- Motion to dismiss PDF
- Notification of criminal defense PDF
- Motion to refrain from authorizing physical force to demand respect PDF

It was to be one of the last events of our weekend at Occupy the New Hampshire Primary. We had made signs, chatted with Ron Paul supporters, and danced to the Leftist Marching Band outside the debates at Saint Anselm College (where they had us corralled like misbehaving farm animals – all of us together, Romney, Huntsman, and Paul supporters, along with some extremely in-your-face Gingrich nuts). The night before, I had shared a crash pad in a basement bedroom with the Occupy New Hampshire media guy, some dude from Mother Jones, and two female Occupiers, my buddies from Occupy Hartford. I’m 43, but felt twenty years younger. The one thing we hadn’t done yet was visit a public event where we might get a chance to pose a difficult question to a candidate.

When we found out that Newt Gingrich was going to be speaking at a Latino Town Hall event at Don Quijote restaurant, my friend Rachel and I decided to go. We grabbed signs and took off. We arrived at Don Quijote’s, a tiny dive with about five tables and a very confused waitress. Luckily Rachel speaks fluent Spanish, and was able to figure out that the Town Hall was being held at the much larger other Don Quijote’s restaurant down the street and around the corner.

When we arrived, there were few protesters there, and we were able to walk into the restaurant unimpeded. I tucked my sign under my arm, but didn’t bother to take off my “Occupy Hartford” pin, or a handmade “99%” tag that someone had handed me earlier that day. I didn’t feel the need to hide who I was or where I was from, as I wasn’t there to be disruptive, but instead, to question Gingrich on his thoughts about the Citizens United decision and how it affects American citizens. Rachel wanted to ask him about his (we suspected) nonexistent relationships with Latinos.

The restaurant was full, even perhaps over capacity. We squeezed into a spot against the wall where we could sort of see the stage (Rachel being ten inches taller than me afforded her a better view, I’m sure) and waited for Newt to make his appearance. Immediately one of Newt’s supporters, someone who was surely a frat guy ten years before, started heckling us about our signs, calling them garbage, and accusing us of littering after we put one of the signs against the wall. We gave back as good as we got, and though tensions were too high for it to be completely “good-natured,” I wasn’t too worried. I asked a guy standing next to me to help me hold the sign up against the wall, but out of the corner of his mouth, he told me he was trying to be incognito. His fur coat and pink scarf gave him away as a member of Occupy, and Rachel later said she remembered him from the Gay Pride march earlier that day. He loosened up a bit when we told him we weren’t there to be disruptive, and asked to borrow my phone to take pictures of the complete lack of Latinos at the Latino Town Hall. I handed over my phone, then turned to my friend Rachel, laughing about the irony of the sea of rich white guys at the – and suddenly, my sign was ripped out of my hands, hard. I whipped around to see a guy disappearing through the crowd, with a large part of my sign clutched in his hand.

At that moment, I could not piece together what had happened. I didn’t know who this man was, or why he would so violently rip my sign out of my possession without a word. So I followed him, calling after him in anger, fear and disbelief. I believe my initial words were, “Are you SERIOUS?” Followed by a whole lot of, “Why?” and “Who ARE you?” I pushed through the crowd, my eyes on my neon green sign. At that moment, getting my sign back was the most important thing I’d ever done – it felt as if he was walking away with my right to free speech, with my very dignity. I caught up with him and grabbed for my sign, somehow snatching it back, and he wheeled around to face me. I again asked him, “Why are you doing this?” And he, with what seemed like an intense amount of rage, grabbed my arm and shook me roughly, and then pushed me back into the crowd. “Because we don’t WANT you here. Get out!” And he stalked away. I barely registered the earpiece and blazer he was wearing. Later I found out that Quinn Bowman of PBS News Hour came forward as a witness and his account corroborates my own. He tweeted from the event, “Man w earpiece at Gingrich event in Manchester struggles violently to get sign out of female occupier’s hands.” His comment to a Buzzfeed reporter later was, “He pushed and shoved her with considerable force, tried to take her sign and he seemed enraged that she was there.”

