Election Officials Illegally Confiscate Fliers from Voters in Keene’s Ward 4

November 9, 2012 by Ian
Filed under: Civil Disobedience, Corruption, Issues, New Hampshire, News, Personal Freedom, Politics, Video

Liberty activists handing out quarter-page fliers advocating for libertarian candidates Ian Freeman and Darryl Perry were targeted in a sneaky manner by election officials. When voters would enter the building the poll workers would tell them it was illegal for them to have the flyer and then snatch it from them and throw it away. Hearing this from an exiting voter, I investigated and found the claim to be true.

Despite the “Department of Justice” sending an agent down to ostensibly correct the Ward 4 staff, the behavior continued later, as we also documented. The clueless ward moderator claimed she was too busy to properly educate her volunteer “greeters” (enforcers) on the law, which she herself did not know.

As a result, countless voters had their rights oppressed by officious bureaucrats who made the law up on the spot. We documented and called them on it and the behavior continued. Apparently they were pulling out all the stops to prevent the libertarians from getting as many votes as possible.

The DOJ is aware of this situation but don’t expect any actual consequences to come to these government workers. Odds are they’ll be back at it next time, too.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Kathryn-Talbert/1449673459 Kathryn Talbert

Do you think anyone else wouldn’t do this if they were able? Everyone is regularly stopped from handing out lit and ‘politicking’ at the polls, no matter what their political affiliation.

If you find this to be incorrect, then we’ll be on it like white on rice handing out all the lit we can find to tell people what the Free Staters are all about.

You can bet on that, so I for one, will be waiting anxiously for that investigation.
- MaineShark
  
  Handing out literature /outside/ the polls (you know, the same place where folks stand around with signs) is perfectly legal. There’s often a line to indicate how far it must be from the door, or folks just have common sense and stay far enough away. But, outside that exclusion zone, handing out literature is legal, and it is legal for a voter to carry that literature in, so long as the voter does not try and actively show/hand it to others.
- DespoticKeene
  
  Have you passed the bar yet?
- MaineShark
  
  I probably could, considering some of the idiots out there practicing law. But I’ve no interest in office work; I prefer working with my hands.
  
  You’re just upset about how badly you got nailed on the metal detector thing, aren’t you?
- Lara Castro
  
  There are idiots practicing law? I find that hard to believe. Perhaps you are mistaking disagreement for stupidity.
  
  If you are in fact aware of idiots who have been granted license to practice law, you might do the public a genuine service and name their names, along with your evidence of their idiocy.
- MaineShark
  
  The majority of lawyers are mere technicians, with no meaningful skills to speak of. Lawyers average around one standard deviation above the mean intelligence. Or, in other words, around half of all lawyers are not as smart as George W Bush.
- Lara Castro
  
  I wasn’t asking about “the majority,” nor was I asking about “average.” I was asking about any. Are there any practicing lawyers who are idiots? You referred to “some of the idiots out there practicing law.” Those are your words; I’m asking whether you stand by them as literally denoting your intended meaning. I’m asking whether or not such persons actually exist, and I am suggesting that if they do exist that you name them here and now, and provide your evidence that they are idiots. I’m sure I’m not the only reader here who would find such information valuable, if it exists, which, as I’ve said, I doubt.
  
  Or if, as it appears, you cannot do so, that’s fine too. It answers my question. But if that’s the case, then may I humbly suggest that you might rehabilitate your credibility somewhat by retracting your earlier claim for having been made in the absence of any evidentiary basis.
- MaineShark
  
  I think you need to look up what “average” means. By definition, half of all lawyers are below the average lawyer.
  
  If you’re so ignorant of the legal system that you’ve never run into one of these fools, and would really like an example, do a web search for Arelia Taveras.
- Lara Castro
  
  Wow, you’re really defensive and confrontational aren’t you? So quickly you want to change the subject from whether a statement you made is true to calling me ignorant. Do you think calling me names will distract readers from the fact that you’re making claims you can’t back up?
  
