Rich Paul Vindicated on Weapons Charges

RichReleased2

Rich Paul: Vindicated

A couple of months ago, Free Keene blogger Rich Paul was arrested for “violation of probation”. Despite having failed a drug test and having admitted using cannabis, probation officer Jason Smith had chosen not to arrest Rich, per his testimony at the hearing below. Smith said he was arrested because a local hater snitched on Rich, claiming he’d violated probation by possessing a weapon.

Rich says he was using a camera monopod to take a defensive stance against two employees of Pedraza’s/Pour House who were threatening, and subsequently attacking, people who were chalking in Central Square. In point of fact, one Pour House employee who did a lot of threatening, is seen in the video of the incident, taking the camera Rich had put down and smashing it, among other criminal acts.

In a full violation of probation hearing at Cheshire superior court this week, Rich was jailed over the cannabis violations, but vindicated of the most serious charges: weapons & rioting. The video and testimony made it clear his actions were justified. He was legitimately using the monopod to prepare to defend himself and others from attack. As I understand it, in NH even felons are allowed to defend themselves against attack, and use anything in the vicinity in order to do so.

Regarding the cannabis violations, probation officer Smith testified that probation was pointless for Rich, as he is going to continue using cannabis for medical purposes. There are 500 people on probation, and only four agents, according to Smith. Judge John C Kissinger took Smith’s recommendation and agreed to remove Rich’s probation after he serves six months in the Keene Spiritual Retreat! (Factoring in his time served prior to the hearing and presuming he meets the NH “good time” requirements, he’ll be out in about three months, in time to speak at Keenevention 2014!)

Rich’s testimony is passionate and principled. This is a great court video:

 

The probation system is awful and is designed to violate the participants, over and over, keeping them in an unending cycle of destruction of their lives. Being in jail for a shorter time is far preferable to three years of drug tests, reporting, and home searches. Something I learned about the probation system is that in a probation hearing, there are no rules of evidence! Plus, the conviction requirement is “preponderance of the evidence”, which is a lower burden of proof than an actual criminal trial, which is “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

There was no doubt that Rich held that monopod to defend himself and others. If anyone was acting in a criminal manner that night in the park, it was the people from Pour House/Pedraza’s (and local thug James Michael Philips) who committed criminal threatening, assault, disorderly conduct, theft, destruction of evidence, and destruction of property – all caught on video. Thus far, no arrests have been made in the incident, besides Rich Paul. Who are the police protecting?

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


21 Comments

  1. KeeneGuy

    LMAO … too funny. Rich Paul is going to jail for 6 months, and you assclowns are claiming a pyrrhic victory. Way to go, FreeKeene.

    Reply
    • MaineShark

      Do you even know what a Pyrrhic victory actually is? Hint: this ain’t it. You can argue whether or not Rich made good choices, or even condemn him as the most evil man in history, if such is your desire, but the term you used simply does not apply. When you /attempt/ to appear intellectual, you just make yourself look foolish.

      As was noted, he’s also not going to jail for six months. Nor was your previous prediction that he’d be sent to State Prison correct.

      You’re really batting a pretty poor average, here.

      And he was exonerated of the only charges levelled against him which would indicate any sort of violent nature. As Ian notes, this hearing operates on a “preponderance of the evidence” standard, rather than “beyond a reasonable doubt” as in a criminal case. So, while that means it’s easier for him to be found in violation of his probation and tossed back in jail, it also means that in the points upon which he was exonerated, it’s far more meaningful. A “not guilty” verdict in a criminal trial can rest upon just a small shred of doubt – just enough to poke that one necessary hole in the prosecution’s case – which is why the verdict is termed “not guilty” rather than “innocent.”

      The finding on those charges in this case means that they State could not even prove that it was more likely than not that he was guilty as charged. If the scales tip /at all/ in one direction under the preponderance standard, that’s the ruling. So, what this means is that it’s /at least/ fifty pecent certain that he did nothing in violation of the weapons rules (rather than a criminal “not guilty” finding, which might mean that it’s only 0.1% certain).

      “Preponderance” is also the standard used in civil cases, so if anyone chose to sue him, they would face an almost-automatic loss since a judge already ruled on the matter under the appropriate standard. And, similarly, if suit was brought against Philips or others as a result of their behavior, this point would already be similarly settled in that case.

    • KeeneGuy

      “A Pyrrhic victory is a victory with such a devastating cost that it is tantamount to defeat. “

      Sharkie: again you have no clue – which is not surprising since your command of the English language is not much better than my dog’s. I think going to jail and having a criminal record as a result is devastating, don’t you?

      Yeah, maybe he’ll be out in 3 months – but I guess we’ll see. It’s just a matter of time before this habitual screw-up ends up in jail again, however.

    • MaineShark

      Do please explain how him going to jail is a /cost/ of this victory.

      He was victorious on the trumped-up weapons charge. His probation was revoked because he did not obey their edicts in regards to marijuana. The two are unrelated.

      A Pyrrhic victory only occurs when the cost of attaining that particular victory results in devestation to the victor.

      So, for example, if you were being mocked for wearing mis-matched socks, and you defended yourself by announcing that you had to do so because your dog ate the other sock while you were having sex with it, that would be a Pyrrhic victory, because you would be mocked more intensely for your bestiality than for wearing mis-matched socks, and because you admitted the bestiality in a direct attempt to “win” on the sock issue.

      Rich’s use of marijuana had nothing to do with the “monopod incident.” The two are unrelated. If he’d kept his marijuana use completely secret and at the weapons hearing announced, “that’s not me in the video; I was home toking up at the time!,” then that would be a Pyrrhic victory, because the defense against the one charge led to the finding that he violated the other. But that’s not at all what happened. Nor did anything similar happen.