The chase and struggle had landed me at the front of the room, near the stage, in front of a sea of cameras. I turned with my sign, and beseeched everyone around me. “Did you see that? Did you see him assault me? He ripped my sign, and pushed me hard. I don’t understand what happened. Did you see that?” I believe all eyes were on the drama unfolding at the front of the room. I had begun to shake with the effects of being attacked completely without provocation. I continued to appeal to anyone who seemed like they were listening, and eventually a female officer asked me to step into the lounge area. I asked her if I would be able to come back into the room, and she was evasive in her answer. I told her I didn’t want to go, that I still had a question I wanted answered, but she was clear that it would not be a good idea for me to stay in the room. I finally followed her, because I needed to tell my story and I felt I needed her help. When we got out to the lounge, she said I would have to leave the building. I refused, saying I wouldn’t leave until the guy was questioned. She told me in a kind voice that Newt’s people wanted me gone, and that it was like being invited to a party, and then having the host ask me to leave. When I told her it was absolutely nothing like that, she then suggested I could be arrested for trespassing. Finally, a male police officer joined us, and I restated my position – I wanted this guy held accountable for what he had done. The male officer told me that he had gone into a “private meeting” that couldn’t be interrupted, and surely I could understand the delicacy of the, ahem, situation. Still, I stood my ground, saying, “He can assault me, and then because he’s in a private meeting, you’re not going to question him?” Finally they brought him out and asked me to ID him.

They led both of us outside and questioned each of us. They asked me to stay in the parking lot, but said I could demonstrate with the other protesters if I wished. Reporters surrounded me, asking for my story. After about five minutes, the male officer came back and told me I had two choices – to do nothing, or to press charges. What did I want to do? I thought for a minute, and then said I wanted an apology from my attacker. On camera. I gestured at the various reporters and cameramen milling around in the parking lot. The officer said they wouldn’t “make him jump through hoops,” so I thought for another moment, and said, “Fine. I want to press charges.” The officer said he would have to call a supervisor, and again for me to stay put. I told the Occupy group exactly what had happened, using the people’s mic, and then halfheartedly chanted with them until the officer returned with a case number and told me to call the police department the next day. I was completely shaken. I didn’t know what to do with myself, so I waited for the rally to end. I was without my phone, so I couldn’t reach out to anyone who cared about me. While I was outside waiting, another protester walked by me holding his bleeding hand. He said he had been punched in the hand several times by a Newt staffer, but didn’t want to press charges.

When I called the Manchester police department on Monday to follow up, I was told that the case was not a criminal one, and that my name appeared nowhere in the notes, and therefore I was not privy to any information. I was incredulous, and told the officer on duty what had happened to me, and asked that a supervisor call me back. A few hours later, I got a return call, and was told that the case number had “changed,” and they did have my information, and asked if I wanted to press charges. I again said that I did. Tuesday morning I received a call from the detective assigned to investigating the case, once again asking if I was sure I wanted to press charges, because it involved a lot of paperwork (on his part) and possibly a trip back up to Manchester from Hartford (on mine). He said I needed to make a decision quickly due to the attention from the press. I agreed to think about it overnight, talked to an advisor, and then called Wednesday morning and for the third time, I reiterated that yes, I still wanted to press charges. The detective took more information from me, and told me that the staffer’s report differed from mine. I told him I was not surprised.

It’s Friday night, and I haven’t heard back from the detective yet. I finally went to the doctor Wednesday night due to back and shoulder pain that the doctor attributes to the assault. She said it’s similar to the injuries people sustain when they’re hit from behind in a car accident. It was the sudden shock of the attack that messed with my muscles.

With every day that goes by, I find myself getting more and more angry. Do we live in a world where it’s acceptable for people to just take what they want with force? To assault people because you don’t like what they stand for? If the detective decides to not pursue the charges, I can only imagine it’s for political reasons, and that will not be okay with me. I was in New Hampshire fighting for civil rights in sort of a general way, but to have my own violated so blatantly has made it intensely personal. As for my resolve to continue to protest the erosion of our civil rights as United States citizens? I’ll tell you this: It’s unshakable.