  And then you pull the old “I don’t need to prove anything, go look it up yourself” line. No thanks, I don’t need to go looking for nonexistent evidence to make your case for you. I’m sure if you had any supporting facts, you would have stated them in plain declarative sentences by now.
  
  And while we’re on the subject of ignorance, I do know what average means, and you are obviously are ignorant of basic statistical definitions, since you don’t know the difference between an average and a median.
  
  I can see why you must content yourself with being a manual laborer who imagines he could pass the bar exam. You obviously have a distaste for facts, and failing the bar exam would be particularly inconvenient to your arrogance.
- MaineShark
  
  Specious nonsense. I provided you with evidence, and you’re then going to claim that no evidence was provided? Fails the sniff test.
  
  You don’t seem to grasp that “average” can mean either mean or median.
  
  Any fool could pass the bar exam. My exact IQ is a documented fact, and I have no interest in ingelligence as a determining factor. I’ve met folks with astronomical IQ’s who were total fools (garbage in, garbage out), and I’ve met folks who were below-average who, nevertheless, reached correct conclusions (merely taking a bit longer to get there).
  
  Only someone with absolutely nothing else going for him/herself actually cares about trivial things like “ability to pass the bar.” Might impress the yokels, but it won’t impress anyone with enough sense to realize that it’s nothing but a good-old-boys’ club, nor will it impress anyone with enough intelligence to realize how ridiculously low a bar is set by the bar.
  
  A typical Mensan could blow the bar out of the water, and Mensa only requires an intelligence equivalent to the top 2% of the population – take an representative sample of fifty individuals, and one of them will qualify.
  
  Realistically, intelligence is not a meaningful consideration, except in double-standard-deviation multiples. Up to two standard deviations, there’s little difference worthy of remark between individuals. Between two and four, there’s noticeable difference versus the first group, but not within the second group. And, generally-speaking, anything above four standard deviations is all one large group; no one can reasonably tell the difference between a Promethean and a Megan by casual observation.
  
  The idea of anyone hanging their hat on a real or perceived ability to pass the bar is ludicrous. It’s a threshold that is nowhere near the thresholds involved in the sort of intelligence that’s worthy of bragging rights. Compared to the spectrum of human intelligence, “passing the bar” is barely distinguishable from “capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.”
- Lara Castro
  
  I must confess, when I saw your post begin with the words “Specious nonsense,” at first I thought you referring to what I had just written. I didn’t realize it was the heading of the content to follow.
  
  For someone who would have the world believe he is in possession of so many facts, you do a remarkable job of concealing their evidentiary basis. Yet my challenge for you to provide any evidence in support of your specious nonsense stands. In fact, I’ll quote some of your latest unsupported claims right now:
  
  “Any fool could pass the bar exam,” and “passing the bar” is barely distinguishable from capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.” What is your evidence for these claims? It’s a fact that many people fail the bar exam, so what does that make them?
  
  “My exact IQ is a documented fact.” Documented where? Do you think readers here ought to find your say-so authoritative enough that this alleged documentation is unnecessary?
  
  “I’ve met folks with astronomical IQ’s who were total fools.” These folks have names, yet you don’t provide them, and presumably they did something worthy of being called a fool, yet you keep such acts a secret. Is that because you think readers here ought to accept your opinion as so authoritative that they need not form their own?
  
  “Only someone with absolutely nothing else going for him/herself actually cares about trivial things like ‘ability to pass the bar.’” The fact that this was not your first and only response to the OP’s inquiry as to your qualifications for dispensing legal advice indicates that you do in fact care about this trivial thing. Logically this is an admission on your part that you have “absolutely nothing else going for yourself.” Do you agree? I doubt it. If nothing else, you are consistent, which is why I expect you will let your consistent conceit trump logical consistency.
  
  The bar association is “nothing but a good-old-boy’s club.” So you are claiming that passage of the bar exam depends on personal connections? Again you have no evidence for this patently ludicrous claim.
  
