the ground upon being grabbed. During direct examination, the prosecutor asked John a line of questions regarding the potential cost incurred by the city of Manchester due to the use of a fire truck, crew of four, and 750 gallons of pressurized water to wash away chalkings. Ademo asked how much, in dollar amounts, the fire department bills for “calls for service”. The prosecution asserted that they were not charging a Class A Misdemeanor in this case, and for this reason, considered the “damage” done by the defendant to be under $100. The judge never allowed the question of what specifically constitutes damage to be raised in court, ruling this to be a legal matter to be determined by the court.

Ademo began his cross-examination of Officer Patti by having him set the scene of the event. Patti described a peaceful protest, where some were carrying signs and speaking with people passing by. In his search warrant, Patti cited that his “training and experience” led him to believe that this was a “free stater” protest and that he was aware that people associated with this group record their interactions with law enforcement. As soon as Ademo asked if the protest was believed to involve participants in the Free State Project, Gregory Muller objected on the grounds of relevance. Citing the search warrant and a possible animus against the political refugees, the judge allowed Ademo’s line of questioning. Though Patti admitted there was no training associated with Free Staters as his affidavit implied, he stated that he was personally aware that some project participants record police. The direct question was asked, “What is your opinion of the Free State Project?” Following an objection, the judge surprisingly told the witness, “You can answer.” John Patti responded that he didn’t have a problem with them, and that he appreciates their enthusiasm for what they support.

In press coverage following the Chalking 8 arrests, Manchester police sergeant Todd Boucher classified the demonstration as, “…basically, a kind of anti-government protest.” He was who all officers deferred to as the officer in charge, and it is unclear whether or not he interacted with the public during the demonstration. John Patti was asked on the witness stand which chalkings he would have considered anti-government, and he did not recall any of them. After looking over his report, the one he could find most fitting that description, was “Government is monopoly”. He followed that with, “Kind of, ‘taxes are theft’.”

In explaining why Officer Patti chose to arrest Ademo as he walked away from him, he stated that his initial intention was to issue city ordinance violations to the chalkers. The resisting arrest charge was motivated by what Patti called “passive resistance”, which on cross examination he defined as to not physically resist, but to not comply with orders. When asked if he had harmed another’s person or property, Patti affirmed, citing the chalk writing on the wall of the station as harm. When asked to elaborate, he said there was a cost associated with removing it. When asked if there was an invoice for the cost, the answer was, “I’m not aware of an invoice.”

Prosecutor Muller asked one question during redirect, which inquired into what was said between Ademo and Officers Patti and Doherty at the time of his arrest. In re-cross, Ademo played the video, and even after reviewing the audio, they could not agree on what was being said in the video. Upon deciding not to continue the line of questioning, which Patti called a difference of interpretation, Ademo concluded with, “It’s in evidence” (referring to the video).

With only ten minutes left before the court would begin to close, the last witness was called. Deputy Fire Chief Michael Gamache was brought to the stand to articulate the fire department’s role that day. It was his decision to bring a fire truck to wash away the chalk. On cross examination, he acknowledged that there could have been other ways to remove the chalk. With the closest thing to a bill for service being John Patti’s memo in which he states the presumed cost, Ademo asked Gamache specific questions about the fire department’s billing policy:

What does 23 minutes of time with a four person crew cost?
-You get that information when you hire us.

Who was billed for the June 4^th cleanup?
-There was no one that was billed.

Ademo’s questions concluded with Gamache’s response that no one was billed for the chalk removal, and the prosecution rested. Having no witnesses, the defense also rested, closing evidence.

The judge indicated that, as he had in all prior Chalking 8 cases, he would be taking the matter under advisement. This means there will be some delay before a ruling is delivered, in which time the prosecution and defense are to compose legal memos supporting their points with case law. The two issues that the judge instructed Ademo to defend were ones that he had tried to address prior to trial. The judge dismissed the pretrial motions as not pretrial in nature, asserting that the trial was necessary to hear how the facts applied to this case. The first issue was the definition of passive resistance, and whether or not refusing to comply with an arrest constitutes resisting the arrest. Ademo did not physically resist his arrest, but did not assist in his own transportation either. The second issue was if there was a First Amendment protection for Ademo’s actions which should supersede local or state statute. The judge informed parties not to expect a ruling before the new year and concluded the day’s proceedings by criticizing the bureaucracy of his employers. Apparently the computer system had been down, and the judge did not have access to his case files. “I’m on day seven without computer access.”