Rebecca has filed a criminal complaint with the Manchester, NH Police and I’ve encouraged her to speak to a lawyer.

I’d be happy to be deposed for what I saw happen to Adam. These violent criminals need to be held accountable.

Don’t you worry… we’re not close to being done with them on self-defense freedom for PUBLICLY FUNDED AND TAX EXEMPT university students.

Notice how Judge Vaughn italicizes “responsible” citizens… to emphasize that Tommy Mozingo and I are not. (We’ve never been convicted of a single criminal offense.)

I’d say protesting the government in favor of natural and constitution rights is the only responsible thing to do when the government illegaly infringes on those rights.

I told the shift commander that he was absolutely incorrect about New Hampshire law due to a 1st Circuit Court of Appeals decision that denied qualified immunity to Boston, MA Police for making a similar arrest.

It is okay to be wrong… every human is wrong about stuff all the time. It does take, however, a big man to admit that he was wrong, and Lieuteant Dyac of the Hudson, NH Police proved to be a big man. Of course, it would have been preferred that he knew the law ahead of time, but we all know that ignorance of the law isn’t an excuse for US, but IS for state agents.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I am going to write a letter to Hudson, NH Police Chief Jason Lavoie praising his commander for his willingness to admit a mistake. I’d respectfully ask you all either do the same or call to quickly ask that the Chief be told that his Lieutenant is a step above many law enforcers we’ve encountered being wrong about the law. By taking the time to research the issue before taking action, Lieuteant Dyac saved his department from civil liability. He clearly is an asset to that agency.

YouTube commenters seem to agree:

These guys are good Officers, it’s obvious? they genuinely care about people and the constitution and they where very professional. Good on them.

LibertyNowRP2012

Wow. The? last minute just blew my mind. This is exactly the kind of cop we need. Wow.

WhatsReallyGoingOnUS

You’re looking really good Chief Lavoie!

Chief Jason Lavoie
1 Constitution Drive – Hudson, New Hampshire 03051
Business line: 603-886-6011

Shall we post his picture everywhere so we can let the world know who he is and hope that someone can identify him?

If no one can recognize him, don’t worry, the Hudson, NH Police will be identifying him shortly for us. Stay tuned to Adam’s show for the video about that. I’ll even help conduct the background investigation into who this criminal is.

One of the Speaker’s security agents felt the need to tell me that they “know” I am a former police officer. I’m sure they knew plenty about me… and I really don’t care.

To Speaker Gingrich’s private security company who went to great efforts to intimate Adam and I: WE ARE NOT AFRAID OF YOU. YOU’RE AMATEURS. Prepare for your screw-up to negatively affect your protectee’s presidential ambitions. I’m sure derailing your clients political campaign will get you lots of business in the future. I’ve already spoken to CNN and The New Yorker about you.

Since you know where I live, feel free to stop by so I can give you advice on how to NOT break state law in the future.

I’ll be home all day.

UPDATE:

Another of the thug AMATEUR “agent” who assaulted Adam opening himself up to both criminal liability and his company to a civil lawsuit.

I suspect he is a “supervisor” of sorts as the principal of the high school was seen in his vehicle consulting with him… even better for a civil lawsuit as a person with “supervisory” authority in the company is the one who did the assaulting.

“Hello, Newt? You may want to reconsider your run for President… I’m about to be criminally investigated.”

AMATEUR.

(Photo credit: Robin Freiheit)

Welcome to the Internet, AMATEUR.

AMATEUR security “agent” who told me he knows that I am a former law enforcement officer. You’re not supposed to let people know you’re doing background intel on them.

Tipping your hand is AMATEUR.

AMATEUR female security “agent” pretending to be a member of the media taking pictures of Adam while she is spoken to by a less amateur security “agent” who is smart enough to hide his lips from being read by Adam’s camera. Some of us can do that, you know… so kudos to this particular “agent” for taking that precaution.

Credit where credit is due.

STAND WITH US HERE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE AGAINST THE SILLY “FEAR” THESE PEOPLE TRY AND INFLICT: WWW.FREESTATEPROJECT.ORG

Oh, the New Hampshire General Court utterly ignored the Governor and his law enforcement contingent and passed that bill. There hasn’t been any random killings in the street like they tried to have you believe, either.