  “A typical Mensan could blow the bar out of the water.” Another claim made without evidence, nor apparently relevance. The OP was inquiring into YOUR qualifications to give legal advice, not a typical Mensan. Are you saying you are a typical Mensan? If so, care to tell us what your membership number is?
  
  “Realistically, intelligence is not a meaningful consideration, except in double-standard-deviation multiples….” Need I repeat myself? More claims lacking in evidence.
  
  I don’t blame you for wanting to protect your own self-esteem, but I ask you whether it’s really worth the harm resulting from putting yourself in this position where everyone reading this thread can see that you basically just make things up as you go along? The OP asked a very legitimate question that any reasonable person would want to know in trying to assess the credibility of your legal advice. Despite repeated attempts to turn your attention back to that topic at hand you are doing everything in your power to distract readers from that question, starting with your attempt to change the subject to the “metal detector thing,” continuing non-stop to your attempt to characterize your qualification to give legal advice as “bragging rights.” Perhaps your are sincere, and are sincerely fooling yourself into believing that your various comments in any way address the original question. As just one reader of this thread, I can see that you are only undermining whatever credibility readers might have imagined your opinion worthy of upon reading your initial post regarding the election laws.
- MaineShark
  
  “It’s a fact that many people fail the bar exam, so what does that make them?”
  
  Low-grade fools, obviously.
  
  “Documented where? Do you think readers here ought to find your say-so authoritative enough that this alleged documentation is unnecessary?”
  
  Your lack of grasp of basic reasoning is entertaining. You proposed that a supposedly-false perception on my part regarding ability to pass the bar is somehow linked to my image of my own intelligence. I countered that my intelligence has been documented. The only individual who needs to have seen that documentation, in order to disprove your claim, is myself. Since my intelligence is a known quantity, to me, I need not base anything on an invention.
  
  “The fact that this was not your first and only response to the OP’s inquiry as to your qualifications for dispensing legal advice indicates that you do in fact care about this trivial thing. Logically this is an admission on your part that you have “absolutely nothing else going for yourself.” Do you agree? I doubt it. If nothing else, you are consistent, which is why I expect you will let your consistent conceit trump logical consistency.”
  
  Public school, right? Because none of that makes even the vaguest logical sense. My qualifications regarding the law are the fact that I’m actually competent. The bar is irrelevant to that, as its standard is below that of basic competency.
  
  “So you are claiming that passage of the bar exam depends on personal connections?”
  
  No. Try actually reading what I write. I do my best to write at a level which should be comprehensible to someone with a highschool education. If there’s something that’s unclear to you, please do explain your confusion…
  
  “The OP was inquiring into YOUR qualifications to give legal advice, not a typical Mensan.”
  
  You seem obsessed with this “OP,” but my response was to your nonsense…
  
  In any case, go look up the Mensa qualification scores on the LSAT, since essentially every law school graduate will have taken that test. Compare publicly-available statistics. I’ll wait.
  
  “Are you saying you are a typical Mensan? If so, care to tell us what your membership number is?”
  
  No, American Mensa is officially anti-gun, so I refuse to associate with them until they formally change that policy and issue a public apology. Plus, I have no real desire to join such a group, since it gets me nothing; I’m friends with a large fraction of the Mensans in NH, anyway, so the whole “networking” thing is pointless. If I wanted something for random bragging rights, I suppose I could submit my IQ scores to Prometheus or Mega, but I don’t see a benefit to justify it.
  
  “The OP asked a very legitimate question that any reasonable person would want to know in trying to assess the credibility of your legal advice.”
  
  Hardly. He has a long-established history of making false legal claims, which are easily blown out of the water by simple reference to the appropriate statutes. As noted in the “metal detector” issue. He is, apparently, completely incompetent and, as such, is not in a position to judge anyone else’s competence. Anyone requestion information about passage of governmental testing is similarly demonstrating a lack of interest in actual competence, since governmental tests like the bar are engineered to produce mediocrity, not quality.
- DespoticKeene
  
  ” He has a long-established history of making false legal claims, which are easily blown out of the water by simple reference to the appropriate statutes”
  
  I have a long-established history of not wanting to argue statutory interpretation with someone who was too stupid to pass the MPRE.
  