Mike Sylvia

Do any of our legal scholars have an opinion on the scope of Administrative orders under Rule 54 of the Supreme Court? Specifically, do such orders apply to the People of NH whereas the rule states: "(4)(a) Exercising supervisory powers over judges, clerks, registers and court personnel;"?
david-keene

i hope the video is coming
mestupid

Oh Ademo, youre such a martyr for us all. I long to see the day when I can draw on a sidewalk with chalk and tell my grandkids it was because of you I enjoy this freedom~!
Matt G From NJ

to mestupid- do you not see ANYTHING unreasonable with the way the cops and the state handle some things? like- in this case- writing with chalk on a sidewalk or wall. who cares? It seems to me that Ademo is not on a quest to legalize chalking. It seems to me that it just happens to be chalking that got him inside the system (this time) to expose how ludicrous some cops and prosecutors can be. This whole experience could potentially influence these particular cops involved to think twice before making nonsensical arrests. They may think back to this experience and think to themselves "was it worth it? do i really want to do all this paper work and go to court?"
Bill

I don't believe there will be any video. The video's of late have been showing the Keeniacs to be a bunch of lying hypocritical ass clowns. How ironic……. Ass Clowns sharing the square with Juggalos!
Anonymous

Resistance is Fertile.
matt

@mattg –

There is a big difference between a child or artist creating something with chalk on a sidewalk then to actively walk to a police department/court, armed with video cameras, acting like the busload from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and writing a bunch of bullshit in the HOPES some dopey cop will come out and get triggered. Ademo got exactly what he wanted….so now he can get pinched for some bullshit violation that carries no real threat of any length of a jail sentence and he can chalk that up as some sort of big win. <—no pun intended. Same old story here….no matter how many times FreeKeene wants to immortalize specific arrests with some number The Chalking 8, the Filthy 5 etc. – it is still a bunch of bullshit – and in the grand scheme of things does nothing for the liberty movement except give it a black eye. How unfortunate so many others do legitimate activism and these buffoons keep hurting their efforts with these silly shenanigans.
Lpviper

Divide and conquer, matt, lol. But before you finish, tell me what you are considering the 'legitimate' activism, and what you consider 'illegitimate'. I am genuinely curious.

Thanks
NH Native

Based on what I've seen, I'd say "not guilty" to resisting arrest, and I'd say maybe $20 worth of damage to wash away the chalk (1/2 an hour with a garden hose). I'd give the option for the money to be paid to charity.

I don't consider this form of activism advisable, personally. It does constitute damage, even if it's minor, and is not likely to garner the support of average folks.
matt

Actually Viper, I was just trying to be nice. lol. No – I guess to myself, legitimate activism would be a group of individuals who gather to make effective change – and they target the people who can make that change and they do so in appropriate and respectful ways. The police department cannot make a change to laws. This Tom and Jerry stuff Ademo and others do does nothing except garner the same old scripted dialogue from people. For example…Meg McLain and her Lemonade stand. What did that do? Nothing. She got pinched….the courts eventually said the hell with it….they've moved on….and still to this day, one needs a permit to set up a stand on the National Mall. Why is that? Because the cops who work that area cannot make a change to the permitting process. Sure – it's an attention grabber for people to read, but so isn't every article in the NY Post. It's yellow press – it's sensationalism – it's entertainment – and it does nothing. In Ademo's case here though – yes, I get it, it's chalk….no big deal. But it is the delivery of his chalking that is the question. It's the taunting….the baiting – and it's the fish they wish to reel in that is the question. Instead of catching the shark, they are fishing for minnows. Makes for a great video for those who like him, but eh…not much else – and the proof is in the pudding as I am not aware of Ademo effecting any change whatsoever.