Well done NH House of Representatives and NH Senate. Let’s see you do it again!

From today’s most recent tirade:

CONCORD – Law enforcement and higher education officials from across New Hampshire today called on the House to reject a bill that would allow guns in college classrooms, dorms, libraries and across public higher education campuses. House bill 334 is one of three the House could possibly take action on as early tomorrow that will severely weaken New Hampshire’s decades-old gun laws and potentially put public safety at risk.

Wrong, politicians like you and your law enforcement/USNH cadre put public safety at risk, Governor Lynch. All of these regulations only hurt the people who would never hurt someone in the first place. In Utah and Oregon carrying firearms is specifically allowed on campuses like ours. I’ve been waiting for you or the University System of New Hampshire to come up with some examples of how enhancing self-defense freedoms for peaceful people out west has been a disaster of a public policy change. I’ve heard crickets.

Amazing that this simple logic doesn’t get through to these people.

Not that the Governor and his law enforcement supporters care about the oath they took, but Part I Article 2-a of the New Hampshire Constitution says:

“All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.”

I guess by “all persons” it really means “all people except if you are a college student, because if you’re a college student you need to be treated like a child.”

PDF is here.

We started a second Chip-in as the first one ended before we intended it to. A small of $5 or $10 will help Tommy and I recoup our costs for the initial phase of the case.

Please consider donating if you haven’t been so kind already.

The Chip-in page can be found here.

UPDATE:

The legal brief submitted by the University System of New Hampshire is here.

They must want to be sued for a slew of things.

Stalking (without an issued stalking order) (RSA 633:3-a) is one of the most difficult criminal charges to prove in New Hampshire. To be guilty of the crime, one must engage in a course of conduct involving two instances (over any period of time) of doing the following:

(1) Threatening the safety of the targeted person or an immediate family member.

(2) Following, approaching, or confronting that person, or a member of that person’s immediate family.

(3) Appearing in close proximity to, or entering the person’s residence, place of employment, school, or other place where the person can be found, or the residence, place of employment or school of a member of that person’s immediate family.

(4) Causing damage to the person’s residence or property or that of a member of the person’s immediate family.

(5) Placing an object on the person’s property, either directly or through a third person, or that of an immediate family member.

(6) Causing injury to that person’s pet, or to a pet belonging to a member of that person’s immediate family.

The combination of any of the two things above have to be done in one of two ways:

1. Purposely, knowingly, or recklessly engages in a course of conduct targeted at a specific person which would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her personal safety or the safety of a member of that person’s immediate family, and the person is actually placed in such fear; or

2. Purposely or knowingly engages in a course of conduct targeted at a specific individual, which the actor knows will place that individual in fear for his or her personal safety or the safety of a member of that individual’s immediate family(.)

Leaving the press related constitutional arguments aside… to say that provably peaceful members of the media are “caus(ing) a reasonable person to fear for his or her personal safety or the safety” or “target(ing) … a specific individual, which the actor knows will place that individual in fear for his or her personal safety” is downright ridiculous. I’d say they have two of the “course of conduct” prongs met (2 & 3), but I’d love to hear them argue how they placed this violent little man in fear of his personal safety.

Nice try CSO Tebo and Cheshire County Sheriffs.

Oh wait… the law refers to “a reasonable person.” I guess Tebo doesn’t qualify, considering he is proven to be quite sadistic.

Maybe they’ll have a case after-all.

I vehemently disagree… and so do members of the New Hampshire General Court.

Under Plymouth State University “policy” there is one man who can allow non-criminals to possess firearms for self-defensive purposes, and that man is Colonel Creig W. Doyle, PSU’s Police Chief. I hereby publicly challenge Colonel Doyle to an Oxford-style debate on the following motion: “Firearms and knives should be allowed on campus for self-defensive purposes.”

I propose using the Intelligence² US Debates modified Oxford rules format and that Colonel Doyle and I both choose two additional people to join our team in debating the motion.