      The two issues are parallel and unrelated; ergo, you are utterly wrong in your use of the term “Pyrrhic victory,” and just digging a deeper hole that shows more and more clearly just how ignorant you really are. A Pyrrhic victory only occurs when the victory on one issue directly leads to the defeat on the other (as when King Pyrrhus defeated the Romans in battle twice, but lost so many troops in those two battles that he ended up losing the war, paving the way for the Romans to expand across the Italian peninsula)(interestingly, if Pyrrhus had not involved himself, the Romans would have won more easily against their neighbors, but defeating minor armies would not have given them the prestige they gained by defeating Pyrrhus – the fact that he got involved and /lost/ indirectly led to the formation of the Roman Empire by makign Rome known as a major power).

    • KeeneGuy

      Sharkie: you’re wrong, no matter how you try to spin it and paste in text you found on Google. I think it’s hysterically funny how you try to go out of your way to assert your pseudo-intelligence when the only one you’re convincing is yourself.

      Interesting you brought up bestiality … that was the only thing I believe you actually have experience with. Please, enlightened us some more about your extracurricular activities. I guess it’s better than being a pedophile, which was my first guess for you.

    • MaineShark

      Wow. “You’re wrong,” coming from someone who was /proven/ wrong. Well, that just settles that, doesn’t it?

      I don’t use Google, by the way. And I’ve been (correctly) using the term “Pyrrhic victory” since before Google even existed. Actually, since before you could even do something like “connect to the Internet” using an “ISP,” for that matter.

      Interesting how you always resort to blatantly-stupid insults when you are proven wrong. Any /adult/ could at least come up with amusing insults, or just say, “oops, I was wrong about that.” You just make yourself look utterly immature.

    • Richard Bauman

      Res judicata and collateral estoppel (the concepts you refer to in your last paragraph) require that the party, against whom the issue preclusion is invoked, was a party to the suit/determination( or in privity to a party to that suit). So, only the State of NH would be bar from relitigating that already decided issue. The reason is one of “due process”. Any individual, other than the State of NH, would be allowed to litigate the “weapons” issue.

    • MaineShark

      If you bothered to read my post, you’d note that I did not say they would not be allowed to litigate the issue, as I’m well aware of how estoppel works. I said they would suffer an almost-immediate loss, as Paul would be able to enter the finding as evidence, and few civil courts will attempt to overturn the finding of a criminal court.

    • Richard Bauman

      ” as Paul would be able to enter the finding as evidence,” – this is completely wrong. Under what Rule of Evidence do you think you can enter it? Due process concerns of the “new” party would prevent admission of any finding of the criminal court.

      See generally, Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. v. Shore
      439 U.S. 322 (1979)

    • MaineShark

      We’re not talking about estoppel. We’re talking about something being admitted as evidence.

      They would certainly be allowed to litigate, because estoppel does not apply. They would simply lose, as I stated.

    • thinkliberty

      Another post painting yourself as an authoritarian sociopath, history has you on record gloating about the caging of someone using medical marijuana.

    • KeeneGuy

      And yet he has no medical card, therefore no legal right to smoke marijuana. He broke the law and went to jail for it. Case closed. No one cares what whiners like you think about it.

    • thinkliberty

      More evidence of authoritarian sociopathy

    • KeeneGuy

      Let me guess: you were either toilet trained too early, or not hugged enough as a child. Did I guess right?

    • docmerlin

      Sorry dude, pieces of paper don’t grant rights. He has the right to do whatever he damn well wants so long as he isn’t hurting anyone else nor their property.

    • KeeneGuy

      Actually, no – he doesn’t. This is the problem with you FreeTards. We as a state pass laws and you as a citizen or visitor must adhere to them. You are certainly welcome to find another state or country that is more conducive to your desires, but while in NH you follow our laws. Rich Paul is in jail because he broke the law – it’s as simple as that.

    • state hater

      Neither you nor anyone else owns Rich Paul, shit-for-brains.

    • Sovereign101

      “We as a state pass laws and you as a citizen or visitor must adhere to them.”
      Really!

      Can you define “state” is it a legal fiction? How about “citizen” is he a subject citizen, because you say so, or is he a free sovereign person? You know, one of the people who ordained and established the government in the first place. Didn’t they teach you this in the public schools?

    • MaineShark

      Actually, since the prohibition against marijuana directly violates Article 3 (and others) of the New Hampshire Constitution, it is in point of fact no law at all and, therefore, he has every right (legal and otherwise) to smoke marijuana.

    • Ian Battles

      Hey, its a big enough deal for you to take the time to come here and comment.

  2. VotersRZombys

    You guys should start a petition to put in a pool and video game room in the retreat. Why not, its obvious the voters there don’t care if they pay for someone to take a three month vacation and pay for their rent, food, medical, and water. I’m sure many of the stopkeene dips are happy to see Rich go to jail even if its just three months. I’m sure they would have loved it if they could have paid for him to stay in jail for as long as possible. Since these idiots like wasting soo much money why not ask for more? Come on do the petition!

    Reply

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Protection In a World Without The State? | - […] you from owning weapons Detroit Threat Management, whose members are prohibited by the government from carrying handcuffs and guns…
  2. Manchester Activists visit Rich Paul at the Keene Spiritual Retreat | - […] Myself, Shire Dude, and Lauren Rumpler traveled from Manchester to Keene and visited Rich Paul and Graham Colson at…
  3. Leverett & River Street Residents Compete for Worst Neighbor Award | Free Keene - […] of the peace earned at least one person present, Rich Paul, a pseudo-criminal charge as he faced a violation…

Care to comment?