  FIFY.
- MaineShark
  
  Is “FIFY” your new dog, or something? It’s usually spelled “Fi Fi.”
  
  Anyway, you’ve long made ridiculous claims that have no basis in reality. Go argue in front of a judge that you don’t have to support your claims because you don’t feel like it. That will be amusing.
  
  And the MPRE is ridiculous nonsense. That’s like folks who are impressed by their “MilSpec” rifle. It sets the lowest acceptable standards, not the sort of standards that a professional would demand. /My/ standards are far higher, so I find things like the MPRE, building codes, and the like to be a waste of time. For one easy-to-understand example, if I spec out a system with an oil tank, it will be a double-wall tank that carries a warranty for $1M from the manufacturer against spill-related damage. Sure, I /could/ spec it out with a standard, single-wall tank, and be fully code-compliant, but if my name’s going on the design, then it must meet /my/ standards, not mere fire code.
- DespoticKeene
  
  If the MPRE sets the bar so low, it shouldn’t be that hard to pass. Why couldn’t you pass the MPRE if it’s so easy? I mean, if i was MENSA-eligible, I’d like to think that I was capable of scoring an 80.
  
  And btw, you ain’t a judge.
- MaineShark
  
  Why couldn’t I pass? Because it would be necessary to waste time actually taking such a test, in order to pass it. Why would I want to do that? I have no interest in becoming a professional lawyer, so it would be a ridiculous waste of my valuable time.
  
  If it means so much to you, pay me $50k, and I’ll take it. My time’s valuable.
- DespoticKeene
  
  So rather than risk failing, you make excuses. Coward.
- MaineShark
  
  I’ve also not gone to cullinary school. Makes sense, since I have no desire to become a chef.
  
  If you want me to waste my valuable time on something that I, personally, have zero interest in, then you have to pay me commensurately. Pretty simple.
- Lara Castro
  
  I don’t know about anyone’s history, but I’ve lost count of the false claims that MaineShark has made in this thread. If you remove all the red herrings and ad hominem and other logical fallacies, everything he’s said so far boils down to nothing more than: “you should trust my legal opinion, not because I have any expertise in legal rules or legal reasoning, but because I’m smart, and the proof that I’m smart is the result of a secret IQ test. I can’t tell you the type of test, when I took it, or what my score was, but trust me I’m smart. In fact I’m smarter than everyone else. You see everyone else has been measured using instruments that assess any fool as being smart, including but not limited to: the bar exam, graduation requirements for law schools, the LSAT, graduation requirements for four-year accredited colleges, the SAT, membership requirements for Mensa, etc, etc etc. All those measures of intelligence are invalid, but my secret IQ test, is more than valid. It’s documented, right here, in my secret files. Trust me.”
- MaineShark
  
  Stanford-Binet.
  
  But, as you seem to fail to notice, my point was that intelligence is irrelevant. A statement is true or false, regardless of the intelligence of the speaker.
- DespoticKeene
  
  You’re still upset you couldn’t get past character & fitness, aren’t you?
- MaineShark
  
  Haven’t tried, but I’m sure I could not demonstrate the level of incompetence and lack of character necessary to get in under the limit.
Lara Castro

Good article and reporting. My only uneasiness is what might be an expectation that the DOJ will be giving you any help. The law is not some organization that’s going to come defend your rights. The law is merely a collection of excuses that you can use to defend your OWN rights.

It’s the same way that the GOP didn’t screw Ron Paul, Mitt Romney did. The party is just a tool that different people can try to use against each other; it doesn’t act on its own. Same with the law: it’s just a tool. You still have to pick that tool up and use it yourself. The DOJ is just another group of people using the same tool for themselves, not for you. Be your own DOJ. Why not, as long as you have the law on your side.
Pingback: http://Openkeylogger.com/
Pingback: visit home page