This is a public policy debate worth having… and I would encourage the Colonel to step up and publicly defend the position he enforces.

Oh… and don’t forget to read New Hampshire’s largest newspaper’s response to USNH/PSU’s massive overreaction to our self-defense rights protest.

I’ve spoken to several elected officials and Rep. Hoell isn’t the only one who feels this way. Elected state officials will be present at our hearing today in the Grafton County Superior Court at 2:30PM to see how Judge Vaughn respects the state constitution as well as legislative authority.

A big thank you to Rep. Hoell for taking the time to write, publicize, and take on this issue!

Rep. JR Hoell
Merrimack 13, Bow/Dunbarton

Chairman Rowe

Honerable Members of the House Judiciary Committee

2011.12.12
RE: USNH v. Bradley Jardis and Tommy Mozingo and LSR 2012-H-2675-R

Dear Chairman and Members of the House Judiciary Committee,

This past week there was a pre-planned demonstration on the campus of Plymouth State University regarding the ability of the University System of New Hampshire to regulate firearms. The individuals that were involved had properly notified the administrations of USNH, PSU and the local authorities that they would be attending the campus for a peaceful event to explain that the administrative rules in place are a clear violation of the current statute. The State Statute that the university was violating was [RSA 159:26 State Jurisdiction] These citizens were explicit in their letter to the administration that the individuals attending this event would be peaceful and cordial and that there would be “… absolutely no threat to the safety of the public or any government official.” After this press release, USNH asked for and obtained a “Temporary Restraining Order” that appears to have significant overreach. It is this order that is my concern:

Our system of government is based on following laws and reasonable interpretation of those laws. In this case, it appears that the the judge misinterpreted the statute and then went on to write a broadly drafted restraining order. Having judges act in this manner is continuing to necessitate the need for legislative constraint of their authority and that may be addressed when this committee hears LSR 2012-H-2675-R.

Specific issues at hand in this case:

USNH claimed that the university system is not subject the the regulations of RSA 159:26 and that their broad authority as detailed in 187-A:16 gives them the authority to make these rules.

Although there is a general authority granted to the University system, the specific prohibition against political subdivisions regulating firearms would still hold true. The specific clause taking precedence over the general authority grant issued to the university system. Lastly, as documented below, USNH is a political subdivision and all political subdivisions are under the jurisdiction of this specific statute.

Furthermore, the Temporary Restraining Order goes on to make “Any person found to be in violation of the USNH Weapons, Firearms and Explosives policy after receiving notice of the Temporary Restraining Order shall be in contempt of the Court and subject to arrest for said contempt.” Does this apply to any individual that were to show up on campus, carrying a prohibited item, on 2011.12.9 that read about this demonstration in the news paper?

While the court has authority to adjudicate between parties, it is my belief, that this authority is limited to the specific parties involved and that the court lacks the authority to issue rulings that effect non-interested 3rd parties. and that general statements like the one made above are a clear abuse of the authority.

Lastly, the TRO requires that the citizens effected by this TRO post this information on a specific website. Although I understand that there is a precedence for requiring notification to the parties involved in the case, it appears that this requirement has passed beyond typical notification and that again this is the court overreaching beyond the authority granted to them in the New Hampshire Constitution.

I ask that when the House Judiciary Committee takes up hearings on bills this year, that they strongly consider the consistent overreaching of the Judicial Branch and work to create a Statute that limits their abuse of office.

Notes:
As stated in our statutes, the public universities were created by RSA 187-A:1, which reads: “The university system of New Hampshire is established and made a body politic and corporate,..”, and then goes on to explain why the universities were created, which is: to “…provide a well coordinated system of public higher education offering liberal undergraduate education”.

The university then being defined as a body with a specific function of government is clearly within the bounds of the legal definition as documented in Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition. “Political subdivision: A division of a state that exists primarily to discharge some function of local government.” Furthermore, in University System of New Hampshire v. U.S. Gypsum 756 F.Supp. 640 (1991), USNH claims to be a “…political subdivision of the state”.

Having established that USNH is a political subdivision, they are therefore regulated by the specific section of the statutes controlling firearms. (RSA159:26).