If Ademo is going to insist on continually engaging with the police, I would rather he be as open minded to their thought process as he expects them to be open minded to his ideas. I believe he has that potential if he would bury this axe he has to grind. To try and legitimately learn what it is they have to do – instead of tripping them up with loaded questions, such as "Do you feel good about getting a paycheck to hurt peaceful people"….crap like that. I don't know….hopefully you get my drift.
NH Native

Matt, I agree with some of what you say — including being open minded and burying axes — but police have responsibility for their actions too. If a law is immoral, they shouldn't mindlessly enforce it. Now, whether chalking a police station is the best way to get this point across is another question …
NH Native

(I'd say it isn't)
matt

Yeah I hear you – I understand. However, I personally don't want police officers deciding for me what is right to enforce and what isn't. So many of us clearly have opinions on what is immoral and what isn't. Perhaps there are police officers who have a personal opinion that it is okay for a dog to bark incessantly all night long. I wouldn't want that guy's personal opinion to get in the way of getting my neighbor to take responsibility to put it indoors for the night. Maybe some cops think it is okay to drive around at a .40 so long as they don't crash into anything, or that it is okay to smack a wife around (clearly – some people DO think this is all okay to do).

I agree with you – police are definitely responsible for their actions – but they are not responsible for taking individual stands on what they should/will enforce. They are paid to enforce the law – not decide which ones they should. If there is a law they feel is immoral or contrary to their personal beliefs – they are in the wrong business, but that is just my opinion. Like any one of us, if he/she wants a law changed, there are ways to try and make that happen. Obviously there are some real live morons in the legislative branch, but – one never knows unless they try. But I also agree, chalking and calling firemen lame pieces of shit bureaucrats is not the way to go!
NH Native

If a police officer refuses to stop dangerous people – like those who commit assault&battery, they can be fired.

There have always been immoral laws, as well as just plain silly laws that generally don't get enforced. To me, I'm much more comfortable with police acting as human beings with consciences — as good neighbors, helping to resolve disputes and stop dangerous people.

The idea of enforcers who will do things they themselves know to be immoral, just because they were told, is quite frightening, in my opinion. I actually think the former description is more in line with what police have traditionally been — certainly in decades past. I like the idea of police who are really part of the community, and more closely aligned with their neighbors and their needs, than they are with orders from superiors or from politicians in a capitol hundreds or thousands of miles away.
NH Native

I'm sure there certainly exist crazy and irresponsible people, as you describe — I think virtually nobody would want them as police officers, though, including me.
Bob Constantine

I believe the original reason for the chalking was to protest that members of the Manchester Police Force beat a man senseless in / outside a bar.

As far as things not changing and Police "just following orders". Didn't Police take an oath to protect their "constitutution" and laws that subvert that? Somewhere in the New Hampshire constitution under "natural rights" one could easily construe that if their is no victim, there is no crime. For a cop to "just do their job" they should first understand "the order of the hand" and which things they swore to protect and which things are supposed to take priority…meaning many statutory laws seem to contradict what is sold as the highest law of the land, their constitution.

However asking some of these cops to read and comprehend that which they swore to uphold might be difficult after a hard night of drinking and beating up other people at bars.
theKINGofKEENE

Can we get the Manchester courts to do some training for the goons thugs, and etc., here in Kangaroo Court???
theKINGofKEENE

I mean, you really don't know just how pathetically incompetent this court here is, until you see a real*REAL* COURT* in action…
A Critic

"most explained that damage had been done because a complex cleanup method was used that city officials chose for resolving the colored retaining walls"

They couldn't wait for the rain?
Lpviper

matt on Mon, 28th Nov 2011 11:20 am

——————————————————————————–

Actually Viper…

——————————————————————————–

I hear you, matt, but I think I want to boil this down. Cops who enforce laws that punish people who aren't victimizing anyone are, in fact, victimizing people.

So I'm not coming out right up front with praise for these guys, ok?

'The police department cannot make a change to laws….'

No, but they can damn well stop victimizing harmless people. Is there something magical about 'lawmakers', that their writings and their edicts can instantly shut off the brains and halt the reasoning process of anyone who wears a tin plate on his breast?

I don't think so, but the evidence is that the cops do.

And that's downright fuckin' scary, bro.

Where IS the line? And does any of us REALLY want to be there to find out?